rose to a. point of order. He wished to ask the ruling of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair whether it was in order for this Measure to be brought forward as a. private Bill? He submitted that, as presented to the House, it was distinctly a disfranchising Measure, and he wished to ask whether there was any precedent for similar action being allowed to be; taken by means of a private Bill, and whether the proposals which it contained ought not to, have been submitted to the House in the form of a, public Bill. His contention was that under the form of a Bill for certain purposes all lodgers, Women ratepayers, and service voters in those portions of the Borough of Southwark affected by Ibis Bill would be deprived of the franchise which they now enjoyed. The Measure proposed to abolish the St. Saviour's and St. Olave's District Boards of Works and to hand over the duties hitherto, discharged by those bodies to the Corporation of the City of London. At present the District Boards of Works were elected by St. Saviour's, Christchurch, and other vestries, and for those bodies lodgers, women ratepayers, and service voters had votes. If the Bill became law the Court of Common Council of the City of London would discharge the duties hitherto performed by the district boards. The members of the Court of Common Council for the City of London were elected by male occupiers only, which meant that a large proportion of the present voters in Southwark would be deprived of voice and vote in local matters in which they were deeply interested. The Bill also proposed to alter the powers of the Local Government Board by depriving it of its power to vary at discretion the arrangement of parishes, and to transfer the area of added parishes to a totally different kind of local government. In all these circumstances he asked the ruling of the right hon. Gentleman in the. Chair upon the question whether this should have been a public and not a private Bill?

I have considered carefully this Bill, and I ant of opinion that there is no case calling for interference on my part at this stage. The questions raised by the hon. Member are no doubt very important and worthy of the consideration of the House, but they are not matters which would justify me in refusing to submit the Bill for the consideration of the House on Second Reading. The main object of this Bill is to extend the boundaries of a borough, and that is a proper subject for a private Bill. No doubt in all such cases there are changes in local government, and the changes proposed by this Bill are perhaps more complicated and more numerous than usual; yet that does not justify me in interposing to prevent the House from expressing its opinion on the Second Reading. I therefore leave the matter to the consideration of the House. ["Hear, hear!"]

asked whether, as the Committee to whom the Bill would be referred would have power to disfranchise, they would also have power, if they thought fit, to assimilate the franchise of the City of London to that now in operation in Southwark?

, on the point of order, said that the Committee would have no power to disfranchise.

I think that the Question of the franchise in the City of London is outside this Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]

, in rising to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months," said that he was much surprised that no hon. Member opposite had attempted to inform the House what the Measure really was, and what it proposed to do. Although the Bill might be technically in order, it involved, in his opinion, a serious abuse of the rules that governed private Bill legislation. The Bill proposed to extend the City boundaries by adding the parishes of St. Saviour, Christchurch, St. Olave, St. Thomas, and St. John. With all deference to the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, he submitted that the Measure was absolutely without precedent, and was framed upon lines which he hoped the House would not encourage. The Measure proposed to repeal portions of seven sets of public Acts, and, he submitted, to do so by means of a private Bill was a most inconvenient course of proceeding. There was scarcely a Government Department whose jurisdiction was not attacked by this Bill, which ran counter to the recommendations of all the Royal Commissions which had con- sidered the question of London government, while it was directly in conflict with the policy of recent legislation in reference to the question of the government of London. The right hon. Gentleman in the Chair had ruled that it was by no means unusual for corporations under the Municipal Corporations Act to come to Parliament and ask for powers to enable them to include within their boundaries urban districts which had grown up around them. But he must point out in the first place that the. Corporation of the City of London was not subject to the Municipal Corporations Act, and that it remained an unreformed corporation to this day. The Corporation sought to include within its jurisdiction an area half the size of the area which, it controlled at the present time, and a population of some 38,000. The, Bill sought to bring that large area and that large population under the operation of charters which the Royal Commission of 1854 had declared could only be interpreted by means of antiquarian research. That House was asked to take a leap in the dark by extending the areas over which the charters operated. The preamble of the Measure suggested that its provisions were founded upon an historical basis, but that was a mere fiction. The boundaries of the districts proposed to be dealt with by the Bill were not conterminous with those covered by the Charter, for it did not include the parish of St. George's, to which the charters applied, while it did include the parish of Christchurch, to which they did not apply. He desired to say a word or two about the proposals in the Bill with regard to the Poor Law Unions, which he submitted formed one of the most important parts of the Bill. The parishes which it was proposed to add to the City were at present parts of two Poor Law Unions, and the Bill proposed to take parts of those Unions and to add them to the City, and to leave certain other parts of them as they were at present. What he particularly objected to in the Bill was that it proposed to add the richer portions of those Unions to the City, and to leave the poorer portions as they were. The average rates of the portions of the Unions which the Bill proposed to deal with were 6s. 7d. in the pound, whereas the average rates of the portions that were left were 7s. 5d. in the pound. That was entirely contrary to the principles of legislation that had prevailed for many years past. During recent years that House had been doing their best to equalise the rates of the metropolis by bringing in the richer districts to the relief of the poorer, whereas this Bill proceeded in exactly the opposite direction. Indeed, as far as lie could make out from the documents relating to this Measure, the great inducement held out to the parishes that it proposed to add to the City, to assent to the proposed change, was that they would be joined to richer instead of to poorer parishes. He thought that the House ought to hesitate long before it sanctioned such a proposal as that. What view did the inhabitants of the richer parishes take of the matter? It was found that rich firms like Barclay, Perkins and Co. headed the list of those who guaranteed the expenses of bringing forward this Bill. In his opinion these rich firms by taking this course were grossly disregarding, the claims upon them of their poorer neighbours. The Bill, moreover, made a direct assault upon the jurisdiction of the Local Government Board. If there was any ground shown for rearranging the boundaries of the Poor Law Unions, there was no necessity for bringing forward a Bill for the purpose, because the Local Government Board already possessed ample powers to make such rearrangement. An hon. Member near hint, who, he believed, was interested in the City, said that the Bill left such rearrangements to the Local Government Board. He was afraid that the hon. Gentleman had never read the Bill, or that he had been led away by the misrepresentations of interested parties. The hon. Gentleman now said that the matter was left to the discretion of the Local Government Board, but that was also a misapprehension, because Clause 12 of the Bill provided that "the Local Government Board shall include" the parishes in question in the City of London Poor Law Union. Therefore, if the Bill passed the House, no discretion whatever in the matter would be left to the Local Government Board, who must act upon the orders which Parliament gave them. Moreover, as long as the Bill continued in force the Local Government Board would be precluded from making any alterations in the boundaries of the Poor Law Unions in question. Then, was the representation to be given to Southwark upon the London Common Council an adequate one? As he had already said, Southwark was half the area of the City of London, and it had a population of 38,000, and yet it was proposed to give it only 16 representatives, who were to be added to the crowd of 222 members of which the Common Council already consisted. The result would be that Southwark would be a nonentity on the Council, and would find itself the Cinderella of the household of the City Corporation. He invited the attention of the right hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney) to this point, because, as Chairman of the Royal Commission, he had already expressed a strong opinion as to the absurdly large numbers of the London Common Council as compared with the 70 members of provincial councils, and it was now proposed to add 16 additional representatives to the former, instead of reducing the number. Another effect of the Bill would be that certain of the London County Councillors would have a vote with regard to the expenditure of funds to which their constituents did not contribute. He further objected to the Bill because it proposed to deal with the great question of the government of London by piecemeal legislation. There appeared to have grown up in that House an idea that London was a corpus vile upon which all kinds of experiments might be tried wit It impunity. ["Hear, hear," and loud counter cheers and laughter.] He appealed to the Members for Birmingham, Manchester, and Liverpool, and other large cities to do for London as they would have their cities done by, and not let there be forced upon London what they would object to. The hon. Member concluded by moving the rejection of the Bill.

seconded the Amendment, and said he was not actuated by mere sentiment in opposing this Bill. The present Union of St. Olave's was formed in 1869 of the parishes of St. Thomas's, St. Olave's, and St. John's, Bermondsey and Rotherhithe. The parishes of St. Olave's, St. Thomas's, and St. Johns, from 1871 to 1896 lost 25 per cent. of their population, but the population of Rotherhithe and Bermondsey increased by 16,000 or 17,000, and the rateable value of the three parishes which sought to be separated from St. Olave's amounted to an increase of :30 per cent. from 1871, and Bermondsey and Rotherhithe increased in rateable value to the extent of 50 per cent. These were remarkable figures. At the same time there was an increase not only of indoor but outdoor poor. Indoor poor increased about 60 per cent., and outdoor poor about one-third. Indoor and outdoor poor relieved from 1886 to 1896 increased 70 per cent. This was what they had to look in the face. What would be their position in Bermondsey if such a Bill as this passed the House? The promoters of the Bill were owners and occupiers of wharves and warehouses from Horselydown to London Bridge on, the one side, and St. Saviour's Union on the other. They had managed between 1871 and 1896 to get rid of a population of 3,833, a decrease of 25 per cent. They had not done less work, but were doing infinitely more, and earning through the people they employed large sums of money. But they had not any convenience for housing the population. He was not speaking in exaggerated terms when he said that there were thousands of men employed on the wharves alone who could not find housing accommodation within the same area, and had to come to Bermondsey and Rotherhithe. The result was some of the workpeople would go through their daily work at the wharves, and when too ill or too old to continue their work, they would be thown on the Union, and one-fourth of the whole of the rateable value of the Union was to be taken away and hardly a fraction of the pauperism. Parish Street Workhouse, with 355 inmates, would be taken away. In the parishes of St. Thomas's, St. John's, and St. Olave's, the number of paupers were small in proportion to population. If the three parishes were separated and one-fourth of the rateable value of the Union taken away, the Local Government Board would say, "You shall not continue to use the old Tanner Street Workhouse. You must pull it down and go outside the area and build another." The lowest cost of replacing the present workhouse was £180,000. This outlay would have to be borne by the two-thirds rateable value still left. Over and above this there were £50,000 old debts, which would have to be liquidated out of the rates. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill put the rates of the different parishes far too low. The present rates in Bermondsey and Rotherhithe were 8s. 1d. in the pound. If the proposed severance took place it would add 5d. in the pound to the rates, quite irrespective of the enormous amount which would be absolutely necessary for the building and furnishing of the new workhouse. The promoters of the Bill proposed to go back 350 years and take advantage of a charter of that time which gave certain privileges. What had the House to do with 350 years ago? They had to look at the state of things to-day. The Bermondsey Vestry, St. Olave's Guardians, Rotherhithe Vestry, the Vestry of St. George the Martyr, the Guardians of St. Mary Newington, St. Saviour's Union, and the City of London Union, had petitioned against the Bill. But it was said that it was "only a matter of clauses." What clauses? Would Bermondsey and Rotherhithe get back the £15,000 a year they would lose? How were the clauses to be worked out? If he was satisfied that his division of Bermondsey was so safeguarded by these clauses that they would lose nothing from the rates, he would be perfectly satisfied to vote in favour of the Bill. But he knew it was utterly impossible to produce such a result. The Bill not only seriously injured the interests of the ratepayers of the two divisions, but affected the interests of the poor. They would be driven out of St. Thomas's, St. John's, and St. Olave's, and if sick and thrown on the rates, they would have to go miles over to the City for admission to the Union workhouse. When the matter was looked at from the point of view of £s. d. it could not be entertained for a moment. The Bill was simply a selfish attempt to throw responsibility upon others. He should vote for the rejection of the Bill, and he hoped when the House had heard the case for its opponents, they would say that no. Bill like that would ever be brought forward with any chance of success.

supported the Bill. He said he believed he should be able to show that the constituents of the hon. Member for Southwark could be amply protected by the Committee to whom he hoped the House would send this Bill. Not only had he heard no objection to the principle of the Bill, but, in what had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Bethnal Green, he found a full justification and defence of the Bill. The hon. Member appealed to the Members for Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham not to force on London what they would not like done in the case of those places. But year after year large areas were added to those cities, and last year, to the borough he himself represented, it added, by a private Bill, a considerable area of population and rateable value. On what ground? Because there was an existing form of government extending over the municipal area into which the inhabitants of those districts outside wished to go to get the benefits of that government, and of association with a large municipal corporation. If Parliament had, against the will of outlying districts, insisted on extending the area of municipal corporations in order to get a larger strength and efficiency of municipal government, á fortiori it should do so when the outside district wanted to come within the area. It seemed to him that this was a very ungracious opposition. Knowing a good deal of the locality, he thought there was a very strong desire on the part of a large majority of people in the district to be associated with the great City to which in many respects they belonged, and with which they had an historic and most interesting connection. This Bill was the result of the spontaneous action of the people of the district, who asked to be admitted to the advantages of association with the Corporation, and the Corporation had unanimously approved the request. Moreover, this was not an ordinary ease of an area outside a corporation desiring to be added to it, and the corporation being willing to receive it. There was something more than that—namely, that, for nearly 330 veils there had been a considerable and Hose connection between Southwark and the City of London. His hon. Friend, to his horror, had scoffed at the idea of a charter of 350 years ago. [Opposition cheers.] He could quite understand it from the opposite side, lint there were many of them who believed in the value of charters, and who thought that many old charters had been quite as beneficial to the communities to which they had applied as had been many Acts of Parliament. ["Hear, hear!"] There was 350 years ago this charter, by which Southwark was intended to have been annexed to the City of London. Since that time the City of London, which had large estates in Southwark, had drawn revenues from those estates, which were used to the great advantage of Southwark as well as of the City. The City appointed a bailiff for Southwark, it appointed a coroner for Southwark, it held Court Leet by its Recorder within Southwark, and there had been some—he agreed very imperfect—approaches to corporate life between Southwark and the City of London. If this had been the case of one of our large towns he believed no one would have complained, but directly they touched on the City of London, and there was an opportunity of the London Comity Council circulating a statement against the Bill, then a great deal of strong feeling scented to be aroused. The Corporation of the City of London over and over again had been spoken of with disrespect and dislike, because it was said that the advantages of its great possessions and great administrative establishments were confined to so small an area; but now, when the Corporation was prepared to share these advantages with the people of Southwark who desired them, the cry was raised, "Ho not let these people ally themselves." Why was that? Was it because it was thought that it would make the City of London stronger, in view of future arrangements of the government of London? It might be that; but considering that the City of London had not confined the advantages of its great wealth to its own area, but hail expended that wealth in ways by which places lying outside its boundaries had greatly advantaged, it was an ungracious thing to attempt to refuse, to those who desired it, the opportunity of associating themselves with the City id London. It was said that the river was the natural division between Southwark and the City of London, and that if they carried the City across the river they would have boundaries which it would be difficult to define or observe. He did not understand that objection, because the boundaries between the City of London and the County Council's administration were of precisely the same character as would be found in Southwark. A part from the Tower Bridge, on which the Corporation had spent over a million of money, besides spending six thousand a year on its maintenance, there were three great bridges—the London, Southwark, and Blackfriars Bridges—which were policed, repaired, and maintained by the City of London. It seemed to him that it would be an advantage if the approaches to those bridges from the other side were under the same control. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green had said that by Clause 10 the charters of the City were to be enforced with respect to the added area, and asked who knew what these charters were. The answer was very simple. The charters of the City had existed for centuries; and it was because the people on the south side of London knew that its government was most effective and admirable that they wished to come within its area. Then it was said that there would be river police patrolling between the two sides of the Thames, and that that would interpose an obstacle between the administration of the police on one side or the other of the river. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green must have been in sore straits for an argument before he made such a suggestion as that. With regard to the complaint that the Local Government Board would be ousted by Section 12 of this Bill from its authority, he would refer the hon. Member to Section 45 of the Bill. Although the effect of the Bill would be to make a sort of immediate order for' carrying it into effect, the powers of the Local Government Board would remain absolutely unaffected by the terms of the Bill. The Bill was opposed by the three hon. Gentlemen who represented the three divisions into which, was now separated the borough of Southwark, which, some years ago, he had the honour of representing for a short time.["Hear, hear!"] A very small portion of each of those three constituencies would is' added to the City of London by the Bill, and while the inhabitants of those portions of the constituencies wished to join the City—[cries of "No, no!" and "Hear, hear!"]—the inhabitants of the larger portion of each constituency were naturally afraid that their burdens of local taxation would be increased by the Bill. Hence the opposition to the Bill of those three hon. Members. Apart from the question of rating, he believed that his action in supporting the Bill more completely and accurately represented the inclinations of the people of Southwark than the opposition of his hon. Friends; but, in regard to the question of rating he agreed that his hon. Friends had a sound case. ["Hear, hear!"] He was, however, sure that there would be no objection on the part of the promoters of the Bill to insert in Committee such clauses as might compensate the districts represented by his hon. Friends for any loss it might be proved they would sustain by being deprived of a valuable rateable area. But he thought the idea that Bermondsey and Rotherhithe would lose £15,000 a year could not be sustained by figures. He hoped, therefore, that the persons who, dealing with their own interests, asked to be allowed to carry out this union, would not be prevented by the House when they were willing to take such steps as would prevent any injury to others in the process.

said he would like to ask his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth where he got his information that the overwhelming majority of the people of the districts affected desired union with the City of London. In West Southwark, which he had the honour of representing, public opinion was entirely opposed to the Bill. Petitions in favour of the. Bill were got up and signed before the drafting of the Bill was completed, when those who signed were, of course, ignorant of its details. After the publication of the Bill a public meeting, called in its favour and organised by Mr. Kelly—a gentleman with whose name the House was familar—was held at the Bridge House Hotel, at which the Chairman of St. Saviour's District Board of Works presided. A resolution in favour of the Bill was proposed, but the meeting decided by 34 votes to 14 that the Bill should be opposed. On the other hand, after the Bill had been for some time before, the public and its proposals had been carefully studied, a very largely attended public and representative meeting was held at the Temperance Hall, Blackfriars, as the St. Saviour's Commissioners had refused to grant the use of the Baths for the purpose. He presided at that meeting, he should say there were about 700 persons present, and a resolution in opposition to the Bill was unanimously passed. His hon. and learned Friend said that the desire for union was spontaneous on the part of the parishes of Southwark. A petition in favour of the Bill which had been circulated through Southwark stated that all the costs, charges and expenses incidental to the Bill would be paid by the Corporation of London, so that the Measure was really the outcome of a laudable desire on the part of the Corporation of London, and he could not say that the matter had been approached in a manner satisfactory to those who were in favour of good local self-government. As Member for West Southwark he was absolutely opposed to the Bill, on the ground that it was a tinkering piecemeal proposal of London local government reform.["Hear, hear!"] While it would be of no benefit to the parishes proposed to be included in the City, it would be grossly unfair to the parishes of Newington and St. George-the-Martyr. ["Hear, hear!"] His hon. and learned Friend had denied that it was a disfranchising Bill. At the present moment the District Board of St. Olave's and St. Saviour's were elected by the vestries, which were elected by the occupiers, and the lodger, women, and service franchise voters; but under the Bill only the occupiers would be entitled to vote for the Common Council. Therefore, under the Bill a large number of voters who elected the vestries would be deprived of this district control over local affairs. The Borough Market, which could not be better controlled than at present, would be handed over to the Corporation of London, when no doubt the expense of its management would be increased, and its benefits to St. Saviour's diminished. Another point which had been ignored by his hon. and learned Friend was that the additional charge on the parishes of St. George-the-Martyr and Newington, consequent on St. Saviour's union being deprived some of its richest parishes, would amount to a sum equal to a rate of 3d. in the pound. His hon. and learned Friend had also declared that the desire for the Bill was great; but even the Court of Alder men had presented a petition against the Bill, and asked the House of Commons to throw it out. The magistrates of the Newington district had also passed a resolution strongly in opposition to the Bill, and other petitioners against it were— the Governors and Guardians of the Poor of St. Mary, Newington; the Vestry of Bermondsey; the Guardians of the Poor of the St. Saviour's Union; St. Wave District Board of Works; Vestry of St. George-the-Martyr, Southwark; Vestry of Rotherhithe; City of London Union Guardians of the Poor; Guardians of the Poor of St. Olave's Union; and London County Council. Then there was the opposition of the London County Council. [Ironical cheer.] The County Council must occasionally be right, and there was very little difference within the Council to offering opposition to this Bill. He appealed to the right hon. Member for Croydon, who had been much associated with London reform, to oppose the Bill in the interests of pod local government and of common sense. The question should be considered apart front party politics. The two parishes included in the Bill apparently desired to join the City of London. But they only expressed that wish through the vestries, and without any appeal having been made to them on the Bill. He hoped the House would save the opponents of the Measure the trouble and expense of appearing in the Committee rooms.

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

said that his name appeared on the Bill, but he had no connection with the City or with Southwark. To say that the Court of Aldermen and the Guardians of the City of London Union were petitioning against the Bill was rather misleading. They were petitioning merely to obtain a locus before the Committee. Already, to some extent, Southwark was under the jurisdiction of the City; already they had an Alderman, thought not an elected Alderman; lad naturally the people of Southwark objected to dual control—to being under the City for some purposes and under the County Council for other purposes. He was not surprised that they sought to escape from the latter jurisdiction. There were many precedents for the proposed amalgamation. Farringdon, Cripplegate, Bishops-gate, Aldersgate, were all cases in point; and as late as 1885, in connection with the Tower Bridge Bill, the City took over a portion of the adjoining district. The opposition to this Bill on the part of the County Council was comprehensible, and consistent with all the aims and desires which had always been for the amalgamation of the City with the rest of London. This Bill had very likely put an end to anything in that direction. Southwark itself was not so large as to desire a charter of incorporation for itself, and, therefore, it naturally wished to come under the wing of the great Corporation of London. He believed that the solution of the great problem of London government was to be found in the creation of separate municipalities; and where the geographic and other conditions were suited, Parliament should encourage any movement in that direction. The whole question was clearly one of boundaries, and he hoped a Commission would soon be appointed to settle these important it boundary questions. Southwark had a moral right to join the City, and the House was not a proper place to discuss the details of the scheme. Of course, clauses could be inserted in Committee to prevent the excluded portions of Southwark being made poorer by the Bill.

said that he could claim to hold a mandate from almost every elector in his constituency to offer to this Bill a vigorous opposition. They thought that it had been conceived in fraud and born in secrecy. [Laughter.] Not one per cent. of those affected by the Bill had ever seen it or knew anything about it till it was in print. Not five per cent. of the inhabitants of the whole district knew anything about the Bill until two or three weeks ago, when public meetings were held to protest against it, and then ninny electors came forward to say that when they signed the petition for the Bill they were completely ignorant of what its results would be. He protested against the Measure as overriding the principle laid down in the Equalisation of Rates Act, that all in a great community should share alike in the support of the poor. Southwark had been at the gates of the City for centuries, but the Corporation had never come forward to take it under its œgis. It had, rather, used it as a human dustheap, for shooting the poor whom it had driven out of its own boundaries. A huge bribe had been offered to the people of Southwark by representing that certain services now performed by the County Council would be in future performed by the Corporation, and paid for out of the Corporation Estates. But those estates were not now so flourishing that Southwark could hope for much from them. The result of the Bill would be that the poor of Southwark would have to go two miles to get their wants relieved by the City poor authorities, and they would lose all control of their own Poor Rates. Then, as to the police, there was no natural boundary to divide the included parishes from the rest of Southwark; and, as one elector had said, it would take two constables to arrest a man. As the Justices of the Newington Division had said, not only a complete reorganisation of the police, but a new local police court would have to be established. Taking that point of view, there was a good deal to be said against the Bill. Lastly, there was a point which had not been touched upon at all, which must seriously affect those whom he represented—namely, the question of the tramways. When these tramways were handed over to the County Council the advantages of such transfer would be lost to the people of Southwark, and they would have one portion of the tramway under the jurisdiction of the City of London and the other under that of the County Council. He represented, perhaps, the greater proportion of the printers of London. There was a time when these men's forefathers lived wholly within the City. They were now driven without the City, and they were now to have an extra rate placed upon them through no fault of their own. If there was one thing he protested against more than another, it was making radical changes for no definite purpose, and making them in the interests of one small selfish portion of a great area. Of course, he did not deny that a small number of individuals, who owned warehouses lining the banks of the Thames, were most anxious to be included in the Bill; but the great bulk of the population, and especially those whom he represented, strongly objected to it.

said that as his constituency were very materially interested indeed, he was bound to say a few words about the Measure. The portion of the constituency close to London Bridge—the portion which was covered with large buildings and immense wharves—would, if the Bill passed into law, be relieved of a certain amount of rates; naturally that portion was in favour of the Bill. On the other hand, of the large population, the working men who went to work on those wharves and in those warehouses, the great majority lived in Rotherhithe, and, if the Bill passed, their rates would be increased, and they were a great deal too high already. He would oppose this Bill to the end; and if, by doing so, he jeopardised his future position as Member for Rotherhithe, he must accept the consequences.

regarded this Bill as having far more than a local character, and expressed his surprise that the Government, and not one Department of it only, but two Departments, should give the House no guidance and advice while large powers were being taken out of their hands by a private Bill. If this Bill became law it would subtract from the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police a very large area of the metropolis, and hand it over to the City Police; that, was to say, it would take it from under the Home Office and place it under another authority altogether. The County Council for once was placed in a happy position. It got an Exchequer contribution to maintain the police in this region which was sought to be transferred. The Bill made no provision for taking away that contribution, and the result wits, as he calculated, that the County Council would get £7,000 a year for doing nothing. As regarded the Local Government Board, it wits one of the functions of that Department to look after the arrangement of parishes in the metropolis as all over England. The Board arranged them into unions. But Section 30 of the Bill took all the parishes of the area in question out of the hands of the Local Government Board, disjoined them from their existing arrangements, and transferred them to another union altogether. The effect was astounding. The unfortunate pauper at present in Southwark would, for the future, have to go from the south of London across the bridges all the way to Smithfield, there to get the relief he now obtained somewhere near his own door. Again, the Bill took the whole of this region out of the jurisdiction of the metropolitan magistrates and transferred it, for civil and criminal purposes, to the City aldermen. Not only that, but if the Bill became law it would leave the district in this situation—that, should a fire occur there would be Ho authority front the City or from the other parts of London which could enter and put it out. The same was true of technical education. There would be no technical education authority in this area if the Bill passed, because the County Council would be deprived of its powers, and the City would have no equivalent powers. So with regard to the law which regulates buildings in London. The truth was, this was a carelessly-drawl Bill. And it was. It interfered to a large extent with the existing powers of the Government, and it was matter of astonishment no Member of the Government should have risen and explained why it was they were prepared to allow powers of their own to be taken away which existed under the general system of law now on the Statute-book. Reference had been made to the alleged great advantage of this Bill, that it would be a precedent for the splitting-up of the metropolis into smaller municipalities. That was an interesting declaration, but the importance was, that it was made in the teeth of every Royal Commission that had sat on the subject, the recommendation being that this should be clone, if at all, as part of a general scheme, and not piecemeal. The hon. and learned Gentleman made a most extraordinary declaration. He said tint the City Ancient exercised jurisdiction over all this area. He wondered whether his hon. and learned Friend had been amt the pains, as he had been, to find out what the area, was which was to be transferred to the City? If his hon. Friend referred to the old records, and particularly to the second Report, made in 1836, by the Royal Commission on Municipal Boroughs in England, he would find this question of area dealt with, and he would find a map showing what was the old area belonging to the City. So far front this being the area dealt with in the Bill, it was a different area. He admitted that a part of it was included, but the Bill proposed, at the same time, to pick out of the centre of this area a part which it suited the City to take, to leave out a part, and then to include a part which was never in the jurisdiction of the City at any time—the Liberty of the Fleet and the parish of Christchurch. The Bill excluded the parish of St. George-the-Martyr, which was part of the City, and which this time the City did not take because it was a poor part. Indeed, the Bill altered the whole basis of Local Government in the district; it gave it a different franchise; it transferred it from a cheap and economical system of administration to a dearer system; it transferred tramways to the City, whereas at present it had not an inch of tramway in its jurisdiction; it transferred the Government of the district to the Commissioners of Sewers, a body which the City were seeking to abolish, and proposed to place it under the Court of Common Council, whose franchise was different from that of the vestries; and it cut about the local Government of the Metropolis, in respect of area, in a way which no other Measure presented to Parliament had attempted. What was proposed should be done as part of a general scheme, and as a public Measure.

opposed the Bill. Generally speaking, he was opposed to the majority of the London County Council, but in the present case thought this was a Measure which the House ought, for the present, to refuse. It was absurd that the City of London should seek to come across the Thames, and to annex a portion of Southwark to the City. He should like to hear from the President of the Local Government Board what effect the Bill would have on other parts of London. It no settled all the Metropolitan areas, all their system of Local Government, Police, County Council Elections, the apportionment of rates, and School Board divisions. [Cries of "No!"] Those were important questions, and to include them in a private Bill was absurd. All these questions were of great importance, and should not be brought within the scope of a private Bill. The, Bill, no doubt, was brought forward to serve some interest. There were, in his opinion, two interests to be served. First of all, there were certain payers of rates in Southwark who would like to come under the Corporation of the City of London, and, secondly, the Corporation of the City would like to say they were willing to take their poorer brethren across the Thames under their charge. This was an entirely new feature. He hoped that the Bill would be viewed by the House from a wide standpoint; but he thought that it was not required in the interests of London itself. It was opposed by the London County Council, and lie believed that it would be a bad precedent to allow the City of London to pick out certain portions of the Metropolis and to leave other portions to look after themselves.

said a direct appeal had been made to the Local Government Board to state what their views were on this Bill. It had been pointed out that in one part of the Bill certain duties now devolving on the Local Government Board were taken away. But in another part of the Bill certain duties that did not now devolve on the Local Govern meat Board were placed upon it; and in matters of that kind the Local Government Board were in the hands of Parliament. There was, however, one portion of the Bill which peculiarly affected the Local Government Board. The Bill proposed to take two parishes out of two unions—St. Saviour's and St. Olave's—and to transfer them to the City of London. In the parishes of St. Saviour's and St. Olive's there were a great many poor; in the City of London there were very few. It was hardly correct to say that the ratepayers of these parishes desired to be transferred to the City of London, because that view would be open to the charge that their direct interest as ratepayers was involved in the change. The real question which the Local Government Board had to consider was this. These parishes which were proposed to be transferred were the richest parishes in tile two unions, and to take these parishes from them would be to leave the rest of the Union in a very critical state indeed. It was all the more serious because, as the hon. Member for Bermondsey said, the Local Government Board had been insisting within the last six months upon the erection of a new workhouse by this very Union of St. Olave's. He thought his hon. Friend had overestimated the cost, but still it would be a considerable sum, amounting to £80,000 or £100,000. The important matter in the Bill from the point of view of the Local Government Board was that there was no adjustment of liabilities clauses in it. That was a very serious drawback to the Bill, and it would be for the House to consider whether the offer made by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth to insert these adjustment clauses in Committee was a settlement of the point that could be accepted. So far as the Government was concerned, those were the views that were held oil those points that concerned the Local Government Board. It would be for the House to decide on its own responsibility whether the Bill should go to the Committee upstairs.

said his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board had responded in some measure to the ' appeal made to him, but no more imperfect reply could well be conceived. [Opposition cheers.] His hon. Friend had treated the problem as if it were wholly wrapped up in the adjustment of liabilities between the unions, but the burden of the appeal which was made by the hon. Member fur Haddington was as to what view the Government took of this Bill as affecting the question of the government of London. The whole question of the government of London was wrapped up in this Bill, and what were the views of the Government on the question He ventured to say that, whatever their policy was in respect to the future government of London, they must have some view in regard to this Bill. If confined to what it proposed, the Bill was in itself a comparatively small one. It was an extension Bill, said his hon. and learned Friend, fortified by innumerable instances from other municipalities in the country. Other municipalities had brought in extension Bills, no doubt, to extend what was the nucleus of a town so as to correspond to what it hall increased to. This Bill was not brought in ' in that fashion. It was brought in by a small outlying portion desiring to be annexed to the City of London. If the City of London had met its obligations some years ago there might very possibly now be an extended City of London so as to cover the whole municipal area, and it might rise to that height even now. They might conceive the City of London extending over the whole area, or they might conceive the County Council coming in to cover the City. In either case this Bill was not put forward in relation to that great problem. It offered no suggestion to its solution; it was, instead, a bar to it. [Opposition cheers.] The suggestion was something of this kind—they had got a rich area, and outside it rich and poor areas, and the comfortable, rich area was to be included, leaving the poor parts attached to the same area to take care of themselves. [Opposition cheers.] Did any municipality ever bring in a Bill of that kind, and did Parliament ever consent to support a Bill of that kind? The Bill was not consistent even with the proposal to create independent municipalities. It was a minor extension proposed with the faint hope, really most innocently suggested by the Lon. Member for Marylebone, that thereby the City would become so strong that it might be able to with stand till attempts upon it for the future. Even if the strength of the City were increased to this extent, it would still be but feebleness if that was all it could rely upon. [Opposition cheers.] This was a question which concerned the future government of London. Had the Imperial Government any policy for that? If it had any policy, it must have a view with relation to this Bill, and he ventured to say that, whatever policy they had adopted—if they had adopted any, and he dared say they had—they must have some opinion in regard to this Bill in relation to that policy. This Bill touched a great question—not a question confined to the particular area now proposed to be dealt with, but the great question of the Government of all London, the question that Parliament had always reserved to itself and refused to allow to go to a Private Bill Committee.["Hear, hear!"] He confessed to a strong opinion that this Bill ought not to be supported as a private Bill, but that it was a great public question which should be dealt with, if at all, by a public Bill.

said this Bill was not promoted by the City of London. The City had adopted it for the simple reason that they were asked to do so by the particular body promoting it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin intimated that the City ought to have extended itself over the whole metropolis. He did not know whether the City wished to do that, but certainly he did not wish to see them do it. He wished to see moderate-sized municipalities which grew naturally, and when an outside body wished to come into such a municipality he thought it should be allowed to do so. It was for that reason he supported this Bill. The only other argument brought forward was with reference to the financial liabilities. The hon. Member for Plymouth had stated that the promoters were prepared to put in clauses to settle that question properly. He thought the House should accept that promise as far as the Second Reading was concerned, and then, when the Bill came back from the Committee, if the clauses were not satisfactory to the House, it was open to the House to reject the Bill on the Third Reading. He thought the House would do very wrong if they did not allow the Bill to go to a Committee.

said that what they wanted to know was the view of the Government as to whether matters affecting the administration of the Local Government Board ought to be dealt with in a private Bill. The Secretary to the Local Government Board, in his statement, only touched on one point which, however important in itself, was only a matter of detail. He thought they were entitled to a reply to the question as to what the Government's view was with regard to the transference of a certain district from the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police under the Home Office to the jurisdiction of the police under the Corporation? He would like to ask the President of the Local Government Board—in the absence of the Home Secretary—whether he did not think this transference of power would lead to many matters of difficulty between the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police and the jurisdiction of the police under the Corporation? Further, they had a right to ask the Government whether they thought it right and expedient that a considerable number of the citizens of the metropolis should be transferred from the jurisdiction of stipendiary magistrates under the Home Office to the jurisdiction of the amateur magistrates of the Corporation of London. They were also entitled to know what the Government's opinion was with regard to the disfranchising clauses of the Bill, and the dealing with the government of the metropolis in this piecemeal fashion. Surely if it were desired to take in hand the splitting up of the metropolis into minor municipalities it ought to be done after due consideration and by means of a public Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put, but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

denied that the City Corporation were advancing money for the promotion of the Bill. The promoters of the Measure had subscribed no less a sum than £3,000 towards the expenses of its promotion. Who were those promoters? They had heard from the hon. Member for Southwark that part of his constituency were in favour of the Bill. The Corporation did not approach Southwark or any of the parishes concerned. Those parishes approached the Corporation. An hon. Member below him had said the Court of Aldermen had petitioned against the Bill. There was a good answer to that statement, namely that they presented a petition in order to obtain a locus standi. So long ago as 1895 the Vestries of St. Saviour, St. Olave, St. Thomas, and St. John, Horselydown, presented a petition to the Court of Common Council, praying that they might be admitted to the Corporation. The petition was referred to the. Court of Aldermen, and they recommended that the prayer be granted, and the Lord Mayor referred the matter to the Court of Common Council. It was Southwark who approached the Corporation, and not the Corporation Southwark. The guardians were not unanimous by any means in their opposition to t he Bill, and it was abundantly proved that the ratepayers in what was described in the Bill as the added area, were in favour of the Measure. It was true the Bill might have the effect, as stated by the hon. Member for Bermondsey, of increasing the rates in one part of his division; but on the whole the City of London had nothing whatever to gain by the financial arrangement which it was proposed should be made. The rating in the future would practically be left what it was now, and the City would have to pay the same as now, In many parishes the rates would be substantially reduced, but as regarded the City of London it would not be a gainer, though he did not think it would be a loser, by the inclusion of the parishes.

thought that one of the strongest arguments in favour of the Bill was that a long neglected duty which should have been fulfilled by the London County Council with regard to the southern approaches to the Tower Bridge would be fulfilled by the City of London. While a large sum of money was spent by the Corporation of the City upon the Tower Bridge, the southern approaches to that tine structure had been left in a disgraceful condition owing to the divided counsels of the County Council. As to population, it had been said the City was constantly pouring its poor outside. It was quite a mistake, as the City had within its area the best built and best managed artisans dwellings that could be seen in London. He did not anticipate any difficulty from the point of view of the tramways or the police, and as to wharfage frontage, he asserted that if there was one duty which the City had discharged to the satisfaction of everybody, it was that of sanitary authority. The Bill would put under the control of the Corporation a large amount of wharfage, but he was quite certain they would administer the affairs of the wharves on the southern side of the river in the same satisfactory way they administered the wharves on the northern side. It had also been urged against the Bill that the poor would have to walk to Smithfield to get relief. He had not the least doubt that the Guardians would make some provision so that they could administer relief on the spot. On the general question he admitted that he regarded the Measure as an instrument towards the establishment of separate municipalities in the metropolis, towards which end he was sure both sides of politics were tending.

appealed to the Government to give them some direction as to the Bill, which dealt with the future gov- ernent of the metropolis. He did not go as far as some hon. Members with regard to the government of the metropolis, but unless Ministers were prepared to give the House sonic information the Debate ought to be adjourned. ["Hear, hear!"] The Chairman was absent from the House, which would have been natural if the Government had been going to give them some direction. But they had no inkling of what the Government view was, and when the hon. Member (Mr. Russell) sat down he left them in doubt as to the way in which he would vote. The hon. Member expressed the strongest disapproval of one portion of the Bill, but he did not express any approval of the other parts of the Bill.

said he had no wish to travel outside Ids own department.

said that was his case. The hon. Member was the only Member of the Government who had spoken, and he confined himself to one particular point. He had given the House no opinion for or against the Bill. He did not take the technical objection that this ought to have been a public Bill, but there could be no doubt as to the importance of the Bill as to the future government of London. It was impossible to pass the Second Reading, however, without some guidance from the Government. ["Hear, hear"] Surely in a matter which involved the breaking up of the control of the police, as this Bill did, and the Home Secretary having left the House, they ought to have the opinion of the Government.

said, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to complain that the reply of his hon. Friend was inadequate and imperfect.

I am not complaining of the reply, for it was no reply. ["Hear, hear!"]

said he had heard the remarks of his hon. Friend, and he thought them perfectly appropriate to the occasion. [A laugh.] It could not be expected that on a private Bill he should go into the question of a great policy. He thought that his hon. Friend exercised a wise discretion. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] As to what was to happen to the police, that was a matter more for the Home Office than for the Local Government Board. Hon. Members knew that the Home Office would have to make a Report on this Bill, precisely as the Local Government Board would have to report, and those matters would be dealt with on that occasion. This was a private Bill, discussed at great length by the House, and the House, having heard all the arguments that could be adduced, was perfectly in a position to come to a decision for itself. [Laughter.] He thought the House could arrive at that decision without any assistance so far as he was concerned.

, who was met with cries of "Divide," said they were being called upon without any advice from the Government to vote for a Bill which, if it be passed, would materially affect time question of London government. The right hon. Gentleman said that was a private Bill, but surely that was no reason why he should back out of the responsibility which devolved upon hint. ["Hear, hear!"] Had the Government, or had it net, an attitude on this question of the future government of London? The last election was largely fought on that point, and if the Government were not prepared with a scheme it was their duty to stop the Bill, which must entangle any solution they might choose to offer.

said he should certainly vote for the Bill, but he regretted that the Government had not thought it proper to give some distinct statement. London was very keen on this great subject, and it should be borne in mind that the London Members formed a large proportion of the majority which supported the Government. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought it was not too much to expect that the Government would give the House some idea of their views. He regretted extremely that they were left in the dark.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state the amount of money proposed to be granted by the German Government towards the cost of German exhibits at the Paris Exhibition in 1900?

The German Government has included a preliminary grant of 50,000 marks (£2,500) in the Budget for 1897–8; the total expenditure is at present calculated at 5,000,000 marks (£250,000) to be distributed over the Budgets of the three succeeding years.

I beg to ask the, Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of the grant proposed by Her Majesty's Government towards the expenses of the British Exhibitors' Section in the Paris International Exhibition of 1900?

Having considered the expenditure on the British exhibitors' section at other important international exhibitions, we think that £75,000 should amply suffice for the expenses of the British exhibitors' section in the Paris International Exhibition of 1900.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether instructions are given to the Metropolitan Police that, when a constable has a warrant to arrest, or is about to arrest, a person on his own authority, or has a person in custody for a crime, it is wrong to question such person touching the crime of which, he is accused?

Yes, Sir; such are the general instructions given to the police, but it is obviously impossible to prohibit all questioning, before arrest. Any questions, however, which would approach to the holding out an inducement to the person to make a confession are prohibited altogether.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the advisability of paying the boot money to the members of the Metropolitan Police Force in two payments of 13s. yearly, instead of by weekly 6d. payments, since the proposed method of payment, coupled with the date upon which it is to commence, and the date upon which the last issue of boots is to take place, will cause each constable to lose 13s. during his term of service?

No, Sir; I am not prepared to reconsider this arrangement. There will be no such less as the hon. Member supposes. The boots which each constable will have in his possession on the 1st October will be good for several months to come, but even if he has to buy himself a pair before his weekly allowances have reached the sum of 13s., his loss, if it can be called one, will be more than counterbalanced by his gain under another provision of the new arrangement, of which the hon. Member appears to be unaware. It is this. Under the existing, order of things, the boots of a constable, are not his property but the Receiver's, and on promotion or retirement he has to restore two serviceable pairs to the Receiver, or pay a sum of money which is never less than 10s. and may be a good deal more. By the new arrangement, the men will be given absolutely the boots in their possession on the 1st October, and will be relieved of the liability, which as I have explained, attaches to them on promotion or retirement. I may add that all other allowances in the Force for articles of clothing are made by weekly payments, and never by money in advance, and no hardship has ever been felt, and that the exact terms of the new arrangement were put before the anon last year, who decided for it by a large majority. I am fully satisfied, as is the Commissioner, that the new arrangement is beneficial to the men, as it was intended to be.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to take the opinion of the constables upon the point?

That is what I have done.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether a travelling post office is to be run throughout the year between Stirling and Oban in connection with the down night mail train and the up local 4.30 p.m. from Oban; and, if so, when this arrangement is likely to conic into force; and what acceleration of postal communication ill the districts affected will result?

The Postmaster General has frequently bean urged to continue throughout the year the early morning mail trains from Stirling to Oban which runs during the three months of July, August, and September. A travelling post office is not a necessary part of the scheme, and would add to the expenditure. But if it were run in the morning train, the up local train at 4.30 would no doubt be a convenient train by which it should return to Stirling. Whether travelling post office is included in the arrangement or not, the postal advantages as a whole are not, in the Postmaster General's judgment, sufficient to warrant the expenditure involved, and no steps have been taken towards establishing the service. If the train were established, an early delivery of the letters by two and a-half to four hours would be afforded at Oban, and at places on the line, but whether the letters for places served by the steamers from Oban would gain any advantage would depend upon re-arrangements of the steamer services, which may not be found acceptable or even practicable.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the mail steamer from Aberdeen to Shetland was delayed 15 hours beyond its time at Kirkwall on Sunday 14th inst., although the weather was fine, and that in consequence great inconvenience was occasioned to the inhabitants of Shetland, owing to the delay in delivering the mails and to the consequent dislocation of the inland mail service, the people of Lerwick especially being deprived of any opportunity of communicating by post with their correspondents in the South until the following Wednesday; and whether he will institute an inquiry into the circumstances of this detention?

The mail steamer in question should have left Aberdeen on Friday, the 12th inst., at 7 p.m., but owing to stress of weather it could not leave till 9 p.m. on Saturday, the 13th. It arrived at Kirkwall shortly after 8 a.m. on Sunday, the 14th, but Sunday labour being prohibited at Kirkwall between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., the cargo could not be discharged till the evening. The arrival at Lerwick was consequently delayed until 11 a.m. on Monday, but the vessel remained there until 1 a.m. on Tuesday, and the people of Lerwick had thus the opportunity of sending replies southwards by the same steamer. Many places in the country districts were also able to reply by the return steamer, as the Postmaster made special efforts to bring back the country postmen to Lerwick on Monday night.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if, while arrangements are being made for an additional smoking room, Members may be allowed, after Nine o'clock, to smoke in the South Dining Room, this being immediately adjacent?

I am informed that the Kitchen Committee have decided to adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend, so far as to permit smoking in the South Dining Room after 9.15 p.m.; but they hope that, at periods of abnormal pressure, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will not make use of the privilege to the obvious discomfort of non-smokers compelled to dine late.

I beg to thank the right hon. Gentleman.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that the Carrickmacross Board of Guardians on 5th January this year wrote to the officer of the Valuation and Boundary Survey of Ireland protest- ing against a valuation made by their revising officer, reducing the valuation of premises from £39 10s. to £26, grabbed by a man named Kenny in the town of Carrickmacross; (2) whether he is aware that the previous tenant, Mr. Phelan, who was evicted, improved these premises so much that the valuation during his time was increased from £35 to £39 10s.; also that the present tenant swore at Castleblaney Quarter Sessions in October last that he was paying £35 per annum, same rent as the evicted tenant; and, if so, why a reduction in the valuation; (3) whether he can give the name Of the officer who made this valuation, and if he is the same person who increased the valuation on the previous tenant; and (4) if the Valuation and Boundary Survey Department gave any instructions in this case; and, if so, what were they?

The revision of the valuation of the premises referred to was made in 1893, when the valuation was reduced to £26, following deterioration of the buildings, which are very old. No objection was made at the time by the Board of Guardians, but early this year they requested that the valuation should be restored to its original amount. An investigation by a second Valuer, and subsequently by the Chief Valuer of the Department, confirmed the result arrived at by the First. Valuer, who reduced the valuation. It is the fact, I understand, that in 1880, when Mr. Phelan, the former tenant, and who is now, I believe, the Chairman of the Board of Guardians, was in occupation of the premises, the valuation was increased from £36 10s. to £39 10s. The present occupier is liable for a rent of. £35, the landlord maintaining the premises and paying the taxes. None of the three Valuers who reported in favour of the reduced valuation is the officer who increased the valuation in 1880. I see no reason for stating the name of any of these officers. The reply to the last paragraph is in the negative. It was open to the Guardians to appeal against the decision of the Commissioner of Valuation in this case, and they were so informed on the 21st January last, but no steps were taken by them in this direction, and the statutory time for appealing has now lapsed.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a large amount of correspondence has passed between the Valuation and Boundary Survey of Ireland and the Carrickmacross Board of Guardians regarding reductions recently made by the revising valuer on the town property of Mr. Shirley, Carrickmacross; whether he is aware that the Carrickmacross Board of Guardians have protested against the reduction made on the property mentioned; also that other landlords in this town have had to object to increases put upon their buildings by same valuer; and whether he can say it the Valuation and Boundary Survey of Ireland gave their revising valuer any special instructions regarding the Shirley property in arriving at his decision; if so, can he state what they were?

A large amount of correspondence has passed between the Carrickmacross Board of Guardians and the Valuation Office regarding a valuation reduced in 1893, and the Guardians have protested against the same, thought they have not appealed to the Courts as they might have done if dissatisfied. I am not aware of any general protest against the valuations made in this Union, but the fact that there has not been a single appeal against any of these during the past three years would seem to show that they have been equitable. No special instructions were given to any of the valuers who were revising in this Union.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the information in the possession of the Local Government Board shows that the contributions from salaries of Poor Law Officers under the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act, 1896, will suffice, or almost suffice, to pay the pensions under the Act; whether his attention has been called to the calculations made by Mr. Thomas Fatkin, an expert, at the request of the Leeds Board of Guardians, and adopted by them on 13th January last, which calculations show that the contributions of the officers will barely suffice to pay one-third of the cost of the pensions under the Act; and whether, having regard to the fact that a Bill is before the House to extend the provisions of the Act to the officers and servants of other local authorities, he will consider the advisability of having actuarial calculations made out to determine what proportion of the cost of the pensions is likely to fall oil the ratepayers in the event of the Bill becoming law?

The Local Government Board have no definite information as to how far the contributions from salaries of Poor Law officers under the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act, will suffice to pay the allowances under that Act. But it is to be borne in mind that in the great majority of cases of officers to which the Act refers, the Guardians, prior to the passing of the Act, were empowered to award superannuation without any contributions from the officers. The Act has conferred upon the officers the right to a superannuation, instead of its being optional with the Guardians to grant superannuation as was previously the case as regards all officers who devoted their whole time to their duties, it being at the same time made obligatory on the officers to whom the Act applies to contribute a percentage of their salaries towards the cost of superannuation. The Board have seen the communication which Mr. Fatkin has addressed to the Leeds Board of Guardians, but cannot undertake to have made the actuarial calculations suggested in the last question, and, looking to the thousands of authorities to which the Bill refers, the Local Government Board do not think there are any data on which any actuarial calculations which could be relied upon could be made.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether it is obligatory upon School Boards in crowded urban districts to build around each school playground a wall of sufficient height to prevent the habitual personal annoyance of residents near the school, and the constant danger to passers-by from missiles?

No, Sir; there is no such obligation, and I fear that a wall of sufficient height to prevent boys throwing stones over it would be in itself a nuisance.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that of the 581 pensioners in Chelsea Hospital only eight do not use tobacco, he will consider the advisability of allotting from the contraband tobacco in the Queen's Warehouse sufficient to give to each pensioner a pipe a day, since the only objection raised, namely, the possibility of sale, may be safely disregarded owing to the extremely limited extent to which it could take place?

The grant of seized tobacco is confined in the first instance to cases where the tobacco would otherwise be charged upon the Votes. This covers not only the Kew and Edinburgh Botanic Gardens, but also the Criminal Lunatics at Broadmoor and Dundrum, tobacco allowance for whom used to be borne on the Votes. If a surplus of tobacco still remains over, it is given under an arrangement made in 1893 to troops going on foreign service. Such troops had always been entitled to get their tobacco duty free, and the grant therefore does not displace any duty-paid tobacco. At present, however, the issue to the troops has had to be suspended, as the supply has run short. The case of the Chelsea pensioners is, therefore, not analogous. There is no tobacco allowance for them charged on the Votes, and they are not entitled to get their tobacco duty-free. Apart from the possibility of their selling the tobacco, the hon. and gallant Member will see from what I have said that any grant made to them would be taken from troops going on foreign service.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, seeing that the present forms of agreement used in the case of Church of England schools contain clauses whereby the teachers undertake to give religious as well as secular instruction to the scholars under their charge, and that the form of agreement contained in Schedule VI of the Code now before Parliament might well be construed to apply to secular instruction only, it is the intention of the Education Department to require the exclusion of :111 reference to religious instruction in the agreements between managers and teachers of Voluntary Schools?

The Committee of Council do not consider the form of agreement given in the Code capable of the construction suggested in the Question. But it is only a model, and can be altered if managers think fit.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in reference to the recently published Blue-book on the change of government in,Norfolk Island, whether any steps have been taken, or instructions issued, to prevent the unalienated lands being snapped up by strangers at insignificant prices, having regard to the value these lands will acquire in the early future, when Norfolk Island is one of the principal stations of the Pacific Cable; whether the desire of the Norfolk Island community, as expressed at page 25, that the importation of spirituous liquors should be prohibited in the future, as it has been during the past 40 years, will be respected under the new regime; and whether, as it is expressly stated at page 33, on his authority, that the appointment of the Government Resident is a temporary measure limited to the short period of 10 months, another and a permanent scheme for the future government of Norfolk Island is now in contemplation?

It will be seen from Sections 1 and 3 of the Order in Council of January 15, published at page 50 of the Blue-book, that the Governor of New South Wales for the time being is empowered to administer the affairs of Norfolk Island, and to constitute and appoint all necessary judges, justices of the peace, and other public officers. Any future administrative arrangements will therefore be in the hands of the Governor; and with reference to the first part of the Question, I have no doubt that under Section 5 of the Order in Council due attention will be given to all questions connected with the alienation and transfer of lands. The new regulations as to the importation of hoer and spirituous liquors, which Were passed by the Governor in virtue of the powers already vested in him by the Order in Council of 1856, will be found at pages 40 and 41 of the Blue book.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any representative of the Board of Trade was present at the inquest held on. Frank Niblett, a carriage washer, who was killed at the Joint Bristol Station, on Saturday, 6th March; and whether any inquiry has been directed to be mole by an inspector or sub-inspector into the circumstances, and especially into the allegation that, while shunting and carriage washing go on most of the night, there is no adequate lighting of this portion of the lines? The HON. MEMBER also asked the President of the Board of Trade whether Ins attention had been called to the circumstances under which engine driver Little, of the Great Western Railway Company, met his death recently, and to the admission of the locomotive superintendent that the space between the corner of the archway where the fatality occurred and a passing engine was only about 12 to 14 inches; whether any representative of the Board of Trade was present at the inquest, or whether any local inspection or inquiry had been made or would be made by an inspector or sub-inspector of the Board; and what representations had been or would be made to the Company on the subject?

I will answer both the hon. Member's Questions at the same time. The Board of Trade have ordered inquiries by a sub-inspector in each case. No application was made in either case by the Coroner for the attendance of an assessor at the inquest.

Will the inquiry take place shortly?

Yes.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Sir William McGregor, Administrator of British New Guinea, has issued a proclamation forbidding Chinese to enter on any of the goldfields of that dependency until a period of three years from the first discovery of such goldfields shall have elapsed; is such a proclamation legal; and, if so, what are the reasons by which it is sought to be justified in this instance; and whether there is any precedent for such restrictive action on the part of an Administrator of an auriferous dependency?

I have not received any official information on the subject referred to in the Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any progress has been made in the matter of providing the town of Thurles, County Tipperary, with suitable premises for the transaction of postal and telegraphic business?

An offer of premises for a new post office at Thurles is under consideration, but it has been necessary to ask for plans to assist in arriving at a decision.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is the intention of the Government to issue a special Imperial stamp or postage stamps to commemorate the Diamond Jubilee of the Queen?

It is not the intention of the Government to issue a special Imperial stamp or postage stamps to commemorate the Diamond Jubilee of the Queen.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in view of the proposed acceleration of the mail service to and from the districts in the South of Ireland, any arrangement has been come to with the Great Southern and Western Railway Company to meet the requirements of the inhabitants of Roscrea, Nenagh, and Birr, as set forth in the recent petitions forwarded from these towns to the. Postmaster General on the subject; and, if not, whether steps will be taken before the new regulations come into force to make the necessary provision?

No arrangement has yet been come to with the Great Southern and Western Railway Company for giving effect to the wishes of the inhabitants of Roscrea, Nenagh, and Birr, as set forth in their recent petitions ; and the Postmaster General cannot undertake that an improvement of the day mail service shall be provided for. All the circumstances shall, however, be very fully examined with a view to any improvement which may be practicable hereafter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state the amount drawn annually from the taxation of India for the maintenance of Christian ecclesiastical establishments in that country; whether he can give any reasons why the charges of these churches, which exist for the benefit of the English community, should be borne by the taxpayers of India and whether, in view of the strain now put upon Indian finances by the famine, he will consider the advisability of devoting the money referred to to purposes of general service of the country?

The total charge upon Indian revenues for ecclesiastical purposes was Rx. 220,000 in 1895–96, of which sum by far the greater part was spent in pay and establishments for chaplains of various denominations serving with the Army. It has for 200 years been held, and is still hell by the Government of India, to be a part of their duty to provide religious ministrations, within reasonable limits, for the European Army in India, and for European civilians serving in that country. Both these classes have accepted employment in the expectation and belief that such provision would be made; and there is no intention of making any change in the present arrangements.

Will a Return be granted of the details of this expenditure if asked for?

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) if he is aware that the tenants on the Fitzgerald Estate, situate at Ballydonoghue, Tarbert, County Kerry, petitioned the Court for their usual reduction of rent, and that a communication was sent by the receiver, in reply to the petition, refusing to grant the reduction of rent asked for, on the ground that the tenants have their lands in grass; (2) whether he is aware that a great portion of their holdings is under meadowing and tillage, and that reductions were granted prior to 1896; and (3) whether, owing to the year 1896 being most disastrous to tenant farmers in produce and price, steps will be taken to make inquiries into the condition of these tenants with a view to give them a reduction in their rent as heretofore?

I am informed that the statements in the first paragraph are substantially correct. I have no information regarding the second paragraph; and as to the third paragraph; my communication in the matter should be addressed to the Department of the Land Judge.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has seen that, since the decision of the. House was given against the London County Council acquiring the control of the water supply of London, that Council has instructed its engineer to proceed with the plans and sections of the Wye portion of the Welsh scheme, at a cost of £1,500; and whether any and what steps can be taken to prevent tins expenditure of the ratepayers' money, and if the parties promoting the scheme can be surcharged by the Government or other auditor?

I have ascertained that the London County Council have, subject to the passing of the Annual Maintenance Vote, assented to the expenditure referred to in the Question, and that the expenditure is considered to be authorised by Section 3 of the London Water Act, 1892. The Local Government Board have no authority to intervene to prevent the expenditure; it will, of course, devolve on the district auditor in the case of the payments referred to, as in the case of any other payments by the County Council, to consider whether the expenditure has been legally incurred.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the French Government are placing; import duties on certain British goods entering Madagascar, whilst French goods of a similar character are imported free; if so, whether the practice is a violation of an arrangement made with the French Government in 1890; and for how long such a violation of the French obligations has been allowed to continue; and what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to enable, British trade commodities to be imported into Madagascar on terms which would be in accordance with the signed declaration of the French Government in 1890?

Under a Decree published in the Journal Officiel of August 8th last, French imports are admitted into Madagascar free of duty, while foreign imports continue to be subject to the ad valorem duty of 10 per cent. sanctioned by previously existing Treaties. Her Majesty's Government have addressed representations to the French Government on the subject.

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the labourers employed in the. Ordnance Department at Haulbowline are only in receipt of 16s. per week; and whether the Admiralty will consider the desirability of paying these men upon the Same scale as labourers employed upon similar work in other Dockyards?

The hon. and gallant Member is apparently under a misapprehension. There are no labourers employed under the Admiralty in the Ordnance Department at Haulbowline. The Question should apparently be addressed to the War Office.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the proposed autonomy of Crete is to be effective in the sense that it will enable the Cretans to choose their own ruler and their own form of rule; and whether the proclamation stated to have been issued by the Admirals to the Cretans contains, or is accompanied by, a definition or explanation of the suggested autonomy?

The choice of a ruler and the precise form of constitution are matters for which the Great Powers have assumed the responsibility. The proclamation issued by the Admirals on the 19th inst. defines the proffered autonomy as complete autonomy subject to the suzerainty of the Sultan, and explains that Cretans will be free from all control of the Porte as regards their internal affairs. The Proclamation further states that the Powers in concert are framing regulations for the functions of the autonomous regime which will restore order, and will guarantee, without distinction of race or religion, liberty and security of property, and the development of the resources of the island.

I gather from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that the clause, which I understand was suggested by our Consul, Sir A. Biliotti, excluding the power of the Sultan, has appeared in the Proclamation. The statement has been made that the Admirals insisted upon the excision of that clause.

I do not think that there can be any truth in the latter report. Whether the clause was suggested by Sir A. Biliotti or not we have no official information, but inasmuch as it appears in the Proclamation in the form in which it was issued, I think we may assume that the reply must be in the affirmative.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Government have applied for and obtained the permission of the Sovereign of Crete to land armed forces on that island?

On February 15th, the date on which the Naval detachments were landed in Crete, the Turkish Foreign Minister informed Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople that the Sultan agreed to the temporary occupation by the Powers of such places in the island as the Admirals thought desirable.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have given him private, but at the same time adequate, notice—[laughter]—namely, whether it is the fact that the insurgents chiefs at Akrotiri assert that the passage in the Report of their interview with the Admirals in which it is stated that they declared themselves satisfied with autonomy is an erroneous interpretation of their words; and that in the journal in which the details of the interview are recorded it is stated that they declared unanimously in favour of union with Greece; whether the chiefs have formally notified to the Admirals that any further communication to them must be in writing ; and whether Lord Salisbury will be prepared to take any, and, if so, what, measures to guard in the future against similar misconstructions and misunderstandings?

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy, which he has explained to the House. [Laughter.] In reply to the Question, I have to say that we have never heard that the insurgent chiefs at Akrotiri in their interview with the Admirals declared themselves satisfied with autonomy. In the Admirals' Report of the interview on March 10, the substance of which I have previously communicated to the House, there was no mention of any expression of opinion from the insurgents on this point. In reporting a later interview on March 19, Her Majesty's Consul mentions that the insurgents declared that nothing but annexation to Greece would satisfy them. No information has reached us as to communications by writing, nor does it appear that importance is attached thereto by the insurgents, seeing that their last interview with the Admirals on March 19 was on board one of the ships of war.

wished to ask whether a Greek vessel had been sunk by an Austrian cruiser off the coast of Crete; and, if so, why it was sunk, in view of the fact that the blockade did not begin, until yesterday?

It appears that on March 17 the Austrian vessel Sebenico, in pursuance of the notifications of the Admirals of February 15 and 27 that the landing of munitions of war would not be permitted in Crete, went to examine a schooner flying the Greek flag, which was engaged in landing supplies of ammunition on the coast near Cape Dhia. The insurgents opened heavy fire upon the Sebenieo with rifles and cannon. The captain returned the fire, sinking the schooner and dislodging the insurgents. The crew swam ashore.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the 600 Seaforth Highlanders who have been ordered to Crete are provided with a Presbyterian chaplain; and, if not, whether he will see that such provision is made?

Arrangements have been made for a Presbyterian chaplain to accompany the Seaforth Highlanders, if the officer commanding should think it desirable.

Do I understand that it is to be left to the officer in command to decide?

Yes; the officer in command has been instructed to take a Presbyterian chaplain if he thinks it desirable.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Highlanders are practically all Presbyterians. [Laughter]

Order, order! The hon. Member is replying to an answer to a Question.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, having regard to the letter of the 4th December last from his office to Mr. Aston, the path will now be continued across Hampton Court Park, if the funds necessary for the purpose are contributed by residents at Surbiton?

I have no reason to suppose that there is any public demand for the path in question, and I am of opinion that paths across the Park disfigure it, and should not be made except it can be shown that they are absolutely required.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland have entered into a contract with a firm of furniture manufacturers at Redlands, Bristol, for a supply of office and other furniture; and (2) if so, whether he will lay upon the Table the tender of the firm, the contract, and the correspondence relating thereto?

The answer to the first paragraph is, Yes. I shall be glad to show the hon. Member both the tender and the contract. The correspondence I have not yet received, and I cannot, therefore, make any promise with regard to it.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will call the attention of the Land Commission to the, fact that in dealing with the sale of tenancies in their new rules they have dealt with all tenancies, including Ulster Custom tenancies, and have thereby exceeded their jurisdiction?

With the permission of my right hon. Friend, I will reply to this Question. The Rules issued by the Land Commission, dated the 2nd January 1897, are merely a recast of the Rules made under the Land Act of 1881, issued in December 1883. Both the latter and the former referred, as provided by the Statutes, to sales made under the Act of 1881. Sales under the Ulster Custom are, by the express provisions of Section 1, Subsection (12) of the Act of 1881, not made under the Act at all, nor have the Rules any reference to such sales, and Section 49 of the Act of last Session preserves all the rights of the tenant under the Ulster Custom. The Land Commission have not, therefore, in any way exceeded their powers.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to- the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that a tenant on the Clanricarde Estate, named John Hanly, of Clonmoylan, Woodford, who was evicted in 1888 for two years' rent, was reinstated in April 1895 on payment of two years' rent and costs; that within twelve months after reinstatement Hardy was processed to sessions held at Gort last April for nine years' rent; that the nine years' rent were made out in the following manner, viz., three years that elapsed between date of decree and eviction, during which time Hanly was caretaker (and not liable for rent), together with the six years he was out of his farm; and (2) whether, in view of the landlord's refusal to recognise Part V of the Land Law (Ireland) Act of 1896, will he introduce or support a Bill making Part V compulsory on the Clanricarde Estate?

In 1888 Hanly was served with a notice constituting him a caretaker under the, 7th Section of the Land Act of 1887, but he I was not evicted until May 1890, and in the interval he was in occupation and had the use of the farm. He was out of the farm for four years and ten months, and was reinstated in March 1895, upon payment of two years' rent and costs, and upon his agreeing to pay arrears, of which £10 was to be paid within six months. Failing to fulfil his agreement he was processed to Gort Quarter Sessions for nine years' rent, when the case, in consequence of the solicitor not having the agreement in Court, was dismissed. An appeal was lodged to the following summer assizes, but meanwhile Haply had effected a settlement with the landlord by agreeing to pay a year's rent forthwith and a further sum of £15 by instalments. The decision at Quarter Sessions was reversed at Assizes; Haply was released from any further obligation, and both he and his counsel acknowledged he had obtained liberal terms. Hanly now states that he is perfectly satisfied with the settlement made with him by the agent. The last paragraph of the Question has no relevancy to the case of Haply, who is now a tenant in full possession. The answer would, in any case, be in the negative.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will make such arrangements as will enable detachments of Yeomanry Cavalry to be present at the forthcoming celebration of the 60th anniversary of Her Majesty's reign?

The details for the celebration are still under consideration; but the presence of some Yeomanry is contemplated.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the statement made by Sir James Westland as to the cost of the famine and its effects on the finances of India, he can state in what way the Government are prepared to aid in defraying from Imperial funds part of the expenditure on famine relief?

The state of things in India is at present as follows. In the face of a famine of almost unexampled extent and severity, the Government of India have spared no expense in their efforts to prevent or mitigate its effects, and, thanks to the means which the foresight of previous Governments has provided, and to the zeal and vigour with which they have been used, those efforts have been on the whole very successful. In spite of the very heavy charge and loss of revenue, estimated at Rx.11,000,000 net, which this condition of affairs has entailed, the Government of India estimate the deficit for the closing financial year at not more than Rx.1,987,000, and that for the coming year at Rx.2,464,000. They propose to carry on without interruption or postponement all the great public works winch they have begun or have undertaken to begin, and, mainly for this purpose of productive expenditure, which is virtually a further insurance against future famines, they propose to borrow Rx.4,000,000 in India and £3,500,000 sterling in England, besides £1,000,000 temporary debt. With the view of insuring against the financial loss involved by possible famines, a surplus revenue has for many years been raised and devoted to the avoidance or reduction of debt, and the loans which it is now intended to incur form part of the general policy of borrowing for remunerative railway construction, and must not be attributed merely, or even mainly, to the results of the famine. The credit of the Government of India has, I believe, never been appreciably higher than at the present moment. In these circumstances no application for assistance has been made by the Government of India, nor do Her Majesty's Government as at present advised see any reason to anticipate such application by an offer of financial aid.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether an absolute order has been made for the sale of the estate of Robert Hedges Eyre White, situated near Bantry, county Cork; and (2) if so, whether he can state approximately when the sale will take place?

The reply to the first inquiry is in the affirmative. The rental is in progress of settlement, but it would not be possible, at present, to state even approximately the date at which the sale will take place.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether any of that portion of the Artillery attached to the Volunteers which is described as Field Artillery consists of batteries having trained horses of their own; and, if so, how many such horses the Volunteer Artillery possesses in all?

Artillery Volunteer corps haring field batteries or batteries of position are not required to possess horses for battery work; but they are granted a money allowance with which to hire them, and a condition of the grant is that the full complement of horses shall be producible, whenever required. The arrangement has been found satisfactory.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War Whether he is aware that an officer commanding a regiment at Aldershot lately came into possession of a document showing that commissions had been paid by a firm of brewers to various persons at the Camp in connection with the sale of beer to canteens and messes; and whether an inquiry into this matter was held; and, if so, with what result?

The facts are as stated in the Question. A searching, inquiry has been held, and the Report is, at present, under consideration.

I beg, to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will grant a Return showing the estates in the county of Kerry over which receivers have been appointed since 1879, giving respectively the owner of the estate, name, and residence of the receiver appointed?

The Return in question would be very troublesome to prepare, and I am not aware that it would serve any useful purpose. If, however, the hon. Member desires to have this special information regarding a particular property in the county, and will communicate with me on the subject, I will endeavour to procure the information for him.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the recent improvements in engineering methods, and especially in the art of tunnel boring, he will appoint a Royal Commission or some properly qualified technical Committee to inquire, into the feasibility of constructing a tunnel between Ireland and Scotland; and whether, in the event of such body reporting favourably upon the project both from the engineering and from the financial point of view, he will recommend that the cost of making this important addition to the internal communications of the United Kingdom be defrayed wholly or in part front national resources?

In answer to my hon. Friend, I have to say that I am quite, prepared to consult with the President of the Board of Trade on the subject of the question, but I fear the financial aspects of any such engineering undertakings as my hon. Friend suggests are not of a very promising character.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what steps the, Government propose to take with reference to the Memorandum and Report of the Departmental Committee on the health of the Army in India?

I have, with much regret, asked my hon. and gallant, Friend more than once to put off this Question, and I am afraid I must ask hint again to postpone it until Thursday, when I hope the Government will be able to make a statement on the subject. [Cheers.]

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, for the convenience of Scottish Members, he will state when it is proposed to take the Scottish Estimates?

I will endeavour to give due notice of the time when the Scotch Estimates will come on. But I am afraid I cannot at the present moment forecast precisely when that day will be.

May we assume that they will not be taken before Easter?

Yes; I think you may.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the public works established on the West Coast of Scotland in 1891 were the public works to which he referred in his programme, published in East Manchester in 1895; and, if not, whether he can state the nature of the works to which he then made a promissory reference?

Whenever I have referred to public works in the Highlands, those works have been intended to facilitate and improve communication between the Western Highlands and other parts of the country.

ruled that the Amendment standing in the name of Mr. VESEY KNOX (Londonderry)—[in Sub-section (1), after the word "fix" to insert the words "having regard as to buildings rand furniture, to the periods allowed for the repayment of loans raised by local authorities for expenditure of a like character"]—was out of order, as the Committee had already decided that the period of the loan was to be in the discretion of the Treasury.

moved, after Sub-section (1) to insert.

"Every loan raised in pursuance of this section shall be discharged before such date as may be fixed by the Treasury."

said the Amendment was really quite unnecessary. He pointed out that the House had already agreed to a provision as to the period of terminable annuities.

moved, in Sub-section (2), to leave out from the word "services" to the end of the Sub-section. He contended that these words were unnecessary and misleading. It was absurd to say that this money was not to be part of the permanent annual charge on the National Debt. It would come out of the Consolidated Fund, and to all intents and purposes it would be the same as any of her part of the National Debt.

said the object of these words was, that if there was any deficiency of the money voted for Army services in a, particular year, the sum should be charged on, and be paid out of the Consolidated Fund.

said that if the words were omitted the War Office would have no option but to come to Parliament for the money; whereas, if the words were retained they would have an option in the matter. They found when the Estimates were before them, that, owing to the influence which these loan Bills exerted, it was impossible to tell how much was spent in any year on the Army or Navy, end this Bill tended to widen that influence.

said it might hap-pen, owing to expeditions or otherwise, that the sum voted for the Army in a particular year was exceeded. In that case the matter would conic before the Public Accounts Committee, and, therefore, in such a case the matter would have to be sanctioned by the House. This provision was a safeguard to prevent the sum being charged on the National Debt.

said the Public Accounts Committee, although ranking very high among the Committees of that House, was not equivalent to the House itself. The position was really this, if this provision was retained the War Office would be able each year to exceed their expenditure on the ordinary Military Estimates without being compelled to present to the House a supplementary Estimate. He thought that was a most objectionable provision.

said that if the Amendment were adopted the result would be that the Treasury would be unable to borrow the money at all, because it was necessary that the charge should be imposed on the Consolidated Fund in order that proper security might be given to the persons who would lend. The object of the words the end of the section, providing that the monies should not be payable as part of the permanent charge for the National Debt, was to secure that the charge might not escape the notice of Parliament, but should be brought under the cognisance of Parliament every year.

said that as lie understood the effect of the provision, it would be possible for the War Office to apply the amount voted for annuities to meet an excess of expenditure under some other head of the Army Estimates, and to leave the annuities to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund.

The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that the Treasury will take care that nothing of the kind is done. ["Hear, hear!"]

Would it be possible for the War Office, under this Bill, to avoid coming to the House for a Supplementary Estimate they exceed the monies provided by the House?

It would be impossible. ["Hear, hear!"]

moved, in Sub-section (3), to omit the words "of the money expended and borrowed, and the securities created under this Act," in order to insert the words, "showing as follows:—

assured the hon. Member that there was really nothing in the Amendment that was not covered by the words of the Bill. So far from there being any deep design on the part of the War Office to deprive Parliament of information in the matter, the words of the Barracks Act of 1890 were not inserted in the clause simply because it was found by the Treasury on investigation that the clause as it stood was just as effective for the purpose aimed at.

said that the right hon. Gentleman's defence of the words of the Bill, so far as borrowing was concerned, was complete. The same security was given in the Bill in the matter of borrowing as was given in the Barracks Act of 1890. But the most important provision in his Amendment was that which related to the expenditure being set on that under set and distinct heads. He contended that under Clause 1, the War Office, if they effected a saving under one, head, could apply that saving to cover an over expenditure under another head, without coining to the House for a Supplementary Estimate, or the House knowing anything about it. They could not stop the work, but they could at least secure that the House of Commons should know how the expenditure had been incurred.

remarked that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not said that the words of the Amendment were wrong, but that the words in the Bill really amounted to the same thing. He would suggest that, as the words of the Amendment would not do any harm to the Bill, or detract one iota from its force, but would simply render it compulsory, that there should be a full and complete statement made to the House as to the way the money had been expended, the Amendment should be accepted by the Government.

remarked that, as there were five different Loan Acts running at the same time, it was difficult, under the present form of account, to ascertain under which of them the money might be spent in a particular year. He had himself experienced this difficulty. The amount of money which had been repaid, for instance, in connection with the Army or Navy, was not shown, and they had to turn to the Estimates to see whether there was any item to be deducted from the total amount of loan. There was thus a great risk of confusion arising when they wished to ascertain the total amount of the expenditure. For his part, he should be satisfied if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would undertake either to make himself each year a very full statement to the House, or see that one was made at least once a year, showing the expenditure under each of the different heads in a particular year for both services. All he desired was, that the House should have an opportunity of knowing, year by year, the exact amount that had been spent in this way, and what was to be added to the amount voted in the Estimates for these services.

pointed out that the Amendment did not in effect differ from the words in the Bill, but it laid down most minutely the exact form of procedure. The right hon. Baronet was not satisfied with the form of accounts which had appeared in the past, as it did not convey a sufficiently full statement of what had been done. He was very much inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He thought it important, especially from the point of view of the. Chancellor of the Exchequer, that Parliament and the country should know thoroughly the sum of money that was being spent every year on the Army and the Navy, whether it were by annual estimate or by way of works, under Bills of this kind. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman if he would favour him with any suggestion as to the adoption of a clearer form in the future he should be very glad to receive it. He hope I, for the reasons he had given, the hon. Member for Islington would not press his Amendment. He could assure the hon. Gentleman he was quite as anxious as he that this information should be given, so that it might be known what had been done, because he thought it might be sonic check on the applications which were made for expenditure.

asked if the words as they; it present stood in the Bill would provide that the money expended should be shown under the various heads, so that Members could distinguish how much had been spent on each?

replied in the affirmative.

did not think the right hon. Gentleman had made out any case for rejecting the Amendment, which he should accordingly press to a division.

urged that the money to pay for the works under the Bill ought to have been provided out of the ordinary Estimates, and not by borrowing. To defend the borrowing on the, ground that these works were permanent was the most extraordinary step. He should have called attention to this before, though he voted for the Second Reading of the Bill, had not discussion been closed after ten minutes' debate. It was no part of State policy to spread the payment of works over a period of years because the works were called permanent. That was a procedure strictly confined to local government, where resources were limited. A post office was a permanent work, but the whole expenditure on it was provided for in one year's Estimates. Pictures purchased for the nation were paid for at once. Ships for the Navy were paid for within the time occupied by their construction. These proposals of the Government were a new method of creating a national debt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had plenty of money to pay for works as they were completed; but he even refused to reduce the period of repayment from 30 years to 15 years. As a protest against such an enormous amount of money being provided for by loan he should vote against the clause.

said that there was nothing left but to vote against the Clause, which was thoroughly had. The main provision was thrust upon the House suddenly. It was not embodied in the Barrack Act of 1890, though the House had been assured that it was; and if the House had realised that fact, the provision would not have been passed on Thursday. If a shorter period were adopted the difference in amount would not be so much as might be supposed, and sound finance required that the expenditure of the year should be met by the Estimates for the year. His right hon. Friend came into the House in an amiable mood, and said if something was promised he would support the Government; but why should not the promises find expression in the Bill itself? The clause was a bad clause, and should be modified in the direction of the Act of 1890. If the objection were carried to division he should vote against the Clause.

argued that it was not right to lay an undue burden on posterity in matters of this kind, and the Bill should follow the precedent of the Imperial Defence Act of 1888. The objects of that Act were practically the same as those of the present Bill, the construction of certain works of defence involving an expenditure of £2,600,000, and the term of repayment provided was 12 years. Why had the Government now extended the period to 30 years? As a matter of general policy it was wrong to have such a long period as 30 years. In local loans a shorter period was insisted upon, and there was no reason for departing from the salutary principle in Imperial matters. Some explanation should be forthcoming.

hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not allow the Clause to be taken without an explanation.

said it had already been stated by the Under Secretary for War that the term fixed was the maximum term, and not necessarily the term for which all the money would be borrowed, and this maximum term was adopted from the precedent of the Naval Works Act, 1895, passed by the late Government. So much of the work included in the present Bill was of a permanent character that the term of 30 years was fully justified. There was land taken for manœuvres, ranges, and earth works, and expenditure on permanent barracks, replacing temporary huts, which would last for far longer than 30 years, and probably for 100 years, as the hon. Member opposite had suggested. Throughout the entire Bill the expenditure was of a nature that should not be thrown upon the taxpayers of a few years to come; it should be fairly spread over a reasonable number of years for the alleviation of the burden.

said the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the question as to State policy. He went back to the only precedent he could find, that of 1895—

said it was not the only precedent.

said a better precedent was the Naval Defence Act, where the period was 12 years, and the works took several years to complete.

said surely the hon. Member would not compare the life of a ship to the duration of these permanent works?

said he would not, but there was a fair comparison in the buildings that had been constructed, and for Civil Service and Post Office purposes a period of 15 years had been considered a sufficient period to cover the cost of constructing permanent buildings.

said that he desired to ask the meaning of this clause. Why was the Sinking Fund Act of 1875 dragged in? He was constantly suspicious that works would be carried out without the sanction of Parliament being previously obtained; and, at least, he claimed that when the works were done there should be an account of them within the year, so that they might know how the money had been expended.

said the clause was a copy of a similar clause in the Naval Works Act of last year, under which the amount to be raised by loans would be reduced, and the surplus of the year would be available in relief of loans for the future under this Bill. That was the object of the clause, and it was one which should commend itself to hon. Gentlemen opposite.

saw the point precisely. If this clause were not accepted, then any surplus would go to the reduction of the National Debt, and the effect of the clause was to intercept the money. But what the Government were proposing to do here was that out of the balance of the different accounts, instead of applying the money to the reduction of past debt, they were going to appropriate it to the purposes of future expenditure.

No. The object of the clause is really to avoid paying off debt with one hand and borrowing with the other.

thought the assurance that this was exactly the same clause as was in the Act of 1895 went a long way to meet his objection.

moved the following new clause:—

The Treasury shall report to Parliament whenever any excess is allowed to be so applied, and shall in such report specify how and out of what items the savings are expected to be made, and what is the amount of the estimated excess on each item.

said the hon. Member wished to secure that all possible information should be given, as well as control by Parliament. The Government had no desire to exclude Parliament from any information or control. The hon. Member seemed to think that the Treasury and the War Office would be able to exchange gigantic sums from one head to another; but he seemed to forget that the Treasury existed in order to check the extravagant use of powers by any Department. If the Government did not give the whole of the items in all the heads of the schedule it was not because there was any desire to conceal from Parliament what they were doing; but on defence works especially it was not desirable that we should tell the whole world what we were spending at each place. Parliament had never asked hit her to that this should be done, but if the clause were inserted this would be the effect of it, and any check obtained would be gained at the expense of publicity, which it was the desire of Parliament to avoid. The War Office had undertaken to lay before the House every year, not merely the statements of the expenditure in the past year, but also an estimate of the probable expenditure for the following year.

asked why that promise should not be incorporated in the Bill It should be borne in mind that the right hon. Gentleman might not always be in his present position, and how in these circumstances could the right hon. Gentleman pledge his successors?

said that they were following the previous practice. The War Office had always shown this expenditure, and it was not necessary to put the provision in the Bill.

, in reply to Mr. Lough, on a point of order, said the hon. Member was right in assuming that the Amendments on the Paper to the schedule were not in order. He did not say that Amendments could not be put down that would be in order.

said he should be glad to know whether he could put down an Amendment on which he could discuss the question of the fortifications of London.

said it was not his business to tell the hon. Member how to frame his Amendment.

Is the Amendment of the hon. Member for Derry out of order?

Certainly.

Then I cannot ask as to the amount spent in Ireland?

I do not think that Debate could arise upon that matter.

supposed they were entitled to ask for an explanation where these defensive works were to be.

said lie had already dealt with the point.

asked what was the expenditure in Scotland?

said if they began to give the expenditure in different places they would be giving that information to foreign countries which they had already declined to give.

said that there was one point to which he wished to invite attention. A portion of this money was to go to providing a camp of exercise, but that camp was situated at a great distance from a large number of corps in Scotland. The policy of the War Office had been to consolidate the armed forces in one centre, but this left the Militia and Volunteers in Scotland without fair facilities for exercise. He was not asking for any addition to the Vote any more than lie was suggesting any reduction of the Vote, but he hoped that the policy indicated by the Bill did not mean that the question of a camp in Scotland was to be debarred from the consideration of the War Office. There should be a northern as well as a southern camp, and without that he believed it would be difficult to secure recruits for the Regulars and efficiency in the Scottish regiments. There ought to be, for the proper exercising of the troops, a camp in the North of England or in. Scotland.

said he fully realised the importance of the point raised by the hon. Member. In Scotland they raised some of the finest regiments in the service. His hon. Friend had not developed any policy to-night. One of the difficulties they had to meet in Scotland was, that the country was so prosperous, that it was not easy to find an extent of land suitable for the purpose at a moderate figure. At the same time they wished to make military instruction as accessible as possible to the regiments north of the Tweed.

complained of the massing of troops in huge barracks, thus taking them away from the small towns. He asked whether any portion of this large sum of money would be spent in making the Longford barracks sufficient for the purposes of a headquarters barracks. He did not think it was quite fair to the people of the locality to deprive them of the presence of the troops, who were a source of revenue to the town. He thought the question deserved some attention, and if the right hon. Gentleman did not see his way to give some satisfactory reply, he would have to ask his Friends to go to a division.

understood that part of this money was to be spent on barracks in Wynberg, and be would like to ask what was the nature of the tenure of the land on which the barracks were to be constructed. So far as he could ascertain, land for Imperial purposes could only be obtained and held subject to the goodwill of a self-governing colony. He would also like to know whether it was contemplated that the troops to be accommodated in these barracks were to be used for the general purposes of a self-governing colony which did not contribute to their support, or for the Imperial purpose of garrisoning the sea works and maintaining the Imperial base.

said it was desirable that the Committee should know what proportion of these large stuns of money was to be expended in Scotland. Seeing that Scotland paid more than her fair share to the Imperial Exchequer, she ought to benefit by the expenditure.

, in reply to his hon. and gallant Friend, said that, in the opinion of the Military authorities, the proposals brought forward by the War Office with respect to the Cape of Good Hope were the best that could be made in the national interest. He was not able to say exactly the terms on which the land at Wynberg would be acquired and held, but his hon. and gallant Friend might be perfectly satisfied that no building would take place there unless the War Office authorities were sure that the tenure was secure. With regard to the Longford barracks, he could not tell the hon. Gentleman who raised the question, for reasons which had been accepted by the Committee, any details with regard to the expenditure. It was not in the public interest that such details should be given. Of course, he could quite understand the interest taken by the hon. Gentleman in the matter; but unfortunately these things had to be determined, not on considerations such as the wishes of the inhabitants of a locality, but according to the views of the Military authorities, and they came to the conclusion that the headquarters ought, for military reasons, to be removed front Longford.

asked whether he was to understand that money was to be spent, on a site the tenure of which had not been settled?

No.

thought it was most desirable that the Committee should be perfectly clear as to what they were doing in this matter. [" Hear, hear !"]

said there was no difficulty about the, site. They did not, propose to build on land the title to which was not secure.

But can my right hon. Friend say what the title is?

said that that was a solicitor's question. He was not in possession of the titles under which barracks were held by Great Britain till over the world. All he could say was that the Department would take good care that the title was secure before they built on a single inch of the ground. There was no case that he could remember within the last ten years in which the title of land acquired by the War Office had proved defective.

said that when he was told that the military authorities considered this the best site, he wanted to know whether they considered it so front the point of view of the troops accommodated there being used for Imperial purposes, or for the general purposes of the Cape Colony.["Hear, hear !"]

said that the General Officer Commanding in a Colony had first to see to the defence of the Imperial Coaling Station; and, secondly, to make use the troops for such general purposes as might be found necessary in the particular colony.

said he would ask the right hon. Gentleman how far Wynberg was from the Cape, position at Table Bay? ["Hear, hear!"]

said it was at a distance of about eight miles. Surely it was not supposed that our relations with foreign Powers were such that we dare not keep any of the troops more than 100 yards from the guns. Every man could be on the spot in a couple of hours.

thought that I he question asked as to the tenure of the land was a very reasonable one. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would agree that, in view of the number of imperial troops stationed in South Africa during recent years, this expenditure was a very large one indeed. Here they bad a proposed expenditure for hospital and barrack accommodation of £160,000 in one particular place. He wanted to know the facts upon which it was determined to incur this expenditure; what recommendations were made, and who was responsible for them? He also wished to know whether there had been any communication with Cape Colony to ascertain whether or not the Government of that Colony would bear any portion of this expenditure? Was the British taxpayer to have to pay unaided for the defence of the Cape? Had the Cape Government been asked whether they could bear any portion of this expenditure, and was there anything to show that they had been consuited and approved of this expenditure?

said that he had been to Wynberg, and that the situation was a very fine one. It was one of the most beautiful suburbs of Cape Town, and certainly the officers and men quartered there would have no cause to complain from a social point of view. The question of tenure was important because the colony, it must be remembered, was not, exclusively a British colony. There were certain circumstances that made it very important that the question of tenure should be gone into very carefully indeed. With, reference to the defence works, on which, a sum of £1,120,000 was to be spent, he wished to know where the money was to go. In connection with the Naval Works Bill they had had a full statement as to the places where the money was to be spent, and as to the, particular objects in view. Why was not similar information given on this occasion? At all events more general information ought to be supplied.

said that the proposed distribution of the money was very bad indeed. For example, a sum of £600,000 was set aside for expenditure in Ireland on a class of work which many people disapproved of entirely. What the Irish people wanted was a reduction of taxation, and the attempt to compensate them for their over-taxation by extravagant naval or military expenditure in Ireland would not answer. It would have been far better to use the money in making some sort of provision for our troops on Salisbury Plain. The Bill provided for nothing except the purchase of the land. There was no provision for the erection of any buildings on this waste place near Stonehenge. The first item in the class of defence works was £97,000 for the fortification of London. On this subject a great deal of discussion had taken place in the public Press, but in that House it had been treated as a great mystery. He believed that, as a matter of fact, anyone was at liberty to walk round the existing defences, which were in most absurd places on the hills round London.

This question was raised and thoroughly discussed on the first clause, and the hon. Member is not entitled to repeat the whole of his arguments, or to raise the question again.

said that there was an item of £260,000 proposed to be expended in St. Lucia. With regard to this they had not heard a word from the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Some justification ought to be given for this extraordinary item. It was for defraying the cost of transferring, the military headquarters from Barbadoes to St. Lucia. That, as far as they knew, Barbadoes was the best place for the headquarters. There were 200,000 people in the island, while in St. Lucia there were only 45,000. With Barbadoes there was considerable trade, but there was hardly any with St. Lucia, which, he understood, was a most unhealthy place. There were only about 700 or 800 soldiers in Barbadoes, and he did not understand why it should be necessary to spend £260,000 in housing that handful of men in St. Lucia. In Mauritius it was proposed to spend £169,000 on barracks and other works, and here again no justification had been given for the expenditure. Why were these large sums of money to be spent in remote parts? He did not believe in the plan of scattering the Army all over the world. It would be much more satisfactory to provide good military accommodation in the capital of the Empire.