I have upon the Paper a notice of Motion of an Instruction after the Second Reading of this Bill, and I ask the indulgence of the House while I state the reasons why I do not propose to move it. I originally put down the Motion in no hostility to the Bill, but for the prevention of an injustice which might, as the Bill stands, be imposed upon certain ratepayers of the urban district. Under the provisions of the Bill these ratepayers would have had to make good any deficiency in regard to the expenses of the water undertaking—although they could not possibly obtain any benefit from the water supply. However, since I have put down my Instruction I have received, on the part of those who are interested in the Bill, an assurance as to the intention of the urban council (who are the promoters of the Bill) which justified me in thinking that there is now practical security that the ratepayers, in whose interests I am concerned, will not be saddled with any deficiency caused by any falling off of revenue. I therefore do not move the Instruction, but I may be allowed to add, as there is a considerable misapprehension in the locality as to the nature of this Instruction, that as this is moved after the Second Reading, and not on the Second Reading, it is clear that my intervention was caused entirety by the wish to prevent a possible injustice which is now recognised in that light by the promoters themselves, and was not caused by any hostility to the Bill, which I consider is in the main a good one.

I rise to a point of order, Sir. These clauses, which are to be proposed by the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, are important Amendments of the general law which is applicable to water companies.

I do not see any irregularity; perhaps the honourable Member will tell me what his point is.

These are Amendments of the general public law, and they override what has been done upstairs; and I should like to know, Sir, whether it is right to move Amendments at this stage of a private Bill which ought to be the subject of a public Bill? These clauses are an Amendment of the general law applicable to water undertakings. I do not think there is any question as to that.

On the point of order, Sir, I think I shall be able to show that these proposals will not override the decision of the Committee upstairs, and I think I can also show that the course which is being adopted is taken after consultation with the Chairman of Committees in both Houses of Parliament.

I will hear the explanation by the right honourable Gentleman in introducing the clauses. At present I am not in a position to say that they are out of order.

In moving the Motion which stands in my name, I desire in the first place to say that various representations have been made to me since these clauses were placed upon the Paper, to the effect that in certain quarters objection had been taken to them mainly on two grounds: firstly, as to the matter and effect of the clauses inserted, and, secondly, as to the time and method of their introduction. I think, under these circumstances, it may be well, therefore, that I should explain, in the first place, how it is that these clauses are being introduced and pressed on behalf of the Local Government Board at the present time, and then I will deal with the clauses themselves, and the objects which we seek to accomplish in moving them. The House will recollect the terrible disaster which occurred at Maidstone in the early part of last year in connection with the water supply, but unfortunately in this respect Maid-stone does not stand alone. There have been similar troubles at Lynn, Cam-borne, and other places from which we have had complaints, and the time has come when, in the opinion of the Local Government Board, some action was desirable upon the matter. Accordingly we addressed from the offices of the Local Government Board two circulars to all the different local authorities throughout the country, the first inquiring by whom their water was supplied, whether by local authorities or by public water companies, and the second impressing upon them the necessity of seeing that their supplies were pure and wholesome, and urging the responsibility which rested upon them in the matter. We did this early in the year, and meantime various Water Bills were delivered and received by us, in several of which, but not in all of which, new clauses were introduced for the purpose of preventing pollution of the sources of supply. In connection with these Bills I may remind the House that the practice of the Board for many years has been to make Reports to the various Committees, to whom they are submitted on all the different Bills which are brought before them, and the Standing Orders of both Houses of Parliament provide that these Reports shall be considered by the Committees, and also that the House shall be advised by those Committees as to the course which the Committees propose to take upon these Reports which they receive from the Local Government Board. In all these cases which we are discussing this afternoon the new clauses generally were for the purpose of obtaining further powers of preventing pollution of the sources of supply, but the clauses differed in many respects, and in some cases were open to objection; and although we agree generally with the objects in view, we had to consider whether and what alternative proposals could be made in this respect—proposals which would be suitable for all the different Bills which were before Parliament. But, apart altogether from the proposals contained in the Bills, we have had complaints in certain cases of the quality of the water which is at present being supplied by various local water authorities, and the views of the Department generally, both with reference to the supply of pure and wholesome water and also with respect to the means of preventing pollution, were embodied in the Reports which were sent to the Committees many months ago. Some of the Bills were dealt with by Committees in the Commons, others in the Lords, and the Committees of the Commons so far accepted the Board's Reports as to omit the clauses to which objection had been taken, and in their Reports to the House they stated that they had not inserted other clauses in the place of them, pending the settlement of general clauses, which should be applicable to all the different Bills. In the Lords the Committees were not appointed until after the Easter Recess, with the express view of affording time for the settlement of the general clauses, and clauses of that character accordingly were prepared by the counsel to the Chairman of Committees. They were subsequently considered by the Chairmen of Committees in both Houses of Parliament, and the principle of the clauses was agreed to. Subsequently to this the Parliamentary agents for all the different Bills were invited by the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords to consider them, and I am permitted to say that he had hoped that clauses would have been framed in which there would have been a general concurrence on the part of the promoters of the Bills, but when he found there was some considerable difference of opinion as to the clauses in their then shape, he felt that he could not of his own motion require the introduction of the clauses, on the ground that it would be alleged that at that time sufficient notice had not been given, and that the question was one of general importance, and not limited to the particular authorities promoting these particular Bills. Both he and the Chairman of Ways and Means, however, in this House agreed to the clauses being proceeded with, provided the Local Government Board gave notice of them before the Whitsuntide Recess, and this accordingly was done. Since that time, I may add, the clauses have been considerably modified, so as to meet as far as possible the objections which had been taken to them in various quarters as originally drafted, and in which we hope, and in which we have reason to believe, we have to a considerable extent succeeded. Now, these are the circumstances, as briefly as I can recapitulate them, under which I am asking leave to introduce these clauses at the present time. Having said that, with the permission of the House I will turn to the consideration of the nature and merits of the clauses themselves. At the commencement of my observations I reminded the House of great disasters which had occurred at Maidstone and elsewhere. In reference to Maidstone in particular, it is very difficult to exaggerate the gravity and the importance of the circumstances which arose at that time, and the object which I have had in view has been to take further precautions which, as far as possible, may be effective in preventing the recurrence of similar disasters in the future in other parts of the country. For this purpose, it seems to us, two conditions are essential: in the first place the consumer must be protected against any shortcomings and neglect of duty on the part of the water authority, and, secondly, these authorities themselves must be invested with sufficient powers to protect themselves from pollution of the sources of supply from which they draw the water, which they in turn hand to the consumer. There is a third point I must refer to, which appears somehow or other to have been overlooked in existing legislation, as to the obligation of the different water companies to provide a pure and wholesome supply of water, and that is this: that the failure to fulfil existing obligations to provide a pure and wholesome supply of water is to be liable to a definite penalty. This is not in existence at present, but it is one which we provide for in the first clause on the Paper which has been circulated this morning. With regard to the other two points, we endeavour to protect the consumer from any failure of duty on the part of the water authority as follows: in the first place, we empower the medical officer of health, or any officer authorised by the local authority, on producing the certificate of his authority, to enter the premises of the water authority and the corporation supplying water, and to take samples of the water supplied. That is the first thing we do, and the second is this: that, on certain conditions, we enable any water consumer to take the same course. It has been represented to me, however, from various quarters that to give an indiscriminate power of entry to any water consumer throughout the country might, and probably would, be to entail very great and needless annoyance on the water authorities, and I am bound to say, on further reflection, that I think there is much weight in these objections. We, therefore, attach to the power of entry in the case of every consumer the following conditions: we require him, as a preliminary condition, to obtain from a justice of the peace exercising jurisdiction in the district an order authorising him to enter upon the premises and take samples, but the justice is not to grant this order—and I beg the House to observe this, and especially the representatives of the water authorities in this House—unless the consumer has given reasonable notice to the water authority stating when and where he means to make his application for the order; and, secondly, he shows before the justice a full and reasonable cause for making his application. In addition to this, supposing the order is granted, he is required to give not less than six hours' notice of when, and where he proposes to take the samples. By these conditions we think, if they are adequately fulfilled, the water authority will be protected against vexatious action and needless annoyance on the part of any consumer.

I should like to ask whether the consumer will be able to take a sample from his own supply in his own house?

Of course he can take a sample of the supply in his own house. I am now pointing out the conditions under which he can take samples from the premises of the Water Company.

I understood the right honourable Gentleman to be speaking—

Then the honourable Member understood me wrong. I was dealing with conditions attached to taking samples from the premises of the water authorities. There remains the case of the water authorities themselves which require protection from the pollution of their sources of supply, and it is proposed to give to the officers of the water authority or the medical officer of the local authority power to enter on lands or premises from which water is supplied, and in the words of the clause they are empowered—

"to take and carry away samples of any water, or of any matter, substance, or liquid which may appear likely to cause pollution to the water of the company or the sources of supply whereby such water may be fouled, and if the right or entry is obstructed or refused then a justice in the district after notice and reasonable cause may require admission by order."

On this point again it has been represented to me that the rights of the owners of property and of land may be in danger. That is a matter which has received my careful consideration, and we have endeavoured to provide for it, and I think we have successfully provided for it in this way. The right of entry may be obstructed or it may be refused. But if that is the case, then the justices in the district can be ap- pealed to, and after reasonable notice and reasonable cause has been shown, he may be empowered to require their admission by giving an order for that purpose. Those, Sir, are the general provisions of the clause by which we hope that it will be possible to make a better provision for the supply of pure and wholesome water in districts throughout the country in the future. Of course I am aware that some objections have been taken to these proposals, and the chief of them are these: It is said in some quarters that the clauses are unnecessary altogether, and that if they are necessary then they should be embodied in a public and not in a private Bill. Another objection urged against them is to this effect: The powers given to the consumer ought to be eliminated entirely from the clauses. Further, it is said that the clauses ought not to apply in any case to corporations. One of my correspondents, agreeing with the cheer of the honourable Member behind me, expressed the opinion that while the clauses were undoubtedly admirably adapted to all water companies, they certainly ought not, under any circumstances, to apply to corporations like his own. Now, I frankly admit that the position of corporations which only supply their own constituents is altogether different from that of water companies; but then they are in a very small minority, and as the great majority of corporations supply others as well as themselves, I have not been able to perceive any valid reason in the interests of a supply of pure and wholesome water where that is the case why these clauses should not equally apply to them. With regard to the elimination of the consumer, those who maintain that that ought to be done have apparently forgotten the course we adopted last year in the Bill of last Session dealing with the London Water Companies. Not only did we give to the consumer power to make complaints and take the water companies before the new tribunal, but we empowered the local authorities to come to his aid and assistance, if called upon to do so, and if so called upon they were empowered to assist with funds derived from the rates. And as to the idea that these clauses should be introduced in a public and not in a private Bill, I may say that it would have been quite impossible for me during this Session, considering the pressure of business, to introduce a Bill dealing with the whole of the question. On the other hand, the House will remember that there are no less than some 21 different Bills dealing with the water question, affecting the health of millions of people, during the present Session, and in view of the disasters which have recently occurred, and to which I have referred, I have been most anxious not to allow the present Session to pass without making some effort, at all events, to effect some improvements in the present condition of affairs. Such an opportunity is offered, in my judgment, at the present time. It is a question directly affecting the public health; it cannot be denied, I think, in any quarter that there is room, and indeed necessity, for some reform in this matter. I believe there is absolutely nothing in these clauses in their present form to which any solid or reasonable objection can, I think, be taken, and if experience should show that revision is required, of course these clauses will be open to revision in the future. I can only say in conclusion that I hope the House, having heard the general statement which I have made upon the main points which I consider to be now under consideration, will support me in moving the modern, but at the same time, as I believe them to be, the useful and highly beneficial proposals which are contained in the clause, which I beg leave now formally to move.

The right honourable Gentleman has very clearly stated the substance of the proposed clauses. Those clauses are in themselves drastic, and for anything I know, they may be necessary. But I am not going to criticise these clauses in detail, because the objection that I have to them is one of a totally different character. There are two kinds of legislation which are sometimes attempted in this House, both of which, in my view, ought not to be permitted. The first is the attempt to repeal a public Act, or part of a public Act, by putting provisions into a private Bill, and the other is to alter the general law of the land by inserting provisions in a private Bill at a stage when the persons who might object to those provisions have not the opportunity of coming before a Committee of this House, and of having those provisions thoroughly examined. But whether they are examined or not, the first objection I take is this—that this is a remarkable attempt to alter the general law of the land by inserting provisions on Report into a Private Bill; I submit to the House that, however hard the case may be, such attempts make bad legislation, and I hope that this House will not agree to the course proposed to be taken by the right honourable Gentleman. This is no mere technicality, it is a matter of real importance. I will take first the case I mentioned just now, of attempting to repeal some public Statute by means of a private Bill. If it succeeds, what will be the consequence? For one thing, it will produce general uncertainty in the law, because private Bills are kept in what I may call a roll of this House, and it is very difficult sometimes to find a private Bill. There is no index to show what they contain, and if you have to search through all the private Bills in this House in order to see whether a clause in a public Statute is repealed, then I say that that is a labour which no one ought to be called upon to undertake. This would be, in my opinion, a bad course to adopt, because matters are easily inserted in a private Bill which are not looked at so closely as they would be if they were placed in a public Bill. The right honourable Gentleman says that it would be very difficult to carry a public Bill, considering the congested state of the work of the House. I daresay that may be so—I do not know—I cannot tell. The right honourable Gentleman knows that better than I do; I should have thought that with a majority of over 140 they might have got through a simple Bill embodying something in the nature of these clauses. Why not? Why should not the right honourable Gentleman take that course? He says there is no time. Why did not the Government, then, begin earlier? Surely it is not an unreasonable thing to say that with all the time at their disposal they might have brought in some Bill which would have contained something of the clauses he now proposed, and so produced a satisfactory Bill. But the Government has not troubled to do that. But there is something far more than that. The rule of this House with regard to the private Bill is that they should go before a Committee and be thoroughly examined. That Committee has power to hear witnesses and to inquire into all the details of the various schemes. Upon that view of the question I would point out that it is now proposed to refer all Scotch private business to a local inquiry, in order to obtain a more full and searching inquiry into the substance and clauses of these Bills. What has happened in the cases of these Bills we are now discussing? The right honourable Gentleman says that his Department sent a Report, as no doubt it was the duty of the Department to do, to the Committees that were to consider these Bills. But I would ask: Have these Committees adopted that Report? If they have, why have they inserted no provision in these Bills in order to carry out the recommendations contained in that Report, or anything of the kind? Under these circumstances we are driven to the conclusion that either these clauses have not been examined by the Committees at all, or else they have examined them, and after examination have rejected them. To-day we are on the Report stage of these Bills. New clauses proposed in public Bills at the Report stage require some consideration, but when you come upon the Report stage of a private Bill, not only to give the go-by to what the Committees have done, but to insert in a private Bill clauses altering the public law, then I submit that that is bad legislation, and, if these clauses are necessary, they ought unquestionably to be embodied in a public Bill, and not in a private Bill. The right honourable Gentleman says that these clauses are necessary. If so, why not insert them in a public Bill? I am sure that Members of this House would throw no impediment in the way of such a public Bill; on the contrary, if the right honourable Gentleman thought that these clauses ought to be accepted by the House, I am perfectly certain that every assistance would be rendered to him in passing them if he embodied them in a public Bill of a satisfactory nature. But that is quite a different thing to asking the House, at the last moment, after the Bills have passed through Committee, and upon the Report stage, to accept the introduction of new clauses. I sincerely hope that the House will not agree to that. There is another point. These clauses go beyond the notice which was originally given to the promoters of these Bills. That is rather a serious matter, because, as the clauses have gone beyond the scope of the notice, the people who have promoted these Bills have gone to the Committees only prepared to inquire into the actual scope contained in the notices. The Bills have passed the Committees without these clauses the promoters have now no longer any opportunity of altering these clauses before the Committees, and when the promoters are no longer in condition to make a proper and fair investigation, it seems hard that these clauses should be attempted to be inserted by the Government, and that the promoters should be placed in a position in which all the older water companies, in existence have not been placed. If these provisions are good and necessary for these companies, then they are good and necessary for all, and the one reason why I suggest to the House that it is most desirable that there should be a public Bill of this kind is that, if these clauses are approved of, they ought to be applicable to the whole water legislation of the country. That is what we ought to do. At the present time it cannot be done, because these clauses, according to the speech of the right honourable Gentleman, are only necessary for water Bills of the future. I must confess that to introduce legislation of a public nature into the private Bills of this House is a somewhat dangerous course. For these reasons I hope that the House will not agree to these clauses. I cannot help expressing my regret that the right honourable Gentleman has taken this course in the matter, and I hope that he will come to the conclusion that it will be far better to withdraw these clauses now, and, if they are necessary in the public interest, to insert them in a public Bill.

As my constituency is the unfortunate constituency which has been referred to in this Debate, I think I may be allowed, perhaps, to offer a few observations upon a subject of such importance and interest to my constituents and myself. We are extremely grateful to the right honourable Gentleman for the clauses he has brought forward, but we do not think that they go far enough. We believe that there can be no adequate protection to consumers unless there is a constant and regular analysis taken by some authority or another, and we think that the proper authority for the purpose is the water company. Referring to what has been said by the right honourable Gentleman on the other side of the House, I may say that I am at one with him in thinking that these matters ought to be dealt with by a public Bill, so that adequate protection shall be given to every water consumer throughout the country. I feel that I am entitled to say this, because we have suffered very grievously indeed through the pollution of our water supply, and in my district we feel most strongly that we shall not have adequate protection unless we have constant and regular analyses taken by an official of the water authority, which analyses shall be open to public inspection.

The question really before us is whether there is any reason for departing from what ought to be, I think, the action of the House upon this class of question. There is no proverb, I think, more true than this, that "Hard cases make bad laws," and because there has been in one district a great outburst of fever, and because there was something wrong with the water supply, the right honourable Gentleman, with the best possible intentions (and good intentions make a very doubtful permanent way), comes down to this House to try to cure the state of things in one district, or in two or three districts, by introducing special clauses into the 20 or 21 water Bills of this Session, whilst the great mass of the water supply of the country is left entirely untouched. I have been trying to find out whether these clauses were discussed in Committee or not. I believe that they were not discussed at all in Committee—that is what I am informed. I am open to correction, because it is difficult on occasions like this to discover where these clauses have come from. But I cannot help thinking that if we allow the general Statute law to be altered in every case by inserting clauses to meet the exigencies of some particular private Bill, we shall get our legislation into a troubled and chaotic state. I have had almost as much experience as any Member of the House of water Bills, and, so far as I can recollect, in almost every case the public law—that is the present existing law—gives enormous power to the local authorities to deal with these questions. If these powers are not sufficient to keep bad water away from the towns and communities, by all means let us have a general law, not a special and individual law of this character. The powers granted here to the individual consumers are granted with a very lavish hand. They allow, on the order of the magistrates, any consumer or consumers to go into a place where the water is gathered, and have a public inspection of the source of the supply. But the question of the quality of the water, which this Bill endeavours to deal with, is not found by looking at the source of the supply. That has to be found in a very different manner.

The only question now before the House is the first clause, but I have assumed that the House would wish that the discussion on the first clause should be a general discussion upon all the clauses.

If these clauses were right in themselves, they should be, and ought to be, incorporated in a public Bill applicable to all water works. My right honourable Friend says that in this clause all the corporations are to be included. I am not sure whether any of these Bills are corporation Bills, but the large corporations, such as Glasgow, Liverpool, and so on, which have had powers granted to them in the last few years, will not be included in these clauses. So that these enormous communities would not share in any of the advantages which may arise from these clauses, and would not receive any of the protection afforded by these clauses—that would be the case in 99 towns out of 100. I object to the principle of adding in the Report stage of private Bills, clauses which were not contemplated in their original development on the plea that here or there there is an outbreak of fever, and that, therefore, there must be a special clause attached to it. If that argument holds good at all, then the whole community should be protected from the possibility of an outbreak by universal legislation. I really hope that my right honourable Friend will not persevere with other clauses of this character. The sole question is whether, if the time is ripe for such legislation, we had better not have a short Bill which can be made applicable everywhere, and afford protection to water consumers all over the country.

I should like to say one or two words with regard to these clauses, because I am in a difficulty. In the first place, I long represented a district of Kent in which county this grievous outbreak occurred, and in the second place, I happen to be a director of the Kent Water Company. I have always been, uncomfortable when water questions came before this House, and on this occasion I say at once that if these clauses go to a Division, I shall not oppose them. I have, however, risen in order to put pressure upon my right honourable Friend to relieve himself, and the Government, and the House of a difficulty. It is perfectly obvious to all what has happened. In the town of Maidstone a most fearful outbreak occurred which ravaged the town like a scourge. I believe I am not wrong in saying that that outbreak has put back the trade of the town for many years. Is it not natural and obvious that when water legislation takes place in other portions of Kent, the local authorities should appeal to the Local Government Board to protect them from a like scourge? The Department has been subjected to great pressure not to wait to give this protection by means of a public Bill, but immediately, and at once, to relieve them from the possibility of a like scourge by adding clauses of this kind to private Bills. To my mind that is the whole question; and the right honourable Gentleman has submitted to this pressure, and has said that whenever he can lay his hands upon a Measure dealing with water, he will put in clauses which will absolutely protect the consumer. Then what does the right honourable Gentleman propose to do? I am connected with water companies, and I have no objection, so far as these clauses are concerned. We are glad to advertise our water, and the more its source of supply is investigated the better. Therefore, I do not think that so far as the clauses are concerned there can be much objection on the part of the water companies. Nevertheless, grievous mischief can be done by the passing of these clauses as proposed. There will be a gross unfairness, to my mind, if we once allow the Government to adopt the practice of inserting in private Bills, and by a side wind, as it were, important public legislation of this kind, and it will be a bad precedent. A public remedy should be secured by a public Act. Besides, clauses of such a character as these should have been brought before the Committee who had to consider this question, so that those who were spending large sums of money in promoting these Bills should have had an opportunity of properly considering them. Either that should have been done or these clauses should have been incorporated in a public Measure. I earnestly appeal to my right honourable Friend, not from any miserable, paltry grounds of my happening to be connected with a water company, but on the broader and better issue to consider the matter, and it will be far better to bring in next Session a public Act dealing with the matter comprehensively, and to withdraw these proposals this afternoon, which not only cast a slur on our private Bill legislation, but will ultimately place that private Bill legislation in a mass of entanglements and difficulties.

I do not propose to enter upon the discussion of the principle of these clauses, which has been so ably dealt with. I just want to say that I for one am glad that the right honourable Gentleman has brought this matter forward, but I think it is perfectly obvious what the feeling of the House is, and that the Government will be well advised in withdrawing these clauses. Still, I think that the speeches have shown that the House itself is fully cognisant as to the necessity for some action being taken by the Local Government Board in order to ensure greater purity and wholesomeness of water, especially, perhaps, among the smaller companies; and, therefore, it will be a very distinct encouragement to the right honourable Gentleman and the Government to introduce a Bill during next Session; and I think that the House has practically pledged itself to give the Bill their sanction. Under these circumstances, I do not wish to detain the House by arguing the matter, but I only hope that this discussion may result in the production of a public Bill at an early date, giving all local authorities these very necessary powers.

As my right honourable Friend, in moving these clauses, referred to the action which I have taken, I think it is only right that I should tell the House frankly what has taken place, so far as I am concerned. At the beginning of the Session there were several Reports from the Local Government Board dealing with this question. Some of the Bills were unopposed Bills, and came before the Unopposed Bills Committee. I was then brought face to face with the Report of the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, and then, bearing in mind the terrible state of things which had existed in Maidstone, and other districts, which has been referred to by my right honourable Friend the Member for Dartford, I thought the House would take some action upon the lines indicated by the President of the Local Government Board. I am not sure that it would not have been possible for me to have drafted clauses myself, and to have inserted them in these unopposed Bills, and have taken the responsibility for them, but I felt that that would be rather a serious responsibility to take upon my shoulders, and that I ought not to do so without having the assent of the House in so doing. I was, therefore, careful to warn all the promoters of these different Bills, at the beginning of the Session, that it was very probable that clauses of the nature of those which are before the House would be inserted in their Bills. The Chairmen also of the Committees, before whom the opposed water Bills came, took the same action as I did. They warned the promoters of these Bills that, although the clauses were not at that time ready for insertion, because the draft had not been completed, something of this kind would be introduced this Session, and therefore, whatever objection may be taken to these clauses, it cannot now be said that they are sprung upon the promoters of these Bills. They were fully aware of what was likely to happen several months ago. A discussion took place between the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords and myself, and the President of the Local Government Board, and these clauses were very carefully considered. If I have any objections to them at all, it is that I think they do not go quite far enough to please me. They were carefully considered with a view to meeting the wishes and views of all parties, and if any blame is to be attached to anybody for having asked the House to insert these clauses at the present time in these water Bills, I am quite prepared to take my full share. I did think, and still think, that in the pressure of public business this Session it would be really quite impossible for the right honourable Gentleman to propose a Bill amending the Waterworks Clauses Act, and introducing not only these clauses, but other clauses. I thought it only right, in the interests of the public health of the country, that clauses somewhat of this nature should be introduced into whatever water Bills came before the House this Session; and I confess that it did not seem to me to be a very serious responsibility to place upon a water company to ask them to supply pure and wholesome water, because, after all, that is what the water companies exist for. It really does not seem to be asking too much to ask them to supply that for the supply of which they exist. With regard to the subjects which the clauses deal with, one is to protect the water consumer, and the other is to assist the water company to find out where the pollution comes from. I see, as my right honourable Friend opposite has pointed out, that the view of the House is that this matter should be dealt with in a public Bill, and therefore, under those circumstances, I cannot take upon myself the responsibility of urging my right honourable Friend to press the clauses upon the House now.

If I may be allowed by the indulgence of the House I should like to say that when I moved these clauses I was certainly not prepared for the reception which greeted them, and which reception was quite unmistakable. I quite understand, so far as I can collect from the various speakers who have taken part in the discussion, that the objection which is taken is not to the clauses or to the proposals, but is founded upon this principle, that where a grave and important question such as this is to be dealt with it ought to be dealt with in a public Bill rather than in a private Bill. Knowing, perhaps, more of the circumstances than most of the Members of the House, I own that I have been very anxious to endeavour to deal, even if only partially, with this question during the present Session. At the same time, I quite recognise that the general sense of the House upon this subject is quite unmistakable, and I should be committing a very serious error of judgment, if I were not guilty of something worse, if I endeavoured to press my proposals against that general sense, which has evinced itself in so marked a manner. Under the circumstances I believe I shall best fulfil my duty to the nation and to the House if I ask the House to permit me to withdraw the clause.

I am not surprised at the action taken by my right honourable Friend the President of the Local Government Board, but I think that the House has been moved by something like what I must call a spirit of pedantry. If my right honourable Friend had been proposing his clauses to-day as part of a public Bill no objection could be raised to them. It is not suggested that any solid argument has been used against the principles of these proposals. Objection is taken to them that they do not apply to all companies, but to certain companies which have come to this House this Session for increased powers. It is argued that, though it may be proper to discuss the question of these clauses if they were part of a public Bill, yet because they are proposed to be inserted in Bills of private companies, who are asking for further powers, it must not be done, because they introduce new legislation, and because they have not been considered by Committees upstairs. With respect to the objection that to pass these clauses would be a derogation of the Standing Orders, let me point out, speaking with all respect, that the House is in danger if it adopts that view of being deceived by a similarity of form. Our Standing Orders are for the purpose of protecting persons who are to be affected by private Bills, proposed to be introduced, not for the purpose of protecting the promoters; and when a company brings in a Bill here and the House, for the protection of the public, inserts some provision which may affect the interests of the promoters, the promoters cannot say that they have been deceived. Cases might be pointed out—railway Bills, dock Bills, and what not—into which, against the wishes of the promoters, there have been inserted clauses for the public benefit. Take the clause about the labouring classes. There is no public Bill on the subject, but that is a provision which has been brought in, against the wishes of promoters of Bills, for the protection of working men, so many times that it has become of common form to insert it now in all cases where the houses of the working classes are required for public purposes. That great public benefit has not been done by public legislation, it has grown up in private Bills. We have to gradually educate the public in these matters, and one of the best means of doing so is by the introduction gradually of experimental proposals. I assent entirely to the wisdom and prudence of the conduct of my right honourable Friend in withdrawing these Bills, but I could not see what has happened, especially after the speech of the Chairman of Ways and Means, without rising to say that I think the House has acted with rather too mechanical a regard for precedent, and I think it would have been well to allow my right honourable Friend to proceed with this very useful legislation.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the so-called osprey feathers worn as plumes by certain regiments are only developed by, and are stripped from, the birds during the breeding season; that the destruction of the old birds involves the starvation of the young ones; and if he will consider the desirability of abandoning the use of a decoration which involves the slaughter of birds under circumstances now shown to involve such cruelty?

Orders have been given that plumes composed otherwise than of so-called "osprey" feathers shall be prepared with a view to obtaining the sanction of Her Majesty to the abolition of the "osprey" plumes worn by the commissioned officers in certain regiments. The selection of a satisfactory substitute is difficult, and some delay may occur in effecting the change.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government intend to recognise in any special manner the services rendered during the last 18 months by the civil and military officers and troops, both British and native, who so nobly responded to the call made upon them, in many cases at the risk of their lives, to stamp out the plague in Bombay, Poona, Kurrachee, and other places in Western India; as well as the services of those who took a prominent part in quelling the disturbances that took place in consequence of the plague?

As my honourable Friend is aware, various temporary concessions in the shape of leave or special pay or both have already been granted to civil and military officers and to soldiers engaged on the work of suppressing the plague. The authorities in India are fully aware of the excellent service that has been rendered for India by civil, by medical, and by military officials, as well as by many non-officials, in the arduous campaign against the plague, and the work so done will not be forgotten.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he could state what was the strength of the 3rd Battalions of Coldstreams and Scots Regiments of Guards on 1st March, 1896; and how many men are transfers or Reservists, and how many recruits?

Assuming that the date intended is March 1st, 1898, the strength of the 3rd Battalion of the Coldstream Guards was on that date 266 (non-commissioned officers and men). These did not include any men from the Reserve. The 3rd Battalion of the Scots Guards has not yet been formed.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that disputes have arisen, and are still unsettled, between parish councils and kirk sessions over the transference of parish charities under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, section 30, owing to the claim of the kirk sessions that the bequest applies to natives and not to inhabitants of the parish; and whether he can hold out any hope of altering the law so as to meet this difficulty?

I am informed that the Local Government Board have heard of only one instance in which a difference of opinion has arisen between a parish council and a kirk session as to the application of section 30 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, to a trust for the benefit of natives of a parish. This case of itself does not appear to call for a change in the law.

On behalf of the honourable Member for North Cork, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether his attention has been called to the correspondence between the Local Government Board and the Mallow Board of Guardians respecting the improvement scheme for the erection of additional labourers' cottages in the union; (2) is he aware that of the sites for 33 cottages sanctioned by the local authority, the Local Government Board inspector, Mr. Richard Bourke, objected to all but nine; also that the Board of Guardians state that the greater number of the reasons given by the inspector for rejecting the sites are contrary to fact; and (3) whether, in view of the great need for decent cottages in the union, and seeing that on a former occasion, when the Guardians called for it, a re-inspection was granted, the Local Government Board will order a re-inspection of the sites rejected by Mr. Richard Bourke.

In the absence, through indisposition, of my right honourable Friend the Chief Secretary, perhaps I may be allowed to answer the questions addressed to him. The reply to the first and second paragraphs is in the affirmative. The Local Government Board have carefully considered the circumstances of each of the cases mentioned by the Guardians, and they see no reason for a re-inspection of the sites. A re-inspection could only affect the few cases in which the cottages were rejected solely on the ground of the unsuitability of the sites selected, and not for other reasons, and the re-inspection of the sites stated in the question to have taken place subsequent to a former inquiry was made wholly on account of sites reported against on the ground of the absence of a proper water supply. 165 cottages have already been authorised in this Union, and as a result of this inquiry nine more have been recommended by the inspector.

On behalf of the honourable Member for North Cork, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been directed to the report of the Local Government Inspector, Mr. Richard Bourke, in respect to the latest proposed scheme for the erection of labourers' cottages in the Mallow Union, in which he states that four sites on the lands of Carrigacunna (East Division of Monanimy), upwards of 2,000 acres in extent, were rejected on the grounds that the owner objected that the sites are too near his entrance gate, whereas they are 300 yards distant at least, and the present cottages, which have been condemned by the medical officer as unfit for human habitation are much nearer to the entrance gate; and, whether, in view of these circumstances the Local Government Board will order a reconsideration of the matter?

I am informed that the sites selected for the erection of the cottages in question are about 200 yards distant from the owner's gate lodge and that the owner objected to the acquisition of the land on the ground that the erection of cottages on these sites would interfere with his amenity of residence. The Local Government Board concur in opinion with the inspector that the objection is reasonable, and see no sufficient reason for reconsidering the matter. The present cottages, condemned as unfit for habitation, are situate, I understand, not between the proposed sites and the property mentioned, but in an opposite direction, and on a different property.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what will be the amount of the hospital stoppage in the case of soldiers who have accepted the new messing allowance when the medical officer has certified that the soldier is in hospital owing to illness or injury incurred by reasons of the performance of his duty, and when the medical officer has not so certified; and, by what amount the hospital stoppage in the cases referred to will exceed or be less than the stoppage in the case of soldiers who have not accepted the new messing allowance?

The hospital stoppage is normally sevenpence a day, and is applicable equally to those who have and those who have not accepted the new messing allowance. In cases where the disability is certified to be the direct result of military service, the General officer may remit one-half of the stoppage, and he may remit the whole if the disability is due to an injury received at drill or manœuvres.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether, in view of the fact that the Dublin Post Office is kept open on Sunday for the despatch of letters by the evening mail to England, he will make arrangements whereby letters can be received, stamped, and despatched from the Belfast Post Office up to midday on Sundays, and despatched by the 2 o'clock train to Dublin.

This question was considered about two years ago, and an arrangement was made, which is still in force, whereby letters for England bearing an extra postage of ½d. can be posted in a box at Belfast Railway Station to within a few minutes of the departure of the 2 p.m. train to Dublin. It was understood that this would meet the wishes of those specially interested in the matter, and it involves a minimum of additional Sunday labour. The ordinary collections for the day mails are suspended on Sunday both in Ireland and England, and the Postmaster General is not prepared to open the Belfast office for business at midday on Sunday and bring the staff on duty in order to give further facilities for the despatch of letters by the 2 p.m. train to Dublin.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that at the Clapham Common, Northern District, South Kensington, and Camden Road Post Offices telegraph instruments of the sounder type are worked near or on the public counters after 8 p.m., so that the contents of telegrams are disclosed to the members of the general public having a knowledge of the Morse code; whether he will state why the practice was instituted; and whether he will take steps to protect the secrecy of telegraphic messages?

The telegraph instruments at the offices mentioned in the honourable Member's Question are worked at night and on Sundays near the public counter, but only an expert could gather any information as to the contents of the telegrams. At night and on Sundays the telegrams handed in at the offices in question are comparatively few, and the practice was instituted to avoid waste of force. The advantages of the arrangement are so clear and the risk so small that it is not considered necessary to make any alteration in it.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the amount originally allocated by Parliament to the Irish National Teachers' Pension Fund, and from what source did this money come; what is the present amount of this fund, and from what source did this increase arise; and what was the amount of the receipts and expenditure respectively for last year?

The Teachers' Pension Fund was constituted under the provisions of the National School Teachers (Ireland) Act, 1879, and was endowed under the same Act with a sum of £1,300,000, drawn from the surplus of the Irish Church funds. The assets of the fund amounted on the 31st December, 1897, to £1,910,867 0s. 1d. The increase has been derived from two sources, namely:—(1) the surplus of annual income (consisting of interest on investments and premiums deducted from teachers' salaries) over annual expenditure (consisting of gratuities and pensions paid), such surplus income being carried to the capital of the fund; and (2) amounts voted by Parliament towards securing the 'ultimate solvency of the fund—£90,000 in 1891–92, £95,434 in. 1896–97, and £18,000 in 1897–98. The receipts of the fund in the year 1897, including the two last-mentioned grants of Parliament, amounted to £177,132 9s. 1d.; the expenditure amounted to £49,341 2s. 10d. But with regard to this, and to the apparent increase of capital, it must be borne in mind that, as the system has only been 18 years in operation, the claims on the fund have not yet reached their normal amount, as only a comparatively small proportion of the teachers have been pensioned.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the sum voted by Parliament for superannuating Irish National teachers in 1878, and what was the amount for the past year; whether teachers of ordinary National schools who did not join the pension scheme obtained their share of the arrears of fee grant in a similar manner to the teachers of convent and monastery schools; at whose expense and at what cost was the amount of arrears due to each teacher respectively calculated; and if the money has not been paid, what is the cause of the delay?

The amount voted by Parliament in 1878–79 for gratuities to incapacitated teachers on retirement (including teachers in model schools) was £7,200. The amount voted in the last financial year for gratuities and pensions to those teachers was £18,500. Government have no information as to any teachers in National schools who, having declined to enter the pension scheme, might put forward a claim in respect of "arrears of grant." If there be any such they should apply to the Board of Education. With regard to convent and monastery schools, the amount voted by Parliament was handed over to the managers, and Government have no information whether any portion of it went to individual teachers; but probably it did not do so, as most of such teachers are monks or nuns. The calculations referred to cost about £650, mostly charged to the Vote for National education. These calculations were directed to be made in consequence of a letter addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by representatives of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation in July last, in which they expressed their willingness, if the question of the payment of the so-called "arrears" could be re-opened, that part of any such payment should go to make up the deficiency in the premiums for pensions paid by the teachers since 1885, and that for the future the teachers should bear one-fourth of the total cost of their pensions. As this letter was subsequently withdrawn by its writers, no further steps were taken in the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been tailed to the reports of the proceedings at the trial of the rioters at Ballinahinch Petty Sessions, county Down, on Tuesday last; whether he is aware that the Crown solicitor stated that on the night of the riot the town had been delivered into the hands of the mob for nearly three hours, and the sergeant of police had to arm his men and place them in front of the barracks, and that notwithstanding the evidence of rioting and the part taken therein by the accused, the Ballinahinch justices refused to send the accused forward for trial; whether the resident magistrate protested against this decision, and strongly expressed his dissent; and what course the Government propose to adopt under the circumstances?

The facts are substantially as stated in the Question, save that the accused, with the exception of three, were bound over to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for 12 months. It was, I think, the duty of the justices to have returned some of the accused for trial, but having regard to the fact that the accused have entered into the required sureties, and that the Government are advised that, in the result, the course adopted will probably conduce more to the preservation of the public peace than if the accused had been returned for trial, it is not intended to proceed further with the prosecution at present.

In consequence of the answer I have received, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this Question when the Chief Secretary's salary conies up for consideration.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of Metge versus the Chairman and Justices of the County Meath in Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in Ireland, deciding that, by reason of the non-publication in the Dublin Gazette of the average price of corn during the last seven years, courts of quarter sessions now possess no jurisdiction to vary tithe rent-charge in Ireland; whether he is aware that the Irish Land Commission, consequent upon the above decision, now decline to vary perpetuity rents reserved by ecclesiastical grants; and whether, having regard to the great hardship thereby inflicted on many landowners holding lands subject to tithe rents, whose rents, owing to the fall in the price of corn, have now become excessive, the Government will upon an early day introduce a Measure dealing with the subject?

My attention has been called to the decision referred to, and the action of the Land Commission consequent upon it. Notwithstanding the importance of the subject, legislation upon it is impossible this Session. The Government have under consideration the question whether it may not be possible to make provision to secure the publication forthwith in the Dublin Gazette of the average prices of corn in the manner contemplated by the Statutes dealing with the revision of tithe rent-charge, such publication to be made the basis for legislation next Session.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in accordance with his statement on 21st March last respecting postmen's prior auxiliary or unestablished service counting towards stripes, a telegraph messenger who, previous to his appointment as letter carrier, acted as rural postman, stamper, and head stamper for four years and ten months, is entitled to have that time counted towards good conduct stripes?

A telegraph messenger is not allowed, as such, to count his service for stripes. A telegraph messenger, however, appointed to act as a rural postman or stamper, and ceasing on such appointment to be borne on the books of the Department as a telegraph messenger, would be allowed to count such service towards stripes. It is difficult, however, to believe that any telegraph messenger could be so acting for four years and ten months, as it is the usual rule of the Department that no one under 16 years of age should handle letters, and it is also the rule that all telegraph messengers shall cease to be employed as such on completing their 19th year.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) what was the reason the Lord Lieutenant appointed over the heads of the Scariff Guardians a registrar of births and deaths for the Feakle District of the Scariff Union; (2) why Dr. Donworth, who was appointed by the Guardians, was not sanctioned by the Registrar General; and (3) whether the attention of the Government has been called to the resolution passed upon the subject by the Scariff Guardians?

Dr. Donworth was removed from the office mentioned because of his frequent neglect of duty and insubordinate conduct. The guardians were thereupon required to make a fresh, appointment, and instead of nominating a suitable person within the statutory period prescribed by section 25 of the Act 26 and 27 Vic., cap. 11, they proposed the reappointment of Dr. Don-worth, who, as they were well aware, was ineligible for the office in consequence of his previous removal there-from. The answer to the third paragraph, is in the affirmative.

Was the nature of Dr. Donworth's misconduct ever stated before this?

was understood to reply in the affirmative.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of the delay in putting the Scariff Waterworks scheme into operation; and whether he will communicate with the Local Government Board on the subject?

An examination, by the engineer, of the site of the reservoir for the waterworks showed that some alterations would be necessary in the original plans. When the amended plans have been furnished the Board will signify their approval of the scheme.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is now in a position to state the result of the inquiry regarding the rectification of the number of superior appointments in the provinces which was promised by His Grace in the Post Office Circular of the 10th August last; and whether, in consideration of the fact that 10 months have elapsed since the promise was made, the Postmaster General will, in the event of his inquiry being a favourable one, consider the propriety of ante-dating the appointments so as to compensate for the delay which has occurred?

Readjustments of the numbers of superior appointments in the provinces in accordance with the promises made by the Postmaster General and myself in August last have already been carried out at many of the larger Post Offices; and within the last few days the authority of the Treasury has been received for further revisions on the same lines at several other offices. The remaining offices are being dealt with as speedily as possible. As personal inquiry is necessary in each case, and no avoidable delay has taken place in carrying out the promised revision, the Postmaster General does not propose to ante-date the new appointments. They will take effect, according to rule, from the respective dates of Treasury authority.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain the circumstances under which an officer, formerly a travelling inspector in the north-west district, who in September last was reduced to the rank of a telegraphist on account of misbehaviour, was placed at the head of the sorting clerks and telegraphists at Liverpool, thus giving him preferential claim for promotion over 350 members of the Liverpool staff and to their prejudice in the matter of promotion; whether in cases of voluntary transfer, care is taken to avoid similar injury to the interests of other members of the staff; and, if so, whether the Postmaster General will extend the same principle in the case of disciplinary transfer?

It is the practice of the Department when an officer is reduced from one class to another to place him at the top of the class to which he is reduced, and this practice was followed in the case to which the honourable Member refers; but it gives no preferen- tial claim to promotion. In the cases of voluntary transfer, it is the rule that each officer enter at the bottom of the class in the office to which he is so transferred. But the Postmaster General is not prepared to apply the rule to all cases of disciplinary reduction, as doing so would in many cases seriously increase the severity of the punishment.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to recent deaths of children owing, as is alleged, to their having eaten so-called "ice creams" sold by Italians in. the streets; whether he is aware that several samples of these creams have been reported on by Dr. Klein to the effect that all of them were swarming with colonies of the bacilli characteristic either of sewage matter or putrescence, or both; whether, in addition, attention has been, drawn to the danger of mouth-to-mouth infection to children sucking ices successively out of the same glass; and whether the provisions of the Public Health Acts and the Food and Drugs Acts are inefficient to control or prohibit the sale of poisonous compounds such as these ices?

My attention has been drawn to this subject, and I am aware of the fact that two children recently suffered from vomiting and diarrhœa after eating ice cream, one of them dying, and that the coroner's jury attributed the death to the consumption of ice creams. I understand that Dr. Klein in 1894 made some investigations for one of the London vestries of specimens of water and ice cream submitted to him, and that he discovered numerous organisms. As to the third question, the practice referred to is obviously objectionable, but I have no evidence of actual' mischief having resulted. I am advised that these ices would come within the provisions of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, section 47, and also under the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890, where that Act has been adopted. But I am making further inquiries into the circumstances of these lamentable occurrences, and if it should prove to me necessary I shall have to consider whether any, and what, alterations of the law may be desirable.

May I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he has considered the question of regarding these so-called ice creams as dairy products, and therefore subjecting the premises in which they are prepared to inspection in the same way as dairies?

I should be sorry to regard them as in the nature of dairies, but there is no doubt from what I know that the conditions under which these ices are produced are discreditable in the extreme.

Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that these articles are made and purveyed by aliens?

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, seeing that Her Majesty's Inspectors are not permitted to examine the children in elementary schools in religious knowledge, it is possible to make an authoritative comparison between the attainments of scholars in Board and Voluntary schools on such subjects?

No official comparison of the relative attainments of the children is possible.

Then why did the Vice-President make such a comparison in his speech on Friday?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the important changes in enlistment for the Army inaugurated this year, the Government will furnish to the House, early in July, a Return showing the number of men enlisted during the three months ending 30th June, specifying how many are specials for height or physique, and comparing these numbers with similar figures for the same three months of last year, and also stating the number of reservists in each of the three arms who have rejoined during this period of this year, so that the country may be given, before the recess, the opportunity of judging the effect on enlistment of recent Army reforms?

It is unusual to give a Return for isolated periods; but a statement can be made, either when the War Office Vote is under discussion or in reply to a Question.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, as the parties concerned are understood to entertain no objection to such publication, he will cause to be presented as a common Paper the summary of statistics concerning higher grade Board schools and public secondary schools, which was prepared for the use of a conference between representatives of the Incorporated Association of Head Masters and of the Association of Head Masters of Higher Grade Schools, held at the Education Department in November last?

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of claims already made for compensation for damage done to property in the city of Belfast during the recent riots there; and if he can give the aggregate amount of the sums so claimed?

The number of claims referred to is 83, and the amount of compensation claimed is £1,360.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will give the number of the claims made up to the present for compensation for damage to property arising out of the recent riot at Ballinahinch, county Down; and if he will state the total amount of the claims lodged in connection with this riot?

Only one such claim has been made, for a sum of £55.

Can the right honourable Gentleman say when these claims will be dealt with?

That rests with the local authorities. I cannot interfere with them.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that grand jurors of county Monaghan have relieved themselves from county cess on evicted farms in their possession for several years past; (2) whether he can give the names of the grand jurors of Monaghan who benefited by not paying county cess on their evicted farms, and the amounts during the past five years; and (3) whether he will take any steps at the coming July Assizes to prevent the grand jury of county Monaghan from relevying on the county at large the cess of evicted farms in the possession of grand jurors?

The secretary to the grand jury states it is not a fact that members of that body have relieved themselves from county cess on vacant farms. Applications, however, have been made occasionally to the grand jury by barony constables to have county cess re-presented which they have been unable to levy off vacant premises, and in dealing with such applications the grand jury have been advised by counsel as to the cases in which re-presentments should be made. It has already been more than once pointed out to the honourable Member that the executive have no control over the action of the grand jury in such matters, and the Government do not propose, therefore, to take any steps in the direction suggested in the Question. It is, of course, open to any ratepayer to appear before the grand jury and object to any re-presentment, or to traverse it before the judge of assize.

Can the right honourable Gentleman answer the first part of the second paragraph of my Question? Can he give me the names of the grand jurors who have benefited by not paying county cess?

I did answer that. The Secretary to the grand jury says that no members of that body have relieved themselves from county cess on vacant farms.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received the Report asked for from the Governor of Lagos as to the alleged impressment and consequent suicide of a native trader from Abeokuta, and as to the employment of compulsory labour in that Colony; and whether effective steps have now been taken to prevent the unauthorised exaction of such labour by officials in Lagos and its protectorate?

The Question refers to one of those numerous reports which come from West Africa, which, turn out on inquiry to be absolutely groundless. The Governor has reported that, as the result of inquiries, it has been ascertained that the suicide of an Abeokuta trader, reported in one of the local papers, never occurred. With regard to compulsory labour, he has reported that in October last it was found necessary, in order to provide transport for the West India Regiment, in connection with the recent operations, to call upon the native chiefs to provide carriers in accordance with native custom, but this was only a temporary expedient, and each man received the full wage of 1s. 3d. a day. He adds that, when the men returned to Lagos, and were paid off, they expressed their desire to serve again on the same conditions, as soon as they had spent the wages which had accrued to them.

rose to ask whether the charges in another case were equally groundless, but Mr. Speaker ruled that notice must be given.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the proceedings of a medical gentleman in making a post-mortem examination on the body of one John Leonard, who died at Alfreton; is he aware that Leonard was attended by two qualified doctors before death, and that a certificate of the usual kind, showing the cause of death, was given on the 9th May; that on the same day, a few hours after the signing of this certificate, a medical practitioner, in no way concerned in the case, entered the room where the body lay, and performed the operation referred to without any authority from the coroner or the friends of the deceased; whether such conduct is a violation of the law; and what steps does he propose to take to stop such unwarranted proceedings in future?

Yes, my attention was called to this case some weeks ago, and I made inquiries. It appears that the examination was carried out by the son of the doctor who gave the certificate—one of the two mentioned in the Question, and at his request, the doctor being of opinion that his judgment as to the cause of death required verification. The only friends of the deceased who were known at the time were the people with whom he lodged, and they assented to the examination being made. I am advised it is by no means clear that there has been any violation of the law.

Did the doctor have the permission of the coroner? Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that the landlady of the house with whom Leonard died indignantly denies that she gave any permission?

Leave was not asked of the coroner, and, as I have explained, the post-mortem was made at the request of one of the doctors who gave the certificate. My information is that the friends of the deceased with whom he lodged did consent to the postmortem.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the calves from which lymph will be taken for vaccination will be submitted to the tubercular test, and those calves excluded from use which are shown by the tubercular test to be suffering from tuberculosis?

I have considered this matter, and the proposal of the honourable Member will be unnecessary, because I am making arrangements by which each calf from which lymph has been taken will be slaughtered and examined by a competent expert, and no lymph will be issued from any calf until it has been ascertained and certified on post-mortem that the animal is not only free from all signs of tuberculosis, but that it is also healthy in other respects.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the necessity for such legislation, an effort will be made to pass the Vagrancy Act Amendment Bill into law during the present Session.

I hope to be able to pass the Bill during the present Session.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) has there been brought under his notice the report of a case at Monaghan Petty Sessions, where two men, named Boylan and M'Quaide, were prosecuted and fined for an alleged breach of the bye-laws of the Great Northern Railway Company (Ireland), consisting of a simple effort to defend themselves against the violence of a man named Wheatfield, who behaved in a scandalous and immoral manner; (2) is he aware that it is stated in the report that Wheatfield used the most disgusting obscenities, behaving improperly with the women, and then assaulted Boylan and M'Quaide when they remonstrated with him, and although this was reported to the railway servants at Armagh, he was permitted to continue his journey; (3) has he observed that the presiding magistrate strongly censured the railway officials for permitting Wheatfield and the two women to remain in the carriage when complaint was made of their misconduct at Armagh; (4) will he explain why Wheatfield was not prosecuted, while the two men who were assaulted by him, and who merely defended themselves from his violence, were each convicted and fined; and (5) what steps does he propose to take in the matter?

At the request of my right honourable Friend I will reply to this Question. The facts are substantially as stated. With regard to the fourth paragraph, I understand that the stationmaster at Armagh did visit the carriage in which the parties were travelling, but that he saw nothing that would justify him in expelling them from the carriage. I am also informed that a summons was issued against Wheatfield, though, having left Ireland, it could not be served upon him. It devolves upon the railway company to take proceedings against Wheatfield, and the solicitor to the company states that every effort will be made by the company to bring him to justice. The police authorities will, of course, afford the railway company every assistance in their power in the matter.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if all the railway companies have now withdrawn from the decision announced that they would no longer convey Volunteer corps upon Saturdays to the drills and musketry practice undertaken without payment for the service of the country; and, in the contrary case, if the Secretary of State will consider, in conjunction with the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Postmaster General, the desirability of diverting from any such company the public moneys heretofore paid for the conveyance of troops, sailors, marines, guns, stores, and mails; and, further, have inserted in railway Bills for new or extended powers provisions against an exercise of power prejudicial to the public interest?

Two companies make some difficulty about the Saturday preceding the August Bank Holiday; but all the others have reverted to the arrangements of former years. I hope, as regards one of the two companies, that a satisfactory arrangement may be made, but the South Eastern Railway still stands out.

I shall repeat the Question as to the South Eastern Railway this day week.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether some arrangement can be made by which the Clare portion of the Limerick Union may be protected from a largely increased rate under the new condition of affairs under the Local Government (Ireland) Bill?

Apart from the agricultural grant the rates, under the system of union rating, will necessarily be raised upon the Clare portion of the union, but having regard to the sum the union will receive from the grant the present rates in this portion of the union will not, it is believed, be increased as a result of the new condition of affairs.

But, in view of the fact of the poverty of this portion of the union, cannot a special exemption be made in its favour?

replied in the negative, but repeated that it was not anticipated that the rates would be increased.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he has received a memorial from the Royal Academy expressing their opinion that the proposed buildings at South Kensington ought to be so arranged that provision for art be made on the east side of Exhibition Road, exclusively, and for science on the west side thereof?

A memorial of the kind referred to was addressed to the Prime Minister, and by him referred to the Committee of Council.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that there are collieries in Scotland producing in all over 100,000 tons of coal per day, or a total of over 30 millions of tons per annum, of which a considerable portion is steam coal, almost equal to Welsh coal in results, and which is used by the Atlantic steamers sailing from Glasgow to New York, and other more distant ports, and that the present price of such coal is not more than the normal price of Welsh coal; and if, in these circumstances, he will reconsider the decision to abandon the naval manœuvres, which only require about 50,000 tons of coal at the most?

May I ask the right honourable Gentleman, having regard to the fact that experiments specially instituted by the Admiralty showed that the best results were obtained in the Navy by a mixture of Northumberland and Welsh coal, whether, with a view to permitting the naval manœuvres to be carried out this year, he would not deem it advisable to place additional orders with Northumberland coalowners?

Trials have been made of Scotch coal at various times, and especially in 1888, of some descriptions of coal specially selected by the Scottish Coalmasters' Association. The result of these trials was to show that this coal was so inferior to South Wales coal as to render its general use in the Service unadvisable. Trials are made of any coal which may be considered to meet the requirements of the Fleet.

was understood to ask if trials had been made with Yorkshire coal.

I think I may say that various kinds of coal have been tried. Smokeless coal is very important, because a great deal of the utility of the manœuvres consists in signalling, and this signalling is particularly interfered with by coal which emits smoke.

In regard to the right honourable Gentleman's statement that samples of Scotch coal had been tried with unsatisfactory results, may I ask whether it is not a fact that the results with the Scotch coal were only 10 per cent. inferior to the Welsh coal?

I am not aware of that, but I am aware that it was found so inferior that the Admiralty did not consider it advisable to introduce it generally into the Navy. That is my information.

But is it not a fact that the experiments to which I have referred proved conclusively that the best results for the Navy were obtained from a mixture of Northumberland and Welsh steam coal? With a view to the manœuvres being carried out this year, does not the right honourable Gentleman deem it advisable to increase the Admiralty's purchases from the Northumberland steam coal companies?

No; I cannot undertake to say that it would have an effect upon the manœuvres this year, but certainly what we have seen of the difficulties with reference to Welsh coal will induce the Admiralty to renew the experiments in every possible direction, and to give every coal a chance of being used for the Navy according to its quality. That will be the natural result of the strike or lockout, which has so limited the use of Welsh coal. Naturally, we shall be anxious to make experiments in every direction.

The right honourable Gentleman told me the other day that the naval manœuvres involved a consumption of 50,000 tons of coals, and I understood him to say that that included the refilling of the bunkers. Can the right honourable Gentleman now state what quantity of coal will be saved by not holding the manœuvres?

I have no other information than that which I gave the other day. I presume the bunkers would first have to be emptied of the coal in them.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is his intention to recommend to the Treasury an increase of salaries to Scotch sheriff-substitutes, in view of the discrepancy between their salaries and those paid for like work in England, and the fact that their duties have been largely increased, and are going to be still further added to when the Workmen's Compensation Act comes into operation?

I have the matter under consideration, but I am not at present in a position to make any statement.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the passing of the Workmen's Compensation Act, it is his intention to recommend a repeal of the Fatal Accidents Inquiry Act; and whether he would consider if the saving thereby effected might be applied to the increase of salaries of sheriff-substitutes, so as to reduce the inequality which now exists between these legal officers and their confrères in England?

I have no intention of recommending the repeal of the Act named; its utility has not been destroyed by the passing of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

On behalf of the honourable Member for the College Green Division of Dublin I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has seen a resolution, unanimously adopted by the guardians of the North Dublin Union on the 8th instant, calling attention to the alleged unfair representation proposed to be given to the city wards as compared with the rural districts in the union under the new Local Government Bill; whether he is aware that, whilst the six city wards of the union, with a valuation of nearly £300,000, will have only six representatives on the board, the rural districts, with a valuation of only £120,000, will have 11; and whether he will introduce an Amendment correcting this disproportion by giving at least two representatives to each of the city wards?

This resolution is based on a misconception. In urban electoral divisions the Local Government Board will be enabled, should it appear equitable, to order the election of more than one guardian for each division.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education (1) whether the Education Department received before Easter, for its approval, plans for the erection of a British school at Pokesdown; and (2) whether, having regard to the pressing educational necessities of the locality, the decision of the Department will be made known without further delay?

The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The plans have been returned to the promoters of the school for alterations, as the site is not large enough for the numbers proposed.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Contagious Diseases Ordinances which were in force in Hong-kong from 1858 to 1887 were repealed, in opposition to the wish of the colony, and that the repeal has been followed by a serious increase of disease, as alleged by the China Association in their memorial of 30th August, 1897; and whether, in view of the recent augmentation of our forces in Eastern waters, he will reconsider the refusal to sanction the re-enactment of these ordinances conveyed in his letter to the Association of 19th February, 1898?

I am aware of the facts referred to by the honourable Member, but I am not prepared to sanction the re-enactment of the Hong-kong Contagious Diseases Ordinances. I am, however, conferring with the Governor as to whether other measures can be adopted to check the spread of venereal diseases in the colony. The correspondence is not yet completed, but when completed it will be laid before the House.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the regulation of immediate slaughter of pigs exported from Ireland to Great Britain prevents English and Scotch people from keeping Irish-bred pigs for fattening purposes, and causes great loss to pig rearers in Ireland; and whether he will advise the discontinuance of the regulation referred to in the future?

No regulation has been made by the Board of Agriculture which would require the immediate slaughter of Irish pigs imported from Ireland into Great Britain. It is possible, however, that such a regulation may have been made by a local authority for the protection of the swine in its district, and, if so, it would be obviously very difficult for me to intervene. Perhaps the honourable Member may be able to supply me with more precise particulars of any case in which difficulty has arisen, so that I may be in a position to make further inquiry respecting it.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is able to make any statement with regard to the accuracy of the disquieting reports as to the marksmanship of the captains of guns of Her Majesty's ships which have recently appeared in the Press; whether there is any foundation whatever for the allegations that portions of the ammunition directed to be expended in the quarterly target practice have occasionally been expended by being thrown overboard, instead of being fired at the target; that, when the floating target has been hit and destroyed, the gunners have been directed to aim at the horizon; and that occasionally, when directed to open fire at 3,000 yards, as judged by themselves, the captains of guns have actually opened fire at 6,000 yards; and whether, with a view to increasing the attention paid and the importance attached to accurate marksmanship in Her Majesty's fleet, he will consider the advisability of issuing an order that at each annual inspection by the admiral of the ships on foreign stations, and also more especially at each paying-off inspection, the inspection in respect of gunnery shall always include an inspection in marksmanship, to be carried out by target practice at sea, under the supervision of the admiral's flag captain, with a half-quarterly allowance of ammunition, and that it is to be understood that the admiral's report on the captain and officers of the ship will deal with the proficiency of the ship in marksmanship as shown at these inspections?

The Admiralty have no reason to believe that there is the slightest foundation for the allegations quoted in the Question. On the contrary, they are convinced that in the great majority of cases commanding officers take the greatest interest in the target practice of their ships. With reference to the particular suggestion contained in the last paragraph of my honourable Friend's Question, I will confine myself to saying that the Admiralty are giving their most earnest attention to the best means of improving the standard of marksmanship in the Navy, and are carefully considering whether any further regulations on the subject are necessary.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if Her Majesty's ships Powerful and Terrible have fulfilled their designed speeds and conditions of contract; and if these cruisers have been reported satisfactory in speed and consumption of fuel; if not, will the reason be given to the House?

The Powerful and Terrible at their trials fulfilled their designed speeds and conditions of contract. In the case of both ships there have since been defects in the engines, which have interfered with the development of their full powers. The defects have been made good in the case of the Powerful, and some small defects are now being made good in the Terrible. The reports about the Powerful have since been satisfactory. The Terrible will have further trials. The consumption of fuel has varied very much. The latest experiments made with the Terrible were satisfactory, the consumption at 10,000 horse-power being 1.69, which compared favourably with other ships, but the expenditure of fuel will continue larger than in those which have succeeded them, where so-called economisers have been successfully introduced.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it has been brought to his notice that considerable hardship is entailed upon a number of Government employees at Deptford Victualling Yard, owing to their being compelled to work in the South West India. Dock, to which the Naval Stores Department is being transferred, in the vicinity of which they are unable to obtain living accommodation, and are consequently put to an average weekly expenditure of about 2s. for travelling expenses out of their scanty wage of 20s. per week; whether he is aware that this hardship is aggravated in the eyes of the men by the fact that they work alongside of dockers who receive wages at the rate of 6d. per hour; and whether he will take steps to deal with this undesirable state of things?

There is no reason to anticipate that these men will have any difficulty in finding houses near their work, but the superintendent at Deptford was informed early last month that applications for the re-payment of additional expenses would be favourably considered if submitted through the Naval Storekeeper.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the difficulty connected with the acquisition of land for the Clyde defence works, a scheme for which has been considered and approved of for over 10 years, is any nearer solution; what is the precise nature of the difficulties in securing a suitable position; and who is responsible for these difficulties?

The Secretary of State has undertaken to see a deputation on this question to-morrow. It would be undesirable to enter upon the subject previous to the discussion with the deputation.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether serious complaints have been received from shipowners regarding the want of a fog signal on the Maidens, off the entrance to Belfast Lough; whether numerous wrecks have taken place on these rocks; and whether it is the intention of the Board to press for a signal being provided?

The Board of Trade have received a complaint from Mr. Lawther, of Belfast, regarding the want of a fog signal on the Maidens. During the last 10 years five vessels have been wrecked in the neighbourhood of these rocks, but no loss of life has occurred. The Board of Trade will give careful consideration to any application which may be made to them on the subject by the Irish Lights Commissioners, who are the authority responsible for the safeguarding of this coast, but the Board have no power to initiate lights or fog signals.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it has been decided that the Staff Corps cadets at the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, both of the intermediate and junior divisions, are to leave the college a term before their time, thus causing other cadets to lose six months' seniority, and some of them to be actually gazetted at the same time as those to whom they are senior by a term?

The whole of the intermediate and junior divisions of the cadets at Sandhurst, infantry, cavalry, and Indian Staff Corps, will pass out a term earlier than usual. In gazetting these cadets no change will be made in the usual rules. The cadets of the Indian Staff Corps of the elder batch will be gazetted senior to those of the junior batch.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty why, on the launch of H.M.S. Albion, proper precautions were not taken to prevent the lamentable accident which occurred?

H.M.S. Albion is building by contract in a private shipbuilding yard, that of the Thames Iron Works Company, and, as is universally the custom in such cases, the arrangements for the presence of spectators at the launch remained entirely in the hands of the contractors. The honourable Gentleman will have noticed that an inquest is being held upon the deaths of the unfortunate victims by this deplorable accident, and all the circumstances attending the disaster will doubtless be brought to light.

I beg to ash the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the Municipal Taxation (Ireland) Return, ordered to be printed on 23rd May last, will be distributed to Members?

The distribution of this Return does not rest with the Irish Government. I am informed, however, that it will in all probability be circulated early next week.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state on what day the proposal as to financial aid to the Egyptian Government for the further military expedition into the Soudan will be brought before the House?

On the question of the honourable Gentleman I propose to make a statement about business and about the changes which will be necessitated, I regret to say, by the indisposition of my right honourable Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland. There seems to be no prospect of my right honourable Friend being back in the House and able to resume his duties before Thursday next, and, in those cicumstances, I am afraid it will be impossible to proceed, as we had hoped, with the Irish Local Government Bill next Tuesday. In these circumstances I think it would probably be greatly to the convenience of Irish Members if, instead of beginning, or attempting to begin on Thursday of next week, we should put off all the Irish arrangements for one week, taking the Irish financial resolution not on Monday next, but on Monday week, and proceeding immediately afterwards with the discussion of the Report stage of the Irish Local Government Bill. I have taken all the pains I could to find out whether that arrangement would be convenient to honourable Gentlemen from Ireland, and I think that arrangement is one which will suit them best. This will leave next week free for other business, and I propose on Monday to take the Committee stage of the Indian Loan Bill, which ought to pass into law without further delay, and also the Egyptian proposals of my right honourable Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On Tuesday I should propose to take the Third Reading of the Benefices Bill. I cannot as yet state what the business on Wednesday and Thursday will be, but on Friday I shall have to change the Supply, which was to have been Irish, and I propose to take the Scotch Estimates on that day.

May I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether in his arrangement of Supply for the rest of the Session he would take care to allow ample time for the discussion of details of administration by the Home Office, Local Government Board, and the Board of Trade?

The Home Office Vote has, I think, been under discussion.

There are several more matters for discussion, and so also with the Local Government Board Vote.

I will bear that in mind.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what arrangements are contemplated in view of the probable retirement, owing to superannuation, of Mr. O'Dowd from the office of Deputy Judge Advocate General?

I am informed by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War that Mr. O'Dowd will retire at the end of the present financial year, and that it has been arranged that Sir John Scott, late judicial adviser to the Khedive, shall succeed him. Sir John Scott will begin his duties in October in order to have six months' service with Mr. O'Dowd.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Belfast riots of 1886 recommended that the chief police officer of Belfast should have absolute control of the police force of the town and the sole responsibility of maintaining the peace, free from any magisterial or other control; (2) whether, notwithstanding this recommendation, the efforts of the police to keep the peace are still controlled by the local magistrates; and (3) whether it is the intention of the Government to give effect to this recommendation of Mr. Justice Day's Commission?

The Commissioners on the Belfast riots of 1886 recommended that the chief officer of police in that city should have absolute control of the police force and the sole responsibility of maintaining the peace, free from any magisterial or other control, save that of the Executive Government and the Inspector General. It is the practice of the chief officer of police in Belfast to consult the Lord Mayor and magistrates with a view to their co-operation in suppressing disturbance, and the Commissioners of 1886 noticed, with an expression of approval, the existence of a machinery for bringing into communication the police and the municipality. The second paragraph of the honourable Member's Question is based on a misapprehension; the efforts of the Belfast police are in no way controlled by the local magistrates. This Government, like those Governments which preceded it, since 1886, have not seen their way to introduce the legislation which would be necessary to carry out the recommendations of the Commissioners in their entirety. Most of the recommendations which were matters of police administration have been adopted.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received satisfactory replies from the railway companies in response to the appeal that has been made for an improved service of workmen's trains within the London area; and whether, if the companies do not meet the demand in a liberal spirit, ha would be prepared to order local inquiries to be held in the districts affected, in order to give the inhabitants an opportunity of substantiating to his satisfaction their demand for the improved services.

The Board of Trade have not yet received replies from all the railway companies. In the event of any of the answers being unsatisfactory I shall, of course, be prepared to adopt the procedure laid down by the Cheap Trains Act with regard to the particular company, and to order an inquiry to give the inhabitants of a district full opportunity of showing the necessity for a specific train or trains.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the Irish people contribute largely towards the maintenance of the Navy, and that Queenstown is the chief Naval station in Ireland, steps will be taken to include a visit to Queenstown harbour in the forthcoming cruise of the Channel Squadron?

The programme of the cruise of the Channel Squadron has not yet been decided. In the meantime may I be allowed to say in reply to the Question of the honourable and gallant Member, and by way of anticipation to Questions which may be contemplated by other honourable Members representing seaport constituencies, that my stereotyped and impartial answer to all such Questions is, that the cruise will be determined simply by Naval considerations.

Will the right honourable Gentleman endeavour to make a visit to Queenstown compatible with the interests of the Navy?

That shall be impartially considered.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information regarding the state of affairs in Swaziland, especially as to the entry of armed Boer forces into the country?

The High Commissioner for South Africa reported by telegrams of the 21st and 22nd instant that about 1,300 armed Volunteers from the Transvaal with two quick-firing guns, field telegraph and ambulance were on their way to Bremersdorp; that the paramount chief of Swaziland was at his mountain kraal with probably about 1,000 followers; that Bremersdorp had been put into a state of defence but that no acts of hostility had been committed on either side.

Can the right honourable Gentleman say whether Her Majesty's Government will take some steps to prevent the Swazis, who have been our allies on two occasions, from being destroyed by the invading Boer forces.

The relations between Swaziland and the Transvaal are settled by the Convention, and Her Majesty's Government intend that the Convention shall be observed.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education (1) whether he has received a letter

The answer to paragraph 1 is in the affirmative. A Bill to remove the grievance is now under the consideration of the Committee of Council, but it is not, of course, possible to treat Moulton exceptionally.