Mr. Speaker, in rising to oppose this Measure, I feel I must ask for the indulgence and patience of the House, which I think will be readily granted to one representing the constituency affected. But I do not look on this as a local matter; this Bill involves interests and considerations very close to this House itself, and which might easily claim a more able and experienced defender. And, Sir, I am conscious that we who are opposed to this Bill are under a special disadvantage. This Bill has gained some, perhaps many, friends in the House by means of a system of private and personal advancement and exhortation, which we have not had at our hand to anything like the same extent, partly because we did not see fit to employ it, and partly because we have not the motive power possessed by the promoters of the Bill. We are not financially interested in its defeat as they are financially interested in its success. And I would ask the House to bear in mind, from first to last, that whatever its aspects of "public improvement," as it is called, whatever facilities it may appear to afford for carrying out a long-delayed and much-wanted public improvement, whatever names have been attracted to its support by those considerations, the genesis and ultimate object of this Bill is a financial speculation, and that once we pass the Bill, the authority to which the promoters of the scheme will be responsible for the conduct of the enterprise is not the public, whose interests they assume to serve; not the local governing authorities, whose functions they are usurping; not this House, whose compulsory powers they will have obtained, but a body of shareholders, who, like all people in that capacity, will be clamouring for dividends by whatever means they can be obtained. I beg the House to bear this cardinal fact in mind, and to weigh all the arguments adduced in favour of the Bill by the light of it. Sir, the Bill proposes to deal with a site which, from an architectural and historic point of view, is the most valuable and interesting that remains to be dealt with in London; a site which affords the only opportunity to meet the future national requirements for public offices; a site peculiarly precious to this House, because it abuts on and partly surrounds it, and because it stands in the same relation to the most venerable monument in England—the great Abbey over the way. I will endeavour to show how a Bill conceived in a commercial spirit and having a commercial purpose in view, promoted in this House by gentlemen who have financial reasons for its passing, does not come to us on a basis calculated to preserve, and cannot be trusted to preserve, those great public and national interests which are involved in the site, and which this House is bound to safeguard. Sir, I do not want to push this argument one inch further than is justified by the facts of the present case. I wish to illustrate it by those facts. I am far from wishing to impede private enterprise in improving and beautifying London, or in any other branch of commercial activity. It will, perhaps, be said in the course of the Debate that the Cadogan estate owes its improvement to a syndicate or company such as this. I shall have two other instances to give, which have happened here in Westminster, of exactly similar private enterprises endowed with compulsory powers by this House, which ended, the one in a hopeless failure and the other in a historic disaster. They are far closer to the present case than the example of the Cadogan estate. For, Sir, in that case a large portion of the estate was unoccupied ground—Prince's cricket ground; and comparatively few people had to be turned out. Moreover—and I quote the Cadogan case for the purpose of making this point—the public improvements necessary in that case were exactly the improvements which suited the views and interests of the promoters—namely, fairly wide and well-arranged streets to add to the value of their houses. There was no great public improvement required, apart from the private interest of the syndicate, as is the case when we come and look at this great river site, adjacent to the House of Commons, needing an Embankment, and needing one wide and convenient thoroughfare, all constructed on a plan having the public interest and solely the public interest in view. Now, my point is: that in this case, where the public interest comes into conflict with the private interest of the syndicate, the public interest goes to the wall, and that, therefore, it is wrong for this House to commit a site involving great public and national interests to a private or financial syndicate. That is a question of principle which I think this House ought to decide, and not leave to a Committee. I do not think the House has hitherto looked on such propositions with favour. It was a curious coincidence that on the day on which this Bill was first set down, and immediately after its postponement, another private Bill came up for Second Reading, which involved exactly the same principles as those in this Bill. It was called the Wymondham Waterworks Bill. A private syndicate asked the House for compulsory powers to enable them to supply the population of a small town in Norfolk with pure water; a laudable enterprise one would, at first sight, have thought. But this was a function appertaining to the local authority—one which, apparently, they had not yet performed. It was shown in the Debate, which I listened to with great interest, that the local authorities were against the Bill, and the inhabitants were against it. Speaker after speaker got up and objected to the Bill on this account. It was characterised as—

"An attempt by a body of outside speculators to capture an area against the wishes and remonstrances of all the local authorities of the district."

It was said that—

"For four gentlemen to come and ask for power over the heads of the local authority and of the population was a proposition to be scouted by this House."

In fact, on questions of principle, the Debate might have stood for a Debate on this Bill; the principles were identical. And, Sir, when once they were made clear the House did not hesitate as to what line it ought to take. The Bill, in spite of the strong support of a high authority, was actually rejected without a Division. Now, Sir, what are the so-called public benefits which this scheme proposes to confer, and how does it propose to carry them out? Sir, the public benefits possible to the scheme practically consist of two things only, and these are inseparable the one from the other—the making of the Embankment and the making of a main thoroughfare, i.e., the continuation of the noble river-road which now stretches from Blackfriars Bridge to one end of this House, and which begins at a point beyond Lambeth Bridge, and is continued in a somewhat less spacious form, but still as a fairly adequate river-road for that part of the town, the whole way along the river to Battersea Bridge. This leaves a section still uncompleted which extends from the Victoria Tower Gardens past Lambeth Bridge down to the point I have just mentioned. The completion of that section of the Embankment in a manner worthy of the site has long been the ambition and hope of all London. But the promoters say: "This is what we are going to do." Are they? Why, Sir, this scheme sacrifices such a hope for ever. It does not even need a plan to explain this, but a suggested plan is in the hands of honourable Members. The great road which faces the House of Commons and the House of Lords and which itself, when Parliament Street is widened, will be a continuation of Whitehall, ought, of course, to be carried straight to Lambeth Bridge to form a junction with the rest of the Embankment beyond Lambeth Bridge. Such a road, between this House and Lambeth Bridge, ought to be left open on its river side, and the space between it and the river left as an open space for the continuation of the Victoria Tower Garden gradually narrowing down to the Bridge. Then that great avenue and the masses of people who will use it as a thoroughfare, and the public and the poor to whom those gardens will be an unending source of delight and fresh air, will have a clear view of the river and the picturesque Lambeth side; then, too, the multitudinous passenger traffic that comes down the river and by the Embankment from the south will have a clear and uninterrupted view of the Victoria Tower, and of this fine Palace of Westminster, not crowded up on one side by a block of houses of a paying height, and dominated and shut in by a new Chicago, but standing out alone on the river in its singular architectural beauty and its majestic popular significance. Well, Sir, I don't want to use big words, but I ask for what purpose were millions spent on this structure when we are going to throw away the only chance of rendering that expenditure effective as to its surroundings? I do claim that a dignified and beautiful treatment of those surroundings will find a responsive echo in the minds of all Englishmen who look on it, and who are conscious of a common pride and sense of property in the palace and home of that form of government in which the humblest of them has some share and authority. Sir, this is the only plan worthy of the dignity and beauty of the site; and it is the plan for which the site affords the most obvious and natural facilities so long as it is treated in a public and not a money-making spirit. What does the scheme offer us in place of this? They are going to put a great block of buildings right up against the Victoria Gardens between their main road and the river. They say they are going to do the Embankment. Of course they must embank the river to build their houses; but what they call an Embankment is or was a little narrow road, which they now say they are going to make a little wider, approached by a still narrower street at right angles to their main avenue and leading out of it down to the river. As is shown on their plan the use of this Embankment road of theirs as a thoroughfare by the general traffic that now uses the Embankment necessitates, in passing from the south side of Lambeth Bridge to the front of this House, the turning of four right angles. What becomes of their main road it is almost ludicrous to consider. In order to make this great river block of buildings as deep and valuable as possible the Avenue is pushed back from the river and made to debouch into the narrow Horseferry Road, which runs at right angles to it at a point 70 yards distant from Lambeth Bridge, where Horseferry Road is mot 40 feet wide, and where it will form a dead end to this precious avenue. The traffic using that line as a thoroughfare will have to turn two right angles in a short length, and for 70 yards will be hopelessly congested in a narrow street only 40 feet wide. There are a hundred other faults in the scheme; but I want to fix the attention of the House on this great one—this great block of buildings which will dominate and shut in the small Victoria Tower Garden, which will impose itself for a great length over the river, and which will smile with lofty condescension upon the Palace of Westminster itself. The promoters have propounded a modified plan. To conciliate one set of objections they say they are not going to touch the little 18th century quarter that lies up against the Abbey; to conciliate another, they say they are going to leave the side of Abingdon Street which faces the House of Lords alone; and to conciliate, I had almost said to hoodwink, a third, they have set their river block a few feet further back, to add to the width of their Embankment road. But this great river block of buildings remains. In a recent paper of a somewhat extraordinary kind the promoters say that "nothing has been decided with regard to this river block." Do they mean us to infer that they are willing to give it up? No, Sir, from the first it has been a glaring objection to the scheme. They have modified their plans in this direction, and that; but this still remains. Why? Because, no matter how incompatible with the public interest, it is necessary to the commercial character of the scheme. I claim, Sir, that I have made good my first principle, that it is not right for this House to set up this conflict between the interest of the public and the private interest of the shareholders, or to grant to a private syndicate compulsory powers which are bound to be exercised to the prejudice of the public good. Sir, out of this there arises a second principle, which, so far as it applies in this case to the London County Council, will no doubt be more zealously guarded by some other Members of the House than by me. I may not be over fond of the London County Council, but I do recognise that by Act of Parliament the House of Commons has expressly committed to the hands of a public authority the functions of executing public works, which the promoters of this Bill ask the House to place in their hands. It is no valid answer to say that in a particular case those functions have been postponed or delayed, and therefore they should be committed to other hands. The principle of who is to do these things has been settled, and it was so settled because those public functions could only be safe in the hands of a representative body, directly responsible to the electors, and would not be safe in the hands of private promoters who, once they have obtained their powers, are responsible only to their shareholders. Sir, in my opinion, the treatment of this great national site, so far as the immediate vicinity of this House is concerned, ought to be a national affair. But, if a narrower view be held, it is worth while to remind the House that the next authority, the London County Council, is strongly opposed to this scheme, and that the next below that, the only local representative authority of the district affected, the Westminster Vestry, is strongly opposed to it. And, Sir, the Westminster Vestry are the most enlightened body of men to be found anywhere. Sir, my third point involves a principle on which I think this House is never appealed to in vain. I protest, Sir, against the great act of injustice which this House is asked to commit against a population numbering 6,000 souls, by turning them out of their homes, and sending them to live somewhere, anywhere but where they have always lived; by destroying the only means of livelihood possessed by a great number of them; by casting them out on the world, not only to find new homes, but to start new industries, amongst new people, and to begin anew life's work under disadvantages which they have done nothing to merit at the hands of this House. This hinterland—where all these people dwell—has nothing whatever to do with the public benefits involved in the scheme, the Embankment and the main thoroughfare. For what purpose is this House asked to inflict this great wrong on a populous community? In order to transform a poor district into a rich one—for the sake of putting money into the pockets of a number of shareholders, not one of whom should be of any more importance in the eye of the House than the humblest of these 6,000 people you are going to drive out. Why should this House charge itself with such a duty? Since when was it considered a public benefit to change the character of a district from a poor quarter into a rich one? Which party in this House is it that desires to employ the compulsory powers of this House for such a purpose? I would ask the House not to be deluded by what are called "protective clauses for the re-housing of the working classes." We have seen those clauses over and over again, and we know how they work, and we know the facility with which they can be evaded. At best they can only supply accommodation for a particular section of the poor, generally at high rentals in great caravanserais called "model lodging-houses"; and when you have stowed these people away in a big barrack you think you have done everything. Do you deny the place of sentiment amongst those classes? Are there not many amongst them who hate that sort of housing just as much as people in other classes hate living in a great building of flats, many who feel that it destroys that sense of the integrity of home life which, however poor and humble the house may be, is a peculiar instinct of many of the English working classes? And what of all the little trades and industries which cannot be carried on in a model lodging-house, and which will be destroyed and cannot be started again? What of all the people who do not come within the narrow and rigid definition of "working classes" contained in the re-housing clauses of this Bill? I trust that some other speaker will deal at length with this subject. I would only submit that it is an act of wanton injustice to turn all these people out of their homes for the sake of making a rich quarter. Let me show this House by a small but significant instance how this intention is kept in view by the plans. There is a street running through a poor part of Westminster called Great Peter Street, which it is proposed to continue through this site in a broader form. On the deposited plan, at the point of junction between the old and new portions of this street, there is a bend made which throws the continuation out of the true line. For what purpose? Why, simply in order to shut out from the view of the wealthy inhabitants of the new street the poor, perhaps the squalid, characteristics of the old one. I do not see this bend on the small reproductions of the plan that have been circulated by the promoters; but it is there all the same, and it is significant of the spirit in which the scheme has been conceived and the future policy that will be adopted by its directors. I do not blame them. They have got to make dividends. But I do ask this House whether this is a spirit and a policy for which the compulsory powers of this House should be granted, and whether those powers ought to be given to commit a great act of expropriation and injustice for the benefit of a private syndicate? Now, Sir, as to the financial question. It is proposed that the capital of the company should be £1,000,000, with borrowing powers up to another £500,000. Sir, it does not need an expert opinion to tell us that such a sum is altogether inadequate for the purpose, and that it would require at least three times that sum to place the scheme on a sound financial footing, if, as no doubt the House assumes, the promoters intend to carry out this scheme themselves. I would remark that the Vestry of Westminster alone, in their capacity as guardians of the public interests of the district, will require a sum of from £50,000 to £70,000 as security for the disturbance of rates during construction, and a further sum of £110,000 as security for roads, sewers, and footways. But are we to see a million and a half, are we to see even a million, before we give over the powers? No, Sir. By Clause 19 of the Bill the syndicate are empowered to put their compulsory powers in force when they have got £250,000 of capital, and that £250,000 not paid up but only subscribed. So, without any paid-up capital at all, they can gain their compulsory powers over the whole of this site, and they will be in a position to go full swing ahead with the system of land-jobbing and site-jobbing by which alone this promotion can thrive. Sir, if this is not sufficient warning, Westminster itself supplies another, peculiarly significant and appropriate to these proposals. Does the House know anything about the history of the building of Victoria Street? At least it will be within the recollection of many of those whom I am addressing that for a very great number of years that thoroughfare with its valuable property on either side remained in a hopeless state of incompletion. For the most part it was a thoroughfare of vacant sites and hideous stretches of hoarding. Year after year these remained to the amazement of the public, to the disgrace of the district, and to the despair of the local authorities. And how did that come about? By placing that site in exactly the same position and under the same conditions as we are now asked to assign to this more important property. As far back as the year 1845 a private syndicate, composed, I venture to say, of men quite as responsible, to all appearances, as the promoters of this Bill, and calling themselves by the not altogether dissimilar title of the Westminster Improvement Commissioners, obtained from this House an Act of Parliament to construct that street, which gave them compulsory powers over the property. Sir, I can't think of wearying the House with the tortuous history of that miserable undertaking—how again and again they came to this House for new powers and successive extensions of time; how they got hold of what they called "improved rates," which did not exist, and borrowed a great sum of money on the prospects and saddled the Vestry with a heavy debt; how, when they had got a million, the capital of this company, they had to go back to their shareholders and bondholders over and over again for more capital, without getting it; how they sold and leased and mortgaged their property in big bits and little bits to hundreds of different speculators; and how, discredited and incompetent, with their £500 bonds going a-begging in the market at £5, they fell into bankruptcy and so disappeared. But they left a bitter legacy behind them for Westminster, in this alienation of the property which was left untenanted and un-built on, and could not be recovered; so that for 50 years Victoria Street remained an eyesore and a disgrace to London. And this was a direct consequence of committing this site into the hands of a private syndicate. Could the imagination conceive a more apt and ominous precedent for what we are asked to do to-day? The obstruction and disfigurement of this part of London for over 50 years was not the only result of putting that property into the hands of a syndicate. Look at Victoria Street now. It ought to be one of the finest streets in London. But because the site was given over to just such a syndicate as this Victoria Street is now, in spite of its width, a gloomy and apparently narrow lane enclosed within two sides of vast residential flats which I daresay, are profitable to the owners, but which are prison walls to the thoroughfare. And this is exactly what will be repeated on this far more important site we are asked to hand over now. Then the second case is that of the Parliament Street Improvement Scheme. In 1887 that property was placed in the hands of a private syndicate similar to this. They came to Parliament four times for successive extensions of time. They could do nothing with it. The whole scheme was an abject failure, and at last, in 1895, the Government wisely took the property into their own hands. I should like to ask the promoters of this Bill whether there is any connection between the personnel of this scheme and the personnel of that failure. Sir, it may be urged that both the plans and the financial provisions are matters for a Committee upstairs; but I submit that there are principles and matters in this Bill which this House ought to decide, and not leave to a Committee; there are principles at stake which this House ought not to shirk; and there are results which are inevitable and which no Committee can permanently avoid. There is the principle of the fundamental and inevitable conflict between the interest of the public and the interest of the shareholders; the principle of depriving public representative bodies of the functions this House has conferred on them; the principle involved in the great act of injustice to the poor population. There is the spirit and policy of the undertaking made clear in the financial provisions, and the absence of all security for the undertaking being carried out, and of all safeguards against the property being alienated to persons who cannot be reached or controlled. And, lastly, there is the impolicy of handing over to a private and self-interested syndicate a property of public and national importance, and a site which forms the very threshold to this home of the Imperial Government. All these points this House, I submit, and not a Committee, ought to decide, and upon them I ask the House to reject the Bill.

I beg to second the rejection of this Bill, and I need not occupy the House very long, inasmuch as my real objection is that principle which has been stated by the hon. Member for Westminster, namely, that powers such as these should not be committed to any private Company whatsoever. It appears to me that there are permanently constituted public bodies which have already shown their desire to carry out such improvements as these, and I venture to say there is not a single instance of similar powers having been granted to any private body before by this House. The hon. Member for Westminster has mentioned the Cadogan and Hans Pavement Improvement, but he has shown that that was a different scheme to this. There was a very remarkable difference. The person who was the promoter was the owner of the whole estate, and it was a blot upon London that roads could not be carried through that estate, and therefore he came to this House to ask that he might be empowered to make these roads, and there were clauses in that Bill dealing with other property which was necessary to be dealt with for the purpose of making these roads. There were also clauses in that Bill protecting almost everybody who objected to the scheme, and there were clauses giving protection, not to the freeholders only, but to the ordinary occupiers. The hon. Member has mentioned the Parliament Street scheme, which failed. He also mentioned the Victoria Street scheme, which has certainly not carried out the views of Parliament. Further, there is the Searle Street Improvement scheme, and there is another scheme which will probably be mentioned. That was the case of a company which had previously acquired three-fourths of the land which was proposed to be dealt with, and it was hold desirable to come to the House in order that they might obtain the remaining quarter. That, the House will see, has no kind of connection with the present scheme. Then I am told, but I shall not be able to verify it, that there was one other scheme sanctioned by this House, namely, the Whitehall scheme, of which Whitehall Mansions are completed. I do not know very much about that, but it is, I believe, very closely associated with a gentleman, a former Member of this House, who was known hero as Mr. Spencer Balfour, but was known later on as Mr. Jabez Balfour; but I do not know that that particular scheme will afford an instance which will be very much of an inducement to this House to adopt the one we are now discussing. Personally, I am very much in favour of private enterprise, but I understand private enterprise to be doing a thing yourself, and that is being done at the present moment in many parts of the Kingdom. In London itself there is at the present moment a company which is effecting a very large improvement in the neighbourhood of Victoria Street. But how are they doing it? They have not come to Parliament to ask for power to pay out people. They are paying them out themselves, and then, having paid them out, they will execute their improvement. Then, again, there is the Arcade which is being built in Birmingham. In that case they have made arrangements with all the owners of the various lands which they wish to take over, and the scheme is going forward, and the Chairman tells me it will be a very profitable investment. If this syndicate think they can make a profit by buying this land, let them buy it by all means; but they have no right to come to this House and ask it to give them compulsory powers to buy these lands, when, as the honourable Member for Westminster has shown, at least on three-quarters of the land which they seek compulsory powers to purchase they do not even pretend to make any improvement whatsoever. On the frontage they pretend to make an improvement, but I think the honourable Member has shown that no improvement will be made there; but, so far as the back land is concerned, there is not the slightest pretence of doing anything which will be of the least use to the general public. Now, Sir, the promoters of this Bill held an interview some time ago with the Chairman of Ways and Means; and to that interview the secretary to the Chairman of Ways and Means invited me as a known opponent of this scheme, so that everything which passed at that interview is perfectly public. During that interview the promoters admitted frankly that this great block of buildings between the main road—the road which they call The Avenue—and the river, was an absolutely essential part of their scheme; and, therefore, I say that these criticisms of the honourable Member for Westminster are not criticisms as to detail, but they are criticisms which go to the merits of the Bill. The promoters of the Bill at that interview went on to say that, as regards the back land behind this avenue, they had no particular views at all. They were willing to do almost anything that the Committee might think fit; but I venture to say that that is not the spirit in which to come to this House for a Bill. People who come to this House for compulsory powers ought to show that they have some means of improving the public thoroughfares or other public conveniences of the district, and they ought not to come and ask this House to supply a scheme for them. The real gist of the scheme is to acquire that great block of buildings between a main inland thoroughfare and the small Embankment road. That is really the essence of the Bill, and at the Same time the promoters propose to acquire what we call the "Hinterland"—that is, the back land. It has been said that a large part of the land which they propose to take consists of slums. Now, I venture to say that anyone who calls this back land "slums," has a very slight knowledge of what are really slums, because they would be confusing the idea of slums with the idea of small tenements or small houses. I have some knowledge of what slums really are, and I can assure the House that slums, in almost every case, exist in large dwellings. It is the large dwellings, more or less out of repair, which turn gradually into slums, and usually a slum is a cul de sac—a place of no thoroughfare. In the whole of this district—and I think I know every passage in it—there is no such thing as a place where there is no thoroughfare. The whole district is open to the public traffic. The part that has been abandoned by the promoters is inhabited to a large extent by persons of the working class or small shopkeepers. This part does not consist of slums. If you want slums you have to go a little further off. This Bill seems purposely to avoid the very worst part of that district. There are parts of the district, and I admit it frankly, which might be called slums, but they are not within the scope of this Bill. The honourable Member for Westminster has mentioned that the working classes dislike these very large buildings. Now, I live in the midst of a working-class district, and I am quite prepared to support that view. I know perfectly well that the working classes do very much dislike these large buildings, and I say that it is not the duty of this House to hasten the time when the working classes are driven from their small houses into this larger class of house which they dislike. It may be, of course, an absolute necessity that in process of time they will be driven from the small houses into the large ones. I know a great deal of this district. I have no species of pecuniary interest of any sort, kind, or description in the passing or non-passing of this Bill, but I have been approached by a vast number of small shopkeepers in this district. It must be remembered that, in addition to the working classes, there are shopkeepers who have built up a business in the neighbourhood, and no compensation that could be given to them under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act will compensate them for being turned out of this district, where it is not proposed to make any alteration whatsoever for the convenience of the public. There is one matter connected with this Bill which I should not have referred to but for the fact of the Whip which has been send out. As the House knows, there are four gentlemen, Members of this House, who are named as members of the Company. They are the very gentlemen who are asking to be incorporated as persons entitled to buy up this property, and two of these gentlemen will, if the Bill passes, be entitled to be directors of the Company when it is formed. Therefore it is clear that those four gentlemen have a direct interest in the passing of this Bill. One of the gentlemen, who has already indicated his intention of not voting upon the Bill, has not signed it, but inasmuch as the Whip has been signed by three of them. I think it only right to say that I hope they will not vote when the Division is taken on this Bill; and, of course, they would not think of acting as Tellers. There is also one other gentleman, a Member of this House, who is a member of this syndicate, and I have no doubt that he will not think of voting in favour of this Bill. I urge that such powers as those ought not to be granted to any private company, but ought to be left to some public body, and I therefore call upon the House to reject this Bill.

The honourable Member for Westminster, who moved the rejection of this Bill, commenced his speech by characterising the improvement which this Bill seeks to make as much-needed. I think that no one acquainted with the district can doubt that that is the fact. He spoke in very eloquent terms of the neighbourhood, and then he proceeded for a considerable time to pour great scorn upon those who are supporting this Bill, without giving the slightest reason for so doing. He has specified them as speculators—as land-jobbers—

I did not use the word "speculator" with regard to the promoters of this Bill or anybody connected with it. I carefully avoided doing so. I quoted a speech made in this House with regard to another Bill—that is all—and I did not use the word "land-jobbers." What I said was "land-jobbing."

That seems rather a fine distinction. The honourable Member who has just sat down was good enough to compare the promoters of this Bill to Jabez Balfour.

I must protest against that. I said I knew nothing about the Whitehall Bill. As a master of fact, that was the work of Jabez Balfour, as everybody knows, but I never made the slightest comparison.

I am very glad to hear these admissions, but I must confess I am at a loss to understand what relevancy the observation of the honourable Member had. The honourable Member for Westminster dwelt for some time upon the case of a water company in Norfolk. What that has got to do with this particular Bill I fail to see. He spoke in very eloquent terms, with which I most cordially agree, as to the importance of the site, close as it is to this House and to that great Abbey to which we all look with so much veneration. I do not yield either to him or to the honourable Member who seconded him in that respect, but it was on that very account that I supported this Measure, because I believed that it would promote the improvement of London. These buildings, which are so near the House and the Abbey, are absolutely unworthy of the grand situation they occupy. The honourable Member who has moved the rejection of this Bill and the honourable Member who has seconded it have said very little indeed with reference to the improvement itself. They have admitted that the improvement is necessary—they have made some few trifling and minor criticisms, such as that one street is to take a turn, and the honourable Member for Westminster seemed to know why the promoters proposed that that turn should be taken. But the fundamental ground of their objections to this Bill is clearly stated—that in their opinion no improvement of this kind should be undertaken by private enterprise; surely, however, it is most desirable that, under whatever auspices a Bill of this kind may be proposed, a Committee upstairs should carefully investigate all the circumstances and the facts. The First Commissioner of Works when he comes to speak will confirm me in saying that the promoters of this Bill have been most anxious to adopt all the suggestions which have been made on behalf of the Government, and will, if the House pleases to send the Bill upstairs, carefully adopt anything in reason which is suggested by the Committee, and which will be of an improving character. Their desire is to make the buildings in this district worthy of their surroundings, and they will accept any suggestions which have that object in view. Her Majesty's Government have made suggestions, all of which have been adopted by the promoters of this Bill, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have also made certain suggestions which have been willingly accepted by the promoters. We have heard a good deal of talk about the Jewel Tower. There never was any intention of interfering with the Jewel Tower, and if this Bill is passed it will become more visible than it is at the present moment. Then, Sir, we are told that this Bill will dispossess a certain number of the working classes. A great part of the district itself was built long ago, when the conditions and requirements as to light and air were very different to what they are at the present time. Putting aside the question of the architectural condition of the neighbourhood, the condition of the houses of the working classes is in a most unsatisfactory state. The honourable Member who has just sat down has given a somewhat peculiar description of the word "slum." If honourable Members would pay a visit to these close alleys and see the actual condition in which they are, they would be more in favour of this Bill—more influenced on its behalf than by any speeches made by those who are asking for it. The conditions as to light and air are most unsatisfactory. There are a great many houses which have no open space at the back, and there are cases in which the conveniences are common to several houses and sometimes to a whole court, and if we should unfortunately have an outbreak of infectious disease, I tremble to think of what would happen in that part of the district. Fully one-half of the houses in this district which are occupied by the working classes are of a character which the law would not now allow to be put up. Surely that is a very serious state of things, and one which this House will, if it rejects the Second Reading, indefinitely prolong. Then we are told that the matter ought to be left to the local authorities. We have had the views of the Westminster Vestry. I will not question the very laudatory account given of them by the honourable Member who moved the rejection of this Bill. They have drawn up a long document which they have sent to Members of Parliament, and I think those who have read it will agree that they have not succeeded in stating their views so clearly as they might have done.

"The Vestry strongly opposes the Bill as an act of injustice to six thousand inhabitants of Westminster, whom it is proposed to turn out of their homes."

That would be an objection to any scheme of this kind. Then they go and say—

"The Vestry are by no means averse to the carrying out of improvements in the public interest, as is recently endorsed by the fact that they have expended £23,000 upon such works, and are committed to an outlay of £33,000 on similar operations during the current financial year. Moreover, they have on numerous occasions urged the County Council to carry out such improvements, both in connection with the opening up of the Millbank Prison site, and elsewhere, and the Vestry have welcomed the recent resolution of the Council, which contemplates the embanking of the river at Millbank, by that body."

Therefore they admit that this matter must be dealt with very shortly, and I need hardly point out that the longer this improvement is put off the more expensive it will necessarily be. Having admitted that some improvement of this kind is really necessary, the Vestry of Westminster goes on to say that the working classes are going to be dispossessed, and that sufficient provision is not being made for their accommodation. As I understand, five acres of land in the same parish have been secured for the purpose of re-housing the working classes, but in any case I submit that that is a question which might fairly be left to the Committee upstairs, and if that is done I have no doubt that that Committee will say that proper provision has been made in this respect. It is said by the opponents of this scheme that it is too large a measure to be dealt with by private enterprise. Well, really, when we have before us what has been done by Peabody, Guinness, Waterlow, and Lord Rowton, it does seem to me to be somewhat absurd to say that this matter is too large to be carried out by private enterprise. I do not think I should be acting in accordance with the wishes of the House if I were to follow the honourable Member for Westminster into the details which he has given to the financial side of the question. I believe it can be shown that ample provision will be made. When I put my name on the back of this Bill I made no inquiries about the financial conditions, because I supported it on the grounds that it was a great public improvement. As the financial question, however, has been raised, I have made inquiries, and am satisfied myself that, there are no sufficient grounds for that, allegation. Coming to the question of the London County Council, we have been told that the past and the present County Council are unanimously opposed to these buildings. That is not an accurate description of what actually took place. There was no division upon the Bill, and it is impossible to say whether the London County Council are prepared to carry out the improvement themselves. As far as the late County Council is concerned, the Improvement Committee proposed no plan. The Parliamentary Committee, however, issued a Report, a copy of which I hold in my hand. The Committee did not condemn the scheme on its merits at all. They did not say that it would not be an improvement. What they did say was—

"The essentially important question for the consideration of the Council is whether or not it is desirable that the large powers which are sought and the execution of such considerable works should be entrusted to a private Company. This Bill would, of course, only be promoted in the expectation of its proving remunerative to the promoters. We do not think that a scheme of this kind, involving large works of a public character, and large compulsory purchase of property, should be promoted as a private undertaking, and we are of opinion that steps should be taken to obtain the rejection of the Bill on Second Reading."

That, Sir, was the ground upon which they thought the Bill should be passed, and it was most important that the London County Council should be heard before a Committee upstairs, and unless the Council petitioned against the Bill they would have no opportunity of doing so. What has happened in the present County Council? The Improvement Committee brought up a recommendation which said—

"That it is desirable that the Embankment, from the Victoria Tower Gardens to Lambeth Bridge, should be undertaken by the Council."

That is the first expression of their opinion upon the subject, and I do not think that there can be any question about it; but that part of the recommendation was not adopted, and what the Council did adopt was simply a recommendation that the Improvement Committee should draw up a plan. The Council is in no way committed. I am correct in saying that although this improvement is admitted to be necessary, it is only now that either the Council or the Westminster Vestry have taken any steps in this direction. Private persons have come forward; they propose, at their own risk, to make this improvement, and then the Westminster Vestry and the London County Council, who have never done anything with regard to the matter before, intervene. Even, now the London County Council is not committed to take the matter up, and unless the House allows this Bill to go upstairs, as far as I can see, we may wait for years before anything is done, and when, it is done it will be done at a far larger expense than it will be now. I hope the House will not be induced to throw out this Bill on a mere ex parte statement. The House is justly proud of its Committees, which examine all questions submitted to them with the greatest possible care and judgment. The promoters are ready and willing, nay, they are anxious to meet with any suggestions which would make these suggested improvements worthy of the site with which it is proposed to deal. If the House accepts the Amendment of the honourable Member for Westminster, then nothing will be done for some time. For the present, at any rate, this district will be left in its miserable, wretched, and unhealthy condition. On the other hand, if the House sends the Bill before a Committee, that Committee will, doubtless, inquire into the whole of the circumstances, with every desire to make the improvement one which is really worthy of London; and if that course is adopted the House will have done something to improve this district and to render it more worthy of the magnificent site which it occupies. I began my speech by saying that I yield neither to the honourable Member for Westminster, nor to the honourable Member who seconded him, in my admiration of these Houses of Parliament and of the grand old Abbey opposite, and it is on that very account that I support this Bill, which I believe would tend in the direction of bringing the neighbourhood into greater harmony with the magnificent buildings of which at present it is so unworthy.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London has not said very much in favour of the Bill which is brought forward. His plea is that it ought to be sent for the consideration of a Committee upstairs. Well, I think that is a really sound plea for an improvement scheme brought forward by a representative authority which is entrusted generally with the improvements of a town; but I must say that I do not think that that plea can be brought forward equally in favour of a Bill promoted by a private company for private profit. The House, as a general rule, gives the benefit of the doubt, but to assume that benefit of the doubt the House must know that the Bill is promoted on behalf of the benefit of the inhabitants who have to pay for it, and it is right that this House should endeavour very jealously to inquire into the circumstances of a Bill of this character before it is allowed to go upstairs. There are two points of view in which to regard this matter, and on which I shall speak very briefly. The first is from the point of view of one who has had considerable experience in Private Bill legislation in this House, and the second is from the point of view of representing in this House the London County Council in this matter, which, of course, is the authority which ought to undertake and might well undertake this business. Now, Sir, in the first place, I think that we ought to assume from the point of view of Private Bill legislation that it would be an unsound principle to contend or to admit that such a Bill as this ought to go upstairs without consider- able examination by this House, and the question that one naturally puts to the promoters is: What are you going to give to the public by your Bill—what do you propose to do? Now I have listened very carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London had to say as to what were the improvements that this Bill effected, because the principal reason—the main reason—for which I opposed this Bill, as a Member of this House, is that it does not effect the improvement which ought to be effected. There are two great improvements required: the first is a broad, straight street from here and continuing to The Avenue, and the second is the opening up to the public generally of that bank of the river so that there might be an open space for the public. But these two great improvements are not effected by this Bill. On the contrary, both are indefinitely postponed if this Bill be passed into law, because you are going to make a broad street, or a fairly broad street, further away from the river than the present Millbank Street, and you are going to bring it up to the Horseferry Road, and there you have to turn a right angle to bring it to the present Embankment. That is to be a permanency, and if you are going to fill up by permanent buildings the space between that road and the river you will be unable ever to continue that road on. And the only way of continuing it on in a straight line would be to acquire two of the most expensive properties in London. In point of fact I do not see how this Bill carries out in any way a public improvement which we would desire to see carried out. That is the first matter. Then we come to a further question. This Bill asks power for recoupment and for the removal of a number of the population, requests which have, I will venture to say, never been granted to any local authority under similar circumstances before. I will show what I mean. The area which is proposed to be dealt with by this Bill, and which is to be compulsorily purchased by this syndicate, goes far beyond the area which is affected or touched by the improvement. It is no answer to say that it is an improvement, nor is it necessarily improved by the improvement, and I say, therefore, that you are being asked to give to this private body powers of a character which you would not give, and have not yet given, to any public body connected with London, nor, so far as I know, to any other public body anywhere else. Under these circumstances, with the experience that we have had in London—the unfortunate experience, the failure, the loss to the public, the loss to the roads, the loss to individuals concerned, in all cases where there have been public improvements undertaken by private individuals, is there anything—any advantage to the public—in this Bill, which would tempt us to have anything to do with it? I say none whatever. Now, as to the position of the London County Council, because the right honourable Gentleman has referred to that. The last London County Council most undoubtedly did declare their opposition to the principle of this Bill. Here are their words on the 17th of February last—

"We do not think that a scheme of this kind, involving large works of a public character, and large compulsory purchase of property, should be promoted as a private undertaking."

That is quite true, as the right honourable Gentleman said. But it does not mean to say that we should pledge ourselves to carry out this undertaking. We refused to pledge ourselves to carry out this undertaking, and I think the right honourable Gentleman can very well approve of that position. We have in London a very large number of undertakings to consider. This one I think will have, and ought to have, its due consideration, but there are a great many things which might stand before it, and there are questions upon which we might differ as to any particular scheme. For instance, let me put this to the House. If you were to carry out the widening of Millbank Street by a street put along there just now, and if that is too large an undertaking to carry out at present, then I say better that that be done as a step towards the end than carry out this scheme, and prevent anything else being done for many a long year. Now there is another point to which I wish to direct the attention of the House. It is said that this scheme will effect an improvement by clearing away an insanitary property. If this property is insanitary, it is the duty of the London County Council or of the vestry, or both together, to take action. If the local bodies are neglecting their duty let this House say so, and then that will be an argument for passing this Bill on its Second Reading, and sending it upstairs to a Committee. But there can be no such argument. There is no shadow of it, no such statement has been advanced, nor can be advanced, by which it can be said that the public bodies are neglecting their duties. We admit fully that the widening of Millbank Street is a necessity, that it is desirable that there should be this clearing away of the river bank, and that nothing should be done which would have the object of preventing that. I hope that before this Debate is concluded, we shall see the Government taking up some position as to dealing with this great improvement in conjunction with the London County Council. It has a national element in it. It is close to these Houses of Parliament. Without detaining the House another minute, I think I have said enough to ask the House to abstain from giving this Bill a Second Reading until it is shown that the public authorities are derelicting the duties which they ought to exercise. I ask the House to reject the Second Reading of this Bill, and not to be led away by the argument that in its nature it ought to go before one of our Committees.

I was quite aware that there was a great deal of difference of opinion upon this question. One of the previous speakers has referred to the fact that a certain Member interested in this Bill had not signed the Whip which was sent out in support of this Bill. I suppose he referred to me. I may say that I did not do so because I thought it might be possible that some honourable Gentlemen might think that by so doing I was acting on behalf of the majority of my honourable Friends who generally act with me. I was most especially anxious that no mistake of that kind should exist. Those who have spoken in opposition to this Bill have divided their objections into those of principle and those of detail, and, although they have laid great weight upon the question of principle, they have, I think, devoted the largest part of their speeches to the objections in detail. I agree with my right honourable Friend the Member for the University of London that some schemes generally may be properly left to private enterprise, and I was rather surprised to hear from my honourable Friend, the Member for Westminster, that no scheme for the public improvement of London should be carried out by any other body than the London County Council.

I never gave utterance to any such sentiment; what I said was that a scheme which involved necessarily a conflict between the interests of the public and the private interest of shareholders ought to be carefully looked into by the House.

I thought the honourable Member said that any such scheme should be referred only to the London County Council. I recognise that the element of profit must enter into the consideration of a question of this kind. It would be absurd for any private body to attempt to promote a scheme of this sort and to get money from the public without holding out the inducement of the element of profit. But, at the same time, I do say, with some confidence, that, at any rate in this particular Bill, so many safeguards have been already introduced, and so many conditions have to be satisfied both for the Government, the London County Council, and the Vestry, that the danger of the work being badly done or scamped, or being done for profit and for profit alone, is reduced to a mimimum, in fact to a vanishing point; and I cannot myself see why, if such precautions effect what I am sure we all have in view, the great improvement in the vicinity of the Houses of Parliament, this question as to the element of profit should not be allowed to be brought into consideration. Honourable Members who are opposed to this Bill have mentioned other schemes which have been brought about in the Metropolis. The scheme which I am now about to mention is not such a large scheme as this present one, but, at any rate, it took place in my own constituency during the present Parliament, and is one which, although it is not exactly the same thing, involves the principle which is involved in this particular Measure. It was, I think, in the Session of 1896 that a Bill was introduced into this House called "The Strand Improvement Bill." That was nothing more or less than a Bill promoted by the Hotel Cecil for obtaining compulsory powers to purchase the houses running along the front of the Hotel Cecil in order that the Hotel might have a proper frontage to the Strand. That Bill was passed by this House, and was supported by the London County Council. I admit that in the case of a scheme of this magnitude, if there was any chance of its being carried out by a public body, then a public body on the whole is the best body for that purpose. And if any public body does carry out an improvement scheme for this portion of the Embankment, the Government of the country should be that body, and I say that for this particular reason. Great stress has been laid upon the fact that in the plans which have been submitted to honourable Members, the plot in front of the river between what is known as the Victoria Tower Gardens and the Lambeth Bridge is to be covered to a certain extent by a block of buildings. Of course, everybody in this House must admit, and fully realise, that it would be infinitely better if that space were to consist of gardens and gardens alone; but, on the other hand, we must remember what the cost of leaving that space vacant would be. We have consulted the best experts, and I may say that those experts are perfectly willing to back up the opinion that they have given before the Committee, if this Bill should go to a Committee. They say that, at the very least, the expense of leaving that space unoccupied would amount to £500,000, and in all probability to £750,000. I think that shows at once that if this work is to be undertaken by anybody it had far better be undertaken by the Government. So far as I am concerned, and I believe I am speaking for all interested in this Bill, we should be perfectly ready to retire at once from any advocacy of this Measure if the Government would come forward and say that there was the slightest chance of their carrying out that improvement. I may as well say that already arrangements have been made for buying one quarter of the land required, a quarter more is in negotiation, so that it is not at all unlikely that by the time the Bill reaches Committee more than half of the land required will have been acquired by private treaty and not by compulsion. I do not desire to occupy the time of the House by going through the Bill in detail, but there is one point to which I should like to refer which was mentioned by my right honourable Friend the Member for the University of London as to the housing of the poor. The provisions which the promoters of this Bill have made are infinitely wider than are demanded by law. Within a quarter of a mile from the centre of the district, five acres of land have already been obtained, and that is a great deal more than is required to house the whole of the working class population affected by the Bill, and I can say now that the promoters are perfectly ready to accept the Instruction which the honourable Member for Islington has down on the Paper, and are ready to house, not the number which they are bound to house by law, but the whole of the working classes disturbed by this Bill. One word as to the insanitary state of the district. I have no doubt that the eulogiums which the honourable Member for Westminster has passed upon the Westminster Vestry are very well deserved, and I have no doubt that the work of the district is carried out as well as if can be carried out; but there is no gainsaying the fact that, as my right honourable Friend has said, there are in this district over 100 houses which have neither light nor air at the back, but which have only access to light and air from the front; and there are several courts which are not only cul de sacs, but have only one convenience for all the houses in the court. That itself shows that if there has been no serious outbreak in this locality, it is not due to the sanitary state of the houses. It is perfectly obvious that when the district is cleared and built up the sanitary state must be better than it is now. After all, the majority of these details which have been mentioned are questions for Committee, and not questions for discussion in this House. The question of laying out the streets is a matter for expert evidence, which cannot be given here, but which can be given to a Committee upstairs. No doubt some alterations would be made in Committee, and previous speakers have said that we are ready to do the very best we can, and to accept any suggestions which may be made for the improvement of our scheme. We are ready to submit to the Government, and we have already promised to submit, plans of the elevations to a very considerable extent. We are ready to offer the very best expert evidence on all questions that can be raised upon this matter. I hope the House will agree to the Second Reading of this Bill. I have not heard anything since I came down here, nor have I seen anything in the considerable amount of literature which has been circulated among Members, to alter the opinion I formed when first I promised to support this Bill. It may be rejected. If it is rejected, I cannot help thinking that the matter may be postponed indefinitely. But, in any case, whether rejected or not, the promoters of this Bill will at least have the satisfaction of feeling that through all the discussion and all the agitation which has taken place, they have brought nearer to realisation a great metropolitan improvement which ought to have been carried out years ago.

I wish to say a few words in support of the Second Reading of this Bill. I listened with great attention to the speech of my honourable Friend the Member for Shoreditch. This Bill is promoted by a private syndicate. I, personally, have no interest whatever in the matter, and I am absolutely unprejudiced and impartial. There is no objection to giving powers to a private syndicate working, and professedly working, for profit, provided you are satisfied that the public gets some good out of their operations, and provided you are satisfied that there are no authorities ready, and more competent, to undertake the work. That is the principle on which Parliament has acted in the past. Parliament sanctioned the Second Reading of the Parliament Street Bill, promoted by a private syndicate, on, I think, three occasions, and the conditions under which these Bills were brought forward were not nearly so favourable nor satisfactory as the conditions under which the present Bill is brought forward. The financial condition of that Parliament Street Syndicate was less sound than, apparently, the position of this syndicate is, but, inasmuch as neither Government nor County Council would deal with that side, Parliament referred those Bills to Committee, and eventually they became law, the Committee being satisfied that some good for the public would be got out of them. My honourable Friend asks of the promoters of this Bill, "What are you going to do for the public?" and he then went on to criticise certain details as to plans, the laying out of streets, and so forth. For myself, I do not agree with everything that has been put in the plans by the promoters, and I think it is capable of a great deal of improvement. Probably a great number of honourable Members have not troubled themselves very much about the scheme at all; but does any one honourable Gentleman who has formed a clear idea of any one of the leading details of the scheme think that this Debate had advanced our knowledge of the details by one inch. Here is a great and involved scheme, full of technicalities and full of matters of opinion. The honourable Member says it is very simple; at any rate, it is not simple to me if it is to him, and such details as these cannot be settled in the course of discussion of two or three hours in this House; they can only be settled in the ordinary way by reference to a Committee upstairs. I say this, that if the House refers this Bill to a Committee, it will lose no power over this Bill. We do not say that if it goes to a Committee it necessarily will become law; we only send it there so that the expert evidence on these technical details may be given. I understand that the promoters of this Bill are perfectly willing to insert a clause giving power to the First Commissioner of Works or Her Majesty's Government to interfere with their plans, and, in fact, to get power to sanction both the elevation of the buildings and the general laying out of the plans over the whole area. If that is done. I do not see how we can suffer. Then the question arises, what is the position of the London County Council in the matter? I quite agree that if the County Council comes forward and says this is a duty belonging to us, we must undertake it at once; then, by all means, theirs is the first claim, and let them do it. But they have not done that. They have not come forward until the whole scheme has been formulated by private enterprise and placed before Parliament, and now they have given no distinct pledge on the subject. They have referred the matter to one of their Committees, and we do not know what they are going to do. If the House rejects the Bill on a Second Reading, and the London County Council declines to move, or only to a very small extent, it seems to me that the public may be deprived for a great number of years of a very considerable and useful public improvement. Undoubtedly, in a matter of this sort, reference to a Committee is the best method of action, even assuming that the London County Council means to take the matter up. If you refer it to a Committee, the Committee will be able to take the evidence of the London County Council, and to ascertain exactly what its opinions are, and what it wishes to do, and whether it can do this work better than this private syndicate. It seems to me that there is an alternative course, it may be that the London County Council may come to some arrangement with the syndicate to take advantage of the money which the syndicate is prepared to risk in the matter, and by so doing to give the public additional advantages. For these reasons I hope the House will pass the Second Reading, because, as I said before, if the Bill is rejected this greatly needed and important public improvement will be postponed indefinitely. I would point out that the House of Commons is primarily interested in the matter. The House of Commons and the Government are really responsible for Westminster and the Houses of Parliament. They are responsible for this part of London—you can, of course, use the argument either way, but that being so, if the House rejects this Bill now, a great hold will be lost over the question to a certain extent. If the Second Reading is passed, and is referred to a Committee, the House will retain full control over that Committee when it reports upon the Measure. If you put the Bill aside altogether, you will have to deal alone with the County Council, and you will have to take anything that the County Council may be pleased to give you. For these reasons, I say that it would be wise for the House of Commons to keep a firm hold over these questions, to strengthen its position, and do the best thing possible to safeguard the whole of this historic neighbourhood. I do not know whether the right honourable Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means is going to give up the benefit of his advice. We are rather in want of light and leading from the Front Bench opposite, and perhaps, the First Commissioner is going to intervene. If he does, I hope, at any rate, that it will be in the direction of supporting the Second Reading of this Bill, and send it, if not to a Committee in the ordinary way, at any rate to adopt the precedent set in 1887, and refer it to a hybrid committee.

I think the House will see that the Bill which is now before us is no ordinary private Bill, but we are discussing a matter of the very greatest importance, both as regards ordinary Private Bill Procedure and the policy which we shall adopt respecting an area which has great national and historical associations. What is the question before us? It is briefly this: that a commercial company shall have power of a very wide character over 28 acres of land in immediate proximity to this building. Like every other Member of this House, I have received piles of literature on the subject, and I have been appealed to from all quarters. There has grown up in this House, as everybody knows, by precedent, by carefully-devised Standing Orders, and by various arrangements of machinery a state of things whereby this House of Commons and the public in general are safeguarded from being mulcted in any way by the private speculator. A private Bill cannot be introduced in the same way as a public Bill. It has to pass through various gates of a narrow character before it can get to a Second Reading here. The intention of that is that the request for power made under a Private Bill must be formed upon some distinct public advantage—that the public element and the public advantage shall be the paramount consideration, and that the private element must only be incidental. Take the case of our great railways, which have perhaps led to more changes and developments of Private Bill Procedure than any other. It has always been laid down that there must be a public advantage proved to be the paramount consideration. What is the case this afternoon? I have listened with great attention to what fell from the right honourable Gentleman the Member for the University of London, and particularly to the honourable Member for the Strand Division, who spoke with great frankness and candour. He admitted that it was much better that this scheme should be carried out by a public authority. I think it should be done by the London County Council. But nothing that fell from the right honourable Gentleman, or from others who have addressed the House, has proved to us that the public advantage to be derived was such as to lead us to give these great powers to a private company. I venture to say that now is not the time for the House of Commons, in this day of syndicates and private adventures, to relax that principle that public advantage must be proved to be predominant and paramount. We all feel that we are dealing with precincts of no ordinary character. I am one of those who have welcomed the Measures that have been passed successfully for the spending of the surplus of £2,500,000 on beautifying and adorning this part of the Metropolis for its great public buildings, and also making proper provision for the great public Departments. I was a warm supporter of that scheme. That is an indication of what will go on in the future, but I appeal to the House not to block the way by giving these powers over a very large area of land to this private company, and thus stopping future improvement of that kind. The right honourable Gentleman and the honourable Member passed very lightly over the question of the great pile of buildings, which is the essence and vital feature of this scheme. With reference to that, I may say that we cannot regard statements as to what may take place before the Committee upstairs. Our duty is to look at the thing as it comes before us. Having approached this matter without the slightest prejudice, and having gone through these slums more than once, I have no hesitation as to what I feel it my duty to do this afternoon, and I shall give my vote against the Second Reading of this Bill.

I think that this question has been pretty well discussed as regards detail, and I think that all Members are pretty well acquainted with the details of the scheme. I am a strong advocate for sending a scheme of this nature upstairs, and I think it is only on very rare occasions that the House should depart from a time-honoured practice. But now and again there are occasions when we ought to take into consideration, not only the essence of a scheme such as this, but the surrounding circumstances under which it is brought forward. I must give my vote against the Second Reading of this Bill, not for the reason that it is brought forward by a private syndicate or a public company and not by public enterprise, and I will not waste time by speaking about any body of gentlemen of whom I know absolutely nothing, but who may be quite sincere in their efforts for metropolitan improvement. I take, for the moment, this scheme on its merits, as it comes before us to-day, and I should not attempt to say a word in this Debate were it not for the speech of my honourable Friend the Member for the Strand Division. We have just placed in the hands of the First Commissioner of Works a very large sum indeed for carrying out works, in order that we shall at length make the approaches and the precincts of our House of Commons and our old Abbey more worthy of the nation. That we have readily done, although many of us unfortunate landowners and others might have hoped for a reduction of the income tax, which would have been a luxury to us, if only to see what such a thing would be like, and yet we have willingly and cheerfully handed over a sum which would have amounted to a reduction of something like 1s. 3d. in the £ towards this great object. However excellent a body of gentlemen may be who are concerned in bringing forward this scheme, and however willing they may be to meet the views of a Committee upstairs, those of us who have made a sacrifice in this matter feel that that sacrifice would be thrown away if one side of these splendid national monuments is to be beautified and adorned by the Government and the other side left to the mercies of a private syndicate. There I give what is the kernel of the whole matter, and it is the one point alone on which I ask honourable Gentlemen to give their decision. I had an hour to spare this afternoon, and I went around this site, inspecting the streets, and also took the opportunity of standing in the very centre of Lambeth Bridge, and from that exalted position, with the plan in my hand, I had a very fair idea of what the result of passing this Bill would be. I say that no honourable Member who takes that plan in his hand, and looks at it from that point of view, not even if this particular scheme were brought forward by the Government of the day through the right honourable Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, could honestly vote for the Second Reading of this Bill without feeling that he was destroying, once and for all, the possibility of the improvement of the Thames Embankment. I never heard a long Debate upon a private Bill but it was urged that criticism upon details was not for this House, but was a matter for Committee upstairs. The Papers which I have had from the advocates of this Bill, show, however, that the clauses of the Bill are exceptional in their character. The matter is now in our hands, and it is for us, by our votes, to say whether we will allow this Measure to pass into a Second Reading. The promoters of the Measure could not give way about this great block of buildings, which would overshadow the Thames and destroy the whole outlook from Lambeth Bridge. The honourable Member for the Strand Division said that that must be done, otherwise the capital subscribed would prove a disastrous failure. This House has voted two and a half millions of money for public improvements. We have heard the whole story; it has all been unfolded before us. Let us give a vote, at all events, which will protect these splendid monuments and the Thames Embankment, and secure a proper continuity of plan. I will not detain the House any longer, but I could not give a silent vote upon such a question as this. There is only one possible vote that I can give, and that is a vote against sending this Bill upstairs.

I have waited to see whether the House is to have any guidance from the two responsible Ministers who are primarily interested in this question—the First Commissioner of Works and the President of the Local Government Board. The First Commissioner of Works has proved himself to be a very careful guardian, not only of the interests of this House and of its approaches, but also a very careful guardian of the beauty of London—and I think he is emphatically the ædile of London. The Government of this country has always had a peculiar power over any improvements in London, and I think we are entitled to have a statement this afternoon as to his views upon what my honourable Friend behind me described as one of the most important Measures ever submitted to this House. Then, Sir, I see seated upon the Treasury Bench the President of the Local Government Board. He is the official organ and representative of the local government of this country, and I think we are entitled to hear from him what view he takes in his capacity as the defender and representative of local government of the scheme which is now before the House. If either of these two right honourable Gentlemen intend to favour the House with their view, I venture to put before them one consideration, and it shall be only one. I am not going to follow my right honourable Friend with reference to the details of this scheme. My own uninformed opinion inclines to coincide with his view as to the nature and extent of this so-called improvement, but what I want to put to the House is this: Is this House prepared to surrender not only the power of local government, but to invest private individuals, no matter what their respectability, no matter what their responsibility may be, with compulsory powers over other people's property, to take that property for the benefit of a private speculation? That, in my opinion, is the whole crux of the situation. I appreciate to the full the argument of the honourable Member for the Strand Division, although I thought he surrendered his case in admitting that if the County Council was ready to take up the scheme they were the body who ought to do it, although the honourable Member for the Strand suggested as an alternative that it might be done by the Government of the day. With respect to that suggestion I agree with my honourable Friend the Member for Nottinghamshire that this is not so much a question for the Government as the county council. There is no attempt to disguise that whatever other merits the county council may have possessed—and I am not going to belittle their very many desirable enterprises and achievements—they have not done what I venture to think they ought to have done for the improvement of London. During the last few years metropolitan improvement has been entirely in abeyance. There was an exceedingly unwise attempt on the part of the county council to endeavour to compel the Legislature to adopt a certain course of legislation, and to do that under a threat of not proceeding with metropolitan improvements. I hope that that era has passed away. But the mere neglect on the part of the London County Council to deal with some crying scandals in regard to the present condition of metropolitan street improvements will not, I think, justify us in stamping with the sanction of the House the introduction of a most dangerous principle with reference to the local administration of this country. Where are you going to draw the line? If the local authority is to abnegate its power, and Parliament is to delegate the extraordinary power of compulsion to private individuals, where are you going to stop? My honourable Friend mentioned the case of railways, but there was no body in existence who had the power to make a railway, no local authority. It was necessary that railways should be made in the public convenience, and Parliament empowered companies to perform that necessary work. Parliament, by its own legislation, has not only given the power to, but has imposed the duty on all local authorities of remedying all insanitary areas and of dealing with necessary improvements, because those local authorities represented the community by whose taxation those improvements are defrayed. The honourable Member for the Strand said, with perfect candour, that, of course, the element of profit must be introduced into these undertakings, or else nobody would embark upon them. That is quite true, and that is an admission that there is a profit upon them. There is a profit in every well-devised and well-designed improvement, but that profit, in my opinion, ought to go into the public pocket, and not into the hands of the private individual. The proposal and carrying out of great municipal improvements deserve the best consideration of the most capable men, and it is to be regretted, in the interests of the Metropolis, that the County Council of London does not possess a leader possessing the municipal patriotism, the statesmanship, and the capacity of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who by his great powers made Birmingham what it is, and also made it an example which has been followed to a great extent by many of the municipalities of this country. You cannot have public improvements without putting your hands into somebody's pocket, and if the public are to pay for these improvements the public should reap the benefit of them. These are the grounds on which I intend to vote against this Bill. I will not go into the details of the Bill. The scheme may be as objectionable as my honourable Friend has pointed out, and that it may be safeguarded by the First Commissioner of Works and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; but however much you may approve this scheme, you do not get rid of the elementary unanswerable objection that you are delegating public powers to private people, the profit of which is to go into private pockets, and not into the public pocket. Upon these grounds, and upon the ground of defending the integrity and the power of the local authority, I shall cast my vote against this Bill.

It has been pointed out that the whole of this property will not necessarily be taken compulsorily, and that part of it is being taken voluntarily. I may state that the portion of the area which belongs to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners is to be acquired voluntarily, the terms having been practically arranged. There is another small matter to which I should like to refer. A printed memorial has been circulated, the original of which has not reached the Commissioners, containing a request from tenants and occupants for protection as regards some supposed injury to the Abbey. I may say that the Commissioners have had the protection of the architectural and archæological features of the Abbey and its surroundings in their minds, and several amendments to the scheme have been made in consequence of their suggestions. At the same time I wish to state to the House that the position of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners is one of neutrality: their wish is that the House should give a Second Reading to the Bill, and then let it be referred with regard to details to a Committee.

A number of Members, with great ability, and with much experience and authority in this House, have asked for the rejection of this Bill. I venture to say something with regard to it from the point of view of the local authority that, properly speaking, should be looked to to carry out the improvement which this Bill seeks to effect, and before I do so I must express my sincere regret that the late First Commissioner of Works should have blessed this Bill in the way he did. But I have one consolation, and that is that the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton most effectually undid that blessing and counteracted all that the Member for Leeds said. But I do ask the late First Commissioner of Works to call his mind back to this fact—that he and myself and the present Chief Commissioner, with a number of other Members of this House, have been on two Site Committees for the last two years to provide new sites for Government buildings, and by virtue of the report of our proceedings the House of Commons has practically voted two and a half millions of money for improving the approaches to this House. The late Chief Commissioner of Works subscribed to that report. But that two and a half millions is to be spent for improving the east side of the Houses of Parliament, and here we are asked practically to give for next to nothing on the west side of the Houses of Parliament what I venture to say is the finest site in the whole Metropolis. My opinion is that if it is to be occupied by any building at all, then let it be occupied by the new War Office, the new Education Department, or some other Government building that has a right to be in close proximity to the Parliament buildings. We are told by the late Chief Commissioner of Works that the plans proposed by this Bill are to be safeguarded by the present Chief Commissioner of Works as to elevation and so on. Does the late Chief Commissioner of Works know what he is really talking about? He ought really to know this: that it is impossible for this syndicate to make a profit out of the block of buildings that they purpose erecting parallel with the House of Commons at an elevation of less than 82 feet, or 35 feet, on an average, higher than the general elevation of this House itself. Consequently, if the present Chief Commissioner lays down 45 or 50 feet as the height of the elevation the scheme must be unprofitable, and will have to be abandoned. Then the late Commissioner of Works asked, Is the London County Council genuine in its desire to make this Embankment worthy of the precincts of Parliament, and to continue the Embankment from Blackfriars up to Chelsea Bridge? I can throw a little light upon that, and it is for that purpose that I have risen. Is the Council genuine in its desire to improve the Embankment of the River Thames? Well, we must ask the House to judge by what has been done. Poplar Gardens is an Embankment space that the Council has secured for ever. Wandsworth Embankment on the south side is an instance of our desire in another direction. The Council assisted in the acquisition of Fulham Palace Grounds, and helped the Local Authority to secure an Embankment space there, and the only occasion on which the County Council has come to the House of Commons for continuing the Thames Embankment was when they proposed to do so from Battersea. Bridge in the direction of Wandsworth Bridge, with the final idea of carrying it right up to Hammersmith. That proposition was thrown out by the House of Commons, and against the Council's own wish. If this Bill is rejected, as I believe it will be rejected, after the weighty speeches which have been directed against it, the Council is pledged to go on with an Embankment scheme in this immediate neighbourhood; but we object, and rightly object, to be dictated to as to what form this scheme should take, and for this very practical reason: the Council has spent half a million of money on a new bridge for Vauxhall and the approaches on the north and south sides. Immediately that bridge is completed the old one is to be demolished. The Council has decided that that shall be followed by a new bridge to take the place of the unsightly one at Lambeth, and our view, or at any rate our officers' view, as to the sequence in which the work should be done is to complete Vauxhall, then to do the Lambeth Improvement, and so on, till we get down to this site now under discussion. The fact that we have done what we have done—the fact that we have carried out Vauxhall and intend and are pledged to carry out Lambeth—necessarily, in my opinion, commits us to carry the Embankment from Lambeth up to Vauxhall and up to Westminster—not at the expense suggested by the hon. Member for the Strand Division, but at an expense for the vacant piece of land necessary to make a garden of no more than £200,000. The late Chief Commissioner of Works said that if any public body is to carry out this important improvement Parliament ought to be that body; but when doctors differ, who is to decide? But I see no reason why, considering the peculiar relationship of this House to any Embankment scheme practically within the precincts of the House and the Abbey, Parliament, together with the London County Council and the Local Authorities, should not agree as to plans and designs, and the extent to which all three of them should contribute towards the expense. But even supposing that Parliament were indisposed to contribute a penny towards the expense, I pledge my word to this House that when Vauxhall and Lambeth are completed, then, as a necessary and consequential improvement, the London County Council must carry the Embankment right up to Westminster Bridge. Now the late First Commissioner of Works said it sometimes happens that private enterprise can be advanced and public interests also served. I want to put this point to the House of Commons: can he put into money value the case from every point of view of having a block of buildings on the suggested site next to the House of Commons? The right hon. baronet the Member for the University of London mentioned that he had stood on Lambeth Bridge—at daytime, I suppose, not at midnight—but I would ask any member of this House to come to Vauxhall Bridge now. From Vauxhall Bridge you can see Westminster Abbey—two-thirds of it is exposed. You can see the Chapter House that has recently been revealed, and you will be able to see two-thirds of the river frontage of the Parliament buildings. Come to Lambeth, and, as the right honourable Baronet says, you can see one of the finest views of one of the finest blocks of buildings in Europe, and certainly at one end of it the finest tower that exists in any country in the world—the Victoria Tower. What does this Bill propose? Look at the plan, and you will find that a block of buildings longer than the frontage of the Parliament buildings will be put up at the end of these Parliamentary buildings—at the end of the garden—equal in width to the Parliamentary buildings themselves, minus the terrace. Now, we will take the height of the buildings. As I said, to be profitable they must be 82 feet—the highest height, that is, that the London Buildings Act allows. That is the height at which these buildings positively must be put if this site is to pay, and the result will be that you will have a red brick building; a cheap and nasty blocks of flats, or, worse still, an Hotel Continental, full of derelict millionaires from South Africa and America. You will provide accommodation for these people, at what cost? At the cost of vandalising the approaches to Parliament, turning out merchants, traders, and wharfingers, for the benefit of gentlemen who have made their fortunes in other countries, and left their country for their country's good. Six thousand people to be turned out of their homes in order to accommodate Barney Barnatos, whom we do not certainly want in such close proximity to us as would be the case if this plan were carried into effect; or, worse still, we should get a number of American statesmen, who have given up log-rolling in their own country and come over here to instruct us how to push private enterprise schemes through the British House of Commons. I trust that from the architectural and archæological points of view, and also from the point of view of the relationship of the Council to this scheme, pledged, as I think it must be, to carry the Embankment up to Westminster, this Bill will be rejected. Then there is the very serious question as to the dishousing of 6,000 people. We are told that it is a very slummy district. I want to point out that the worst slums in Westminster are untouched by this Bill, and I am glad to see present to-day the honourable Member for Islington, who knows this district very well. I served my apprenticeship at Millbank, outside, not inside, the prison, and I say that the worst slums of Westminster are untouched by this Bill. Blue Anchor Lane is a slum that ought to be pulled down. Take Chadwick Street, Peter Street, Pye Street; all of these are unpleasant areas which ought to come down, and which are untouched by this Bill. Then we are told that this district is insanitary, but it must be remembered that these poor people are driven to greater overcrowding in this district than they ought to be, but by adopting this scheme you are not going to improve their condition, because you will be turning 6,000 people out, and you will be increasing the rack rent prices for competitive accommodation in close proximity to the dishoused area. If these places are insanitary, if the people suffer from diseases, then it is for the vestry and the council to be indicted by the President of the Local Government Board for neglecting their duties. What are the positions of the men that will occupy the houses that we are told will be built? Look at the conditions of the clauses in this Bill. Parliament does not allow a railway company to put in restrictions with regard to an improvement if it is to turn out people for a railway station, and why should a private syndicate impose such terms? One of the restrictions is that no man earning over 30s. a week shall come within the scope of this Bill as to rehousing. That will mean that every postman, every policeman, waiter, cabdriver, and busman, whose work necessarily loads hem to wish to live as close to the House of Commons as possible, will be exempted from the provisions of this Bill with regard to rehousing. Then I want, if I may be allowed, to give one or two instances in which the House of Commons has neglected its public buildings in the past, to the detriment of buildings that have remained. For instance, lock at Somerset House, one of the finest buildings we have in England. Yet some one has allowed an enterprising builder to erect a yellow terra-cotta building jammed up to the side of Somerset House, and which is many feet in front of the building line. I am not disposed to take the opinion of a First Commissioner of Works upon this subject who allows that sort of thing to be done. St. Paul's Cathedral cannot be seen, simply because Sir Christopher Wren's view has not been adopted as to keeping a space clear around it. Some one has allowed buildings to come too close. The best example I can give is that of Greenwich Hospital. Sir Christopher Wren said with regard to that, and it has been adhered to by the Admiralty, that no building should approach within a given number of yards of that hospital. He went further. On the north side of the river, opposite to the frontage of Greenwich Hospital, he said there should be a narrow strip of land equal in length to the front of Greenwich Hospital from which it can be for ever seen. I am glad to say that the Council has got hold of that piece of land which Sir Christopher Wren earmarked, and it is now a splendid open space from which Greenwich Hospital can be seen. Architects in those days were able to do these things because the "syndicate" was unknown. Log-rolling was not in existence, and the stomach had not been taken out of Members of Parliament by the system of worrying and wearying them in the Lobby by persons interested in the carrying out of certain proposals, which has characterised some of our modern experiences. I venture to say that this Embankment Bill is not an Embankment Bill at all. It diverts Abingdon Street to the north from following the natural line of the river right into the centre of Horseferry Road, and if a Member of Parliament wants to go to Vauxhall Bridge he has either to bend to the north and then go to the south and then go to the west, or else go to the south, go straight along raid bend to the north and get into the Grosvenor Road. It is a scheme for avoiding an embankment altogether. The Vestry does not want it, the London County Council is opposed to it, the Dean and Chapter of Westminster are strongly against it, and I have not yet received from any of the men who live and who work in the neighbourhood of this House a single request that this Bill should be supported. The honourable Member for the Strand Division did more to damage this Bill than anyone who has spoken against it. What did he say was the reason that the House should pass it? That the House of Commons some time ago passed the Hotel Cecil Bill. That is true, but that was a case in which private enterprise did not conflict with public profit and advantage. The Hotel Cecil Bill added to the space in the neighbourhood in which the building was erected, it did not turn any artisans out, and it certainly did not go beyond the frontage line; so that the very case which the honourable Member quoted was more against his Bill than in support of it. Now we have heard to-day a mention of Jabez Balfour. But let us admit the fact, which is undoubted, that, artistically and architecturally, Jabez Balfour was infinitely better than the promoters of this Bill. Go to Whitehall Court, and there, with all its financial disgrace and with all its criminal associations, you will say that it is probably one of the finest blocks of buildings we have on the north side of the river. But Jabez Balfour had got a good architect, and he was kept in check by the building line in the rear of Montague House, by the National Liberal Club, and the local authorities would not allow him to obtrude himself on his buildings beyond the natural and well-established building line. But in the case of the Westminster Improvement Bill, so called, you will allow this block of red buildings, full of derelict millionaires, to obtrude right in front of the north side of Abingdon Street, diverting the traffic to the north, and inconveniencing Members of Parliament and all who have business in this particular locality. I trust that as a protest against the way in which this Bill has been log-rolled and lobbied, and in view of the artistic abominations and architectural defects that it contains, it will be rejected by a large majority; and then I trust that the House of Commons will co-operate with the County Council and the Vestry for taking over the precincts of this House and bringing to an issue as speedily as possible a really good and sound Embankment scheme worthy of the dignity of the Abbey and of this great House of which we have the honour to be Members.

My honourable Friend the Member for Battersea has arrogated to himself a certain amount of knowledge. He assumed to know what the promoters of this Bill were going to do with a piece of land which I may say he does not know in the least, and he also assumed to know precisely what the County Council was going to do. As a matter of fact, he is not in a position to pledge the County Council to any method of procedure. The County Council are undoubtedly going to make a bridge at Lambeth, and when they do so they will have to make proper approaches to it, and it is owing to that fact that the County Council are bound to make the Lambeth Bridge that some of the plans of the promoters have been objected to. The reason why the avenue does not follow the line of Millbank Street to the corner of the bridge is precisely because the syndicate have looked a little further ahead, and have realised that when this new approach is built, and the bridge is built and complete, there will be a necessity for a gradual and easy gradient over the bridge, and it will be absolutely necessay for this avenue not to hit this road several feet below the surface, but to come across the road at a proper level. So much for the detail. Now let me say a word or two about the housing that has been referred to. I am sorry that there should be any question of dishousing, but whether this Bill is carried or not, whether this scheme is carried or abandoned, there is no question whatever that the owners of the property in which these poor people are now housed must begin to take some action. They have allowed a very valuable property to remain non-rent paying, or nearly so, and this Bill would undoubtedly have the effect of making these landowners look to themselves and begin to improve their property, and when they do so the poor people will be dishoused, whether it is done by this Bill or whether it is done, in the way I have mentioned, but it will not be as well done as would be the case if it were done under this Bill. Every precaution and every protection that could be given we have given under this Bill, and if my honourable Friend has an opportunity of moving his instruction that we shall provide for the rehousing of the working classes—and his instruction places us under no restriction whatever—we shall be ready to accept it. But if this work is undertaken by the landowners themselves, the poor will have no provision whatever made for them, and they will be driven entirely out of the neighbourhood. As a matter of fact, there are several charities connected with this parish, the benefits of which are not receivable by people who are not living in the parish, and that fact this syndicate has perfectly well known and has provided for, and arrangements have been made by which the people who have been dishoused will be rehoused and so not deprived of the benefits of those charities. And now let me deal very shortly indeed with the general question. The ground taken by my honourable Friend the Member for Shoreditch was practically this: that he did not deny that private individuals or private companies might very legitimately undertake large public improvements and ask Parliament for compulsory powers, but he denied that in the present instance the consideration was sufficient to allow the Bill to go to a Committee. Now I cannot help thinking that he has come to this conclusion without full knowledge of the facts. The roadway will be magnificent; the Embankment which has been sneered at will not be such a paltry thing as people have endeavoured to make it out; it will be 70 feet wide, and would connect with the Grosvenor Road. This is the only logical Embankment, and the Embankment will be of precisely the same width as Grosvenor Road itself, and, therefore, I think that my Friend has not really been fair to this scheme when he said that no consideration had been given. If he works it out in £ s. d. he will find that we have given it very great consideration indeed. As to the avenue, honourable Members are entirely mistaken in thinking that the way for the avenue to go is along the Embankment. The true line is from the Houses of Parliament, and if this is done you come right upon the Tate Gallery, and then you have an avenue second to none in Europe. I know that it is the duty of the Committee upstairs to take the greatest care that not only should a proper consideration be given for the powers asked for, but that the public interests Should be safeguarded in every way. My honourable Friend seemed to think that no private body ought to undertake any such scheme. He seemed to think that municipal bodies should undertake work of this kind. All I have to say is that we have no evidence whatsoever that the County Council of London or any other public body could undertake this scheme in anything like its

said: I am sorry to have to trouble the House with another private Bill, but I am encouraged to think, by the figures in the last division, that the House does not regard the Second Reading of a private Bill as a matter of course. The subject of this Bill is very much less than that of the last Bill, but still it is one of considerable importance in itself and in what it involves. It is a Bill which proposes to allow the Corporation of Belfast to devote for hospital purposes about 60 acres of the present lunatic asylum grounds, outside the city, and also to give some five or six acres out of their other lunatic asylum grounds within the city, for the purposes of a hospital. There are two general hospitals in Belfast, one of which is mainly Protestant, and the other is mainly Catholic. The proposal of the Corporation of Belfast is that they should be allowed to give this site, which is provided out of public money, for the purpose of the Protestant hospital, while they refuse to make any sort of equivalent grant for the purpose of a Catholic hospital. I am, therefore, very reluctantly compelled to appeal to the fair feeling of Members on both sides of the House not to allow an injustice of this sort to be done. I say that I do so very reluctantly, because it is no pleasure to me, year after year, to have to oppose and expose the sectarian bitterness of the Corporation of Belfast; but still, on the other hand, there is the duty of protecting minorities, and I feel sure that honourable Members opposite, who will be anxious, under the Local Government Bill, to protect minorities, will be anxious, in regard to this Bill, to show that they are equally desirous to protect minorities, no matter whether they are Protestant or Catholic. Now I must trouble the House, with a short statement of the facts in connection with this Bill. Up till about 20 years ago there was only one general hospital in Belfast, the Royal Hospital. I do not intend to say anything against the Royal Hospital, because, among other reasons, a relative of mine spends a great portion of his time in connection with the administration of that hospital; but still there is no doubt that, while at one time the Catholics had a large share in the matter, the Management of the Royal Hospital was mainly Protestant, and has tended to become more and more Protestant as the years have gone by. But there was great need for the further hospital accommodation for the Catholics in Belfast, and they made great sacrifices to secure the establishment, out of their own funds, of another hospital, the Mater Infirmorum, and they have recently raised a sum of £50,000 for the extension of that hospital, and when it is completed, and it is now nearly completed, it will have very much more accommodation than the present Royal Hospital, and indeed it will compare very favourably with any other hospital in Ireland. It is a hospital which is open to all classes of the community. Although it is chiefly under Catholic management, and generally supported by Catholic subscriptions, it is open to everybody and to all classes, and I find that when this question was before the Corporation of Belfast the Protestant labour members supported the grant to the hospital on account of the good treatment which they knew had been extended to Protestant working men in it. The hospital is fully equipped, and has a complete medical and surgical staff, and I find that the great argument used against it before the Corporation was that it was mainly under the management of the medical and nursing staff, although I should have thought you could have no better management for a hospital than that. Now the Protestants of Belfast, not to be outdone by the example of the Catholics, and in a spirit of generous emulation, last year raised the sum of £100,000 for a new hospital to take the place of the Royal Hospital. The £50,000 raised by the Catholics, I may say, was a proportionately larger sum than the £100,000 raised by the wealthier Protestants. The new hospital, which is to be a general hospital, is to be called the Royal Victoria, and the price of the site for it, valued at £12,000, belongs to the lunatic asylums ground, which is practically the property of the ratepayers of Belfast. It is held under the Board of Control, and therefore I should have expected to see some representative of the Irish Government here when we are dealing with this matter. It may be said that the Board is not a Government Department, and I do not wish to make too much of that point, because, apart from technicalities, this ground is no doubt in effect the property of the ratepayers of Belfast. They are paying for it year by year, and therefore a grant of this lunatic asylum ground is in every way equivalent to a grant out of the rates. I think there are the greatest objections, from the point of view of lunacy administration, to this proposal. I do not want to go into details, which, I think, should be considered by a Committee; but there are, to my mind, the greatest objections to taking anything away from the very narrow and restricted ground now available for the lunatic asylum. I pass from that point to another. The site chosen for the new hospital is a considerable distance from the centre of the town, and much further removed from some of the largest mills than the Mater Infirmorum Hospital. The inevitable effect will be that the cases of accident at the mills will have to be sent to the Mater Infirmarum Hospital, and as that is said to be a Catholic hospital, it would be only fair that the extra burden should be met by some extra form of equivalent public grant. And, furthermore, I find that the new hospital is not to be under the same management as the old hospital. We may fairly hope that the people will put their hands into their pockets in support of a charitable hospital which is free from sectarian management; but I understand that one of the conditions of this grant is that the new hospital is to be more or less under the management of the Belfast Corporation. Now, unfortunately, it is a fact that the universal experience of the Catholics of Belfast has been that everything managed by the Belfast Corporation is managed in a spirit of sectarian bitterness. The Catholics do not get a fair chance in connection with anything under the management of the Belfast Corporation; and, therefore, although they have not much complaint to make against the management of the Royal Hospital, I do not think the Catholics of Belfast will have reason to expect anything like the same liberality in the new hospital if it is to be under Corporation management. I may refer to another hospital in Belfast which is under the management of a public body, the Workhouse Infirmary. The evidence given before a Committee of this House six or seven years ago, a Committee of which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board was a member, was of a distressing nature, for it showed that in the Workhouse Infirmary Catholic inmates were allowed to die without the ministrations of the priests of their own faith because there was not any one on the nursing staff who would take the trouble to go for a priest. The nursing staff was almost entirely Protestant, and these facts had a lamentable effect in increasing sectarian bitterness in Belfast; and if this new hospital is to be under the management of the Belfast Corporation, there is no reason to expect that it will be anything but a sectarian institution. Now, when this Bill was first proposed by the Corporation the Catholic members of the Corporation took what I think will be considered, under all the circumstances, the generous course of not opposing a grant to the Royal Victoria Hospital; but they did propose that provision should be made in the Bill for a grant of the same amount to a Catholic hospital. There was a Division on that question, in which 21 Members voted against and 12 Members voted for it, and I find that among those who voted in favour of the grant were a number of the Protestant Labour Members. One of those Labour Members put the matter in a very plain and simple way. Mr. Taylor, who, no doubt, is well known to the Members opposite who represent Belfast, said they knew that Protestants as a rule preferred to go to the Royal Hospital, and Rowan Catholics preferred to go to the other hospital. The Roman Catholics could go to the Royal Hospital if they wished, and the Protestants could go to the other, for it had been stated that the doors of the older hospital were open to all denominations, and that being so he could see no reason why the grant proposed should not be allowed, There was something, however, in the sentiment which led people to prefer one hospital to another, and he did not see why it should not be indulged. Now, I venture to say that that is a common-sense view of the question. It is a view that would have been taken by any public body in Ireland, I would almost say in the world, except the Corporation of Belfast. But the Corporation of Belfast outvoted it. They take rates from the Catholics quickly enough, but they will not give a grant to any institution which is mainly a Catholic institution. Now I will compare with that the case of Dublin. The Dublin Corporation is, of course, largely Catholic, but it gives grants out of the rates to the hospitals of that city without distinction of denomination. It gives those grants to hospitals which are very much more distinctly denominational than any in Belfast. As a matter of fact, some hospitals in Dublin to which grants are given are distinctly and almost exclusively Protestant. Now, I think it is a most unfortunate thing that Belfast should set an example like this to the other cities of Ireland. It represents a larger number of people than any other, and might be expected to show a better spirit in this matter. If it does not we have reluctantly to bring the matter before the House, and we ask the House to enforce upon the Corporation of Belfast the same principles of liberality which the Corporation of Dublin have acted upon so freely. I oppose the Second Reading of this Bill because, as it stands it chooses out of the two general hospitals in Belfast, and there are only two, the one which is mainly Protestant, to which to give a grant out of the rates and refuses any grant whatever to the other general hospital because it is mainly Catholic. That, I venture to think, is a ground which will justify the House, even on Second Reading, in refusing to pass this Bill. I have to bring the matter before the House on the Second Reading because, by the rules of the House affecting locus standi, the Catholics, although they are a large minority, have no right to appear before the Committee, unless it is a hybrid Committee, in opposition to the Bill. They could not, therefore, put their case at all before the Committee, and the Belfast Corporation, who are bringing forward this proposal for a grant out of the corporate funds, could get it passed through Committee without there being anybody else before the Committee to explain what the facts really were. For that reason I have felt bound to bring the matter before the House on the Second Reading. But I should be glad if honourable Members opposite would assent to the proposal for a hybrid Committee, with the Instruction I have put on the Paper, which would enable me to avoid putting the House to the trouble of a Division. I think it would be unfortunate if, on the eve of discussion on the Local Government Bill, which must involve the question of the protection of minorities in Ireland, the spokesman of the Irish minority should set such a bad example of what it is they aim at by supporting this unfair and narrow Bill. I think that when we are making, as we are, every effort to secure that local government in Ireland should be worked in a spirit of fair play between creed and creed, and between class and class, it is only right that we should look to honourable Members opposite for some assistance in this effort which we are making, and for some sign that they will treat the Catholic minority in Belfast with the same fairness that they demand, and rightly demand, should be extended to the Protestant minority in the south of Ireland. I venture, therefore, to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, and I beg to move that it be read a second time this day six months.

Sir, it is a remarkable fact that this Bill should propose to extend the powers of the Board of Control in Ireland, and that we are discussing it at half-past six o'clock, on the eve of the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill, which abolishes the powers of the Board of Control. Now, is not that a remarkable fact? The Government by their Local Government Bill propose to abolish the Board of Control, and then certain gentlemen connected with the Department bring in a private Bill to extend the powers of the Board of Control. My honourable and learned Friend has, I am sorry to say, had to make his speech against this Bill, and against any extension of the powers of the Board of Control, in the absence of any representative of the Irish Office. I am glad to see that the Chief Secretary has entered the House, for this matter is essentially one for his Department, and I should like to ask him one or two questions. He has brought in a Bill to abolish the Board of Control. Does he think it is a reasonable thing that his office should give its consent to this Belfast Bill? Because I know that in practice the Irish Office do not allow any private Bill to go forward without the imprimatur, in some form, of the Irish Office. Does the right honourable Gentleman think it is reasonable when he is going to abolish the Board of Control that we should pass a Bill to transfer its powers to the Belfast Corporation? Is that a reasonable thing? What will English Members think of a proposition of that kind? Here is a body, consisting of two or three clerks in Dublin Castle, called the Board of Control, and they are to be allowed to do by this Bill a thing which, in my judgment, should be left over to the assent of the body which is to take the place of the Board of Control, namely, the new Local Government Board. It is most unfair. There is another matter, and it is this: the right honourable Gentleman knows that by the Local Government Bill the grand juries' powers are to be transferred to the county councils. Well, Sir, the infirmaries and hospitals throughout Ireland got grants of from £600 to £1,200 a year from the local rates. The city of Dublin voted £6,000 per annum out of the local rates for hospitals of all denominations. The city of Cork voted £2,000 a year out of the local rates for hospitals of all denominations. One Cork infirmary has been controlled by Protestants, and another is more or less under the control of Catholics, but this grant was given by the Cork Corporation without any consideration of different sects. Well, now, we shall be asked under the Local Government Bill to continue the grant to the county infirmaries in Ireland, which is at present £23,000 a year. We shall be asked to agree to a continuation of that grant, although many of these county infirmaries in Ireland are controlled by Protestants. A strong appeal will be made to us not to object to a continuation of these grants, and yet on the eve of that Bill being considered we have the Corporation of Belfast seeking for extended powers to be confined, so far as charitable purposes are concerned, to a single Protestant hospital. Sir, why should not Belfast take example from Catholic Dublin or Cork? Why should the exercise of charity be confined to any one religious sect? When a man is stricken by the wayside, why should the minds of these eminent Puritans of Belfast be confined solely to the question whether the wounded man is Protestant or Catholic? Surely, Sir, it is only reasonable that the Catholics of Belfast—who are 100,000 strong, and contribute largely to the rates of the community—should get a fair proportion of the contribution which is given for the infirmaries which prevail amongst the Catholic and Protestant populations alike. And yet, Sir, while the whole of Ireland is, in this matter, giving an example to Belfast, the Government, as I understand, claim to have no opinion in the matter, and have absolutely given their sanction to the Board of Control handing over this plot of ground to a narrow-minded gang which refuses to exercise that Christian charity which every one of the other towns in Ireland is willing to exercise. I respectfully say that the Government ought not to give this plot of ground to the Corporation of Belfast unless it extends its charity and acts the Good Samaritan in the same way as the Catholics are willing to do to Protestants throughout the rest of Ireland. The Chief Secretary for Ireland did not think it was worth while to come into the House while my honourable and learned Friend was making his speech; but we do not ask for the Catholics of Belfast champagne or anything of that sort. All we ask is that they shall have a share of the rates to which they contribute in the same proportion as the Protestants contribute, and we ask that the Protestants of Belfast shall show themselves to be equally Christian-like in spirit to those of the Catholic community. Until they do that we ask that the Government shall withhold their assent to a Bill of this kind, and refuse to allow the Board of Control to transfer this plot of ground. This Bill opens up a whole series of questions which will be raised on the Local Government Bill, and if we are defeated on this private Bill, we shall move Amendments on the Local Government Bill to restrain the Board of Control from dealing with any of its property as from the 1st of March last. But this Bill is no longer a private Bill. It has all the characteristics of a public Bill, and we are entitled to ask that its operation shall be suspended until the Local Government Bill is passed.

Sir, I cannot accept the view that this Bill which the Corporation of Belfast are promoting has anything to do with the Local Government Bill, or that it has anything like the importance which honourable Members opposite appear to attach to it. The whole question, it seems to me, whether the Corporation of Belfast should contribute not only to the Royal Victoria Hospital, but also to the Mater Infirmorum, depends on the consideration whether those hospitals are general hospitals in the ordinary sense of the word. I take it that a general hospital is the general hospital of the town, and I take it that that is the case in almost every town. A general hospital is one which is willing to receive and treat every kind of disease and accident, and also a hospital which is totally devoid of sectarian government and of sectarian influences. It should be a hospital in which the religious teaching of any particular sect—or, for that matter, any religious teaching at all—should have no place whatever. The Belfast Victoria Hospital which is about to be built is to be in place of the hospital which has existed for many years in Belfast. It is a hospital which is absolutely free from any religious or sectarian bias whatever, There are notices of the regulations affixed to the walls of the hospital, and a copy of them is given to every patient, no matter to what religion he belongs, directing that if he or she wants the attendance of any particular minister, no matter whether Catholic or Protestant, he shall be sent for. The management of the hospital is in the hands of a General Committee, which consists of life governors—and any man who subscribes £10 a year is eligible for the office—and other representatives of the subscribers, and they elect a general Committee of Management, consisting of 15 members. So far from its being a Protestant hospital, out of the number of these life governors there are several who are Catholics. On the Board of Management there are three Catholics, and certainly the best doctor in that institution is a Catholic, and has great influence in the hospital. Under these circumstances I consider that this hospital, which is supported by voluntary subscriptions, is the general hospital of the town. On the other hand, the Mater Infirmorum, however good it may be—and I have been over it, and can testify to the excellence of its management—is not a general hospital. It is distinctly a sectarian hospital. I do not mean to say that they would refuse admission to any suffering Protestant, but its management is entirely in Catholic hands. Honourable Members will understand what I mean when I say that it is under the direction of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Belfast, and that the doctors on the staff are all Catholics. The nurses are all nuns, and in the centre of the hospital there is a Roman Catholic chapel, in which Roman Catholic services are carried on. I cannot understand, under these circumstances, how it can be called a general hospital, or why the Corporation of Belfast should be called upon to contribute to its support. The honourable Member for Derry has told us of the noble effort which has been made in support of this hospital by raising £50,000, or whatever the amount was; but I am sure that the honourable Member will not deny that a very large proportion of that amount was subscribed by the Protestant people of Belfast. And that money has been subscribed under the idea that this hospital was a general hospital, and they never had an idea that it could be claimed as anything but the general hospital of Belfast. Well, Sir, the ratepayers of Belfast are perfectly entitled to give their money in support of a general hospital, but I do not think they are justified in giving their money to any special hospital of a purely sectarian kind such as that mentioned by the honourable Member opposite, or to such hospitals as the Children's or the Maternity Hospitals. The honourable Member for Louth has told us what has been done in Dublin and Cork and other cities, but I cannot but regret that honourable Members opposite should have taken up the attitude that they have taken, and that they should have accused the Protestant people of Belfast of narrow-mindedness. In my view, the narrow-mindedness is all on the other side. I remember the time when the Catholic bishop was one of the most active supporters of the Board of Management of the General Hospital, but a different spirit seems to prevail now. It seems to me that no matter what is on the tapis in Belfast, whether it be municipal elections or other matters, the great object of the Catholic clergy is to get the control of the whole matter into their own hands. This Bill, if it goes through, will prove to be one of the greatest boons ever given to Belfast; and therefore I think it would be a great pity if hon. Members opposite were to throw it out. I will only make one more remark, and that is with regard to what the honourable Member opposite has said as to the Board of Control. All we ask is that the Board of Control should transfer to the Corporation certain lands which the Corporation bought with their own money.

The ratepayers' money.

All they want is that the property of the ratepayers shall be taken out of the nominal management of the Board of Control and placed in the hands of the Corporation. I do hope that the House will agree with me that an institution which has done so much good for the town of Belfast shall be assisted in the way proposed by this Bill.

I only rise to say that in my constituency public opinion is certainly hostile to this Bill. I think honourable Members opposite will agree that where public money is to be distributed, at any rate, the claims of rival establishments should be considered. I had the opportunity of a conversation with the Lord Mayor of Belfast this afternoon. We discussed this matter very fully, and he had nothing but compliments to pay to the Mater Infirmorum Hospital. We have every confidence in the management of that hospital, which has conferred great benefit on Belfast; and I hope, Sir, that unless the promoters of this Bill will consent to allow it to have a share of the benefits of this grant, the Bill will be rejected, and not sent to a Committee of the House.

I wish to ask whether the House is really inclined to go beyond the decision of the Belfast Corporation in regard to this matter? The fact is this: that a majority of the members of the Belfast Corporation, in a matter which was entirely within their own competence, came to a certain decision. The honourable Member for Londonderry says that the minority of the Corporation took another view, and therefore it is the duty of the House of Commons to refuse to recognise the opinion of the majority.

That was not my contention. My contention was that the matter should be discussed on its merits.

I submit that it would be establishing a most dangerous precedent to go behind the decision of such an important body as the Corporation of Belfast. But with regard to the matter itself I think it has been put a great deal too high. What are the facts of the case? They are extremely simple and have been stated already. A large sum of money was raised by voluntary subscription in Belfast on the occasion of Her Majesty's Jubilee, as was done in so many other places, and a contribution is to be made to make that splendid effort more effective. But beyond that the Corporation will grant a piece of land which will be suitable for this object, and the Board of Control, which has been introduced into this discussion by the honourable Member for Louth, is merely an incident and has nothing to do with the merits of the case. The proposal is to transfer certain land of the Corporation of Belfast, and the point raised by the honourable Member opposite is that there should be a species of blackmail exacted.

I beg to ask whether it is in order to describe my Motion as blackmail?

No, no; I did not intend to do that. My idea was that it was undesirable that the Belfast Corporation should be compelled to make a contribution to a particular section of the community on every occasion as a condition precedent to exercising their undoubted rights.

Why a condition precedent?

Because it is an undoubted fact that if this demand is made as a matter of right, then the same demand may be made as a matter of right on every hospital in Belfast. There is no doubt that this hospital will be absolutely open. The honourable Member for Derry spoke of Roman Catholic control, but that depends very much on the amount of subscriptions. There is no English or Scotch town which would admit the validity of the contention that you are to set up two sharp divisions in every city in the United Kingdom, one for the Roman Catholics and the other for everybody else, and to regard them as being equally entitled to receive grants of public money. This hospital, which is intended to commemorate the Jubilee, is an unsectarian hospital, open to all, and has been subscribed for by the generosity of the citizens of Belfast. I cannot understand why the honourable Member opposite should object. If his Amendment is carried, and this Bill is thrown out, what will be the result? Would there be any advantage to the present hospital? Not the least in the world. The only result will be that a further burden will be placed upon the contribution of the citizens to find £12,000 to get another site. No human being will be advantaged by the passing of the Amendment, and I trust we shall not be prevented in Belfast from managing our own hospitals in our own way.

I should be very sorry to say one word against the generous desire to subscribe for hospital purposes either in Belfast or anywhere else. Whether the subscribers are Protestants or Catholics we are proud of their character for generosity, but at the same time it is impossible to blink the fact that in Belfast the circumstances are different from those of other communities in the United Kingdom. We have heard a great deal about the protection of Protestant minorities in Ireland, but we hear very little about the protection of Catholics in Ireland. The honourable Member who has just sat down has appealed to English corporations. Why, Sir, there is no corporation in England that would treat a minority as the Belfast Corporation have treated the Catholic minority there. What are the facts of the case? The great General Hospital of Belfast was no doubt at one time ruled by an authority including many Catholic gentlemen, of whom the Catholic bishop was one. But the Catholics of Belfast experienced in respect of hospital treatment that which they had experienced in many other directions; and, although they are a poor community, they were driven in self-defence to establish a hospital for themselves, the Mater Infirmorum. Now, what is the present proposal? It is that out of what is the common property of the citizens of Belfast there shall be made an appropriation for the exclusive benefit of one section of the community only. I say one section only. It is true that the present hospitals are open to all patients, and to that extent they stand on an equal footing, but as a matter of fact, as everyone knows with regard to one of those hospitals, the majority of the patients are Protestants, and with regard to the other they are Catholics. Now it is proposed out of the common fund of the citizens of Belfast to make an appropriation entirely in favour of one of those two institutions, and to afford no compensation or set-off whatever to the other. I do not know whether my honourable Friend who has brought this matter before the House is desirous of preventing this Bill going forward, but, as I understand, all he asks is that the Catholics of Belfast shall be treated fairly and equitably in respect of contributions made out of the common fund. If that is done I do not suppose that this Bill will be further opposed, but I do think that we are entitled to appeal to the Government not to support this Bill unless Catholics are treated equitably with Protestants.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the House to give for a few moments a calm and careful consideration to the proposition which is before it. My honourable Friend for West Belfast has already told the House that the cause of this Bill being now before us is the fact that, in order to distinguish the Diamond Jubilee of Her Most Gracious Majesty, a hundred thousand pounds was subscribed by the people of Belfast, in order to establish a new general hospital in the city, and by permission of Her Majesty it was called the Royal Victoria Hospital. In order that those funds might be expended and a hospital erected it was necessary that a site should be obtained. The proposition is that a portion of the grounds of the Belfast Asylum in Grosvenor Street, and not required for asylum purposes, should be taken over from the Board of Control by the Belfast Corporation. We have heard a good deal about the sectarianism of Belfast, but it was only the other day that the Corporation of Belfast consented—and may I be permitted in parenthesis to say I regret they did?—that two wards should be marked out within the boundary, in order to secure representation to the Roman Catholics. That the corporation voluntarily agreed to this is admitted—[Mr. T. M. HEALY: No!] Yes! and it sufficiently indicates their desire to be fair-minded and to give the Roman Catholic portion of the population a share in the representation, and to enable them to take part in the government of the city. However, the opposition to this Bill emanates from what is called the Catholic Association of Belfast. I am sorry the honourable Member for South Mayo is not present, for I had a very pleasant journey with him to Belfast when he went to oppose the Roman Catholic Bishop in Belfast. I will not allow myself, subject to your ruling, Sir, to be put out by the jeers of honourable Gentlemen opposite. The petition presented by the Catholic Association deals with statements entirely devoid of foundation.

"Your petitioners"—(it says)—"will have no representation on the Committee of Management of the said hospital, and no voice in the appointment of the managing, medical, surgical, or nursing staffs of the said hospital. It is understood and believed that the new hospital is to take the place of the existing Royal Hospital. Your petitioners' co-religionists have been almost entirely excluded from the management and staff of the hospital, and notwithstanding repeated remonstrances, no provision has been made for ministering to the spiritual wants of Catholic inmates. Moreover, the Catholic poor requiring hospital accommodation very often found it impossible to obtain access to the wards of the Royal Hospital in consequence of the system of nomination for admission to the wards of the hospital which prevailed and still prevails."

Mr. Speaker, the Royal Hospital issued a statement on the 16th of April contradicting the assertions contained in this petition. They state very truly that at no period of their existence did there exist any religious test or qualification whatever for becoming a member of the general committee or of the board of management, or of the medical and surgical staff of the Royal Hospital. According to the Charter everyone who subscribes £50 in one payment, or £10 annually for six years, becomes thereby a life governor and member of the board of management, and every subscriber of one guinea annually may be elected a member of the general committee, and subsequently of the board of management. Of those qualified by payment of £50, eight are Roman Catholics, of those elected by the guinea subscribers there are three Roman Catholics out of a total of 15, and of these, one, an active and able member of the Board is a Roman Catholic priest. From 1837 till the close of his valuable life the Right Rev. Dr. Denvir, Roman Catholic Bishop of Down and Connor, was one of the most influential and respected members of the board of management. From the year 1849 till the present the medical and surgical staff has never been without one Roman Catholic member; commonly, there have been two, and occasionally three. The relations of these gentlemen with their colleagues have always been of the most cordial and amicable nature. For many years a Roman Catholic surgeon filled the post of secretary, and for the last nine years a member of the same Church has been chosen by the suffrages of his colleagues to occupy the position of Chairman of the Staff. The principle of non-sectarianism has been carried out with the most scrupulous care in every detail of hospital management. No question as to his religious belief is ever addressed to any applicant for admission to the hospital; no illuminated texts or religious emblems are displayed on the walls; no public prayers are recited in the wards; there is no chapel within the building—in fact, the hospital is managed as an institution with the primary object of the cure and relief of disease, while at the same time the Committee have taken pains to give to the sick every facility for obtaining the aids and comforts of religion. The nurses have directions to put into the hands of every patient the following notice—

"If at any time, while you are an inmate of this hospital, you feel desirous of seeing a clergyman, on your communicating your wish to one of the Medical Staff, the House Surgeon, or a resident pupil, the clergyman whom you name shall be sent for, provided the visit is considered not injurious by the Medical Attendant."

And further information on the same subject is given in a notice hung up in wards and passages. Every possible provision has been made for the convenience of clergymen called on to give the ministrations of religion to any of the inmates. The honourable Member for Derry has made the assertion, which I am sure he cannot substantiate, that the nurses refused to summon a Roman Catholic priest to attend a Roman Catholic patient. [Mr. KNOX: I did not say so of the Royal Hospital; I said it of the Infirmary.] I think every Member in the House who heard the honourable and learned Member was under the impression that he said the Royal Hospital. The charge that the Roman Catholic poor found it very often impossible to obtain access to the wards of the Royal Hospital is sufficiently met by the fact that while it is impossible to state accurately the relative number of Roman Catholics who have been treated in the hospital, as no inquiry is made regarding the religion of patients, and there are consequently no records, it is the opinion of all those connected with the institution, and who have the best opportunities of forming a judgment on the question, that about one-half of the patients admitted to the wards are members of that Church, while their co-religionists probably do not amount to more than one-fourth of the population of the city. I resent most emphatically the allegations of want of Christianity and want of charity that have been hurled against Belfast. There is no city in the Empire more generous, more Christian, than Belfast; nor is any tyranny over the Roman Catholic population ever resorted to. This Bill is an

I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name: After Second Reading of Belfast Corporation (Hospitals) Bill [H.L.], to move—

"That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee of five Members, two to be nominated by the House and three by the Committee of Selection; that all petitions against the Bill presented five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their counsel, or agents, be heard against the Bill, and counsel heard in support of the Bill; that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records; that three be the quorum."

It is a matter which the Catholics of Belfast have strong views upon, which they wished to place before a Committee of the House. Under the rules of locus standi they have no power to be heard in any other way, and are by no means to employ counsel. Under the very special circumstances I think the House ought to accept this Motion. The Bill is one of a very peculiar character, and one, I think, there is no precedent for; and under all the circumstances it is most desirable that the Motion should be allowed. It has a considerable bearing on the proceedings of the Local Government Bill, into which we are about to enter. If we find that honourable Members opposite have so strange a view of the rights of a minority—if they thought the minority should not be heard on a Bill of this kind before a Committee of the House, then we (the Nationalists) will bring it before the House on the Local Government Bill. I cannot help thinking that the Chief Secretary will consent to the Motion, for it is of such a kind that it throws a new light which will have to come out on the Local Government Bill. I venture to hope that the Chief Secretary will intervene in favour of this Motion. I should like to know the views of the Board of Control on the subject. There are other questions which could not be discussed unless the Motion is carried, and therefore I hope the House will support it.

I wish to second the Motion. I will read the Section of the Local Government Bill, which abso- lutely took away from the Board of Control their powers over lands whatsoever.

Order, order! That question is not before the House.

I am going to show that this Bill is of a semi-public nature, and therefore the Committee should be of a semi-public character, and I say that you take away from the Lord Lieutenant all powers of dealing with these lands. It is an argument why the House of Commons should treat this Bill as a semi-public one, and therefore should be dealt with by a hybrid Committee instead of an ordinary Committee of this House. It is an argument which is unanswerable from the point of view of public business. The ordinary Committee of this House meets and considers questions solely within the four corners of the Bill, and has practically nothing to do with Acts of Parliament. Furthermore, before the Ordinary Committee the Catholics of Belfast would not have the right to be represented on petition or by counsel, because by the rules of locus standi every ratepayer is supposed to be represented by his Corporation. I have just reason to complain that Her Majesty's Government, with regard to a Measure which goes to the root of their own Bill, should vote for it. I should like to know upon what grounds the Lunatic Asylums Board is to part with lands and hand them over to a private concern; and therefore I think that these lands should remain in the hands of the Lunatic Asylums Board. Furthermore, the last Belfast Bill—in 1895—was dealt with by a hybrid Committee, which established a precedent. It raised questions similar to those raised here, and it is due to the honourable Gentleman the Member for Manchester to say that he piloted that Committee with great success. I can only say that, as the Government have given their support to the promoters of this Bill to the present time, I think they are now entitled to come forward and say to the promoters: We gave you our support to this Bill up to the Second Reading, and we think now, having done as we have for the majority, that the minority should have a fair show, and that they shall have a full and fair hearing before the Committee. Our only chance of doing that will be by the appointment of a hybrid Committee. We are told that Parliament is able to deal with any Irish grievance. Is this matter so to be dealt with as to shut out the voice of the Catholic minority? If that is so, it is only one more proof of the power of the Government, of which we hear so much and see so little, and of their incompetence to deal with Irish affairs.

I venture to trespass upon the time of the House, as I happen to be one of the unfortunate "gang" that has been referred to. Here I might, perhaps say that I think it would be far better if language of that kind were not to be indulged in in this House. I think it is unworthy of this House with regard to the question of the difficulty connected with the hybrid Committee. I have only had the honour of sitting on one hybrid Committee since I have been a Member of this House. I trust it will be the last that I shall ever sit on in the House of Commons. The reason for the appointment of a hybrid Committee is easy to understand. It is that the honourable Member might be enabled to act as counsel for a party. I feel there can be nothing more scandalous than that such an enunciation should be made from the benches of this House. With regard

Order, order! The honourable Member is now going beyond the scope of the question. The only question is of what kind the Committee shall be.

I was only wanting to show that the scandalous part of the transaction is the present position of the land. We ask that it should not be vested in the Board of Control, but that it should pass to the citizens of Belfast. We ask why the power to deal—

Order, order!

I quite understand the object of these hybrid Committees. It is in order that witnesses may be brought over to give evidence; and to what can they speak but that which has already been brought before this House? I trust that this House will resist this suggestion for a hybrid Committee, and leave it to a Committee of this House to deal with the matter without bias and without prejudice in any way.

ruled out of order the following Motion, which also stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. VESEY KNOX—

"That it be an instruction to the Committee that they have power, if they think fit, to insert provisions for an equivalent grant, whether by a capital sum, or by annual payment out of the rates, to the Mater Misericordiæ Hospital, in the city of Belfast."

A proposal to endow another hospital out of the rates should be the subject of another Bill.

I claim the indulgence of the House for a few moments. I regret very much, at this late hour, that private business occupies so much of the time of this assembly, but the position has been forced upon me of opposing this Bill before the House this evening. Now I am not in opposition to the Bill in connection with the expenditure of the money, or in regard to the improvement of Liverpool. On the contrary, I only desire that the improvement should be extended to the home trade, and that more money should be laid out. It has been represented that I am in opposition to the shipowners because the shipowners have presented a petition in favour of this Bill. Now I wish to point out—my remarks will be as concise as possible—that the Liverpool Shipowners' Association passed a resolution to the effect that it was essential that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board should consider the necessary requirements of the home trade. That is precisely the position I occupy upon this matter. In the year 1893 the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board came to this House voluntarily, without any pressure whatever, and asked for certain powers, among which was the construction of a landing-stage at Waterloo Pier. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board have carried out almost all the powers given to them under the Act of 1893, but they have neglected to carry out that one in regard to the landing-stage. Further, the Prince's landing-stage was for the purpose of affording accommodation to the coasting trade, and that stage, which was used for that purpose, has been practically taken away. The result is that instead of the Act of 1893 increasing, as it was hoped, the facilities for the coasting and the cross-Channel trade with Ireland, they have been decreased by the action of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. With regard to my personal interest in this matter I only claim to represent other people. Allow me to point out, if that Board did as it ought to have done, it would have afforded facilities for the home trade. At an enormous cost they have afforded facilities for the American trade. To that I have no objection; nor have I any objection to the Board spending £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 of money in improving the docks generally for the foreign trade which comes to Liverpool; but I do most respectfully submit to this House that if millions of money are to be expended for the benefit of the foreign trade, then we, who are home traders, whose trade is not in any way to be despised, are certainly entitled to receive equal treatment at the hands of the Board. I submit that the expenditure of a large sum of money like this amounts to a bounty to foreign trade. I have no hostility to the improvement of Liverpool. On the contrary, I desire most earnestly to see Liverpool as a port improved and increased in activity and efficiency, because Liverpool is the principal port in England of which use is made by Irish producers; and anything which forwards the interests of Liverpool must of a necessity forward the interests of Ireland. But what I object to is that, while they do everything in their power to benefit the foreign they do nothing whatever to assist the home trade. That view may be denied, but if it is I will ask this question and press for a definite answer upon the point: Why is the Irish trade exactly in the same position as it was 60 years ago? It has not improved. An honourable Gentleman says that it is worse, and I believe it is worse; and there is no clause in this Bill which proposes to expend any portion of all these millions of money for the purposes of improving that trade. The Prince's landing-stage as I have already pointed out, gave some facilities for the Irish cross-Channel trade, but even that has been taken away. I have had personal experience in this matter, because I have been down to Liverpool several times in connection with it. The result of that is that you will see three or four boats lying out in the middle of the river waiting for the tide, and only a very small place available for them at the landing-stage. This should not and ought not to exist. I know perfectly well that the smallness of a certain portion of the trade is the reason given why the subject should not be pressed, but this. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board is not a trading concern—it is a public trust, which is administered for the benefit of the port and for the benefit of the whole of the traders who, from choice or necessity, use the port of Liverpool. With regard to the traffic coming from Ireland—I will not weary the House very long. I find the six of the Steam, Packet Company's vessels in the year 1896 carried nearly 146,000 packages, 254,000 cattle, 380,000 sheep, 6,900 horses, and 38,000 tons of produce. I submit respectfully to this House that this is a trade worth catering for. It is the absolute duty of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board to provide faci- lities for the carrying on of that trade. It may be said that this is entirely an Irish question, but I deny that. I would like to point out that now the war has broken out between Spain and America it is more important that facilities should be given for landing supplies from Ireland than hitherto. The position taken up by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board is that there is no certainty as to the situation of the Liverpool cattle market, and that the Bootle market scheme might be revived. I wish to disabuse the minds of honourable Gentlemen opposite of this kind of fairy dream. The Bootle market is dead, and cannot be revived until the matter again comes before the House of Commons. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board applied for certain powers last Session to build a jetty, which were refused to them by this House. [An HONOURABLE MEMBER: They were glad it was refused.] Yes. Sometimes even an opponent can set a body like the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board right. We saved them from themselves last Session, and I hope we are going to do the same this Session. Surely the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board do not labour under the delusion that the Corporation of Liverpool are going to allow Bootle, or any other place, to start a market for Liverpool? This House has had before them this evening a proposal of a private syndicate in London, where private syndicates generally rule the roast, to obtain a certain portion of London so that profits may be made out of it for the benefit of certain shareholders, and that proposal was carried by an enormous majority. Now, I want to know, is this House going to pass another Act of Parliament giving a certain number of interested gentlemen in Bootle the power to start a private syndicate with greater powers against public utility than that which was sought for by the Victoria Embankment Extension and St. John's Improvement Bill? I make bold to say, as a young Member of this House, having some knowledge of the principles which guide its action, that no private syndicate in Great Britain or Ireland have any chance whatever of obtaining from this democratic House of Commons power to start a private market which would in any way affect the food supplies of the people. The proposition is absurd, but the Mersey Docks and Harbbour Board seem to think differently. I trust it will not be necessary for me to divide the House in opposition to this Bill. I hope honourable Members opposite will give some cue as to the line of action proposed to be taken. This question affects, undoubtedly, the prosperity of the producers of Ireland, and I appeal most earnestly to the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture to place his views on this question before the House, as he always does, in a perfectly fair and straightforward manner. I do not desire to delay the time of the House further. I would not have taken up such a long period of its time did I not feel that this is a matter of national importance to Ireland, because Liverpool is the principal receiving port for Irish produce in Great Britain, and I say it is the duty of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board to provide at least the same facilities for native producers as that which it proposes to give to foreign importers.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we who represent the city of Liverpool have anything to complain of in the way in which the honourable Member has stated his opposition to the Bill, although I must say I think on the whole the House will agree with me that there have not been sufficient reasons given for the line of action which apparently he has taken. I understand that he is not anxious to hang up this very important Bill, and that his criticisms deal rather with the Instruction on the Paper. I do not think I can minimise the importance of the Bill to the locality which I and my colleagues have the honour to represent. It deals with the expenditure of a sum of three and a half millions, and it will bring about the construction of three new graving docks and six new branch docks, and the expenditure will be extended over no less than eight years. And when I tell the House that this money will not be spent in the purchase of land, but almost entirely in the employment of labour, the House will see of what extraordinary importance the Bill is to the community. It will so influence certain parts of the city of Liverpool that have somewhat stagnated of late years, owing to the obsolete character of the docks, as to probably impart entirely new life to those parts of the city. The importance of renewing the docks is shown by the very striking increase that has taken place in the length of vessels. I do not intend to go into any great quantity of details, but I should like to point out that, whereas in 1872 ships were commonly 440 feet long, with a tonnage of 4,000 odd, they now are 615 feet long, with a tonnage of 12,000 odd, and there is one being built of 700 feet. Therefore the House will see that docks built 20 years ago are entirely obsolete. The honourable Member desires to convey to the House the impression that this public Trust, whose duty it is to carry out its work with due regard to the public good, and for no other purpose—a Trust that is manned by the most intelligent leaders of the mercantile community in that important district—has been regardless of the interests of the city which he has the honour to represent. I should like to inform the House that while the honourable Gentleman is Member for Dublin, and represents the Dublin community, yet I have authority for saying that the Belfast people are perfectly content with what the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board has done and is prepared to do. The honourable Member seemed to think that the Board has been unduly careless of his interests, but I think that in past years they have shown that they have been quite alive to the obligation which rested upon them to discharge fully their duties with regard to any trade which enters the Port of Liverpool. During the last few years they have appropriated to the coasting trade practically the whole of the Prince's and Victoria Docks, which were both formerly used by the foreign trade, and which are most conveniently situated. They have increased the landing-stage by 400 feet, and built a jetty 300 feet long at the northern end of the extension. They have also doubled the accommodation for ships of the length of 250 feet; that is to say, the number of berths have been increased from 28 to 51 since 1872. The length of the quay space in 1872 was 2,300 feet. Now it is 2,430 feet. I think I have shown that the Board have been from time to time quite alive to their obligation. The honourable Member seemed to complain that a year ago the Board were prepared to take powers to create a connection between the river and a certain market at Bootle. I submit that that cannot in any sense be credited to the Board as an improper action. The fact is, this House in two consecutive years approved the removal of the market from Stanley to Bootle, and it was only at the end of the second year that the Corporation of Liverpool came in and said they thought, on the whole, it was most improper that a private company should undertake the discharge of public duties. It is to me rather an interesting fact, Mr. Speaker, that I was strongly of that opinion. I did not associate myself with my colleagues in taking the line they did, and I did not sign the Whips sent out in support of the Bill at that time. I was of opinion that a private company was not quite the proper body to attend to such an important public duty, and, therefore, when I come to the House this year and join in the Whip in support of this very important Measure, I think I may be looked upon as an impartial authority. The honourable Member has mentioned that he desires that the Board should go to the expense of £350,000 in making a new wharf and floating pier opposite the Waterloo Docks, but those works were never a part of a definite scheme, as one would imagine from the honourable Gentleman's remarks. As a matter of fact, in 1892, when that Bill was first on the tapis in Liverpool, the Chairman of the Board said that this particular matter was not of immediate pressing importance, but that the Board proposed to apply to Parliament for powers to carry out this scheme in case it should be found necessary. Therefore, they never did intend to carry out this scheme unless it was necessary, and no one in Liverpool considers this floating pier to be at all necessary. I will read to the honourable Member a letter which I have received from the Secretary to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, which, I think, the House, and the honourable Gentleman himself, will agree is couched in very moderate terms. It is written to myself, dated April 26th, and is as follows—

"With reference to the Mersey Docks Board (New Works) Bill, which comes on for second reading this afternoon, you may state to the House, on behalf of the Mersey Docks Board, that if they were sure that the site of the cattle market would remain at Stanley the Board would at once proceed to carry out the remainder of the works between the stage and the pier, under the authority of the Act of 1893, and which would have been carried out before this if it had not been for the altered condition of things brought about by the legislation of 1896. The future location of the Liverpool Cattle Market is at present uncertain, and until the question has been settled by arrangement between old and new cattle market companies and the Corporation, or otherwise, the Board do not consider that they would be justified in expending money, which might be thrown away should the site be changed. You may assure the House that when the future position of the market is known, the Board will do what may be reasonably necessary, either to improve the existing accommodation, so far as the improvement may be requisite, or to provide new accommodation elsewhere, suitable to the altered position of the market. The dock engineer has already taken measures to remedy the difficulty which has been experienced in the use of the jetty at the north end of the Prince's Stage during strong ebb tide."

Well, Mr. Speaker, I hope the honourable Member will recognise that this is really a very reasonable proposal. The Board does not intend in the least to run away from their obligation to the cattle trade; they desire to have regard to the interests of that trade, and it is only owing to the legislation which took place in 1895–96 and 1897 that they have any hesitation in incurring further expenditure which this letter foreshadows. I do not think I need really dwell further on the matter. The honourable Member has told us that a few months ago the cattle trade had to give way to the Atlantic liner. I have authority to say that during the last year an Atlantic liner only on one occasion ousted a cattle coaster. I hope, Mr. Speaker, under these circumstances, and having regard to the letter which I have read, that the honourable Member will accept my assurance, on behalf of the Board, that they have no desire to enter any non possumus to the requirements of the trade, and that they desire to discharge their duty in regard to the great public interests which their position entails upon them.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure every Member for Liverpool will be very glad indeed that this prolonged controversy has come to a final and satisfactory conclusion. No Member has a greater desire to see that controversy closed than myself. My honourable Friend would have placed me in a position of difficulty if he had gone to the length of opposing the Second Reading of this Bill, because I could not have found it consistent with the interests of my constituents in Liverpool to oppose a Measure which will largely increase the facilities, and therefore the prosperity, of the city, and also give the labour of the city a very large amount of work to do. But, at the same time, I think we must all agree that this is a controversy which ought never to have arisen, and certainly ought not to be prolonged. I cannot myself quite understand where the difficulty exactly arises, except that it is owing to the question of the Stanley Market to a certain extent lying open. My honourable Friend behind me is perfectly justified—in fact, it is his duty, as representing the people of Dublin—in bringing before this House on every occasion the just and supreme demand of the trade of Ireland upon every facility that can be given to it by Liverpool. On the other hand, I cannot understand any citizen of Liverpool being undesirous of giving every facility for carrying on the trade upon which not merely the prosperity of Ireland but also the prosperity of Liverpool largely depends. This being to the interests of both sides I confess, speaking as impartially as I can, I cannot quite understand why there should be any difference of opinion. With regard to the complaints of the Irish cattle trade, I cannot come to the conclusion that those complaints are made without some just and adequate cause. I would be glad if the undertaking given by the honourable Member who has just preceded me, on behalf of the Board, were of a stronger character than it is. I am sure some of the other Members for Ireland will rise up and say that the Irish cattle trade ought to be assured that, not in an indefinite period, but promptly, their needs and demands will be considered in Liverpool, and every reasonable and just ground for complaint removed. These being the facts of the case, I do not think my honourable Friend will feel himself called upon to divide the House against the Second Reading of this Bill. At the same time I hope the Minister for Agriculture will be able to give some assurance that will satisfy the trade which he represents in this House.

The situation, as I understand it, is a simple one. I have had the advantage of frequent interviews with honourable Gentlemen who believe that their interests are jeopardised, and also with leading members of the Dock Board and of the Liverpool Corporation. So far as the Dock Board is concerned I have found in all cases a desire to put their case fairly, and I can safely say that I am convinced that they are not only anxious but determined to do everything they can fairly and justly do for the safe and convenient conduct of the trade which comes into their docks. But they have stated to my honourable Friend behind me that, so long as there is an element of doubt as to the future situation of the cattle market, it is not reasonable or fair to call upon them to spend a large sum of money on putting into a proper condition a landing stage which may prove unsuitable if a distant locality were afterwards selected for the market. I take it the suggestion of the honourable Member for Dublin is not that the large expenditure authorised by the Act of 1893 should be undertaken, but that proper provision should be made for the cattle trade at a spot convenient for the existing market. The answer to that is that that market may not continue to exist, and that the proposal before the House last year with regard to the market may be revived. Well, Sir, I can only say that the Department for which I am responsible would view with the greatest possible apprehension and with the greatest possible regret any attempt to establish in a great city like Liverpool a market which is not owned and controlled by the Corporation, who would be responsible to the Board of Agriculture for the conduct of that market. One of the most important details of our work is the superintendence of the various large markets of this country, in order to secure that they shall be properly conducted as regards sanitation, and that their condition shall be such for the reception and distribution of the cattle as shall secure the least possible amount of cruelty, ill-treatment, and suffering on the part of the animals Well, the experience of my Department has always been that it is in the interests of all concerned—Government authorities, individuals, and the trade—that these large markets should be owned and controlled by local bodies, who ought to be responsible for these details of local government. I, therefore, cannot help thinking that the difficulty as to the possible revival of that scheme is not a very real one, and I cannot myself help being convinced, after the assurances that have been given to me, that there will no longer be any unnecessary delay, and that there will be every effort on the part of the Corporation to provide a suitable market, and on the part of the Dock Board to give suitable means of access to it; because I think that these great bodies, who are trustees for the public good, have gone as far as one can reasonably ask them to go in the existing circumstances. I hope that the advice which has been given by my honourable colleague the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool will be accepted by honourable Members opposite without putting the House to the trouble of a Division, and that, considering the large space of time occupied to-day in the transaction of private business, and especially Irish business, we shall now be allowed to bring this Debate to a close. I am as anxious as honourable Members opposite can be that the interests of this great trade should be safeguarded. I believe that no risk whatever will be run by taking the course that has been suggested, but that, on the contrary, it will further the object that they and I, and I certainly hope my honourable Friends behind me, have in view.

After the explanation given by the honourable Member for the Abercrombie Division of Liverpool, I feel that I should be only acting against my own judgment and against the interests which have been confided to me in dividing the House. I am quite satisfied that the right honourable Gentleman will safeguard the interests of the Irish cattle trade, and of the live stock trade generally, and I therefore accede to the suggestion that I should withdraw the Motion.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state how often the steamer, which is under contract to carry Her Majesty's mails to and from Stornoway as a speed of 11 sea miles an hour, has been late in her arrival at Kyleakin and Stornoway respectively during the months of February and March; and will he state how often the delay exceeded half an hour, and the maximum delay on any one occasion?

The packet between Kyleakin and Stornoway has been late, during the months of February and March, 18 times at Kyleakin and 46 times at Stornoway. The delay exceeded half an hour 12 times at Kyleakin, and 16 times at Stornoway. The maximum delay took place with the packet leaving Kyleakin on the 15th February when, owing to a severe storm, she was obliged to put into Portree for shelter, and did not reach Stornoway until 12.25 p.m. on the 16th February. On the 15th February there was consequently no dispatch from Stornoway.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, if he will state whether the Congested Districts Board for Scotland have yet acquired any land either by purchase or agreement for the purposes set forth in the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act of last Session?

The answer is in the negative.

I beg to ask the honourable Member for the Thirsk Division, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether, under the scheme for dealing with St. Bartholomew's Hospital, Oxford, Oriel College will be at liberty to destroy the ancient hospital buildings, in order to use the site for erecting modern buildings in their place?