In submitting to the House the motion which stands in my name, I am conscious that it is one of a not very usual character, but still, if the necessity arose, I should be able to show that there are abundant precedents for the House under the special circumstances referring the Bill back to the Committee which considered it. Notwithstanding the decision of the Committee, I feel to-day that I shall be able to satisfy the House that there are special and exceptional cases which justify us in asking the Committee which has considered this Bill to further consider its provisions. I am not going to ask the House to reverse the determination of the Committee upon the merits or demerits of a particular scheme that has been placed before it, but I am going to invite the House to express its judgment upon a special Report which has been made to the House by this particular Committee under special and exceptional circumstances, and I am going to ask the House to say that that Report is, under the circumstances, not one which the House is prepared to adopt, but that the Committee ought to take back this Bill and reconsider the provisions which it has deleted from it. The Committee, with regard to this Bill, has made a special Report to the House that the Bill sought power to make tramways within and also without the borough with the consent of the local authorities in whose districts they would be constructed, and who supported the scheme. But the Committee are of opinion that, having regard to the intended appointment of a Joint Committee to consider the question of municipal trading, they would not be justified in sanctioning the proposed tramway outside the borough except in the case of a short length of three yards in the urban district of Linthwaite, which will be in connection with the tramway of that district, leased with the sanction of the Board of Trade to and to be worked by the corporation. The short point which I wish to bring under the consideration of the House with regard to the special Report of the Committee is this. It is contended that the question of municipal trading is, because of the appointment of a Committee, sub judice and therefore this Private Bill Committee refused to Huddersfield and outside districts, which unanimously requested them, powers to have tramway traction between the borough and these districts, until the Municipal Trading Committee reported. I should like to ask the indulgence of the House whilst I very briefly explain the proposals of the Bill. The Bill is one which sought to empower the corporation to construct tramways in six different sections in various urban districts outside the borough of Huddersfield. Huddersfield cannot alter its physical configuration. It is the centre of a large manufacturing district, and radiating from the centre there are a number of tramways constructed by and in the possession of the corporation, and the whole of the surrounding urban districts, six in number, come to the Huddersfield Corporation and say, "We wish to have tramways connected upon your tramways, and we ask you to go to Parliament and get powers to have this done." At the unanimous request of each of these authorities, and at the unanimous request of each parish council in each of these authorities, with the cordial endorsement of the South West Riding County Council, Huddersfield comes before the Private Bill Committee to present this case, and being willing to construct and work tramways to these populous districts, surrounding its connection with their own tramway system. The position is especially peculiar in this way. It is not a question of municipal trading at all. Huddersfield, in the first place, sought to become possessed of municipal tramways net for any special desire to do so, but because it was helpless. Twenty years ago it desired tramway traction. It could not have it at the instance of any company. It came to Parliament to get powers to acquire tramways and lease them to any company that would take them. One company tried and failed. The tram- ways lay idle. They came to Parliament and said, "We cannot get any company to lease these tramways; will you empower us to work them"? Parliament was extremely jealous in those days of entrusting rights of this kind to corporations, and said, "We will only allow you to work them under the licence of the Board of Trade, and upon the Board of Trade being satisfied that no lessee will take and work them themselves." They tried to get a lessee to work them, but no lessee was forthcoming. The Board of Trade held an inquiry, but obtained no lessee, and being satisfied that no lessee could be obtained, they empowered Huddersfield, under licence of the Board of Trade, to work its own tramways. It continued to do so until 1897, in which year Huddersfield got from Parliament absolutely unrestricted power to work its own tramways on its own undertakings, and has done so successfully and to the profit and advantage of the ratepayers ever since. Another circumstance happened in 1898. One urban authority in a district lying on the circumference of the outside circle of which Huddersfield is the centre, obtained a Provisional Order to construct its own tramways. It tried, but found it could not do so advantageously, but could do it better by associating itself with the generating station in Huddersfield, and it came to Huddersfield and said, "Will you take a lease of the tramways if we construct them?" Huddersfield replied, "We will if we can have a forty-five years lease. We will not do so upon a twenty-one years lease limited by the Tramway Act of 1870." The Board of Trade said, "We will give this power, but subject to the condition under the Tramway Act of 1870, under a twenty-one years lease." That was not satisfactory, and the Board of Trade hold an inquiry, and wore satisfied that such were the local difficulties and the special circumstances that a special power ought to be conferred upon this contiguous suburb to have its powers for forty-five instead of twenty-one years. They were granted the powers, and the tramways are now being worked. That is a special local circumstance to which I wish to draw the attention of the House, because it has a most important effect upon the Standing Order which this House has laid down, and which was under the consideration of the Committee. Linthwaite, one of the suburbs having tramway connection with Huddersfield and other surrounding suburbs, come to Huddersfield and say unanimously, "We wish Huddersfield to connect us with their tramways." The situation is a difficult one. There are valleys running at the bottom of great hills, and the gradients are extremely steep. The population is very widely scattered, and the area is so extensive—I believe it is 12,000 acres—as to make it, with the exception of the last expansion in Liverpool, larger than the area of the whole of that city. In those circumstances these communities, employers and employees, manufacturers and workmen, the whole of the residents, with a large batch of evidence, came before this Committee and said: "It is essential to the development of our district that we should have this tramway connection with Huddersfield, which is our centre." Who were the opponents before the Committee? One only—the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company. Why did they oppose? Upon the ground that it might compete with their traffic, which only touches the fringe of one place. Anyone who knows anything about tramway traction knows that whilst a railway is to serve from one point to another distant point, tramways which radiate from a centre can pick up and set down passengers along the route, and railways do not meet the question at all. So far as railway competition is concerned, one of the railways—the London and North Western —who are even more affected, who run parallel with the proposed tramway to Marsden, although they petitioned, did not appear before the Committee at all. They have acquiesced in the proposal, and one of my hon. friends on the other side of the House, who sits for a Division of Manchester, and is a director of the London and North-Western Railway, is supporting us in this proposal. Under these circumstances, I want to point out what the position was, and I want now to come to the point upon which the Committee has specially reported to the House. They reported that they had not entertained this proposal with regard to these outside tramways, because the Government were intending to propose the appointment of a Committee on Municipal Trading. But this is not a case of municipal trading at all. It is a question solely of the good government of the district; and who can be so well able to determine that good government as the whole community who live in the district? It is not a question of our aggressively going into these districts against their wish. It is a question of our going at their special request and invitation, and giving them what they will not otherwise be able to obtain. It is not a question of our wanting to compete with or keep out a private company. No private enterprise could ever have given the people of Huddersfield the tramways which they possess. Neither can any private enterprise give the people, in consequence of the difficulties of the district, those services of locomotion outside, and, therefore, it is a question of their either getting it in this way or going without it altogether. Why should the community be deprived of these conveniences, which have of late years been given to other large towns in numerous instances? Since this Committee reported, the House, by another Committee, has actually granted these very powers to Bradford, and never said a word about the Municipal Trading Committee; and the House of Lords, which is not supposed to be very democratic in its consideration of these matters, has also granted similar power to work tramways outside its district to the borough of Burnley. If the House of Lords thinks it right to grant them to Burnley, and the House of Commons thinks it right to grant them to Bradford, why should they be refused to Huddersfield and the surrounding districts? It may be said the scheme is extensive. I wish to deal with that point, It is extensive only in the fact that the suburbs around are extensive, and that Huddersfield is the centre of the circle. It is not one great continuous length of tramway, but the suburbs extend from the centre in different directions. Another circumstance has arisen since the Committee reported. It is an important declaration by the Minister responsible in this House for the Local Government Board. The right hon. Gentleman, speaking on the night after the debate in this House upon the question of municipal trading at a great public dinner, and in the presence of the representatives of the local authorities throughout this country, said he felt it necessary to deal with the proposition which has been submitted to this House. In the course of his speech he said one of the main duties of a municipality was to serve the interest of their own people in their own area, and even then there ought to be considerable latitude. The right hon. Gentleman continued—

"Now I take for a moment the case of tramways. The tramways were always useful, most useful, and, as far as I can form an opinion, they are likely to be much more so in the future, and I am greatly interested in the subject, which very closely at the present moment concerns myself. One of the greatest problems of the present day is how we are to improve the housing of the poorer classes of this country."

Without detaining the House with a long extract from this speech I may remark that the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to say that the way to deal with the question was to provide cheap facilities for getting from the towns into the suburbs, and to do that not only by means of cheap trains, but also by means of cheap trams. Then he added these significant words—

"There must be some means of cheap and effective communication for the many thousands in this country to bring the people practically close to their work. Some people recommend the cheap trains, and undoubtedly the cheap trains might do a great deal; but, in my own humble judgment, they must in any case be supplemented by the provision of cheap tramways, and, with the cheap tramways, subject to this condition, which I feel should be entirely in the hands of the local authorities. There, I think, is an instance in which the rights of local authorities ought not to be strictly limited to dealing within their own area."

That is precisely my point. This Committee wants to hang up the question of granting these powers to local authorities surrounding them, whereas the President of the Local Government Board says that they ought not to be restricted to dealing in their own area if they are going to give effect to the important principle which he wishes to have imposed on the country—namely, that of solving the question of the housing of the working classes by giving them cheap travelling facilities. That declaration of the President of the Local Government Board has been made since the debate on municipal trading and since the Report of this Committee. I humbly and respectfully submit to the House that it never was within the purview of the Government or of the House that, it should refuse to municipalities that which has been granted year by year for a large number of years past—the power of constructing and working their trams outside their own district. If I could bring to the knowledge of the House the special and particular configuration of this district by inviting the House to walk over it, I am quite sure the House would not hesitate for a moment to realise these special and local circumstances. I ask that the Committee should consider this Bill on its merits, and I am satisfied that if these powers are granted by the Committee it will be the means of conferring upon that district, at their own request, by their governing authorities, who have the best means of understanding the wishes of the people, the means of developing their district and promoting its welfare. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper.

I wish to second the proposal of my hon. friend in order to illustrate the unanimity of feeling which exists throughout this whole district. I am the representative of the country lying on one side of Huddersfield. I can speak to the absolute unanimity of the people in that district. The people of Yorkshire are not a hasty people in coming to their decisions. They do not start half-baked schemes of legislation when they come to this House, and the people of Huddersfield have proved themselves so thoroughly capable of managing their tramways that exist at present, that with one voice the surrounding districts have asked them to come out and give them the advantages of this municipal undertaking. I think there is only one serious argument which we need anticipate on the part of those who may possibly oppose the recommittal, and that is that our course is unusual. It is so, and we have only taken it as a retort to the unusual course of the Committee itself. If it had been a case of the Committee having decided this question upon its merits we should never have come down with such a curious proposition as to ask to refer the question again to the Committee. We have come here to ask the House to recommit the Bill because the Committee practically by their report have asked the House to give them advice as to the line they shall take. The Committee refused to pass these clauses, but simply because there was a Committee to be appointed to inquire into the whole matter of municipal trading, and the Committee chose to interpret the object of the House in appointing that Committee as being to decide whether tramways were to go outside the boundaries of municipalities. What we say is that the Committee have interpreted the prevailing feeling in the House wrongly, and that the object of appointing the Municipal Trading Committee was not to put a stop for the next eighteen months to municipal progress, and to the passing of municipal schemes by Private Bill. The object has been declared by the President of the Local Government Board, on behalf of the Government, not to be in any sense to put a stop to municipal enterprise. In the speech from which quotations have already been made he assured the Association of Municipal Corporations that he is certain there is no desire or intention in the smallest degree on the part of this Government to do anything whatever that could in the slightest degree be antagonistic to the privileges and rights of municipalities. I think we are entitled to ask at any rate that the Government should not oppose the recommittal of this Bill, for after all one ounce of action on the part of the Government is of great deal more worth to us than a ton of protest on their part that they are not anxious to attack the development of corporations. I think we may at least hope the Government will leave it to the House to decide without throwing their power in the balance as to whether this Bill should be recommitted or not. After all it is a very serious thing if the corporations are to know that for the next eighteen months they cannot promote municipal undertakings, because it will depend upon the whim of the Committee whether they adopt the excuse of the Municipal Trading Committee or not. We ask that the Bill should be recommitted, and that the chance should be given to Huddersfield to have their Bill decided on its merits. There are, no doubt, some hon. Members opposite who expect that this Committee on Municipal Trading may lay down certain rules to prevent municipal enterprise from spreading outside the limits of boroughs under certain circumstances. Such a Committee would possibly find that there were cases where the agency of private companies was desirable instead of municipalities, but the case in question could not come under any rule except such an absolute hard and fast and mandatory rule as would prevent any extension outside municipalities. The larger part of this district is a small area, full of industrial communities, enclosed in a triangle with sides, perhaps, seven miles long, at each angle of which is a great city—Bradford, Huddersfield, and Halifax. It has never been suggested that that district could possibly be served "with tramways by one private company. All the local bodies in that district are intensely anxious to have Bradford and Huddersfield and Halifax sending out their tramways, and there is this additional reason for allowing these great communities to have the management of the tramways in that district, that a great part of the district will probably be gradually absorbed by these corporations before many years are passed. It is therefore almost absolutely certain that no rules will be laid down which would prevent the tramways spreading into these districts. I hope the House will act on the recommendation of my hon. friend, and be content to send back the Bill to be considered on its merits by the Committee, which has not yet decided upon them.

In discussing this Amendment I ought first to thank the hon. Gentlemen who so courteously agreed to postpone it last week because I was unable to be present. I will also say that this is not a party or a political question, although I happen to sit on one side of the House and the hon. Member for Huddersfield on the other. It is entirely a question for the House, and in coming to a decision the Committee, of which I was Chairman, was guided by the rules of the Mouse. I propose only to say a few words in support of its decision. In the first place we heard the speeches of learned counsel, we listened to the witnesses with much patience, and, after a hearing which lasted two or three days, we gave our decision in the terms to which my hon. friend has alluded. But with regard to the wishes of the local authorities outside the borough of Huddersfield, I think the hon. Gentleman has made some mistake, for, although we found in the course of the evidence that they were willing to acquiesce in the scheme, we also discovered that none of them supported it in any way by giving a single penny to the scheme or taking any part in the proceedings. They only said they would be glad to have this system of tramways, but they took no action to secure it. Now, we in the Committee were guided in our decision by the Standing Order 170A, which provides that—

"No powers shall be given to any local authority to construct, acquire, take on lease or work any tramway, or portion of tramway, beyond the limits of their district, unless such tramway or portion of tramway is in connection with the tramway belonging to or authorised to be constructed, acquired, or worked by the local authority, and unless the Committee on the Bill shall determine that, having regard to the special local circumstances, such construction, acquisition, taking on lease, or working ought to be sanctioned."

That was the chief ground on which we decided. The Bill sought very extensive powers. It was not a short tramway which was proposed to be made, for on the map which was placed before us in the committee room the trams were drawn out exactly like the spokes of a cart wheel in all directions, and I believe the aggregate length was something like fifty-two miles. It was, therefore, a large and extensive scheme which the Huddersfield Corporation asked us to approve. There was another clause brought under our notice by learned counsel of which we were bound to take notice. Clause 3 of the Railways Act, 1896, says—

"A council shall not construct or work any light railway wholly or partly outside their district except jointly with the council of the outside area."

This is not a light railway.

I know it is not a light railway, but the argument of the learned counsel was that this clause went to show that it was not the intention of Parliament that municipalities should extend these undertakings outside their own area, except under special circumstances. Now, I should like to refer to some of the remarks of the learned counsel, Mr. Littler, Q.C., who has had very great experience in these matters.

What has he to do with it?

He represented a railway company. I think his remarks are well worthy attention at the hands of the House. Reference had been made to the fact that the Corporation worked the Linthwaite tramways, and he pointed out how it was that the Huddersfield Corporation got powers to work that tramway which had already been constructed. It was not, therefore, analagous to a case of starting a new tramway. He said—

"I do not know of any instance in which so barefacedly have corporations gone in for asking the authority of Parliament for municipal trading powers to such an extent."

He also said that—

"The reason why the Corporation of Huddersfield got power to work their tramways was that they did not pay in other hands. They could not get anyone else to do it, and, as the trams were in existence, they were allowed to work them."

Further, he said that the proposed extension was beyond anything he had ever had experience of. Then he reminded us very properly that already the debt of Huddersfield amounted to £2,890,000, and if the powers asked for under the present Bill were granted, another £400,000 would have to be raised, and he suggested that that was a very large amount indeed to add to the debt of Huddersfield, especially if it. were done in contravention of the orders of the House. Now, we fully considered these matters. Counsel made long speeches, to which we listened attentively. It was urged, among other things, that the outside areas themselves could not carry out this scheme. But then we were bound to remember that that was because they were aware the system would have to be worked at a loss; therefore when the hon. Member for Huddersfield tells us that the outside authorities support the Bill I reply that "no doubt they do." They are willing to have the tramways, but they are not willing to pay a farthing in any shape or way in order to get them. The hon. Gentleman has said that a great many other schemes of a similar nature have been passed, but I believe the first was the Glasgow Corporation Act of 1870. He also alluded to other pre- cedents, but those he quoted were Bills which came before the Police and Sanitary Committee. And I fail to see how such precedents are applicable to this case. The Police and Sanitary Committee is not a Railway or Tramway Committee, but it has referred to it omnibus Bills, which include all sorts of matters. In regard to one particular case mentioned by my hon. friend, I find that the noble Lord the Chairman of the Committee, in his Report, says that the Bradford Corporation Bill proposes to make tramways beyond the limits of the borough, to be in connection with tramways authorised to be constructed within the borough limits, and the Committee were of opinion that, having regard to the special circumstances of the case, the Bill should be allowed to proceed. But that was very different to the Bill which we had before us. The tramways were not in existence. There was no communicating line of the kind mentioned by the noble Lord in the Bradford case. Neither was the Bradford scheme so extensive as that from Huddersfield. At at any rate we came to the decision we did because we thought it would be contrary to Standing Order 170A, and because we thought that as a Committee had to be appointed to deal with the question of municipal trading it was well that we should not pass the scheme so far as the outside areas were concerned until that Committee had reported. We thought it was only due to the House that we should take that course. I need hardly say that I have no interest in the matter what ever, I am not connected with any syndicate or company, and that in deciding the matter I desired to be guided by the rules and orders of the House. If the House decides that these tramways outside the borough ought to be made the Committee will, I am sure, willingly fall in with their view. But I repeat that we felt we were only doing our duty in refusing this extensive scheme until we had the direct sanction of the House.

I have risen to address the House on this point because the matter is one of the most absorbing interest for all the districts around Huddersfield. No doubt locomotion from place to place is very difficult. They are only anxious they should have the same privileges as are already possessed by Halifax. I think the House hardly knows what can be done by means of these electric trams, but I may illustrate what is possible by pointing out what we have already compassed in Halifax by means of these electric trams. With such an enormous advantage to the community, is it possible to imagine that the privileges granted to Halifax are going to be refused to the districts outside Huddersfield? When the Light Railways Act was passed it was understood that its provisions would also apply to trams, and that when a community wanted a tramway system, it should get it with the sanction of the Board of Trade without the enormous expense of applying for an Act of Parliament. Unfortunately, some cloud of apprehension in regard to municipal trading has come over this Committee, and they have refused this Bill. But surely the Committee on Municipal Trading is not going to inquire into that question so far as gas and water works are concerned. That point has been settled already, and you have not very far to travel from Huddersfield to discover that municipal trading in tramways has also been settled. I hope, in view of the fact that this is a matter of absorbing interest to the populaces of these manufacturing villages—we may call them towns, for their inhabitants number from 5,000 to 10,000—this House will order that this Bill be reconsidered by the Committee. Comment has been made on the fact that these interested communities are not willing to put down any money, and that the trams are not to be constructed at their expense; but I can tell the House that they are willing to pledge their credit, and surely that is equivalent to putting the cash down. I trust the House will agree to this motion.

said this question was one of the greatest importance not only to the promoters and to municipalities of rural districts, but to many urban centres surrounding our towns and cities. Whatever might be the opinion with regard to the case before the House, he apprehended the House would be unanimously in favour of uniformity. Two decisions had been given by separate Committees, and if the decision of the Committee of which he had the honour to be a member was right, the decision of the Police and Sanitary Regulations Committee was wrong. The procedure of the Police and Sanitary Regulations Committee in regard to gas, tramways, or waterworks, or anything that might come before them, was identical with that of any ordinary Private Bill Committee, and consequently its work had been enormously increased. It was a great mistake for the House to suppose that proposals with regard to the tramways and traffic which came before the Committee were treated in any different way to that which they would be if sent to any Private Bill Committee. The resolution was of very great importance to all municipalities, corporations, and country districts, because, if it was passed, nothing need be done by a Committee of the House until the Committee on Municipal Trading had sent in their Report, which would be in the following year, in all probability. The Standing Order 170, which contemplated the construction of these tramways outside, laid down certain rules for the purpose, and it was never intended that the Committee on Municipal Trading should stand in the way of municipalities dealing with gas, waterworks, tramways, and things of that description; what it was intended to do was to prevent corporations going beyond the recognised rights of municipal trading and going in other directions. All these particular tramways were constructed with a view of being in the near future connected with the existing system of Huddersfield, and the Report had thrown them all out and made no distinctions. He could not help thinking some misunderstanding had arisen with regard to the matter, and he trusted the Committee would be asked to re-examine the question in the interests of the Committees of the House generally.

said the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman opposite was fair and reasonable, but he had not said a word against the merits. It might be remembered that although there were precedents with regard to the extension of tramways outside boroughs, the Committee was debarred by the Standing Orders of the House from sanctioning tramways outside the borough of Huddersfield. Their position was that if the House thought they ought to reconsider their decision apart from the Standing Orders, they were willing to reconsider it. That course would be a sensible one for the House to take. He favoured the extension of tramways outside towns because they looked to it largely for a solution of the housing difficulty.

With reference to the Instruction on the Paper, I should like to know whether, if that be carried, it will be an Order of the House to insert all the names of the districts on the Paper.

It will not be an Order for the Committee to insert all or any of those districts, but merely to consider and report.

I do not think that this motion ought to pass without a few words. I do not propose to oppose it, because I understand that the work of this Police and Sanitary Committee has arrived at such a state during the present session that unless some motion of this sort is adopted matters will come to a deadlock, and it will cause great inconvenience to the promoters concerned. What I wish to point out is that I hope the House will clearly understand that this motion is merely an emergency proposal for the present session, and will not interfere with the future arrangement of business connected with this Committee. I have always understood that the object of the appointment of this Committee was to ensure uniformity of decision on matters connected with proposals in Private Bills affecting the general law of the country. By dividing this Committee into two you run the risk of doing away with that very uniformity which this Committee was established to promote. I also wish to say on behalf of the Committee of Selection, that the work of this Committee—as we see from the fact that it has brought about this motion—is extremely arduous, but at the same time it is work which it is absolutely necessary should be entrusted to the very best and strongest Members of the House. Unfortunately, the Committee has found that there is increased difficulty every year in finding efficient Members of the House to serve on this Committee. Service on this Committee is not compulsory, and therefore no Member can be bound to serve without his own consent, and it has become increasingly difficult to find hon. Gentlemen of the requisite capacity who are willing to serve on this Committee. My reason for rising is to express the hope that the whole question of the business of this Committee and how these Bills are to be dealt with in the future shall be fully considered by Her Majesty's Government and the authorities of the House another session. I feel convinced that sooner or later this question will have to be taken into consideration, and although I offer no opposition in the present state of the business of the House this session, I do earnestly entreat the House to consider before another session commences whether some other means cannot be devised of dealing with those Police and Sanitary Clauses, so as to ensure the unanimity which is undoubtedly so desirable in these Bills, but at the same time without causing such an intolerable strain upon hon. Members as the present system does.

I wish to be allowed to say a very few words upon this motion. It has been put upon the Paper not only with full assent of the Committee over which I preside, but I must say also at their request. The position of the work of this Committee is quite extraordinary. It seems to be a very popular Committee, and we have got no less than twenty-one of the heaviest Private Bills before that Committee. We have to get those measures up to the House of Lords by the date fixed under the Sessional Order. Under these circumstances, I thought it my duty to communicate with the Chairman of Committees of this House. We went into the matter together, with the assistance of the House officials, and I am not in the least exaggerating when I tell the House that if the single Committee on these Bills sat every day in the week we should be here in the middle of August. We were not prepared to sit continuously until the middle of August, and that is the reason why this motion was placed upon the Table by the responsible Minister. I entirely concur with what has fallen from my hon. friend the Chairman of the Committee of Selection. It will be absolutely necessary for the Government to consider the whole question of this Committee, and what has been said in the case of the Bradford Bill is a good illustration. The result of the Standing Order of the House is that every Bill which contains the very smallest proposal in that direction comes to this Committee, and we have to deal with the whole Bill. The result is that large corporations place all these matters in one large Bill and this unfortunate Committee has to deal with them all.

No less than twenty Bills have been sent to this Committee, and therefore the work cannot be got through. A similar motion to this was made in 1892, when a similar state of things existed, and the motion then passed. We fully recognise all the objections which my hon. friend has made, for it is absolutely necessary, in my opinion, that the whole composition of this Committee shall be considered another session with a view of unloading the Committee of such work, or making such other alterations as will make the work lighter. That is not possible this session, and this is but an emergency motion which is quite necessary.

Would it not be possible to devise a plan whereby at the commencement of each session the authorities of the House should eliminate from all Private Bills the Police and Sanitary Clauses? Those only might be submitted to the Committee, leaving the remaining portions of the Bills to be dealt with by Select Committees in the ordinary way.

Might I suggest to my right hon. friend that he should nominate three members instead of two, because one member of the Committee is very unwell, and I understand that he will not be able to attend for some time.

Order, order! That would be in the nature of opposition, and would involve postponement of the motion i until to-morrow.

It is the opinion of the Committee on War Office Contracts, of which I am the chairman, that in order to ensure strict justice in our inquiry, it may be necessary to hear counsel on behalf of the parties interested. The Committee, being unable to hear Counsel without the consent of the House and without an order of the House, has requested me to seek from the House such power.

I think this motion requires some consideration. The Committee consists of fifteen members and is to meet twice a week. That will not be the slightest good. If the House wants to get to the bottom of these contract scandals the Committee should be reduced to five members, and sit de die in diem until the work is done. If this Committee is going to sit only twice a week for a limited period, and hear counsel, I think it will become an absolute farce.

I beg to move "That the Report and Minutes of Evidence of the Select Committee on Public Departments, etc., of 1873–74 be referred to the Select Committee on War Office Contracts." In 1873–74 a Select Committee was appointed by the House which took a great deal of evidence with reference to certain contracts made by the War Office, and the Select Committee now sitting think it would be of great service to them to have the Report of that Committee, and the evidence then taken, referred to them.

The right hon. Gentleman has not referred to one Committee that went very extensively into this whole matter and exposed any number of flagrant contracts.

Order, order! That is not relevant. If the hon. Member wishes at any time to move that certain other Papers be referred to the Select Committee he can do so.

I simply wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Committee to which I referred was that which inquired into commissariat and transport in the Egyptian War, and which dealt with subjects entirely germane to the investigations of this Committee, and if the right hon. Gentleman is going to refer some Papers I would suggest that he should also refer the Report of and evidence taken by that Committee.

Would it not be better to add to the motion "or any other documents that they may think fit to call for"?

This is a common form; the House had better not adopt a new form.

I think I am entitled to ask for some explanation of the reasons for moving this. I have not sat on many Committees, although I have been a long time in the House of Commons, but I do know it is within the power of any Committee to take into consideration the minutes of evidence and Reports of any previous Committee. That being the case, where is the necessity of the House passing a resolution referring a certain body of evidence and Report to this Committee? What is the object of it?

I cannot understand what advantage there can be in certain evidence and Reports being referred to the Committee, because the evidence and Reports of every Committee are open to Members of the House. I assume there is some purpose in the resolution. Is it to act in the nature of an Instruction to the Committee? Is it to give the Committee some power which without it they would not have? If so, I think it is doubtful whether the resolution is wide enough. On the other hand, is the resolution a suggestion which limits the Committee? It seems to me it is a distinct intimation to them to limit their consideration to that special Report and evidence. I certainly can see no reason for passing it, and unless the resolution is made more general, or some further ex- planation is given of it, I shall feel bound to vote against it.

This is a very usual application, made in quite a common form. It is generally simply handed in at the Table and put on the minutes as a matter of course. It is quite true that hon. Members may obtain and read copies of Reports which have been printed, but a Committee, as a Committee, cannot take notice of them and have them before them as evidence unless an order of this kind is made. It is a matter of common form, which is gone through constantly in respect of Private Bills.

I take it any Member of the House can move a resolution to refer to any Committee any document he may think fit?

That is so.

Is it not the rule for a Parliamentary Committee to take power generally to have documents before it, and not to specify particular Papers? We do not want the precedent of the South African Committee to be repeated.

Has not the Committee already got power to send for persons, Papers, and Reports? This motion indicates only one Report. I want them to have any Reports that may be thought desirable.

The only object is to obtain the information which was obtained by a previous Committee. The Committee on War Office Contracts are under the impression that the only way in which they can secure the obtaining of the information is to ask the House to refer to them the Papers specified. There is no other object in the motion.

I wish to ask whether the Chairman of the Committee and his colleagues have not power to send for any records they think fit.

Yes, I presume so, though I have not seen the Order of reference, but when a Committee wishes to have before it the proceedings of a previous Committee it has always been the custom to make such an Order. The usual course has been followed in this case.

And it has this practical effect, that the Stationery Office is enabled to supply every member of the Committee with copies of the documents.

The motion for the appointment of this Committee contained these words—"The Committee shall have power to send for persons, Papers, and documents." I am at a loss to understand why this motion is made. [VOICES: Agreed!]

Don't shout him down.

Seeing that the Committee already have power to send for Papers, I am at a loss to understand why this demand is made in this way for these specific documents.

I beg leave to trespass upon the time of the House for a few moments in order to mention a personal matter which, I think, deserves the attention of the House. It has been a matter of public knowledge for some time past that the British and South American Steam Navigation Company, Limited, of which I am chairman, has had contracts with the Government; and I presume it was owing to my special knowledge of the subjects to be dealt with that I was appointed a member of the Select Committee to inquire into the alleged frauds perpetrated on the War Office. It was certainly in that belief that I consented to sit on the Committee. This morning I received a letter, a copy of which, I understand, has been addressed to every Member of the House, I from a firm of solicitors representing one of the parties alleged to have committed fraud upon the War Office. Immediately on the assembling of the Select Committee this morning I called the attention of the Committee to the letter and tendered my resignation, for I would not for one moment allow it to be suggested, even by the writers of such a letter as this, that a Select Committee of the House of Commons is not an absolutely fair and impartial tribunal. It was pointed out to me by the chairman and other members of the Committee that, as I had been elected or appointed to the Committee by the House, whether I should be allowed to resign was a question for the House. I refrain from comment upon the letter beyond stating that the insinuations and statements contained therein are untrue. [An HON. MEMBER: Read the letter.] It is for the House to say whether I should read the letter or not; I believe a copy of the letter has been sent to every hon. Member. [Cries of "No, two!"] I will read one or two passages which I distinctly state are untrue. It is said that—

"It was Mr. Houston—despite the fact that a board of officers at Tilbury passed the hay on the Manchester Port—who refused to allow the vessel to sail."

That is absolutely untrue. The statement that I, or any other member of my firm, had any contracts with any Department of the Government is also untrue. The company of which I am chairman has had contracts with the Government Departments at the special invitation of those Departments. As to the allegations which the writers of the letter make, I have not heard a single word about them. Therefore I assume they only exist in the imagination of the writers. As I have no desire to sit upon the Committee, and certainly no object to gain by sitting upon it or retiring from it, I prefer to retire from it. At the same time, as I was appointed a member of the Committee by this House, it is only right to the House that I should place my resignation in their hands. I leave it unreservedly with hon. Members to decide whether I should continue to sit upon or retire from the Committee. At the same time, I assure hon. Members that whatever I can do to assist the investigations of the Committee in any capacity whatever I shall be only too pleased to do.

I think it is due to the hon. Member that I, as Chairman of the Select Committee, should at once state that at the commencement of the proceedings of the Committee this morning, the hon. Member for West Toxteth drew attention to the fact that the letter to which he has now referred had been circulated. The hon. Member desired to at once resign his membership of the Committee. It was pointed out to him by me and by other Members that as he had been nominated by the House the Committee had no power to discharge him from serving on the Committee. The hon. Gentleman then decided to take the course he has now taken—to make a personal explanation in the House. It is only fair to the hon. Gentleman I should say that that action was taken by the hon. Member immediately on the assembling of the Committee, and was not in any sense the result of any action taken by the Committee.

I think we ought to have the letter read at the Table of the House. I consider that the letter constitutes a breach of the privileges of the House. The hon. Member has my sympathy, and I think he has done quite right in bringing it before the House. I propose, if no one else does so, to hand the letter in at the Table, and move that it be read by the Clerk.

It would not be regular simply to hand in the letter to be read at the Table without any intention of making a motion on it; but if the hon. Member desires to move that the words read at the Table constitute a broach of privilege, he will be quite in order in handing it in to be read.

I will do it.

I do not propose to take up much of the time of the House. I beg to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, a portion of the letter of Messrs. Rees and Hindley, solicitors, of Liverpool, reflecting upon the character of the hon. Member for West Toxteth, Liverpool, constitutes a

The House will expect to be informed of the course the Leader of the House intends to pursue.

Order, order! Is the right hon. Gentleman about to make a motion?

I was going to ask a question, Sir.

The right hon. Gentleman cannot ask a question now of that kind. There is no question before the House.

Is there power to move the adjournment?

It is hardly a matter of "urgent public importance."

Is it the intention of the First Lord of the Treasury to give his guidance and advice to the House, now that the motion has been carried on which he did not give the House any advice, by moving that the persons who wrote the letter should attend the House on a given day?

If the hon. Member desires to make a motion of that kind he is at liberty to do so.

I want to ask if the Government intend to make such a motion.

The right hon. Member is not at liberty to ask a question.

I beg to move that Messrs. Rees and Hindley be ordered to attend at the Bar of the House on Thursday at three o'clock. The House has determined that the letter is a breach of privilege, and consequently the next step the House ought to take is to act upon that resolution according to the usual practice.

I beg to second the motion. I regret that the whole of the letter was not read at the Table of the House. I think that the most offensive passages of the letter were not read to the House. There are imputations of unfair conduct in the appointment of the Committee, under which the House could not properly rest. In my opinion the House is very much indebted to the hon. Member for Kilkenny for bringing the question forward by way of a motion, and although I am conscious of the gravity of the step this House takes when it enters upon matters of privilege, and begins to exercise its undoubtedly large coercive powers, no one can doubt that when the House has passed such a resolution as has just been adopted it must follow up the action taken. I therefore beg leave to second the motion.

I did not quite anticipate my right hon. friend the Member for Thanet would have got us out of the difficulty in which we are in consequence of the hon. Member for the Toxteth Division having thought it desirable to call attention to this letter. There can be no doubt whatever in my judgment that, as the House has already affirmed, these solicitors have committed a breach of the privileges of the House, and though I do not think it was very wise, if I may say so, to raise this question, the question having been raised there was no alternative left to the House but to affirm, as it has affirmed, that a breach of privilege has been committed. But if we are asked to go further, as we are asked by my right hon. friend, whose motion was seconded by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, we enter into a very different order of ideas, and I should strongly advise the House, as I have advised it on previous occasions, not to enter, upon such provocation as this, on a course which, in my judgment, will not conduce either to the dignity of the House or to any great useful purpose. On 26th July, 1898^* it appears that the same hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilkenny, who has moved to-day, made a similar motion with regard to a breach of privilege by the Board of Guardians of Mullingar, who had attacked an hon. Member representing an Irish constituency for a speech he made in this House, and the House unanimously decided that it was a breach of privilege. I then advised the House that the cumbrous and antiquated machinery at our disposal for dealing with questions of this kind could not with advantage be put in motion. The House took the advice I then gave, and the matter was allowed to drop. I suggest now that it would be the best course, in our interest and in the public interest, that this very recent precedent should be followed on this occasion. The hon. Member opposite, with an authority which has almost

^* See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxii., page 1343.

become a habit of his, has called attention to words which constitute a breach of the privileges of the House. We have asserted that he is right, and, having made that assertion, I think we have done all that is necessary, and I beg to move, as an Amendment, "That this House do now proceed to the business of the day."

The right hon. Gentleman has expressed himself as being exceedingly desirous, and no one can doubt that he must be desirous, to maintain the dignity of the House and to avoid leading the House into, or advising the House to enter upon, any course inconsistent with its dignity. I cannot conceive any course less dignified than that which, and without his guidance, he has allowed the House to enter upon. A letter has been read at the Table which alleges that a certain Member of the House, if he was to serve on a certain Committee, would necessarily give a biassed judgment on the matter before the Committee. So far as I can understand the terms of the letter, that was the worst that was said of the hon. Gentleman. The House was then called upon to say that this was a breach of the privileges of Parliament, and the right hon. Gentleman not only did not rise to give any advice to the House, but, to our universal astonishment, did not even look as if he meant to give any advice.

The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Unfortunately I was consulting the Clerk at the Table upon a point of order at the time the question was put, and I could not rise to address the House. Had I done so all I should have said would have been that, in my opinion, undoubtedly a breach of privilege was committed, and then I should have gone on to give the advice I have since given to the House. So that I do not suppose the loss is very great.

Of course I accept the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman that he was engaged in consulting with an officer of the House. I was under the impression he was in his place at the time.

Oh, no. Altogether wrong.

At all events, the House has decided that this is a breach of privilege, and now we are to follow a course which apparently was taken on previous occasions and to be content with this solemn assertion that a breach of privilege has been committed; and then with great severity of countenance and in the most impressive manner we can assume we are to allow the matter to drop. The word "farcical" has been used. Anything more farcical than such a proceeding I cannot conceive. I am not a stickler for privilege, though I am not altogether disregardful of it; but of this I am certain, that if the House ever thinks it worth while to brand a statement as a breach of privilege, it might then, out of respect for its own dignity, follow up that statement in such way as the rules of Parliament prescribe. In this case what are we to do? Most of us on this side of the House do not think that this was a breach of privilege. The right hon. Gentleman, who thinks it was a breach of privilege, says he does not want anything more to be done. There might be some logic in our conduct if we on this side were to proceed to insist upon the further course that is necessary on the supposition that it is a breach of privilege, but we have just declared that, in our opinion, it is not a breach of privilege; and, in those circumstances, I am disposed myself to acquiesce in the advice given to the House by the right hon. Gentleman. But I do deplore that this fresh instance has occurred of the way in which the House of Commons sometimes plays with its undoubted rights. The way to preserve those rights, and to preserve the respect of the country for those rights, is never to assert them unless you mean to carry them to their ultimate issue.

We have had before us a very offensive and impertinent letter, which we have thought it right to brand as a breach of privilege Many people in this House think that it was a breach of privilege, and some think that it was not; but all must agree that in future we must make up our minds whether we are to call any document a breach of privilege at all, because if we are not in a position to do anything more than make our declaration a brutum fulmen, instead of adding to the dignity of this House we are simply making this august assembly ridiculous. I would point out to hon. Members that not many weeks ago an infinitely grosser breach of privilege was made by the St. James's Gazette. That newspaper charged a Member of this House with a criminal offence—with purchasing documents well knowing them to be stolen. Now, that charge was entirely ignored by the House, although it was an offence which, if proved, would have involved the expulsion of the Member from this House, and if not proved was the grossest breach of privilege possible to conceive. Now, although every Member of the House knew of that breach of privilege, not the slightest notice was taken of it, and I think it is ridiculous to make so much fuss about such a little matter as that brought before the House this afternoon, and to take no notice of that other infinitely grosser breach of privilege.

I cannot conceive how the Leader of the Opposition can bring himself to believe that this is not a breach of privilege. Whether it was wise or unwise to call attention to it is not to the point. A plainer case of breach of privilege has never been brought before the House than to charge an hon. Member—whether the charge is true or not true is not the question—with going on to a Committee to give a biassed opinion in the exercise of his Parliamentary duty, as a Member of this House, and in the name of this House. That it is a gross breach of privilege I cannot for one moment doubt. We are told we ought not to follow up the motion by any further action, because on a previous occasion of breach of privilege no further action was taken. That was a wholly different case. In the Mullingar case you were dealing with an elected board of guardians, and certain hon. Members said that the board did not really know what they were doing, and that if time were given them they would apologise. They did apologise, and that apology was informally communicated to and accepted by the House. But this is a totally different case, where there is grave public suspicion of public corruption. It seems to me that if ever such a matter should be followed up it ought to be in this case, when the first motion that a breach of privilege had been committed has been carried.

I agree with the Leader of the House that nothing more should be done in this case. If we are to inflict punishment for these offences we shall have to devise some other means than that of dragging a person to the Bar of this House in order that you, Mr. Speaker, should in solemn and weighty words inform him that he has committed a breach of privilege, and that the House is indignant and dissatisfied with him. In that process, so far as my experience goes, there is very little dignity to the proceedings of this House.

I rise to support the motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet. The right hon. the Leader of the House referred to me as not having made this motion to bring the offender to the Bar myself, and as not having made such a motion on a previous occasion when I brought another breach of privilege before the House. I certainly intended to move the motion now under discussion, but left it to one of my hon. colleagues, who I thought could, from his superior knowledge of the rules of this House, deal with it better. It was not my intention to allow the matter to drop. In this case I think the House will be in a ridiculous position if it does not—having discovered the offenders—bring them to the Bar of the House. I remember a case when this power of the House to punish breach of privilege was, in my opinion, unfairly exercised, and as a result an hon. Member who sat on the opposite side of the House had to rise from his place and take his position at the Bar. But why should you treat differently two members of a firm of solicitors who have done what, to my mind, is worse than anything alleged against the Mullingar Board of Guardians? As was pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, in that case we were dealing with a whole board of guardians; and it will be in the recollection of the House that I said on that occasion that I was prepared to move to bring the whole board here if they persisted in their threat to punish in a certain way the hon. Member for Roscommon for certain action of his in the discharge of his public duty in this House. The reason why I did not take the second step on that occasion was because the board had a notice of motion before it which was to be debated in a week from the date of my privilege motion, and at the suggestion of the Leader of the House —which had the advantage of your approval, Mr. Speaker—the matter was allowed to stand over for a week to see whether they would persevere with their resolution. As the board of guardians climbed down my purpose was served, and I did not persevere with the consequential motion to bring the offenders to the Bar. I can only say that if the House, having competently decided that this is a gross breach of the privileges of the House, is not going any further, then the next step should be to remove the rule altogether. I heartily support the motion of the right hon. Gentleman.

I confess I am rather disappointed with the advice given to the House by the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition. I ask the House to consider very seriously, the position in which it is about to place itself if it follows that advice. Here is a Committee appointed to investigate certain charges against Army contractors, and it is a matter of the greatest consequence, especially at the present moment when the war is still going on, that that investigation should be thorough and complete. A charge is brought against a certain hon. Member of corruption. A respectable and very responsible firm of solicitors suggest that an hon. Member of this House is guilty of corruption in regard to certain Army contractors. They have embodied that charge in a circular which has been distributed amongst the Members of this House. That is undoubtedly a breach of privilege, and if true, a very gross libel. These gentlemen make their charge on their full responsibility, and knowing that if it is untrue they can be ruined by a libel action. I say it is a matter of great consequence when a Committee has been appointed that there should be no kind of attempt to hush up a matter of this sort. It is of the greatest possible importance to encourage evidence, and to give an opportunity to those charged with corruption in regard to the Army contracts of examining and cross-examining witnesses by counsel. We know that there has been corruption, but we also know that it is a most unpleasant public duty for anyone to come forward and bring these charges when the House goes out of its way to discourage them. It is all very well for hon. Members of this House to shelter themselves behind the bulwark of privilege, but this responsible firm of solicitors, knowing that they can be ruined by a libel action, still bring this charge of corruption against a Member of this House. Very well; I say there ought to be a full opportunity given to these gentlemen to justify their statement before this House. I know that they are perfectly prepared to do so. But what has the House done? Ex parte, and without any investigation, it says that this is a breach of privilege. Surely the next step is to give an opportunity to these gentlemen to justify their statement, and not to condemn them without hearing their defence. I submit that this is a matter of the greatest possible importance. I do think that this House should not place any obstacle in the way of a full and searching investigation of these charges, whether the man is a Member of this House or not. When charges of this character are brought forward, especially on the responsibility of persons of such position, I say the fullest possible fair play should be given to them. They have done it on their own responsibility, and it is only fair that they should be given an opportunity of stating their case to the House.

I confess that I am myself in considerable difficulty in this matter. I think that undoubtedly there has been a primâ facie breach of privilege, and it is the absolute duty of every Member of the House who regards the honour and dignity of the House to vote that this is a breach of privilege. Then comes another question upon which I shall ask you, Sir, whether I am stating the case correctly. A breach of privilege motion has been held over and over again to be only a preliminary step. The next step is, the House having condemned such and such an action to be a breach of privilege, that the primâ facie offender should be brought to the Bar. I voted for the motion on the faith that the parties concerned would be brought to the Bar and have an opportunity of justifying themselves, so that we might acquit them, if possible, of what is, prima facie, a breach of privilege. I would ask whether that is so or not. The precedents in my mind are very clear. One occurred on May 5th, 1887, when Mr. Gladstone said a breach of privilege motion was only passed by the House for the purpose of enabling the prima facie offenders to be brought before the House.^* That view

^* See The Parliamentary Debates [Third Series], Vol. cccxiv., p. 988.

All I can say, and all I ought to say, without going beyond my province, is that both the motion of the right hon. Member for Thanet and the Amendment are in order.

I beg to ask the Leader of the House whether the hon. Member for the West Toxteth Division of Liverpool has resigned his seat on the Select Committee on War Office contracts, and whether any steps will be taken to fill up the vacant place soon.

I believe it is the fact that my hon. friend has resigned, and if that is so, of course the vacancy will be filled up.

At once?

Yes.

By the House, of course.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. Member for the Toxteth Division is to be discharged.

No, I shall not move anything. If in the ordinary course an hon. Member desires to leave a Committee he puts down a motion.