This Bill, no doubt, is an important one, both as regards the dock companies and as regards the Port of London. But it does not involve any unusual prin- ciple, and I would ask the House to allow it in the ordinary course to go to a Second Reading in order that its merits may be ascertained. The principle embodied in it is that in order to carry out more efficiently the statutory responsibilities and duties thrown upon them it is necessary that their sources of revenue should be increased. The only question upon which I propose to address the House is, whether there is any just or sound reason for refusing a Second Heading to this Bill. Of course, the question of merit cannot be gone into in detail at the present moment; this is neither the time nor the place to go in detail into the merits of a Bill of this character, and no one who votes for the Second Reading will be giving a decision as regards the merits of the proposals which this Bill happens to contain. I can only say that there is nothing in this Bill which ought not to go upstairs in the ordinary way to be threshed out before a Private Bill Committee. If a Bill of this kind is refused a Second Reading, then the promoters—the dock companies— are deprived of the only tribunal to which they can apply. It would be contrary to constitutional practice to attempt to deal with the details of the Bill in the House itself, and should the House refuse the right of the promoters to go before a Private Bill Committee, it implies that the dock companies cannot have their case heard at all. The principle of the Bill is simply this: certain very important responsibilites and duties have been thrown on the dock companies. It is part of those responsibilities and duties not only that they should maintain the existing efficiency of the Port of London, but that they should provide for its future expansion and requirements. Up to the present time they have been able to carry out those responsibilities and duties. But the Bill is based on this, that they cannot go on providing for these statutory responsibilities and duties unless they get some additional sources of income, and what this House has to decide as a matter of principle is whether, when a company having certain responsibilities and duties thrown upon it believe it necessary in order to carry them out that it should have new charging powers, and propose a Bill accordingly, that Bill is to be thrown out without a hearing so far as the dock companies are concerned. There is no question of prin- ciple involved in this Bill which can be clearly discussed and decided on the Second Reading. So far as the new charges are concerned, I shall have a few words to say presently in order that the House may understand what is involved, but the Bill merely proposes to throw charges upon persons who at the present time are using the accommodation which has been provided at an expense of several millions, and towards which they are not now called upon to contribut one farthing. To-day in the London docks lighters and barges have a right of free entry, and no charge can be made upon them whatever business they may do in connection with the Port of London. And not only is there this exemption as regards the barges and lighters, but there is also an exemption as regards the goods they put on board ships, and goods imported into this country which they take off those ships. And for the accommodation provided for the lighters, accommodation which is essential having regard to the modern conditions of trade, no charge whatever can be made by the dock companies. The unfortunate result is that the dock companies, having to provide for these services at great cost— services in respect of which they get no remuneration at all—are not only deprived of a legitimate source of revenue, but find it necessary to put a high charge on the shipowner, or on the consignee of the goods. At the present time the number of barges which use the docks is between 140,000 and 150,000, with a tonnage of about two millions, or nearly twice as large a tonnage as that of the ships annually brought into the London docks. No doubt there is one way in which the dock companies might improve their position. At the present moment they might, within the powers which Parliament has given them, place a higher charge on ships, and, of course, incidentally on the shipowners, because at the present time they are not charging up to their maximum. Surely it would be unfortunate if even without inquiry the House should compel the dock companies to increase the system of charge which already, in their opinion, unfairly weighs upon one particular industry. I do not say that that is what the dock companies propose as an alternative, but the principle they seek to lay down is to charge in proportion to the accommodation provided; it surely is fair in itself and it ought not to be rejected by this House without full and proper inquiry by a Committee upstairs. How is the revenue of the dock companies raised at the present time? There is a maximum charge of 1s. 6d. per ton which may be imposed on all ships. The dock companies, however, are only charging 1s. per ton; that is to say, on a ship of 10,000 tons register they only charge £500, whereas their maximum charge is £750, and they feel it would not be a fair way of increasing their revenue to charge up to the maximum, because whereas the registered tonnage of ships using the docks at the present time is slightly over five millions, the tonnage of the barges and lighters using the docks is over nine millions, and these barges and lighters pay nothing for the benefit of the accommodation which has been provided at such heavy cost. Let me say a word or two on the question of the charges on goods. I wish to deal with this as a matter of principle. So far as goods taken on or off ships by means of barges or lighters are concerned, the company can make no charge at all, and about three-fourths of the goods imported into the Port of London thus escape all charges and all burdens in respect of the 17 millions which the dock companies have expended on the accommodation they have provided. Surely a system of that kind cannot be fair in itself, and when the dock companies are asking for power to make a fairer system of charge extending to all ships and craft which use the dock and to all goods, whether loaded overside or not, the matter ought to be allowed to go before a Committee. I think there has been some misapprehension as regards the proposals in the Bill itself. The proposal as regards barges and lighters is that there shall be a maximum charge of 4d. per registered ton, and as regards goods loaded into them a maximum in respect of some of 1s. and in respect of others of 1s. 6d. These are maximum charges. They are powers which the dock companies seek in order to provide on a thoroughly sound basis a sufficient source of revenue in order to enable them to carry out their statutory duties and responsibilities. I can recollect but one precedent of a case of this kind whore the matter was properly sent upstairs and considered by a, Private Bill Committee, and in that case no doubt the Committee refused the request of the dock company for power to impose the additional charge. There is only one other port outside the Thames to which this exemption for barges and lighters applies, and that is the port of Hull. In regard to that the question was raised nine or ten years ago whether the exemption should be maintained or whether a fair charge in respect of dock service ought not properly to be introduced. There was no objection taken to that proposal as a matter of principle on the Second Reading. I am not now saying that the proposal of the dock company is the best one that could be made. I am only saying that they should be heard before the only body before which the matter could be properly threshed out—namely, before a Private Bill Committee of this House. In the case of Hull I admit that the proposal to put the charge on lighters and barges was found to be inexpedient, having regard to the special conditions and circumstances of the case. The dock company in that case had no cause for complaint, as the matter was fully inquired into; but they would have had sound reason to complain had they been prevented taking their case before a Committee, and so will these London companies if they are deprived of the opportunity of submitting their case to show what they believe is necessary in order to enable them to maintain the efficiency of the Port of London, and to secure their sources of revenue so that they may be able to carry out their statutory obligations. I now come to the various forms which the opposition to the proposals of the dock companies has taken. I will indicate what I take to be the main objections— —objections which, in passing, I may say would properly be considered by a Private Bill Committee, seeing that it would be necessary to call evidence and sift it in order to see as to the truth of the allegations made. After all, the objections are of a character very similar to those who know anything about Private Bill procedure. The first is that if this power of charging were granted to the dock companies the exercise of it would tend to drive trade away from the Port of London. Every- one will agree that if it wore found that a particular proposal would have such a detrimental effect it ought not to be sanctioned. But let mo put this consideration before this House. Nobody is so interested in preserving the trade of the Port of London as the dock companies themselves. They are absolutely dependent on that trade for their own prosperity, and they depend also on its increase. Then, when the dock companies—which are more interested than any other body, because their whole future depends on the trade of London— come forward and ask for a fair hearing for a particular proposal, it cannot be said that their demand ought to be denied as a matter of principle. People who make an allegation of this kind should prove it. I believe the real fact as regards the Port of London, so far as these charges are concerned, is this. A comparison is often made between London and Liverpool; but whereas in Liverpool the charges are much more fairly adjusted as between consignee and shipowner, in London nearly all the charges are thrown upon the shipowner alone. I believe that is an unjust matter which this Bill would do something to set right. Look at the alternative. If the powers asked for by the dock companies are not given they will be compelled to make still heavier charges on the shipowner, and surely that is much more likely to affect the trade of the Port of London than the proposals of this Bill. No one will deny that a matter of this kind should be threshed out upstairs to see whether the objection is valid or not. Then it is alleged that the dock companies have managed their property badly. They entirely deny that. But that again is a matter which ought to be discussed upstairs, and which could not be discussed or decided at the present moment. People who make such an allegation ought to be prepared to prove it before a proper tribunal. But I may give the House one figure as regards the increase in the trade of the Port of London of the last twenty years. It has gone up from 2,372,508 tons to 4,281,389 tons, which is an even larger rate of increase than that at Liverpool. It is difficult, therefore, to see on what basis the allegation is made that there has been bad management in connection with the dock property. If it were true it would undoubtedly have a serious bearing on the proposals contained in this Bill; but it should be proved before a tribunal which can discuss it. Then there is the objection as to the great capital of the companies, amounting to something like 17 millions sterling. During the last twenty years 4 millions have been spent on improving the dock accommodation; but the answer to that is that the dock property at the present moment is worth a great deal more than the 17 millions spent on it. If anyone were to undertake to provide the accommodation which is provided in connection with the London docks he would have to spend a very much larger sum than the dock capital stands at at the present time. It may be said that the exemption of the lighters and barges in London is of long standing. That, no doubt, is right, and would, no doubt, have great weight when the proposals of this Bill come to be threshed out before a proper tribunal. But that, again, is no reason for rejecting this Bill on the Second Reading. Charges in connection with statutory obligations or duties may be made by such a Committee for the first time in a Bill of this kind, or there may be a proposal to remove the exemption; and I quite admit that when the case of the lightermen and barge-owners comes to be considered, if they can show that the exemption they enjoy should be continued, no doubt the Committee will decide in their favour. On the other hand, they may show that if the exemption is taken away they should have some special form of protection. That, however, is a matter we cannot discuss in this House; it can only be discussed before a Private Bill Committee upstairs. The only other objections come from certain public bodies. Everyone admits that weight must be given to such objections; but again I say we here are not in a position to decide upon such objections at the present moment. For that reason I am urging that there should be a Second Reading, and that these matters should be threshed out. I see there have been proposals for Committees dealing with very wide topics, and travelling over a very wide area. Suggestions of that kind are like postponing the real question to the Greek Kalends. The promoters, who desire to promote the efficiency of the Port of London, and have brought forward what they consider the best proposal as regards increasing their sources of revenue, cannot, to be consistent, assent to any proposal to postpone that reform. Whatever has been done in the past as regards the accommodation provided in the Port of London, it is certain that there must be large additions almost in the immediate future. That is a principle admitted by everyone who looks into the question, but if that is to be done you cannot do it without providing an adequate source of revenue. Whether this particular source of revenue is the best or not cannot be decided here; but you must provide some adequate source of revenue, and when you have the dock companies themselves, who at present have a responsible duty thrown upon them, coming forward with their own proposal, that proposal ought not to be deprived of an: opportunity of being examined. I do not put the case higher than that. The House ought not to deprive the parties of their right unless some great principle is involved. There is no such principle here, except, of course, that the London docks naturally excite the interest of a great number of persons. There is nothing in the Bill which takes it out of the category of the most ordinary Private Bills which come before this House. On these grounds I beg to propose that this Bill be read a second time.

In rising to move the rejection of the Bill, I wish to disclaim any hostility to the dock companies. Many directors of the docks are among my friends, and naturally, as Member for the City of London, I take the deepest interest in the docks. I am very anxious indeed that there should be a full inquiry into the state of the docks, and, if possible, some proposal should be made which would place them on a sound financial basis. I do, however, demur to committing the House by reading this Bill a second time to the principle of the Bill, which is, in the first place, it seems to me, that a new tax is to be imposed upon the Port of London, and, in the second place, that the tax should be imposed through the medium of the wharfingers and lightermen. I wish this inquiry to start unfettered and with a, much wider scope than would be possible to a Private Bill Committee sitting upon a one-clause Bill such as this. I quite agree with my hon. friend that we cannot here in this House go into detail with regard to the condition of the docks; but it appears to me that they have two arguments in favour of this Bill that they have put forward. One is the bread-and-butter argument that shareholders are entitled to a decent return on their capital. That may be so, but I think that before new taxation is imposed we should consider the whole question at length. The past history of the docks should be considered. My hon. friend alluded to the fact that charges have been made against the directors of mismanagement. I do not want to make any charges of that kind; but no doubt in the past many charges of that kind have been brought, and I consider that some tribunal like a Royal Commission might enter upon them and consider them. I think there is no doubt that in past times—I do not say now—the docks were not sufficiently disposed to meet the views of the merchants. I do not say the very able men who manage the docks now do not manage them as well as possible, but even that I think would form a proper subject for a Royal Commission, or whatever tribunal is to examine into it, and they might consider whether, if new taxation is required, it could not be imposed with less inconvenience to the port than the plan which they propose. My hon. friend pointed out that there are nine million tons of barges that enter in. According to the statement of the docks themselves, they are put to £50,000 or £60,000 expenses. They will probably make £100,000 profit out of barges alone. Besides that they are going to make a charge on goods that come in, and on that alone you get an enormous revenue. The other argument is, if I may say so without offence, rather more the sturdy beggar of the Middle Ages argument. That is to say, they say they have statutory powers which they will be compelled to exercise, if you do not give them what they want, that will be so dreadful and uncomfortable that they do not wish to exercise them. These statutory powers are to tax shipping. I am not myself prepared to say without consideration that it would be at all worse for the Port of London that they should tax the shipping than that they should tax the wharfingers. They have not done so yet, and therefore I suppose they have not felt it convenient to do so. I know the shipowners are very strong, and they are capable of taking care of themselves. But this proposal seems to mo as if one were to say, "I have got a gun which I could shoot you with, but it would be so painful to you for me to fire off my gun that I would like you to give me a modern gun with which I may shoot you with greater comfort to yourself." Before we give them this new gun I should like to have some inquiry whether their old gun is or is not honeycombed. I should like to be certain that the new gun will be much less painful than their old gun. But they do not propose to give up their old gun at all. I know that there is a very strong general feeling in the House that when new proposals are brought in they ought to be sent up to a Committee and examined; but this is not a new proposal at all. It is a proposal to repeal a clause in the Bill which started the docks. Under that clause the free water of the Thames was preserved, and it was provided that the lightermen and wharfingers who came to take their goods were free. Under that clause lightermen and wharfingers have invested an enormous amount of capital in their business, and that capital you propose now by this Bill, I do not say to destroy, but at any rate to cripple, and it does appear to me that that is a principle which justifies the House in rejecting the Bill at this stage. Then again, this Bill has been in the House before. In the year 1855 it was brought in,^* and after a very able speech by the representative of the Government, it was rejected by 249 to 26. It has been said that the reason they rejected it was because of the high price of dock stock at that time, and I quite admit that the representative of the City of London, who moved the rejection of the Bill, did allude to the fact that dock stock was very high, and gave that as one reason; but the debate has been circulated among Members, and if they have read it, I do not think they will admit that that is the reason which influenced the House. The main reasons were those given by Mr. Card well, namely, that the docks had had a monopoly for twenty-one years, that they had been given frontages for warehouses, and given the light to tax sea-going ships, but that the right to tax barges and lighters had been deliberately taken away from them in return for the other. My hon. friend suggested that if this was referred to a Commission

^* For Debate on Second Reading of the East and West India Docks Bill, l!)in February, 1855, see The Parliamentary Debates (Third Series], Vol. exxxvi., page 1505.

instead of a Private Bill Committee it would be hung up indefinitely; but he must be very sanguine if he thinks at this late period of the session a Private Bill Committee could get through it in time for it to come back and pass through this House during this session. A Royal Commission, which can sit in the recess, can surely go through the thing and get it into order for them to bring in such recommendations as they may make next session, and pass it then. I do not wish to weary the House now. I would merely point out that the City Corporation has petitioned against it, the County Council has petitioned against it, and the Chamber of Commerce has petitioned against it, and that most of the produce exchanges have cither petitioned or expressed their disapproval of it. On that ground I ask the House to reject this Bill now and not send it up to a Committee instead of a Royal Commission, which I have no doubt will be given to them if they ask for it.

I beg to second the motion for the rejection of the Bill, which is opposed to the feeling of the mercantile and shipping community, and of what I may call the representative public bodies of London. When my hon. friend suggests that instead of taxing the lightermen and wharfingers the taxes should be imposed upon the shipping interest, I can assure him that would meet with quite as strong opposition as the present proposal.

I do not suggest that that should be done. I only alluded to the fact that they had the statutory powers.

If they were carried into effect the result would be to add to the dues, whereas the dues are, in fact, paid not only for the use of the docks, but, according to the original statute, for the service rendered by the lightermen and wharfingers to the ship in process of loading and unloading, so that would be equally open to objection. I agree with my hon. friend who moved the Bill that inquiry is very necessary, but I cannot share his objection to my amendment in favour of the appointment of a Royal Commission on the ground that time will only admit of a Select Committee inquiring, and that we ought not to demand, as we do, from the House the appointment, as I hope my right hon. friend will ultimately suggest, of a Royal Commission, for no Select Committee can have the time to go into the manifold and far-reaching consequences which would result from the passing of such a measure as that proposed. There is no trade interest in London, down to the smallest consumer, that would not he affected. It had been estimated that the prices of certain commodities, including some necessaries of life, would be greatly raised owing to the increase of the charges upon them to the extent of even 200 per cent. in the case of some classes of goods. My hon. friend who moved the Bill said no principle was involved; but surely the highest of all principles is involved — namely, that of Parliamentary contracts— because when the Act was originally taken in the last century by the dock companies it was the very basis of that arrangement that they should maintain what has been called the freedom of the Port of London. They abstracted from the Thames water for the purposes of their docks, and Parliament then very properly laid it down that, as these facilities were offered, and as river frontage was taken which reduced the accommodation of the port, for these considerations there should be this freedom of overside trade. That was the principle on which Mr. Card well contended in the debate of 1855 that this question of freedom affected the very tenure of the docks. It went to the very root of their title to this property, and he added, most properly, that there had been a dedication, now by 100 years user, of these waterways to the public and commercial interests. So that it seems to mo that a very great principle is involved—whether that which is taken upon the basis of freedom of trade is afterwards, even 100 years thence, to be departed from on the ground that it has not been found to have been a profitable undertaking. As to information being needed, I think I may say that the chairman of the Docks Committee needs some information. I read the case which he put before the country carefully, and I find that he states that this system of exemption exists at no other port in England or in the world than London. My hon. friend who moved the Bill was much better aware of the circumstances, but I differ from him in saying that the principle of that exemption has never been tacitly or actively admitted. On the contrary, we have that privilege in Hull. It is a privilege which, so far from interfering with the trade of the port, is most beneficial to it, and I am quite sure it would never be raised, having regard to the experience in that port, without exciting most strenuous opposition. I see the chairman of the dock company said that was the means of ruining the docks. So far from that having been the case, the dock share- holders made a beneficial agreement with the North Eastern Railway Company, and they did so for the very object which we have in opposing this Bill, namely, to secure greater and better facilities and to reduce the charges in order to add to the attractiveness of the port. That object has been attained, and there is nothing which would be of more value than this privilege, which exists in Hull to this day. The chairman of the docks in his manifesto states that it did exist in Hull, and he alludes to that apparently as a reason for taking the course proposed by this Bill. We have the contrary case of London, and I do not hesitate to say that the dearness of London has injured it as a port; and if we continue to forgot what are the modern demands upon navigation and commerce, if we fail to take steps, not at the expense of a class, as is suggested in this particular Bill, but by raising the means from proper sources, if we fail to take care of the conservancy of our river, if we are not thoroughly up to date in regard to the dock and mercantile appliances, and, above all, if we increase the reputation which London now has, and which has led to great diversion of trade, that the charges here are excessive, we shall, I think, fail in that duty which touches the very permanence of the commercial position of London. I was going to say pre-eminence, but that is gone in a very large degree, owing to the conditions which have existed here, and which have given the preference to other ports in the United Kingdom and abroad on account of cheapness and the like. My hon. friend said, most properly, that if we prove that what has taken place under the dock company has diverted trade from London, that would be, I think he admitted, an almost unanswerable argument against a Bill for the purpose of increasing charges. I think he cannot have read the proceedings at a great meeting in 1896 at the Cannon Street Hotel, at which I took the chair as President of the London Chamber of Commerce, at which all these questions were discussed from the mercantile and shipping point of view. He said, most properly, you must not use that argument by way merely of suggestion. I quite agree that is not sufficient, and I will comply with his challenge in a very few moments by stating what the mercantile body feel on this question from actual experience, and what they know of the consequences of the system which has been going on. I take, first, Alderman Ritchie (as he was then—now, I think, Sir Thomas Ritchie), who spoke at that meeting and gave this illustration of what was happening. He said he had a ship under charter, waiting orders at Falmouth for any Continental port between Dunkirk and Hamburg. He wrote to the shipowners to see what concession they would make if she were diverted to London. The reply was, "We will not have London except upon an increased rate of 2s. 6d. per ton" in consequence of the dear charges as against shipowners.; That vessel did not come to London, and the consequence was loss to the port, not only in that particular instance, but it was a typical loss to the port. Alderman Ritchie also gave this instance: At Hamburg recently goods had been warehoused by him for three months, and the landing charges and the rent were only half of what they were if the goods had been brought to the Port of London, and we have undoubtedly a standing illustration of the state of affairs when we see splendid warehouses, I am told, in a large degree unoccupied, simply because the charges are prohibitive. Another high authority, Mr. Stephen Ralli, said at that meeting that London was the dearest and slowest port in the United Kingdom. Mr. Rouse said Hamburg and Antwerp were one-third less expensive than London, and many contended that the charges there were half only of those which were made in the Port of London. I quite admit the great difficulty of making these comparative observations. There are numerous conditions to be taken into account. But I have read a table which bears out the estimate of one-half, and Mr. Rouse justified his argument by saying that the cost of weighing cotton in London was 3½d. per bale, and that the same work was done for 1d. at Antwerp, and, to show the differential system, which was highly objectionable, that cotton was delivered by water in London at 4s. 3d. per ton whereas by land it was only charged 1s. 9d. And a former Member of this House told the House, in the debate of 1855 that he had diverted goods from London to other ports because the London charges were too heavy. If these are at all typical instances, if they are reliable, it proves, I think, conclusively that this is not a subject for inquiry by a Select Committee in a matter of a few weeks, but for a very broad and searching inquiry as to the whole conditions under which the trade in London has been conducted, and as to what will be the consequences if we proceed in the same manner as in the past. I think that the great remedy is cheapness instead of increased dearness of cost. If enterprise is thrown into the matter, if a real competition ensues with regard to warehousing and the like, I think the result would be found to be highly beneficial. We have to remember this in dealing with the matter, that a discussion took place here in 1855. Since then I believe the dock acreage has been very largely increased, and the dock directors stand face to face with the fact that either they did not then attribute such importance to the argument for the exemption of lighters and craft, or that they have increased their outlay with their eyes open, and, if so, they should not be rescued from a position which has shown some want of foresight in dealing with the trade of the port. Moreover, in not contemplating the great change which has taken place with regard to port matters, the rapidity of delivery and distribution instead of putting goods into warehouses, the influence of the telegraph, telephone, and the like in expediting commercial actions, they showed a want of commercial foresight, the consequences of which should not be made good by the mercantile community. I have only to add that there is one trade of which we ought to be very careful in London. We still maintain the position of a great emporium for the purpose of distribution, but if this tax is imposed it will strike at the trans-shipment trade, it will add to the diversion which has been going on of our own colonial products into competing ports, and we shall lose that which is at the present time a matter of the greatest advantage to the Port of London. I hope the House will realise the vast, far-reaching importance of the question, and that it will feel that the only way in which it may be solved in the interest of the community is not by a rapid and hasty inquiry, quite inadequate for the purpose, but that it will seek to send it to an expert tribunal capable of dealing with the multitude of interests involved, and of giving a decision in the interest of the trade of the Port of London and also of the whole country, in the direction, probably, of the substitution for a private quasi-monopoly of some form of public and representative trust.

The hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Second Reading of this Bill said that there was one precedent in favour of it, but he immediately proceeded to add that the circumstances were not the same. I think, therefore, I need not deal with the hon. and learned Gentleman's single precedent. Referring to the argument which has been used that the effect of these additional charges would be to drive away trade from the Port of London, the hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether anyone had a greater interest in maintaining the trade of London than the dock companies. In reply to that I would point out that the very grievance alleged by the dock companies is that at present only one quarter of the trade of London pays dues to them, and I would therefore observe that the existing trade of London might be very materially reduced under the new proposal, to the material gain of the dock companies. The hon. and learned Gentleman also said that the trade of London had very greatly increased during the last twenty years. That is perfectly true, but surely that is a strong argument in favour of adhering to our present system. As a matter of fact, the proposals submitted to the House are as between the custom of London on the one hand and that of Liverpool on the other. How does London compare with Liverpool in respect of trade? During the last ten years I find that whereas the trade of London has increased by 32 per cent., the trade of Liverpool has increased by only 12 per cent. The hon. Member for South Islington said that London had lost its supremacy. I think it would be more correct to say that the trade of the United Kingdom as a whole had lost its supremacy. The trade of the United Kingdom is losing ground in competition with Continental ports. I find, for instance, that in the last ten years the increase in tonnage entering the ports of the United Kingdom has been 25 per cent., whereas the increase in the tonnage entering the ports of Germany has been 44 per cent., of Holland 63 per cent., and of Belgium 68 per cent. That shows very clearly that Antwerp, Hamburg, and Rotterdam are gaining very rapidly on London. But if we compare London with other English ports, we shall find that London is not falling behind. I have shown that the total increase in the tonnage of the English ports during the last ten years was 25 per cent., whereas the increase in the trade of London during that period was 32 per cent., and therefore London is comparatively prosperous under the existing system. What I feel is that a Parliamentary bargain was really made with these dock companies. It is said that without docks no big ships could discharge in the Port of London. In answer to that I would say that without the monopoly that was given the docks could not have existed. The dock companies have really got all they bargained for, and I do not see that the fact that their warehousing business has very considerably declined is any reason why the House should take the step it is now asked to take. Having regard to the fact that this system is based on a Parliamentary bargain, that it has existed for 100 years, that on the last occasion when a similar proposition was made it was rejected contemptuously by the House of Commons. I say that the House would be really prejudging the question by granting Second Reading to this Bill until a thorough inquiry has been made into all the circumstances of the Port of London.

The fact that a very large number of my constituents are interested in the prosperity of these docks must be my excuse for addressing the House on this occasion. I will not venture to enter into detail. In my opinion no Bill has ever been before Parliament on which it is more difficult to form an opinion than on this measure, and it is a Bill which undoubtedly, in my opinion, should be carefully examined by a Committee, who would inquire into all the details which a large assembly like the House of Commons is totally incompetent to investigate. It is said that this is a Parliamentary bargain, but it was made more than 100 years ago, and all the conditions have changed during the century which has elapsed. That is a fair contention and a fair justification for the companies coming to Parliament and asking that the whole question should be looked into again. It is said that they asked Parliament in 1855 what they are now asking for, but it must be admitted that the state of affairs was totally different then to what it is now. Then dock stock was quoted at a very high rate, and the docks were prosperous. To-day they are languishing without prospect of recovery, and very serious injury is inflicted by the large number of men thrown out of employment. This Bill ought to go to a Committee or Commission for careful examination. I go further, and say that the whole question of dock accommodation in London ought to be referred to a Committee, and the way to secure that is not to throw out this Bill. If the Amendment is carried the Bill will be thrown out, and there will be nothing left—no Bill, no Commission, and no prospect of it, and the condition of things which we are lamenting to-day will be likely to continue year after year. I hope that the House in dealing with the question will not regard it merely as a question between the dock directors and the wharfingers and lightermen. There are the men employed, the commercial prosperity of London, and the tens of thousands who are the owners of the £17,000,000 of capital of the companies to be considered. It is a question in which a large number of people, rich as well as poor, are concerned. I should like to make an appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to take up this very complex question, and grapple with it firmly, with a view to putting the dock accommodation of London on a satisfactory basis. Let him send this Bill to a Committee, as many another complicated question has been settled, with a wider Instruction than the mere reference to the Bill—an Instruc- tion to inquire into the whole dock accommodation of London. In that case if this Bill can be justified by its promoters they will get it at an early date, and the further question can then be considered by the same Committee. That is a practice not unknown to the House. Those who are not familiar with the East End of London know nothing of the condition of the docks at present. This is not a mere question of a private undertaking endeavouring to get some increased powers. It affects the whole of the country, and is a national question, and I would appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to take it into his hands and let the Bill pass its Second Reading, not as an endorsement of its principle, but in order that all the circumstances may be investigated. It is said, when Bills of such a complicated character are given Second Reading, that the House adopts their principle, but everyone knows that is not the case. It is the only way in which a private person or company can work in order to obtain a Parliamentary inquiry, and having regard to the very large interests involved, I think the House of Commons ought not to refuse it.

The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is under a misconception when he states that the only way by which there can be an inquiry by the House of Commons into this matter is by reading this Bill a second time. I can assure the hon. Member that there are other methods. I myself have put down on the Paper a notice of Amendment which, if it be discussed and adopted, will secure the rejection of the Second Reading of this Bill, but will also result in the establishment of an inquiry of the fullest and most exhaustive character. The motion, as it stands in my name, is for a Select Committee. I believe myself that a Select Committee appointed for a definite purpose is a more speedy and a surer way of arriving at a decision on a great and complex question than a Royal Commission. But I am not going to dispute the point, because by either one or the other a full and complete inquiry can be obtained. And, undoubtedly, when we consider that during this session—and certainly next session—there may be a dissolution, and that many of the Members who might now be appointed on a Select Committee might not be returned to the new House, there is more to be said for a Royal Commission at the present moment than would, perhaps, otherwise be admissible. I may remind hon. Members that many of the greatest questions before this House have been dealt with by Select Committees, which, of course, expire at the end of each session, but are re-appointed session after session, with as small a change in their personnel as possible. The advantage of a Select Committee over a Royal Commission is that it has power to call for Papers and compel the attendance of witnesses. I do not wish to argue between the two, because I am clearly of opinion that in the immediate circumstances in which we find ourselves much may be said for a Royal Commission that could not be said under ordinary circumstances. At an early period of the debate we should hear from the Government whether they are prepared to appoint some such body as a Select Committee or a Royal Commission, because we shall fumble about a good deal until we know that. The hon. Member who has just spoken says that the only hold we can have, if anything is to be done, is to have something definite before the House in the shape of a Private Bill. But there is a method of dealing with this complicated and important question other than to pass this particular Bill to its Second Reading. There are instances in which a Bill involving more important issues, but which we could not altogether approve of in all its details, has passed the Second Reading of this House; but that was where the principle of the Bill was large and covered the area generally covered by the investigation of the Committee upstairs. But the principle of the Bill in this case is an exceeding small and narrow one. It is whether there ought to be a charge placed by this Bill upon wharfingers, bargemen, and lightermen to assist in procuring an adequate revenue for the docks. Will anyone in the House suggest a more hopelessly inadequate method of dealing with the Port and docks of London than that proposition? Whether that charge would enable the dock companies to emerge out of their difficulties or not I am not prepared to say, for I do not want to prejudge the question. But it is looking at the matter from only one point of view—that of the dock shareholders, and that alone. Now, the inte- rests of the Port of London go widely beyond those of the dock shareholders, and widely beyond any proposition that could legitimately, under our Standing Orders, be received in connection with such a Bill as this. I am, however, glad that the Bill has been brought forward, and I do not think we shall have the dock directors against us in what I am about to say, because it gives an opportunity to this House to deal with the question as we are now, in our debate, endeavouring to deal with it, from a large point of view. For a large number of years there has been no Bill or measure before the House which could allow the House in any way to take up the dock question. The only way it could have been raised would have been by a motion on a Friday or Tuesday, and we all know how very inadequate any such motion is for securing immediate legislation, or action for legislation. It depends upon the choice of the ballot, the luck of the evening, and many other things. We have never had the opportunity of bringing before the House the request that I venture to make in the Amendment which stands in my name, and which I ask the Government to take cognisance of and to deal with. I request that "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the accommodation and facilities provided and the charges levied at the Port and docks of London as affecting the commercial and general interests of London, and what, if any, changes could be made to improve the administration of the Port and docks." Now the wording of anything that the Government may be prepared to do by Royal Commission or Select Committee may be different from anything I have stated in that Amendment, but my object is to secure a large general inquiry, in which all interests may be heard and the various proposals may be ventilated, and on which responsible, and above all, open-minded persons may be able to give a decision upon what they want to be done. There are proposals evolved in various quarters. Some are visionary, some are sound and practical. Many of them press on all sides that we must adopt that which is not only in the interests of the shareholders of the docks, but in the interest of the mercantile community of London, the interest of the traders, the interest of the wholesale traders and retail distributors, and of the working classes, and of every person connected with London, which is involved in the security and satisfactory position of the Port and docks of London. In using these words, "the Port and docks of London," there is a very considerable point. It is of the extremest importance that we should have not only an inquiry into the docks of London but into the Port of London itself, including the docks. I do not want to say a word against the Thames Commission, because I know that I have stood with them in their desire to procure more money in dealing with the lower Thames. But they have not got funds for that. In a very instructive debate which took place in the House, in which a right hon. Gentleman I see before me took part, I and others pressed various points of view on the House as to the desirability of steps being taken which might lead to the better dredging of the lower part of the Thames; because we all know that it is not possible for the larger ships to come up the river except in certain states of the tide. A question was raised by the hon. Member for South Islington about the relations of the ports of Hamburg, Antwerp, Rotterdam, and Bremen, and the Port of London. I am informed by the journals that have to deal with trade matters that there is not any doubt whatever that in Hamburg there are lower charges than in the Port of London. I think I have said enough to make out a fair case that what is required is that a general inquiry on this matter should be carried out by persons whose past, whose business circumstances and relations generally, make them well able to determine such a matter from an independent point of view — such an inquiry as would cover practically the points made in the Amendment I have put on the Paper. I hope the Government will prevent the continuance of the debate by making some pronouncement on the subject, for my action on this matter will be very much guided by what steps they are prepared to take. If the result of this debate comes to this, that we get such a Commission or Select Committee as I have endeavoured to indicate, then I think not only the commercial interests of London, the greatest commercial city in the world, the interests of London as a town generally, and the interests of the working classes, will have good cause to thank this debate and the causes which have given rise to it.

There can be no question as to the great importance of the matter now being discussed. It is very much more than a local question affecting London alone. In fact I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that it is not only a local but a national question—namely whether London is to maintain the position which it now occupies as well as to be able to enter into effective competition not only with our own out-ports but with foreign ports. Now, there are so many things which the House is agreed upon in connection with this matter that it is really not necessary for me to detain the House at any length. We are agreed upon two points. One is the insufficiency of the docks in London for the work which they have to do and which we hope they will have to do in the future; and the other is the necessity for some inquiry as to how the condition of things now existing in London is to be improved. These are the two points on which the House is generally agreed, and indeed the only question, I think, which the House has really to consider now is the form which that inquiry is to take—whether the inquiry shall be an inquiry merely by an ordinary Private Bill Committee or even by a Select Committee into the proposals of this Bill, or whether the inquiry will be larger and more general, embracing the whole merits and conduct of the docks, the accommodation provided by the docks, and generally as to how the revenue is to be raised, if further money is required to be found, and in what way the docks in future shall be administered; and also the extremely important question which the hon. Gentleman who spoke last raised — not only how the docks are to be improved, but how the water-way which leads into the docks is to be improved. Well, with regard to the accommodation afforded in the London Docks, I agree that it is not in a satisfactory condition, but I think it is right to say that I consider that those who are responsible for the management of the docks have of late years done a very great deal to improve the accommodation in the docks. They have expended large sums of money in the improvement of the docks, and I think I may say generally that they have exercised all the powers which they possess to fulfil properly and adequately, as far as possible, the duties which devolve upon them in managing these gigantic concerns. But notwithstanding all that that has been done it has been found that even the Tilbury Dock, which alone can accommodate vessels of great size, cannot accommodate ships equal to those accommodated by some of our out-ports, and hardly approaches the accommodation given in some foreign ports. Now, that is a state of things with which no one in London or the country ought to be satisfied. The dock directors themselves are not satisfied. They are desirous of improving the condition of things at the docks, but they say, and properly say, "How is it possible for us with the revenue we possess, with our stocks standing at the figures they now are, to raise the money necessary for improving the conditions of things in the London Docks." And that is an answer which it is impossible to dispute. They are unable to do it, and they come before the House of Commons with a proposal which, in their opinion, would enable them to fulfil the responsibilities which devolve upon them. That is a proposal to raise the charges upon barges from which they are now exempt. That is a proposal which has been made before in the House of Commons, and which has been rejected by the House of Commons when it was last before it in 1855. I think it then only obtained twenty-six votes in this House, and I venture to say that on the proposal which is now made, which is practically the same proposal—I am not speaking of the actual details, but in principle it is the same—this House of Commons is not at all likely to come to a different conclusion from the previous House of Commons in refusing its assent to this bald proposal for remedying the state of things of which we all complain. It is said by my hon. friend the Member for Bow and Bromley that the House would not depart from, that position if the Second Reading of the Bill was passed, and the Bill referred to a Committee. I think my hon. friend is hardly right in making that assumption. I am satisfied that if we did vote for the Second Reading of a Bill which imposed these charges, we would consider that we were voting for the principle of the charges. There may be many other remedies which might be suggested for a full inquiry. Of course a full inquiry would not be made into the whole case if this Bill were read a second time. Although it is said by the friends of the Bill that unless that is done and the alternative of referring the matter to a Royal Commission is adopted that would mean delay, I greatly question whether that is true. If this Bill were referred to a Committee and rejected there would be an end—for at least this session or for a long time—of the proposals made on behalf of the docks; whereas, if a Royal Commission were appointed to inquire into the whole matter, that Royal Commission would be bound to consider not merely this particular remedy, but the whole question of what dock accommodation is required, and the kind of accommodation, the cost, and how that expenditure was to be met. It would also consider whether, if it were necessary that further burdens should be imposed on London and the Port of London, that ought to be done by something in the nature of a public trust rather than by a private company. For although, no doubt, the House of Commons would reject a proposal to allow a private company like the docks company to impose this additional charge, it is not at all to be supposed that they would be prepared to reject a similar proposal, or something analogous to it, if made by a public authority. However that may be, I am sure that the mode proposed by the promoters of the Bill is not the right method of getting at the bottom of this extremely important matter. That inquiry is desired is undoubted, and I hope that my hon. friends who proposed this Bill will not consider it necessary to come to a division, but agree to accept my assurance that the Government feel the necessity for inquiry on this matter as much as the dock company itself, and that that inquiry ought to be, and that that inquiry should be larger and wider, and ought to embrace much more than the financial aspect of the question with which this Bill alone deals. We propose, therefore, to recommend to Her Majesty the appointment of a Royal Commission to make full inquiry into the whole matter. I wish it to be understood that I do not intend to suggest that it should be a Royal Commission composed of partisans. I think it right to make that statement, because, since it has been known that the Govern- ment favoured the appointment of a Royal Commission, I have been approached by all sorts and conditions of men, representatives of various sections of the community which have interests in this matter, with requests that representatives of these particular interests should be appointed on the Royal Commission. If this thing is to be inquired into, the first necessity is that it must be an impartial and not a partial or partisan inquiry, and that the members of the Commission must be judges, men who will go into the matter with impartial minds, and prepared to come to a conclusion on the evidence placed before them; not representatives of this, that, or the other interest, but representatives of the whole community. I can assure my hon. friend, if he is prepared to accept the proposal I now make, that in the appointment of the Royal Commission there will be no delay, and that within two or three weeks that inquiry will be begun, and that the inquiry will result in great good to the whole community.

I desire, in expressing my hearty concurrence in the proposal to refer this matter to a Royal Commission, to disclaim any hostility to the present Bill. I do not think we ought to pass judgment on the proposals in the present Bill; but the more I consider them the more I am convinced that the House is not prepared to deal with them. For the Bill raises only one small part of the subject, and we cannot deal with that without being drawn into the larger question. The right hon. Gentleman has stated the decision of the Government, and as I think the supporters of the Bill will probably acquiesce in his proposal I have little to add. I would, however, like to add a word as to my preference for a Royal Commission over a Select Committee. I think there are two strong advantages in the Royal Commission. In the first place the Committee could do very little this year, and I do not know whether it would sit next year; whereas the Royal Commission could work during the vacation, and would make much more rapid progress than a Select Committee. I hope for that reason that the promoters of the Bill will acquiesce in the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade on behalf of the Government. The only other remark I want to make is that I am sure the President of the Board of Trade has carried us all with him when he said that the Commission should be a non-partisan body. We have heard far too much of having Royal Commissions and Select Committees in which all interests were represented. It is unsatisfactory, and involves loss of time. It would be far better to have invariably an independent, non-partisan body. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will also see that it is to be a small Commission. It ought not to exceed seven in number. I am persuaded that it will proceed much more rapidly if it be a small and impartial body rather than a larger Commission composed of representatives of various interests. In that view, and believing that the promoters of the Bill will not suffer by the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, I hope we will be spared a division.

I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether this Bill is in order, inasmuch as it proposes, by a Private Bill, to transfer powers conferred by public statute upon the Charity Commissioners.

I cannot quite accept the description of the Bill which the hon. Member gives. What is proposed is to make a scheme for the government of King Edward VI. Schools at Birmingham. I believe that could be done by application to the Charity Commissioners, but the power of Parliament to legislate in the matter has not been taken away if Parliament chooses to exercise it. If Parliament does legislate upon it, legis- lation by means of a private Bill would be quite in order. Therefore I do not think any point of order arises. The question whether the promoters of the Bill ought to proceed by way of application to the Charity Commissioners, or to proceed, as they have done, by this Bill is a matter for the House entirely and not for me.

I rise to move that this Bill be read a second time on this day six months. I do soon grounds of public policy. A very important principle is involved in the proposal now before the House. There are an enormous number of endowed schools in the country, all of which, with the exception of Eton and Westminster, are under the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners. The transference of powers from the Charity Commissioners to any other public body ought to be made by public statute; but in this instance it is sought to transfer them in an irregular way— namely, by a Private Bill. On 19th April, 1888, when the Keble College Bill was under consideration the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin, then Chairman of Committees, was asked his view in regard to procedure of this character, and he stated his view to the House as follows†—

"Ought emancipation to be effected by a Private Bill, or ought it to be brought before the House in a Public Bill instead of a Private Bill? He had more than once laid before the House a strong opinion that it was in the highest degree undesirable that any such departure from public law should be made in a Private Bill. In the first place hon. Members did not know what bad been done until after it had been done, and then they found, to their surprise, that an alteration had been made in the general public law by a Private Bill. Such a course opened a wide door to abuse, and if it were adopted we might find many gaps made in the public law by Private Bills."

It is therefore because the law is open to abuse that I object to this Bill being read a second time to-day. So far as I know, there is no special ground for the exemption of this particular school, but if there was some ground for special exemption, it seems to me to be somewhat anomalous that we should be asked to withdraw one endowed school out of the many hundred endowed schools at present under jurisdiction, in order to conform with the view of the governors of one particular endowed

† See The Parliamentary Debates [Third Series], Vol. cccxxiv., page 1699.

school. If any changes are required, obviously the right course is that the Charity Commissioners themselves should be asked to suggest a scheme. That scheme would be publicly notified to the people of Birmingham, and the public there would have an opportunity of expressing their views in regard to the changes proposed to be effected by the scheme. Certainly, without saying anything against the Board of Education, it must be admitted by this House that the Charity Commissioners in this country have unrivalled experience in regard to schemes, and they ought to have the first opportunity of making the requisite changes in the form of the scheme. But it is very extraordinary to find that the promoters of this Bill, instead of taking advantage of the powers which were given to the Board of Education only last year under the Board of Education Act, have endeavoured by a side wind to take away the powers conferred on the Charity Commissioners by statute law. Under the Education Act of last year, by Order in Council, all these powers might have been transferred from the Charity Commissioners to the Board of Education; but by not doing that the Governors have made their object apparent, namely, that they did not want all the powers transferred to the Board of Education, for they are only seeking to transfer some of the powers. Take, for instance, the question of land. If this Bill passes in the present form, it will be quite possible for the governors to actually sell the land, oven that on which the schools have been endowed, and to do whatever they like with the proceeds, irrespective of the views of any Government Department. There is no public body in this country representing a public trust which can part with property without going to a Government Department and seeking its approval. In regard to the land possessed by the universities, in every case real estate cannot be parted with unless the approval of the Agricultural Department is secured. With regard to the municipal corporations, they cannot part with their land without the Local Government Board or the Treasury acquiescing in such a procedure, and therefore the endeavour to secure for the governors freedom of control from the Charity Commissioners is to create a precedent which I trust the House will reject on the present occasion. There is another point. It is not only a question of land, but under the present Bill in Clause 26 the Board of Education would be itself deprived of the power which the Charity Commissioners have—to initiate schemes necessary from time to time in regard to this school. I object to this Bill not because I have any fault to find with this particular school, but I object to it on the ground of public policy. In 1888 the House was asked to determine on a similar question, and it then decided that it was inexpedient for public statutes to be interfered with by Private Bills in this way. I believe there are one, or possibly more, precedents, but I say they are most dangerous precedents to follow if even they exist; and I appeal to the House, having regard to the importance of the question, to hesitate before they pass by Private Bill powers which are invested in the Charity Commissioners by public statute and hand a portion only over to the Board of Education. I appeal to the House, because I think we would be parting with the statutory control which it is necessary for us to keep, and because the governors have been endeavouring to secure changes by Private Bill legislation instead of by Order in Council through the Board of Education, or by the more direct method of public statute. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time upon this day six months.

I rise to second that Amendment, and I do so upon two grounds. We are about, I hope, to establish before very long a complete State system of secondary education in this country. If a system of that kind is to be of any value it must be carried out according to broad general lines, not necessarily in supporting particular schemes, or meeting the particular needs of localities, but, at all events, animated by one general spirit and directed to one general end. This Hill, if it passes, will constitute an imperium in imperio which will be independent of the educational authorities of the country, and which may carry on a system which may or may not be advantageous, but which at all events will be unconnected, and, unless very wisely administered, unrelated, to the general educational system which is about to be established. Let me call the attention of the House to some of the provisions which the Bill makes. The first provision I wish to call attention to is in Clause 16, from which it appears that the governors are to have complete control over the property of the foundationers. The whole legislation of the country in regard to charities is based upon the principle that there should always be some external protecting authority interposed between the charity and its trustees. It is not necessarily any stigma upon the administration of the trustees that such an interposition should take place. Of course there are isolated instances in which a charity has been completely maladministered. These cases are rare, but it is always desirable that there should be interposed between the trustees and the charity some external and impartial authority, without whose sanction they cannot got rid of any of its property. I am myself the trustee of a charity, and I know the effect of that jurisdiction and that kind of superintendence is in the interest of and not a hindrance to the performances of the duties. This Bill entirely removes that safeguard, and if you pass it you will really see that there is no reason why you should not repeal the whole of our legislation of that kind. You are giving complete power to the authorities of this school to deal with their estates. Why should you not give the same powers to the Blue Coat School and to Charterhouse School? Why should you have this precedent for releasing this charity from the law which experience has shown is desirable and necessary for the protection of those for whom the charity is intended? I am told that this is an extremely democratic measure, and therefore should receive the support of those on this side of the House. I am not sure about that. How do they propose to effect their object? In the first place they have five persons nominated by the great universities and the new university of Birmingham. Then eight persons are to be elected by the Town Councillors of Birmingham, and these thirteen are to elect nine other members. The House will see that inasmuch as there are eight Town Councillors and only five nominated members, it is quite possible and most probable that the Town Councillors will elect the whole of the co-optative members, and the result will be that this will be a body nominated by the Town Council of Birmingham. It does not appear from this Bill that the Town Council contributes one shilling to the funds of the foundation which they are to control. A governing body of that kind is, I submit, not a very proper body to control an educational foundation. I may call the attention of the House to one rather remarkable provision. It is that no one elected by the Town Council of Birmingham shall be eligible or continue to be a representative unless he carries on a trade, business, profession, or calling within the city of Birmingham or some parish adjoining thereto, such distance to be determined from time to time by the governors. I do not see that you could possibly have a more undemocratic limitation than that. Why should you restrict the choice of the governors to the ratepayers of Birmingham and district? Surely it is the experience of everybody that a mixture of persons of general eminence in educational methods would be most valuable in a body of this kind. They very likely would be anxiously animated by a desire to promote the interests of education, but they would be excluded from election in any other way. Such a provision as that marks, if I may say so, the general character of the Bill, which is, I regret to say, not so much a public spirited Bill as one giving exclusive domination to one town over an endowment which, in view of the excellent work it is doing, should be treated as a national and not merely as an exceptional endowment. For these reasons I support the view of my hon. friend. This Bill ought never to have been brought forward in this way when the House is anxious to go on to more important business. It ought to have taken its chance as a Government measure. Birmingham is not uninfluential with the Government, and the Bill might very well have been brought in as a Government measure, and under the ægis of the Education Department. I wish to call the attention of the House to two clauses at the end of the Bill relating to an endowment which is divisible in equal shares, between the trustees and the governing body. At present the measure is divided in equal shares, under the Charity Scheme, which has the force of law. The Haverfordwest Grammar School is a rather humble body, and carries on a very good little school in a remote part of Wales, and has altogether an income of £600 or £700 a year. This Bill proposes that the governing body of the Haverfordwest Grammar School may enter into an arrangement for equally dividing all properties other than the properties and securities of the foundation. Anybody who has any experience of the ways of the world will see at once that a bargain entered into between the great Corporation of Birmingham on the one hand and the governors of a small Welsh grammar school on the other, is not likely to be one in which the grammar school will get the better part of the bargain. I observe the hon. Member for Thirsk proposes to amend the Bill in that, amongst other particulars, and he proposes to insert in that clause the words "With the approval of the Board of Education." I wish to say that I support that view, and I hope the hon. Member will press it upon the Government. I wish further to add that it rather shows the somewhat arbitrary manner in which this Bill has been drafted, that by implication it interferes with two clauses of the Welsh Intermediate Education Act of 1889. Under that Act there is established in each county a Committee whose duty it is to submit to the Charity Commissioners a scheme or schemes for the intermediate and technical education of the inhabitants of the county; and under Section 12 of that Act—

"An educational endowment within the county of a joint education committee means an educational endowment which is applied in the county, or is appropriated for the benefit of the natives or inhabitants of the county, or of some of such natives or inhabitants, or their children, or where the benefits of such endowments are divisible between two counties, or between the counties in Wales and the county of Monmouth, or any of them … then means so much of the endowment as the Charity Commissioners may determine to be applicable for the benefit of the county of the joint education committee."

This Bill entirely ignores those provisions of the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, and I wish to impress upon the supporters of the Bill the need for giving full consideration to the rights of the county governing body of Pembrokeshire and the Haverfordwest Grammar School in this Bill. I have no wish to bring to bear any undue pressure, and therefore I should be satisfied so far as relates to this point with the Amendment to be proposed by the hon. Member for Thirsk, and I hope that that Amendment at all events will be accepted by the promoters of the Bill or carried by the House.

As an old Birmingham King Edward schoolboy, and consequently taking a great interest in all that concerns the future welfare of the schools, I wish to say a few words in support of the Second Heading of this Bill. I hope before I sit down I shall be able to show that this foundation rests upon a somewhat different footing from that of the ordinary endowed schools which have been referred to by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that it would be not against but in the interests of public policy that the change in the constitution which is contemplated by this Bill should be made. To begin with, these are not in any sense of the word national schools; they are local schools for the education of Birmingham children, and there certainly should be a sufficient number of men capable of governing these schools in the place itself. Nor are they on the same footing as some small charitable endowment in some out-of-the-way country village. I can quite imagine that it is necessary in a case of that kind that some controlling authority should be placed over the governors of the school, what is the main purpose and object of this Bill? The promoters do not seek in any way to get rid of any reasonable amount of control, either as regards the management of their schools or as regards any fundamental matter connected with the management of their property. What they object to in having to submit to any outside control with reference to the every-day details concerning the ordinary management of their property. These schools have hitherto been managed under schemes which were laid down by the Charity Commissioners in the years 1883 and 1884, it being also provided that the Charity Commissioners should retain in their own hands certain very extensive powers of control which were conferred upon them by the Charitable Trusts Acts and the Endowed Schools Acts. The general effect of this has been that the governing body has not been able to perform any act other than the most ordinary every-day routine act with regard to the management of their property without first going to the Charity Commissioners and obtaining their consent. As might be expected, this has been found by the governors to be exceedingly irksome and inconvenient, and it has also been productive of great delay and expense in the carrying on of their operations. It is mainly with a view to get rid of this burdensome control, to enable them to be masters in their own house, and to be able to deal in a free and unfettered way with their property that the governors have introduced this Bill. At the same time there are quite a sufficient number of checks and safeguards imposed upon them to prevent any improper dealing with the property (such as seems to be feared by an hon. Member opposite), not only by the general provisions which have been incorporated in this Bill, which are practically the same as were before incorporated in the scheme of the Charity Commissioners, but also by Clause 25, which provides that any three governors who dissent from anything which is proposed to be done shall have a right of appeal to the Board of Education. This right of appeal, I want to point out, is not in any sense whatever delusive, because the board of governors is to be so constituted that there will always be upon it a sufficient number of independent governors to make this appeal if and whenever it may be necessary to do so. The House will the better realise the burdensome nature of this outside control when I explain to them the description of the property of which this foundation consists. Apart from the school buildings and recreation grounds, the great bulk of the property consists of freehold ground rents. I am informed that there are now in existence as many as 700 leases relating to the property under which these ground rents and other rents are payable, and that scarcely a day passes without some transaction concerning the property taking place. The annual revenue which is received from these sources amounts to something like £47,000. When I further explain that no single dealing with this property, no lease, conveyance, mortgage, sale, or other disposition of the property can at present take place without first having to go to the Charity Commissioners, the House can understand something of the amount of inconvenience which is entailed upon the governors. I was told the other day, as an instance of the amount of circumlocution and delay which has to be gone through when a Government Department of this kind has to be approached before any dealing with property can take place, that a lease or some other document, which was sent to the Charity Commissioners as long ago as last March for their approval, has only just been received back. It seems to me that this is almost as bad as being put under the control of the Court of Chancery. What has this Board of Governors done that they should be subjected to this indignity? They are, in point of fact, no different from any private body of trustees, and so long as a private body of trustees behaves itself in a proper manner and carries on its business in a legitimate way it is not put under the control of the Court of Chancery, but is quite able to deal with its property in the manner in which it is now proposed by this Bill the governors should be allowed to deal with their property. It seems to me, then, that the only question which has to be considered by the House in deciding whether they shall accept or reject this Bill is whether the constitution of the Board, as provided for by the Bill, is such that the governors are likely to prove worthy of confidence, and to administer this foundation in the manner best calculated to promote the educational interests of the people of Birmingham. In the first place, with regard to this constitution, I would point out that it is precisely the same as it has hitherto been under the scheme of the Charity Commissioners, with the exception that an additional governor is added, to represent the new Birmingham University. There are to be twenty-two governors in all. Five of these are to be nominated governors: one appointed by each of the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, London, and Birmingham, and one appointed by the teachers on the permanent staff of the schools; eight are to be representative governors appointed by the city council, and there are to be nine co-operative governors who are to be chosen and elected by the remainder of the board. The council may appoint members of their own body as governors, but the teachers may not do so, and under the clause to which the hon. Member who seconded the motion alluded (which he objects to, but which I very much approve of) provision is made that all these governors, except the nominated governors, shall have some connection with or interest in the city of Birmingham. It is quite evident from this that the City Council of Birmingham will control the election of the great majority of this Board. It will be composed mainly of those who are interested in the welfare of the city of Birmingham, and will be fully and truly representative in its character. I may point out that on the present board there are no less than eleven gentlemen who are or have been aldermen or councillors of the city. There are nine members—including the present and the ex-lord mayor—who have been mayors of the city, and the chairmen of most of the large spending committees of the corporation are also on the board. What I want to point out is, that if these gentlemen are fit to be en-trusted with the administration of the revenues of the whole city of Birmingham, amounting to something like £2,000,000 a year, surely they ought to be competent to administer this much smaller amount of annual revenue without having to submit themselves at every turn to the guidance and control of the Charity Commissioners or any other outside body. It is said that one of the chief objects for the existence of the Charity Commissioners is that they shall look after the interests of posterity. I myself am rather inclined to allow posterity to look after itself; but seeing that by the falling in of leases and the increase in the letting value of land the income of this foundation has been increasing, and is still increasing year by year, I do not think there is any reason to fear that these governors will be likely to encroach upon the capital value of their undertaking. They will have no personal interest whatever to serve, and they will be quite as likely to look after posterity and to guard the future value of their property as any outside body could possibly be. The substitution of the Board of Education for the Charity Commissioners, as is proposed in many instances by this Act, was undoubtedly contemplated by the Education Act of last year, for by Section 2 of that Act it is provided that the Queen may, by an Order in Council, transfer any of the powers at present vested in the Charity Commissioners, in all matters relating to education to the new Board of Education, which was con- stituted under the Act. I may also point out that a precisely similar provision to Clause 16 of this Bill—which is objected to by hon. Gentlemen opposite —has lately been inserted in the new Birmingham University Bill, which passed its Second Reading in this House the other day without any comment or opposition. At all events, the Bill as it now stands has, I understand, received the full sanction and approval of the Education Department, and there is at least a silent acquiescence in this transference of powers by the representative of the Charity Commissioners in this House. It has already, I believe, after careful consideration, passed Lord Morley's Committee, and the other House of Parliament, without any opposition whatever. In conclusion I would point out that these schools form part of one great educational system which now exists in Birmingham. There are, first of all, the public elementary schools; secondly, the grammar schools of this foundation; thirdly, the high schools of this foundation; and lastly, the new Birmingham University. And so we have that great desideratum—an educational ladder, practically complete, in Birmingham at the present time; and seeing that the first and last named of these educational institutions are not under the control of the Charity Commissioners, but that they are—so far as they need any outside control—under the control of the Board of Education, it seems to mo, to say the least of it, to be a little inconsistent and unnecessary that these schools should remain under a different authority. I think that I have said enough to show the House that this Bill is reasonable in what it asks for, and I hope that hon. Members will not persist in their opposition to it.

The hon. Member who has just sat down has spoken of the admirable character of the education and the general excellence of this institution. That is a charming tribute to the Charity Commissioners, because all this has grown up under its authority, and the hon. Member himself received his education under the general guidance of the Charity Commissioners. I was not aware until I looked at the Parliamentary Paper that the rejection was to be moved, and I feel that this House and every Member of it has a right to ask why I as the Parliamentary representative of the Charity Commissioners, did not move the rejection of this Bill. That was a matter of tactics. I have known ever since I saw the Bill that most of its clauses were wasteful and unnecessary; unnecessary because any desirable object in them could be obtained by a scheme prepared by the Charity Commissioners after an inquiry by that highly trained and strictly impartial body; and wasteful because they could have obtained those objects without cost to the charity, an expense which is now thrown upon them by the last clause in this Bill. There are other clauses which are not merely wasteful and unnecessary, but are actually mischievous. Those clauses propose for Birmingham what has been refused to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, a decision which has been reasserted here as recently as 1898. The rule as to any endowments held for the present and future is that the disposal of the funds shall not be left to the uncontrolled management of the trustees from time to time, but should be guarded in the interests of posterity by some outside body. As the hon. Member who moved the rejection of this Bill has said, this is a rule not only with charities, but with all bodies who administer public funds. The hon. Member who has just sat down says that these governors were considered competent to manage the revenues of Birmingham uncontrolled. But has he never heard of the Local Government Board? Does he not know that Dr. Chalmers once said that public bodies were merely as potter's clay in the hands of the Local Government Board? I adopted this course because I thought that by letting the good clauses go by I might be able to stop the worst. I knew that had I moved the rejection of the Bill the Members for Birmingham would have fallen upon me. They are wise and honourable, and many of them are right honourable, and they feel very, very strongly, I understand, upon this Hill. They would join vigorously in defence of this Bill as representatives of the doctrine of Home Rule for Birmingham. Therefore I thought it was the better course for me to put down an Instruction, as I have done, concentrating the attention of the House upon these particular obnoxious clauses. If I had moved the rejection of the Bill entirely I might have been placed in a greater difficulty, and the worst clauses might have got by. I hope, if this goes any further, to be able on Friday next to convince this House that the rules laid down by public policy for the safety and good management of charities in every other part of the kingdom may also be good even for so great a place and such wise men as the inhabitants of Birmingham. I shall myself vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. I shall do so because, when the preamble says that the objects of the Bill cannot be obtained without the authority of Parliament, that statement is, to my own knowledge, inaccurate so far as regards the legitimate objects of the Bill. As regards the illegitimate objects of the Bill, if it goes any further they should not be carried out even with the authority of Parliament. There is just one other remark I should like to make with a view of influencing the votes in the approaching division. I want to warn hon. Members that they cannot by voting for this Bill inflict a penalty upon the Charity Commissioners. I know that the hon. Members for Birmingham carry great weight here. I know also that the Charity Commission is not as popular as it should be. In the nature of things it should not be popular, and if the Commission does its duty it cannot be popular. What is popularity? Popularity is the opinion of the present generation, but the Charity Commissioners are the guardians of the wishes of the dead and of the interests of the unborn, and in the interests of the past and the future we have sometimes to chasten the present generation. I know we are not popular in the House, and that some hon. Members may wish by their votes to inflict some penalty upon the Charity Commissioners. The Charity Commissioners are perfectly prepared to see the control of this property go to some other body, but what they object to is that it should break loose from all control whatever; so long as some other body takes it in hand we shall be exceedingly glad to get rid of it. The Charity Commissioners have done their duty with regard to it, and all they ask is that if the power is taken from them it should be given, unrestricted, to the Board of Education. That is not proposed by this Bill. My hon. friend said there were safeguards in the Bill, and referred us to: Clause 25. But that clause does rot express the desire of Birmingham in this matter, and it is a new clause; it was not in the Bill when it was first introduced in another place. I have now made clear, I hope, the attitude of the Charity Commissioners, who have had great difficulty with this great institution, which is excessively purse-proud and impatient of control, and if the Board of Education cares to undertake the responsibility of controlling it, it will be a pleasant beginning for that Department, whilst the Charity Commissioners will be well rid of it.

I was very glad when my hon. friend intervened in this debate. I am always glad to hear him, especially in his character of responsible and humorous representative of the Charity Commissioners, which is itself an irresponsible body. I am glad he intervened to-day, and I say it without any reflection whatever, because it would be undesirable to bring up again on Friday precisely the same issues. If the House is willing to allow the Bill to go forward to the Committee stage it would be a work of supererogation for my hon. friend to make again on Friday the speech he has made to-night.

There is no Committee stage. The Bill is unopposed.

It must be pretty evident to the House that this is a question between a great public responsible body dealing with local officers and the Charity Commissioners. I have come into conflict with the Charity Commissioners very often, but never in such a matter as this. When I came into conflict with them it was because I thought they were a more or less irresponsible body who intervened most unjustly in order to appropriate money which belongs to the poor for the purposes of secondary education. On those points we always shall be opposed to them. We have given them a lesson, and it is they who are chastened at this moment. When the Charity Commissioners established control over the property of these foundations, no doubt what they had in view was that the governing body was in many cases entirely irresponsible, non-elective, sometimes very small, and subject to no sort of popular control. And there was a fear that these governing bodies might misuse the funds at their disposal, and even the evils attendant on the control of the Charity Commissioners were deemed to be better than such a state of things as that. The hon. Gentleman said there was no precedent for this Bill. If there be no precedent it is our business to make a precedent; but there are precedents, and one of them was created last session when a similar course to that now proposed was adopted in the case of the Mason College Bill. You are dealing here with a great foundation, one of the largest foundations in the United Kingdom, with an income of something like £37,000 a year. You are dealing with an organisation which has been reformed again and again, until it has been thoroughly reorganised and put into such a form as in every sense to give satisfaction to the people of Birmingham, whatever others may think. Surely it is no part of the Radical creed to come in with regard to such an institution and say that you shall be controlled by three gentlemen and a number of clerks who will see all that you are doing and interfere in every detail. The hon. Gentleman says this school has grown up under the fostering care of the Charity Commissioners until it became a popular institution. It grew very slowly; and when it came to be a popular institution it was so hampered that it was impossible to alter any of the details without going to these precious Charity Commissioners, who take six months to decide any case, however simple it may be. In one case there was this extraordinary delay: the Local Government wished to establish a girls' school for the higher education of girls in Birmingham, and they proposed to arrange part of the payment for that school by the transfer of another charity, a cognate charity, also under the control of the Charity Commissioners. This involved the disposal of certain rent-charges; and a certain amount of Consols. From first to last there never was the slightest doubt of the propriety of the proposal, and the Charity Commissioners had nothing to say against it. Yet they must go through all these red-tape arrangements which were carried to such an extent as to really astonish a Government official, with the result that in the interval Consols fell from 112 to 103, and the charity lost a very considerable sum of money. Now it is against this utterly incompetent body that the people of Birmingham protest. We do not want to get this out of all control, but, while we do not know the Board of Education, we do know the Charity Commissioners, and we do not want to know it any more. Therefore we propose under this Bill to go to the Board of Education, which may revise or refuse our proposal. The hon. Gentleman asks that the control exercised by the Charity Commission shall be transferred to the Board of Education. I think that is rather mean on the part of the Charity Commissioners. It appears to me that they wish to make the Board of Education as bad as themselves. The Board of Education does not thank them for the proposal. The Board of Education approves of this Bill in its present form, and it does not wish to follow in the footsteps of the Charity Commissioners. Sir, there is only one other point which was referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montgomeryshire, in reference to the portion of the charity in which Wales is concerned. It appears there was a sum of money—an endowment created in 1654. One half was to go to the school at Birmingham and the other half to Haverford west. This Bill proposes that if the governors of the Haverford west and the Birmingham school agree, they may divide the property, or they may sell the property and divide the proceeds. I think the speech of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire is discreditable to the Welsh people, but I am not going to contest the matter. We are quite willing to strike out the clause altogether. But as I understand none of the hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies wish that, but desire some additional protection, all I can say is that if the hon. Gentlemen from Wales are interested in this matter, we shall either meet them to their absolute satisfaction or withdraw the clause altogether from the Bill.

thought that, as the right hon. Gentleman had made so handsome a proposal, the hon. Gentleman might withdraw his motion.

Haverfordwest accepts the Bill as it stands. I have received a letter from the Governors to-day in which they say—

"We prefer to be in the hands of Birmingham rather than in the hands of the Charity Commissioners."

This matter appears to me to be a great deal more serious than the light and airy manner in which it has been discussed would lead the House to imagine. If we are to make an exception in the case of this school because it is wealthy and has powerful friends in this House, how are we to refuse similar claims from other schools? It cannot be done; and before we take away by Private Bill this reasonable control which is vested in an independent body sitting at Whitehall, we ought to give the matter a little further consideration. It is said that the Charity Commissioners intervene in every detail of the administration of this property. That is a palpable exaggeration. They do not do so; but when a mortgage is to be made or property sold they do intervene in order that they may see whether the best price is being obtained for it, and I myself have known many cases where such intervention has been of great benefit to the charity concerned. I do not dispute the fact that there is inevitable delay in every Government office, and I do not deny that there may have been delay in one particular instance which may have been prejudicial to a fund, but, looking at the matter as a whole, I say the rule of the Charity Commission

It appears to me that the Charity Commission is a very unpopular body in this country, but during the last ten or twelve years during which the Welsh Intermediate Education Act has been brought into operation, it is only fair to the Charity Commission to say that we have received nothing but kindness and courtesy and wise advice from them, and I think it would be impossible to find another Department which could have dealt with the great promises of that Act in the manner in which they did. I only hope, when the question of intermediate education arises here, as it must, that England may be as fortunate as Wales has been in that respect. With regard to the Charity Commission, we can only speak for our own country, and express our acknowledgments to the Commission for all it has done for us.

I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time upon this clay six months. I wish to disclaim at the commencement of the debate any desire whatever to interfere with the development of the Mersey Docks. As a member of the Port and Docks Commission in Dublin, I am aware of the difficulties of carrying on the operations of such a body as the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. But the Irish Live Stock Owners' Association, of which I am president, passed a resolution asking for further landing facilities at Liverpool, and therefore it is my duty to bring this matter before the House. It may be in the recollection of the House that we had a discussion on this matter on a Mersey Dock and Harbour Bill in 1898.^* There are peculiar circumstances connected with this subject which it is necessary to explain to the House. It may be

^* See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lvi., page 1173.

alleged by those who are in opposition to my motion that I wish to disturb the operation of the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board. That is not so. I wish them to carry out the powers which they obtained in their Bill of 1893 under which they could build a landing stage at Waterloo Pier. Now, if it was necessary in 1893 to obtain the assent of this House to build a landing stage at Waterloo Pier, why is it unnecessary now? In 1897 we sanctioned the Bootle Scheme to remove the live stock trade from the Prince's landing stage. That is precisely what we want now, with this important exception, that the market should be kept within the City of Liverpool. So far as I can see there was no mention of that in the Bill of 1893 or that of 1898. What we are asking for is improved landing stage accommodation with railway connections, but we have hitherto not obtained them. It would be useful for the House to know the fact that the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board generally carry out their own ideas without consulting the trades generally concerned; and that is a policy by which Liverpool has lost the tea trade. The large tea bonded stores which formerly were filled are now converted into ice-making warehouses. In the same way the wool trade was lost to Liverpool for want of accommodation, and consequently the wool came to London. The most recent result of that policy is to be found in the construction of the Manchester Ship Canal. We all know that it was owing to the dock dues, high railway rates, want of accommodation, and inability of the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board to provide facilities for the transit of goods to Manchester that the canal was constructed. I am not speaking for Irishmen alone, but for the whole country. If that policy is continued it may have more dangerous results in the future than they contemplate. I desire that the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board should carry out the improvements which they themselves suggested. I want them to look ahead and provide the facilities required by trade. In the particular trade with which I am connected I know for a fact that the Dublin and Manchester Steamship Company carry a large amount of live stock to Manchester without interfering with Liverpool at all. Liverpool is the natural port to which the majority of the live stock should go, because it is the great distributing centre of England, not only for Irish products, but for the coasting trade of England, Wales, Scotland, and the Isle of Man. In fact, Liverpool takes in more live stock than all the rest of England put together. I only mention a few of the ports from which stock is sent —Dublin, Belfast, Wexford, Sligo, Londonderry, Waterford, Tralee, West-port, Newry, Limerick, Larne, Dundalk, Drogheda, Cork, Galway. There are other ports from which occasionally live stock come, such as Glasgow, Ramsey, and Aberdeen. Now, I ask the House to consider seriously whether two berths form sufficient landing-stage accommodation for vessels coming from all these ports? There may come a time when a ship requires landing-stage accommodation owing to her having missed the time for getting into dock. Boats come from all parts. I do not want to detain the House with details and figures for which it would not care, but I do say that more live stock comes into England through the port of Liverpool than all the other ports put together. Therefore I ask for the convenience which is necessary. I do not rest my case on live stock alone, but on the general trade of Liverpool. The argument which will be used on the other side is that the sorting pen provides all the accommodation for which we are asking. Now, I have consulted the Bill, but I find there is no mention of sorting pens, and my contention is that the provision of sorting pens is no sort of argument against the building of a landing stage at Waterloo Pier. In Clause 5, Section 6, it provides for an extension for about 100 yards in a northwesterly direction of the Prince's Landing Stage, with a bridge to connect it with the Prince's Landing Stage, but none of the sub-sections contain a word on the subject. Since the Prince's Landing Stage has been built we are worse off than before, because owing to the increase of traffic to Liverpool the Irish live stock trade is restricted to where there is foothold for the cattle only to the extent of two berths. It may be said that no further facilities will be given by the building of a landing stage than by building a platform at the end of the present landing stage. That is the way of the Mersey Docks; they built a platform at the end of the stage, and it is there to-day as a monument of their incapacity. When the water is high no ship can stand at that point, and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board were warned of that fact when they built it, whilst the Atlantic steamers come in and take up the whole of the stage. Let me show how they deal with our opponents in the cattle trade. There was an elaborate expenditure at Birkenhead. They refused to construct this landing stage which they themselves proposed without pressure being put upon them, but for the foreign cattle trade they have built two landing stages; at the same time they will not give us in Ireland the facilities and accommodation we want. The foreigners are subsidised whilst we, your neighbours, are taxed. This is not free trade. It is preferential to the foreigner. The foreign cattle trade ought to be in the hands of a municipal corporation. All these great public trades ought to be in the hands of a public authority. That is the doctrine accepted by this House and the whole civilised world at the present time.

Order, order! I think the question of how the Mersey Docks treat the foreign cattle trade is a little remote.

At the present time the Mersey Docks are realising a great deal of money from the management of the foreign cattle trade, and it would be only just, I think, if a portion of that money was devoted to giving the necessary facilities to the native cattle trade. It may possibly be said that the native cattle trade does not pay or does not realise an amount commeasurable with the amount we are asking the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board to expend. Granted that that is so, I maintain that this Mersey Dock and Harbour Board is not a trader. It is a great public body, and it is its duty to develop the trade so that it will pay eventually. Hon. Members may say that that is my own individual opinion, but I happened to be in Liverpool on Sunday, and a small paragraph was brought to my notice in a Liverpool paper called the Porcupine. Under the head of "What People are Asking," it says—

".… If the Dock Board is not displaying a good deal of its traditional obstinacy and want of patriotism in the negotiations for pier head improvements?"

These words are not mine; they are the words of the Porcupine. My contention is that the Prince's Landing Stage should be kept altogether for passenger traffic, and that the Waterloo Landing Stage should be completed with railway connection to the market. This is required for the accommodation not only of the cross Channel trade, but also for the coasting trade of Scotland and Wales. Early and quick delivery is the essence of business at the present time. All perishable articles should be delivered at the time they come into Liverpool. I urge this from the general producer's point of view in the three kingdoms. This is not merely an Irish question. If live stock are delayed in the river they suffer much more than probably those who were unacquainted with the facts would imagine. Ventilation ceases almost when a vessel lies still in the harbour. When a vessel is going the ventilation is kept up. On the voyage the cattle get neither food nor water, and the sooner they are got out of the vessel the better. In submitting the motion standing in my name I am not acting with a desire to prevent the development of Liverpool. On the contrary, I wish that Liverpool may be further developed, and that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board may carry out their own proposals. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board is one of the few trusts in this country that do not require money. They ought to act up to the necessities of the case and provide the accommodation that is so much required for the cross channel and coasting steamers. I move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.

said it was perfectly clear that the Irish Members of every shade of politics took the same view as the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division had expressed. This matter really affected what was one of their greatest national industries—namely, the cattle trade. It equally affected the people of the north of England, who must be fed. To the port of Liverpool there come from Ireland over one million beasts and sheep. It was exceedingly essential for the development of the resources of Ireland that this matter should be looked after. Unless Parliament would step in on an occasion like this and protect the small Irish producer against this wealthy corporation there was very little hope for the trade. In 1893 the Mersey Docks people obtained powers in the House enabling them to make, when they saw fit, the Waterloo Dock, with railway facilities to their market. The Waterloo Dock was the place where beasts from Ireland were to be landed, and the market where they were to be sold and distributed. There was a great deal of dispute in Liverpool between 1893 and 1898 as to the rights of the corporation to deal with this particular market, but that was eventually settled, and the site of this particular market was fixed, and was now known as the Stanley Market. In 1898 the Mersey Docks people, who had done nothing whatever under the powers, of 1893, came to the House with their Bill, which was criticised. He possessed a letter, written then by an official with a view to stopping the opposition which the Irish Members of every shade of politics then offered unless the industry was safeguarded, in which there was an undertaking that as soon as Stanley Market was fixed as a market they would carry out the powers they had obtained. In March this year the site of the Stanley Market was fixed, and what they expected to hear from Members from Liverpool as honourable men was that the undertaking would be carried out. Unless this Irish trade was given facilities, he hoped the House would not allow this Bill to pass on the Second Reading. He seconded the motion.

said he had no fault to find with the hon. Members who moved and seconded the motion; but he was rather surprised they had taken this action so soon after 1898, when this matter was before the House. The hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division had told the House that the Mersey Board was a great corporation dealing with a revenue of £1,300,000 a year, and yet he wished the House to believe that those responsible for the management of this great corporation were animated by feelings of favouritism towards certain interests to the detriment of other interests. He had never before heard anybody, in criticising the action of the board, make the very strong statement that they were guilty of protective regulations with a view to advantage one trade and depreciate another. It it were worth while he could read to the House a letter from a gentleman connected with the cattle trade in Belfast, stating that the cattle traders there were entirely satisfied with the arrangements at Liverpool, so that it was not true to say that the whole of Ireland complained of the want of accommodation. The hon. Member had sent round a whip which contained statements that were very inaccurate—two of them in particular. One of them he would not refer to, but the second was to the effect that in 1898 the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board had given him and his colleagues authority to give a pledge that the improvements and extension provided for in the Bill of 1893 would be carried out. That was not the case. In the Bill of 1893 the Board took powers, in case it should be necessary, to make certain new stages, among others one opposite the Waterloo Pier. The chairman of the board at the time distinctly stated that they did not take the powers with the view to the new stage being immediately made. He never came to the House and said, "We are going to use these powers at once." As a matter of fact, the board had never yet found it necessary. In 1898, when the matter was before the House, there was a Bill of greater importance than this, whose merits were not criticised. He was glad to say that the merits of this Bill wore not really called in question. He did not think that the trade in Irish cattle was unfairly treated by this great and important board, to belong to which was considered the blue ribbon of the commercial world in Liverpool. He wished to repudiate strongly the suggestion that the Mersey Board would stoop to boycott the Irish trade or any other trade. The Dock Board dealt fairly and consistently all round. The hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division had complained that vessels did not get sufficient wharfage. Saturday and Sunday were the days on which most of the cattle steamers arrived, and during the last twenty-three weeks the average number arriving on Saturdays was three and on Sundays five, and he was authorised to say that the extent of wharfage available for these vessels was 1,693 ft., allowing 250 ft. for each vessel, which was a very large average. The House would see that even six vessels could be accommodated at the same time. He believed that in summer two or three pleasure boats lay at the pier from time to time, but as a matter of fact this great length of 1,600 ft. had last year dealt with 5,700 different ships, and out of the large number only eighty-six had at one time or other to give way to some other ships that might, under the harbour bye-laws, have a special claim to a berth. Out of these eighty-six vessels there were only thirteen that did not enjoy what he might call their right under the bye-laws to have a clear wharf space during the length of an hour. He submitted that the hon. Member had not proved that in any sense the wharfage at present was inadequate for the cattle trade from Dublin. It had been said that two years ago they had given a pledge to carry out the work provided for under the Act of 1893. It was never contemplated by the Board on the occasion to undertake the construction of the Waterloo Wharf, and little was it in the mind of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division. He would venture to read part of two letters on the subject. One, dated 7th May, 1898, was from Mr. Burton, the engineer, to the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division, and contained the following—

"I have now to inform you that, being satisfied by the speech of the President of the Board of Agriculture in the House of Commons on the 28th ultimo, and by the statements made by yourself and by the Town Clerk of Liverpool on behalf of the Corporation, that the removal of the Stanley market to Bootle or to some other place not conveniently situated for cattle landed at the Prince's stage, is not probable, the Works Committee have recommended to the Board that works for increasing the sorting space for cattle adjoining and to the westward of the Prince's Pier be proceeded with."

The reply to that letter from the hon. Member for St. Patrick Division, dated 16th May, 1898, was to the following effect:—

"I am pleased to acknowledge that your board have acted in a businesslike manner, calculated to preserve the cross - channel coasting and cattle trades to Liverpool, by agreeing to provide the facilities necessary. I am glad an arrangement has been come to, which, when carried out, will be satisfactory to all those concerned."

After those letters had passed the Mersey Docks Board were, with reason, very much astonished to find that when this important Bill connected with other matters came before the House, his hon. friend got up and said he had a grievance.

May I point out to the hon. Member that I always maintained and still maintain that they should carry out those powers sought for and obtained from the House.

The hon. Member said we gave a pledge to the House that we would carry out the works referred to in the powers obtained in the Act of 1893. We never made such a pledge, because we said it was not necessary then, and we say it is not necessary now. I will read what the chairman said at a meeting of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board on 4th November, 1892, when the resolution authorising the promotion of the 1893 (Various Powers) Bill was submitted and passed—

"These would meet the case to a certain extent, and were as much as would be wanted for a time, but in order to avoid the necessity of going constantly to Parliament, they thought it better to apply for powers to construct this floating stage, not as an alternative, but as a supplementary scheme, in case they found it necessary. No doubt a limit would be imposed upon them, but during the interval, the Board would be able to learn whether the accommodation of the Prince's stage would suffice or not, and if not, there was still the larger scheme, which would cost £350,000."

That was the position the Board took up. The hon. Member had no doubt that as sensible and honourable people the Board, if necessary, would not hesitate to do anything else fairly to advance the interests of the trade. The Mersey Docks Board were, he believed, in a position to affirm that the Board of Agriculture considered that the necessity of the case had not yet been proved, and therefore they were entitled to leave the case where it was. They did not now, any more than in 1898, give a nan possumus, but any feasible proposal by which the trade of Ireland would be improved would be considered. Until the necessity had been proved it would be too much to call upon them to spend the very large figure which the building of the other wharf would naturally involve. Since 1898 they had carried out the alterations to which Mr. Burton referred. They had spent £25,000, and if they had not increased the wharfage they had certainly improved the chances of vessels getting forward with their unlading. He thought that the hon. Member before criticising the action of the Board might fairly wait until the new works, commenced in 1898, had actually come into operation.

did not think the hon. Member had met the arguments brought forward by the hon. Member for St. Patrick Division. There had been complaints for years on behalf of cattle dealers and farmers in Ireland as to the want of accommodation for the landing of cattle at Liverpool. That was the point of the case. Ireland had very few-natural resources. Ireland was a very poor country, and the principal source of wealth in that country was its cattle trade, and every encouragement and facility should be given by that House for the carrying on and development of the trade. He denied altogether the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member who spoke last that there was any misstatement in the circular where it set forth that a pledge was given to the House in 1898 that the works authorised in 1893 would be carried out as soon as possible. That paragraph was strictly accurate, and he doubted very much whether the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture would question the accuracy of the statement. How had that been met? The Stanley Market was now built, but the condition referred to had not been fulfilled. It was stated that Belfast traders were satisfied with the existing accommodation, but that was a mere illusory statement. Surely hon. Members were aware that nothing was more injurious to cattle than lying at anchor under stifling conditions. He knew from his own experience that great suffering and injury was caused to cattle in transit, and he read a few years ago a remarkable pamphlet published by his hon. friend the Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, which was based on the result of an action brought by cattle traders in Ireland against the railway companies for the manner in which their cattle carrying trade was conducted. He hoped the House would show some sympathy with Ireland in the matter. It interested landlords equally with tenants, because the landlords depended for their rent largely on the price obtained for cattle, and the tenants' subsistence depended on that source also. The Mersey Docks Board, which was a Corporation, whose wealth ought to be a guarantee that they would act in the right way—although he did not accept any such guarantee—ought not to have abused their powers, or ought not to have neglected to exercise them, in accordance with the distinct pledge given in 1893. He should, therefore, support the motion of his hon. friend the Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin.

I cannot congratulate hon. Gentlemen from Ireland on the recruit they have received in this debate. I am bound to say, speaking with some personal knowledge of the facts of this case, that I never heard such a grossly exaggerated statement as that the House has just listened to from the right hon. Gentleman. Anyone listening to his speech would imagine that two-thirds of Ireland, if not the whole of Ireland, was brought to a state of ruin by the action of the Mersey Docks Board.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman what passage in my speech is exaggerated.

He should behave himself.

The hon. Gentleman should not use such an expression as that.

I apologise. I ought not to have used it, but I was irritated by the right hon. Gentleman's remarks.

I am not aware that I deserve the rebuke of the hon. Gentleman. The whole tenor of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, so far as it contained any argument at all, was that the action of the Docks Board was ruining an Irish industry by their want of action and their unwillingness to meet the demands of the Irish farmers. I repeat there is no foundation for any statement of that kind. The Docks Board of Liverpool are not what the right hon. Gentleman says they are, a great wealthy corporation with an enormous income to spend as they like. They are, on the contrary, a very impoverished corporation, the members of which, by the way, perform their duties for nothing and administer a very large revenue which is derived from dues imposed on ships using the Liverpool docks, and unless they can see that any expenditure they are called upon to incur would be remunerative, they are entitled to hold their hands before they embark upon it. Suppose that the Docks Board had in 1893 or in 1898 made the specific promise referred to in this debate, and if they now found that there was no need for extra accommodation, is it reasonable that they, as trustees of public money, should be obliged to carry out that pledge even though they believed that no extra accommodation was required. The right hon. Gentleman said that complaints had been made on this question from time immemorial. Yes, Sir, many complaints have been made, such as those mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. It has been my business to sift many of these complaints, and as a rule I have found that the charges were of a general character, and were refuted by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. I would suggest to the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin that the best way to get what he wants—and what he is entitled to ask for if he believes that insuf- ficient accommodation exists—is not to oppose this measure, which is a measure to develop the Liverpool docks. I had some part in the negotiations which took place with reference to the Bill of 1898. It was then suggested that the Stanley Market should be given up, and a site for a market obtained elsewhere. The Mersey Docks Board said that once the site was settled they were prepared to spend what money they thought right and reasonable to meet the demands that were made upon them. That is the position I understand which they take up to-day, and they are entitled to ask that before they are called upon by this House to spend more money, it should at all events be clearly shown to them that there is a demand for extra accommodation. Of course it is true that cattle suffer by the ships having to lie in the river for many hours, and that they deteriorate in condition if the arrangements made for their landing are not satisfactory. It is part of the business of my Department to use every effort we can to prevent such suffering, and there is no justification for suggesting that we allow the port authorities to give advantages to foreign cattle as against home raised cattle. We apply the same rules to all alike. Charges have been made that cattle have lain in the Mersey for long periods. I have brought these charges before the Docks Board. I have had each case examined into as to the exact time the ships arrived, came alongside, and had discharged their cargoes, and I do not hesitate to say that not one of those charges could be sustained. Surely if that is so, the Docks Board are merely doing their duty in holding their hands before indulging in further expenditure. I hope the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, who has played a very prominent part with regard to this question, and who has endeavoured to secure proper recognition of the rights and needs of graziers of cattle in Ireland, will be satisfied with the debate he has initiated, and that he will not think it necessary to put the House to the trouble of a division, because, if he succeeded in his motion, he would stop the progress of a Bill urgently required for the development of the docks in Liverpool, and would not advance by one iota the cause he has at heart. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if any person interested in the cattle trade will bring forward specific cases, either with regard to delay or the condition of the cattle after being landed, I will undertake that they shall be sifted and examined into, and if, in our opinion, it is found to be desirable that additional accommodation should be provided, I will undertake also to press that view on the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. I have not always seen eye to eye with them, but they have always been ready and willing to listen and to carefully consider any suggestions made to them by my Department, and I am convinced that if the need for extra accommodation can be shown they will not hesitate to meet the demand in a straightforward way. I believe that it would be more advisable for the interests represented by the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin not to press the matter further, and to allow the Bill to be read the second time.

said he must first express his regret that the right hon. Gentleman had thought it necessary to refer in the manner he did to his right hon. friend the Member for North Tyrone. He was sure he was expressing the feelings of hon. Gentlemen opposite when he said that it was a matter of regret that on that occasion they had not the advantage of the services of the highly efficient solicitor to the Board, as they had on previous occasions. The question was one on which Irish opinion was unanimous, at all events with the exception of hon. Members for Belfast, who thought that everything asked for except by Belfast was prima facie wrong, and therefore ought to be rejected by the House. With that exception, Ireland was unanimous in demanding better accommodation for the Irish cattle trade. He was sure they had the sympathy of the President of the Board of Agriculture in the matter. The position in which the House was placed by the motion was a little awkward. They were asked to reject a Bill 99–100ths of which they knew to be good because they were dissatisfied on a particular point. He thought it would be better if his hon. friend withdrew the motion for the rejection of the Bill and went on to the Instruction, which definitely raised the particular point as regards accommodation.

said he could not be accused of being one of those who thought that unless a thing emanated from Belfast it was sure to be wrong. So far as Belfast was concerned he had heard no complaints regarding the accommodation given in Liverpool. That possibly was only a negative testimony, but his experience was that if the people of Belfast wanted anything from Parliament they wore never slow in letting him know. He doubted whether it was actually necessary in the immediate future to build such a wharf as was suggested. That was a matter for the Docks Board to consider. At present steamers from Belfast landed their passengers at a landing stage which was centrally situated. If the cattle wharf were constructed lower down the river the steamers would be sent to it and the passengers would be landed among the cattle at a point further away from the centre of the city.

said he would adopt the suggestion of his hon. friend and would withdraw the motion by leave of the House. In introducing it he had no desire whatever, directly or indirectly, to interfere with Liverpool as a port. It was with a view to developing the port that he brought forward his motion. He was glad the President of the Board of Agriculture had recognised the spirit in which he had acted, and he would only add that he had always been courteously and urbanely treated by the right hon. Gentleman.

I have to ask for leave to bring in a Bill to amend Section 18 of the Irish Education Act, 1892. The Commissioners of National Education in Ireland have in hand the reorganisation of the system of payment of the teaching staffs in the National schools. The public funds which they have at present at their disposal for the payment of teachers are, first, the money voted annually by the House, but not under any particular Act of Parliament; and, secondly, the school grants voted under the Education Act of 1892. With regard to the money not voted by any special Act, it is open to the Commissioners and the Treasury to make such arrangements as they think best for the administration of such funds, but the distribution of the school grants is determined by the fourth schedule of the Act of 1892. What the Bill proposes to do is to repeal that schedule in order; to enable the Commissioners to deal with the school grants with exactly the same free hand as they are able to deal with the moneys annually voted by Parliament.

I only desire to say a few words. I do not intend to discuss the Bill, which is an extremely simple one, but I hope that on the Second Reading, or on the Education Vote, an opportunity will be given for the discussion of the new rules which are now being drafted by the Commissioners of Education.

I next have to ask for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to intermediate education in Ireland. The object of the Bill is to give effect to the recommendations made in the Report of the Intermediate Commissioners last year. It is not intended to alter the Intermediate Education Act of 1878, but rather to supplement it. The Commissioners ask for powers, which they do not possess under that Act, to use the funds at their disposal in the manner recommended by the Viceregal Commission on Intermediate Education.

Will the changes proposed to be carried out by the Intermediate Education Commissioners be submitted while the Bill is before Parliament?

I cannot give a pledge on that point; but no change can be introduced except by rules, and the Bill provides that the rules shall be laid before the two Houses of Parliament before they take effect. Bill to amend the Law relating to Intermediate Education in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Balfour, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, and Mr. Horace Plunkett.

Last year the attention of the House was on several occasions directed from various points of view to the position of savings banks funds in this country. These funds now amount to an enormous sum—no less than £183,000,000—and are held on behalf of the Government by the National Debt Commissioners. As hon. Gentlemen are aware, interest is paid on deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank at the rate of 2½ per cent., and by the National Debt Commissioners to the trustee savings banks at the rate of 2¾ per cent. The law provides that those deposits can only be invested by the National Debt Commissioners in Government funds. That works very well so long as Government funds can be bought to bear the same rate of interest as by law is paid to depositors, plus the expenses of management; but since the beginning of 1894 am sorry to say the system has not worked by any means satisfactorily. No less than £61,000,000 of deposits have been placed in the Post Office Savings Bank and in the trustee savings banks beyond the amount that existed in those banks at the commencement of 1894, and over since that date and up to within the last few months it has been necessary for that vast sum to be invested in Government securities paying a less rate of interest than by law is paid to the depositors for whom the money is in- vested. The result has been that in the course of the present year it has been my duty to obtain from Parliament a Vote for £38,000 to make up the deficiency in the income of the trustee savings bank fund, and £11,000 to make up the deficiency in the Post Office Savings Bank fund. Further, the capital account of both funds taken together shows at present, if the securities are valued at par, but a very small, and, I fear, a decreasing, surplus as compared with the liabilities. It has been practically universally accepted that this state of things is unsatisfactory. For the moment the financial situation has been relieved by the great fall in Government securities since the middle of last year; but I do not expect, and I do not think any of us can expect, that that will be permanent; and, further, in 1903 there must be a considerable loss of income to the savings banks funds owing to the fact that of the £183,000,000 standing to their credit, no less than £86,000,000 are invested in Consols, and in that year the rate of interest in Consols will be reduced automatically by a quarter per cent., while, in addition to the sum of £86,000,000, a further sum of £20,000,000 Consols has been cancelled for terminable annuities, the interest on which will also be reduced, so that the savings banks funds will lose as a whole, at that date, an income of £270,000 a year. Some have suggested—and I think I was among the number—that the proper way to meet this difficulty was by reducing the legal rate of interest payable to depositors in the savings banks; others have suggested that it might be met by extending the area of investment, so as to enable the National Debt Commissioners to invest these funds in less safe securities than those in which they are at present invested on behalf of the State. I have considered this question carefully, and in my opinion the existing system does not rest on a sound basis, because the legal rate of interest paid to depositors does not bear any necessary relation to the rate of interest which these deposits can earn. I do not think this is fair to the depositor or to the State, because, if, as has happened in the past, Government securities fall so low as to be purchasable to pay three per cent. or four per cent. or more, the depositor does not under the present system get more than 2½ per cent. for his money; while, on the other hand, if only 1½ per cent. can be obtained we still have to pay 2½ per cent. Therefore, what I propose is that the rate of interest paid to depositors should vary within reasonable limits, according to the rate which their money can earn. The Bill I now ask leave to introduce provides that towards the close of each year an estimate shall be made of the probable earnings of the capital of each of the two savings banks' funds respectively in the ensuing year and of the probable rate of interest which those earnings would pay to depositors. On these estimates the Treasury will determine the rate of interest to be paid, to the nearest multiple of one-eighth in the pound; and notices will be published of any change in the rate of interest at least a month before it is made. As the rate of interest to be paid ought always to be so calculated as to leave a slight margin of surplus income, a reserve fund would be gradually built up to provide against depreciation of the securities, and this might with care be utilised to some extent to make up any deficiency of income arising from a mistaken estimate. I propose that this new system should not begin until 1903, so as to give ample notice to existing depositors of the change. As the income of the trustee savings banks fund is in a less favourable position than that of the Post Office funds, I propose to credit the trustee savings banks with the income of certain securities purchased by an annuity which was set up in 1880 to replace their lost capital, and to extend that annuity from 1908 to 1914, so as to secure, as was originally intended, the solvency of their capital account. The Bill, like previous legislation on the subject, applies to deposits of friendly societies also, but those societies which are entitled to a privileged rate of interest on assurances made before 1888 will retain that privilege fully. I also propose some minor amendments in the law relating to trustee savings banks, which have been recommended by the inspection committee. I need only say, in conclusion, that I recognise fully the extreme difficulty of this subject. I have no desire whatever to press my proposals by any party majority. What is principally necessary is that the House should realise the necessity of some change in the present position, and while I submit these proposals to the House I shall be most ready to consider any suggestions that might be made of another kind, which, in the opinion of hon. Members, may be more satisfactory to the public. I propose to introduce the Bill now and to give ample time before the Second Reading, when I hope there may be a useful discussion on its provisions. I can assure the House that it is my desire, on the one hand, to do nothing that may discourage providence and thrift, and, on the other hand, to secure the taxpayer against being placed in a position of subsidizing the savings banks as if they were charitable institutions rather than the independent institution which they ought to be. I beg to move.

I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give a very considerable time between now and the Second Reading of the measure he has just asked leave to introduce. I can scarcely conceive anything more disastrous to thrift and providence on the part of the people than the scheme , outlined by the right hon. Gentleman. The only comforting words in his statement were that he recognised that it will disturb, if not to a large extent destroy, the providence of the present day, and cause great consternation amongst depositors.

I did not say so.

Well, I think so, and that is sufficient for me. I am certain that the class of people who deposit portions of their wages with the Post Office will be considerably alarmed by the proposal, and I cannot conceive anything more likely to alarm them than this sliding-scale scheme under which the interest is to be reckoned a month before the end of the year. I do hope that the burden of any readjustment of finance which the Chancellor of the Exchequer may find necessary in consequence of the large expenditure of the Government will not be visited upon the heads of the working people. The State is the only bank in which many of the people will deposit their savings, and if their confidence in the State is disturbed the thrift which has been growing up among the workers for the last thirty years will be shaken to its foundations.

I will not occupy the attention of the House for more than a very few minutes, but I think I am justified in asking how this Gentleman came to be proposed on the Committee. The motion is that he should be taken off; I want to know how he came to be put on. I cannot say anything in the slightest degree disparaging of the right hon. Gentleman who moved this motion on the part of the Government, because he gave me today something I am quite unaccustomed to receiving from the Treasury Bench, namely, a straight answer. I asked whether he was aware when he nominated this gentleman to serve on the Committee that he was the head of a firm which had extensive contracts with the Government, and he said he was not aware. I think we are justified as a mere matter of Parliamentary etiquette, when gentlemen are nominated on Committees—

Order, order! The hon. Member is now proceeding to discuss a different question altogether from that on the paper. The question is whether Mr. Houston should be discharged from the Select Committee on War Contracts; the hon. Member is proceeding to discuss the question whether Mr. Houston ought ever to have been put on that Committee. I would also point out to the hon. Member that I am obliged strictly to enforce relevance, and to prevent him making any indirect attack upon the hon. Member for Toxteth Division upon this occasion, because it is one upon which it is quite obvious the hon. Member will have no opportunity of replying to the remarks which may be made.

I must accept your ruling, and I accept it as I accept all your rulings—with alacrity and willingness. I think I might give, without in the slightest degree making any attack on the hon. Gentleman, some admirable reasons for supporting the Government in taking the hon. Member off this Committee.

Order, order! Standing Order 16 provides that the question must be put after a brief explanatory statement from the hon. Member moving and the hon. Member opposing the motion. The hon. Member now says he proposes to support and not oppose the motion; therefore I am afraid he has no locus standi.

I am the hon. Member who opposes the motion, Sir.

Order, order! The hon. Member began by opposing the motion.

May I give way to my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn?

No.

Then I must technically oppose the motion.