I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that complaints have been made of the delay in forwarding letters and parcels from Cape Town, addressed from England, to the troops now in St. Helena; and whether he will take steps to ensure a punctual delivery of the mails in that island.

No such complaints have come to the Postmaster General's notice. Letters and parcels from England for St. Helena do not in the ordinary course pass through Cape Town, but are sent direct, and if any delay of the kind has occurred it must be in the case of letters and parcels re-directed from the Cape Colony. No efforts will be wanting on the Postmaster General's part to ensure the punctual delivery of the mails for St. Helena. At the present time, in addition to the regular monthly mail provided by contract, mails are despatched by any other advantageous opportunity that offers; but these extra mails are conveyed by vessels over which the Postmaster General cannot exercise any control.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can give the average cost per horse in freight for the carriage of horses from England to South Africa since the beginning of October, 1899, up to the end of May, 1900.

In the few cases in which it has been possible to arrange for the conveyance of horses from this country to the Cape on freight, the cost has averaged £25 10s. per horse landed. Owing to the difference in the ships as to rate of hire, speed, consumption of coal, cost of fitting, the number of horses and men respectively which they carry, and the number of voyages which they make, it is impossible, without elaborate and lengthy calculations, to say what has been the average cost of conveying horses by transport, but it is believed it will closely approximate the ordinary charge of the Union Castle line for the passage of a horse to Cape Town—£35.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can now say if the station-master, Mr. Quinlan, and the other alleged Fenians, whom Colonel Baden-Powell was reported some months ago to have in custody in Mafeking, are still alive; and, if so, where they are, upon what charge were they arrested, were they tried, and, if so, by what tribunal, and upon what charge, and what. was the sentence.

No information on this subject has yet reached the War Office. Lord Roberts was instructed by telegraph on the 9th of March that a record of all proceedings taken under martial law in South Africa should be sent to the War Office. It is, therefore, unnecessary to send inquiries about particular cases, and in view of the amount of work at present falling on the staff in South Africa, such inquiries are clearly undesirable. I do not think that the hon. Member need be anxious. I read a, newspaper report subsequent to the relief of Mafeking to the effect that Mr. Quinlan had been detained during three days mainly for his own protection.

It is on a newspaper report that I base my question. I only hope the right hon. Gentleman is right.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to give any details as to the disaster which befell the 13th Yeomanry Battalion; and whether, in view of the anxiety which prevails in Dublin, Belfast, and other places on this subject, he will take steps to ensure the speedy publication of the names of those who have been killed or wounded or are missing.

All the information on this subject which has reached the War Office has been published, including the casualty lists of killed and wounded. Since I came to the House I have received a note to the effect that a telegram has arrived from Lord Roberts stating that he knows no more than has already been telegraphed.

Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to say with reference to the casualty list whether it comprises the complete list, or only refers to the wounded found by Lord Methuen at Lindley?

I thought I had made it clear that we had published all the information we have as yet received. Nothing is to be gained by sending out particular inquiries, as they would only cause delay. The information is sent at the earliest possible moment, and published within fifteen minutes of its receipt at the War Office.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a message was sent by Mr. Logan, a member of the Cape Parliament, to Lieutenant-Colonel Spence Douglas, stating that he was exceedingly glad that the gun which he had given to the regiment had been of use, and that he would pay the men using it one pound for every rebel they shot, but would deduct 25 per cent. for all prisoners taken; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter.

The Lieutenant-Colonel Spence Douglas referred to appears to be Lieutenant-Colonel Spence who was killed at Douglas, and to whose corps (the Duke of Edinburgh's Volunteer Rifles) Mr. Logan presented a Maxim gun. Nothing is known of the message, and the Secretary of State for War is not prepared to take any steps in the matter.

Is it the case that Mr. Logan is a member of the Cape Parliament, and probably a follower of Mr. Rhodes?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state how much the Government expect Yeomanry adjutants to spend in doing their duties on pay which is only 10s. a day against 13s. with their own regiment; and if, seeing that a Yeomanry adjutant has to do the work of two adjutants and two quartermasters, and pay all travelling expenses for himself, horse, and servants on £4 a year for each squadron in the brigade, he will take their case into consideration.

The rates of pay and allowances for adjutants of Yeomanry were fixed in 1892, on the recommendation of a Committee which also reported in favour of the brigade system since introduced. The Secretary of State is of opinion that so long as the present system of training is in force there is no sufficient ground for altering the rate of pay.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can now state what decision has been arrived at with reference to the outfit allowance for officers from the half-pay list, which question was under consideration in May last.

The Secretary of State for War has decided to grant the outfit allowance in these cases.

I. beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether an officer of the Reserve of Officers who joined a Volunteer corps after retiring from the Regular forces is by the regulations thereby deprived of the outfit allowance granted to all other Reserve officers on rejoining the Regular Army for duty at the present time, although he has provided the Volunteer uniform he wears at his own expense; and, if this is the case, whether the regulations will be amended or instructions given that the outfit allowance is to be paid in such cases, so as to place such officers from Volunteer corps on an equal footing with all other Reserve officers.

The question is under consideration.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will state on what footing acting chaplains to the Volunteer forces stand, and whether they can earn a grant for their corps; and, if so, why acting chaplains attending camp this year for fifteen days were specially excluded from drawing their proper pay.

The acting chaplain earns the capitation grant for his corps like any other Volunteer. His presence in camp, except for Sunday duty, is, however, not considered necessary.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state whether it has been decided that the dockyard employees belonging to the 2nd Volunteer Battalion Devonshire Regiment who attend the annual training will lose their pay as ordinary absentees from work, whereas workmen employed in War Office establishments are to receive full pay during the time they are embodied; and whether he will consider oho advisability of placing these dockyard men on an equality with those employed by the War Office.

Orders were sent to all the superintendents of the home dockyards on the 26th May last, directing that all Volunteers attending camp this year for annual training for not less than fourteen days or more than a month, are to be paid their full civil and military pay for fourteen days, and military pay for the remainder of the time, in accordance with a Treasury circular letter dated the 10th May last, addressed to all public departments. In reply to the second paragraph, I have to say that the action of the War Office will be governed by the same general instructions.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the shed or covering for the troops ordered to be erected on the Government railway siding at Aldershot has yet been commenced; and if not, when this work will be carried out.

Tenders have been called for and the work will be begun as soon as tenders have been accepted.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can say what proportion of the 41,700 recruits raised for the Army and of the 40,653 raised for Militia in 1899 were enlisted in Ireland; and whether he will also give the number for each of the two branches of the service recruited in each province and county of Ireland during 1899.

The hon. Member will find all the information available on page 29 of the Annual Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting for 1899, which was presented to Parliament on the 23rd March.

How many of the Irish Militia recruits were school boys under the age of seventeen?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state the circumstances attending the enlistment of Daniel Dundass in the Royal Irish Fusiliers in May of last year, who at the time of enlistment was but seventeen years of age, and the reason why when his father applied for his discharge it was not granted.

Under the regulations a recruit if under seventeen years of age and claimed by his parents is at once discharged. If over seventeen his retention in the service rests entirely with the General Officer commanding the district, with whose discretion the Secretary of State does not interfere.

Then why was not this boy discharged when his father claimed him?

He had already reached the age of seventeen years, and the discretion rested, therefore, with the General Officer commanding the district.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have received any official communications from the Chinese Government regarding the present disturbances in China; and, if so, whether he can inform the House of the purport of such communications.

No communications have taken place with the Chinese Government since the present crisis became acute, and all telegraphic communication interrupted. In the earlier stages of the movement repeated warnings, as I have already stated, were addressed to the Yamen by Her Majesty's Minister with regard to the state of affairs in Shantung and Chihli, and the murder of Mr. Brooks, a British missionary in the former province.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the Government are in possession of and will state the terms of the ultimatum reported to have been delivered on the part of the Allied Powers immediately prior to the bombardment of the forts at Ta-ku.

The reports received from our naval officers merely stated that the forts opened fire on the fleets between twelve and one on the morning of the 17th, and make no mention of any ultimatum.

Have the Government any recent information as to China?

No definite information has, I regret to say, reached us since Friday last from Tientsin, and we are still without any news from Admiral Seymour's force and the Peking Legations. The Admiralty have received a telegram from Rear-Admiral Bruce at Ta-ku, through Chefoo, June 24th—

"The total force which left Tientsin with the Commander-in-Chief for Peking about 2,000, composed of detachments of the allied ships. No action could possibly be taken to relieve the Commander-in-Chief, because it "was only known he was cut off by Tientsin being invested Tientsin has been fighting for its life ever since. It was on receipt of information that Chinese army had ordered trains for attacking Tientsin, ravaging Tongku, and were reinforcing Ta-ku as well as mining the mouth of the Peiho, that it was promptly determined to seize Ta-ku just in time, since when every effort has been made to relieve Tientsin. Have commandeered small coasting steamer for taking troops, sick and wounded across the bar to Wei-hai-wei, where I intend making temporary base hospital and asylum for refuge."

Arising out of that answer, may I ask whether, in consequence of Admiral Seymour having been sent in command of the international forces on land, the Russian Admiral becomes the senior officer of the international forces on the water; and whether this situation arises out of express directions from the Foreign Office or by the orders of the Admiralty?

The hon. Gentleman had better address the question to the First Lord of the Admiralty.

Have the Government come to any decision as to the sending of a general officer to command the British troops in China?

I think that notice of questions on this subject should be handed in.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have any information as to the present position and political views of the Emperor of China which they can give to the House.

I am afraid I am not in a position to give the hon. Member any information on the subject.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have any information to the effect that a Russian force of some 40,000 men has entered North-Western China from Kiachta and is marching upon Urga, the Mongolian capital.

The answer is, No.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state what are the latest figures in the possession of the Board with regard to the value of the total British trade with China; and whether he can further state what is the value of the trade of China with the United Kingdom, with the Colonies, and India respectively.

According to the Chinese returns of trade the value of the trade of China with the British Empire in 1899 was £43,084,000. The division of this amount into trade with the United Kingdom, India, and the Colonies cannot be accurately made, because more than one-half of the total is entered as trade with Hong Kong, and the ultimate destination of this trade cannot be stated. The Chinese returns show the value of the direct trade with the United Kingdom to be £8,147,000, with British India £5,064,000, with other British colonies and possessions (excluding Hong Kong) £1,283,000, and with Hong Kong £28,590,000. Of course, a certain part of the last mentioned amount is destined for countries outside the British Empire.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople has informed Her Majesty's Government of the existence of an Imperial Irade by the Sultan giving to Russian subjects the monopoly of making railways in an area of Asia Minor fronting the Black Sea.

The information given in my answer of the 21st instant as to the existence and nature of an Imperial Irade on this subject was received from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople. The text of the Irade has not been communicated to the Ambassador nor has any official communication been made to Her Majesty's Government on the subject.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in order to force this concession the Russian Government mobilised over 100,000 men on the Turkish frontier?

The hon. Member had better give notice of such an important question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state the maximum amount of Great Indian Peninsula 5 per cent. Stock held by the Trustees of the Sinking Fund of the D Annuities of the East Indian Railway and upon what date, whether he will give the names of the Trustees of the Sinking Fund, and whether he will state upon whose authority the Great Indian Peninsula Stock was sold and upon what dates; and whether he will state upon what date he gave notice of the intention of the Government of India to exercise its right of purchasing the Great Indian Peninsula Railway.

The management of the Sinking Fund of the D Annuities of the East Indian Railway Company is a matter in which the Secretary of State for India has no concern, and over which he has no control. From Returns published in the London Gazette it would seem that the maximum amount of Great Indian Peninsular 5 per cent. Stock held by the Trustees of the Fund was £3,544 9s. 6d., and that this amount was held by them from July 1894 to July 1898. Under the Act 55 Vict., cap. 10, the Trustees of the Deferred Annuity Holders' Sinking Fund are the Governor and the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, and the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Company for the time being. I do not know upon what authority or at what date or dates the Great Indian Peninsular Stock was sold. Notice of the intention to purchase the Great Indian Peninsular Railway was given on the 18th of August, 1899.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has any official information showing that there are areas of land in India suitable for the raising of food which are at present used for the production of the opium plant; and, if so, whether the Government will, having re- gard to the famine in India, take steps to have this land recovered for the production of food.

I do not think the hon. Member would appreciably increase the food supply of India, as the area occupied by opium is about 500,000 acres out of a total cultivatable area of 223,000,000 acres.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to the surtax on rum, if he will explain why the Reports issued in response to his invitation to the representative bodies of the Royal Agricultural Society and the Sugar Planters' Association of Jamaica, which set out the local excise restrictions and their effect on the cost of production of rum, were not included in the Return recently published; whether further official correspondence has been received from Trinidad, and whether, under the circumstances, he will allow an additional Paper embodying these omitted Reports and further correspondence to be laid upon the Table of the House.

The Reports referred to were not included in the Return, as they did not come within the scope of the Order of the House of Commons of the 13th of February, but were furnished for the information of Her Majesty's Government in response to a separate despatch addressed only to certain West Indian colonies. There is no objection to laying further correspondence before the House as asked by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any remonstrances from Australia, or from the Australian delegates in England, against the intervention of Lord Lamington and Lord Beauchamp in the discussion on the Commonwealth Bill.

No, Sir.

Has the attention of the right hon. Gentle- man been called to the action of the Governor of New South Wales in taking part in the controversy on the Amendment to this Bill?

The hon. Member had better give notice of that question.

I will do so for to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state which of the Australian colonies have exercised the power of granting bounties on the production or export of commodities, and upon what commodities bounties are given.

So far as I am aware the Australian colonies which grant bounties at present are Victoria and Queensland. Information as to the bounties given in these colonies will be found in Parliamentary Papers C 7900 of 1896 and House of Commons No. 144 of 1899, to which I have to refer the hon. Member. From 1893 to 189G South Australia gave a bounty cf 2d. a pound on the export of butter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will inform the House if he has accepted the Amendments of the Legislative Council of the Gold Coast Colony in the draft concessions ordinance as made in the Committee stage of the ordinance in the colony; and whether the Bill has been sent back for Third Reading.

The Amendments to which the hon. and learned Member refers have, in all but a few cases, been accepted. The Bill will be sent back for amendment on these points and for Third Reading at an early date.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Gas Light and Coke Company have just issued notice to their consumers raising the price of gas to 3s. 5d. per 1,000 feet, and that these notices state that the enhanced price will be charged from the date of recording meter indices for the June quarter, the company thus claiming to charge the enhanced rate for gas consumed during a week or ten days, or even longer, before the notices were served; and whether he will exercise the powers vested in him by section 45 of the Metropolis Gas Act, 1860, which (inter alia) provides that if it appears to the Secretary of State that a metropolitan gas company is acting in a manner unauthorised by law, and it would be for the public advantage that the gas company should be restrained from so acting, he may set the Attorney General in motion to take proceedings at law to restrain the wrongful action of the company.

This applies to the Board of Trade. I am not aware of any obligation upon the company to give notice of their intention to raise the price of gas. The obligation to give such notice imposed by the Metropolis Gas Act, 1860, no longer exists. It was superseded by the sliding scale provisions applicable to the various companies.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the manufacturers, workmen, and workwomen engaged in the production of decorated tin boxes for biscuits, music, chocolate for the Queen's soldiers, tobacco, cigarettes, tea, coffee, etc., as well as toys and other articles, are being injured by the importation of foreign goods bearing the name of English firms and English words, creating the belief that the goods are British made: and can he say how the passage of such goods through the Custom House without a definite indication of foreign origin can be reconciled with Section 16 of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, which requires such indication upon all goods of foreign manufacture bearing any name or trade mark being, or purporting to be, the name or trade mark of any manufacturer, dealer, or trader in the United Kingdom; and will he issue directions that the law is to be obeyed to the letter.

The Board of Customs inform me that in the opinion of their solicitor "goods" in Section 16 of the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887 means goods which are themselves for sale as distinct from the more coverings such as the boxes. I think it is a point upon which it would be satisfactory to take the opinion of the law officers.

May I send the right hon. Gentleman specimens to which these complaints actually refer?

Certainly.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, considering the present accommodation for the public at the existing post office in Leek, the Postmaster General will take into immediate consideration the provision of more commodious premises.

The need for a larger post office at Leek is admitted, and an advertisement for suitable sites or premises has recently been issued. The numerous offers received in reply to that advertisement are under consideration.

I bog to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is an instruction to postmasters in the country and generally not to forward telegraphic messages over the wires of the National Telephone Company; and, if so, will he explain why this now policy, exemplified in such an instruction, has boon adopted.

The Postmaster General does not now undertake to deliver telegrams by telephone to sub scribers of the National Telephone Company who may apply for the privilege, but it has not been withdrawn from any subscribers to whom it has been accorded in the past.

When was this extraordinary now principle introduced?

I do not see that it is extraordinary. The hon. Member must realise that there are obvious disadvantages in the Post Office entering into what is practically a partnership with a private company, especially a private company which is itself in direct competition with the Post Office and persistently refuses similar facilities to Post Office subscribers.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he has had under his consideration the state of affairs revealed in the Parliamentary Return on the casual employment of children for wages, issued by the Education Department in June, 1899; and whether he is prepared to introduce into the Bill to amend the Elementary Education Acts clauses to protect such children by a system of local bye-laws, to be enforced by the police, prohibiting such employment between certain ages and certain hours, and forbidding any child to be so employed without a licence.

The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. While I sympathise strongly with the views and suggestions of the hon. Member, I have little doubt that an attempt to deal with the matter in the Education Bill of this session would imperil its passing into law.

; I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the fact that the parish of Stornoway, in Lewis, has recently erected a school at Stornoway for secondary education at a cost of over £3,500; whether, under the operation of the Education (Scotland) Bill now before the House, some of the grants at present applied by the local authorities to the relief of rates would be withdrawn from that purpose, and an increase of rates which, owing to the largeness of the population and the lowness of the valuation, already amount to several shillings in the £, would in consequence be necessitated; and what stops he proposes to take in the matter.

I am aware that the School Board of Stornoway have, a few months ago, raised a loan of more than £3,000 for school building. It would be premature at present to attempt to forecast what may be the financial effect of the Bill now before the House in particular instances. But the effect of that Bill would be to devote to educational purposes any sum withdrawn from relief of rates, and thus add to the educational resources of the various localities.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the attention of the Scottish Fishery Board has been called to the prevalence of illegal fishing in Loch Fyne, and the inadequacy of the sailing cutter "Daisy" for its suppression, and whether it is proposed to take any steps to render the policing of the waters more efficient.

I am informed by the Fishery Board that one complaint as to daylight fishing in Loch Fyne was received from Glasgow a few days ago, and is now being investigated, but as yet no confirmation has been obtained by them. They are of opinion that with the continuous presence there of the "Daisy" and the frequent visits of the "Vigilant," the supervision of the fishing in Loch Fyne is sufficiently provided for.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the propriety of stationing a training ship at Portree, in the Island of Skye, to diffuse a knowledge of the benefits of the Naval Service, and act as a recruiting centre for the Navy in the Hebrides.

It is not proposed to add to the present number of stationary training ships.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether effect has been given to his promise to have an inspector sent to Clones, county Monaghan, to examine the level crossing on the Great Northern Railway there, and also the island platform, where the space between the waiting room side-wall and the edge of the line is but three feet; and has a report been made on the matter.

Yes, Sir; an inspecting officer of the Board of Trade has recently visited Clones, but his report has not yet been made. When it has been received I shall have pleasure in communicating with the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any applications were received from qualified postal servants for the postmastership of Cootehill which recently became vacant; and whether any appointment has been made, and, if so, whether the office has been given to a member of the service or to a person outside the service; and, if the latter, will he explain why existing and willing postal servants were passed over.

Applications were received from four postal servants for the sub-postmastership of Cootehill, Monaghan. An appointment has been made in this case, the selected candidate being a person outside the service. It was considered necessary, in order that an efficient control might be exercised over the twelve established and auxiliary postmen attached to the Cootehill sub-office, that a man should be appointed. Of the four applicants already in the Post Office service, three are women, and therefore unsuitable candidates. The fourth, who is not an established officer of the department, does not reside at Cootehill, and on this ground was passed over in favour of a candidate resident in the town and eligible in all respects.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether he has considered the representation of the Philanthropic Reform Association in favour of passing into law this session Clauses 3 to 18 of the Youthful Offenders Bill; and whether he will assist in enabling county councils of any county in Ireland to enter into an agreement with the directors or managers of any certified reformatory school in England or Scotland to receive Protestant girls from Ire-land for whom no reformatory exists in that country, and so amend the law as to permit Irish justices to commit to a reformatory school in England or Scotland.

The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative, but I am unable at present to say anything definite. The matter raised in the second paragraph is one rather for the Irish Government, with whom I am in communication.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the officers of the National Education Board of Ireland, in considering the claims of teachers for admission to examinations for promotion, are guided entirely by the comments contained in the inspectors' minutes without considering the marks assigned in the examination roll; and whether this procedure as a means of discovering the efficient and energetic teachers, who should be summoned to examination for promotion, has been sanctioned by the Government.

In considering the claims of teachers for promotion the Commissioners have at all times taken into account every element in the inspectors' reports that bear on the question of the teacher's merit. The matter is entirely one for the Commissioners, and the Government have nothing to say to it.

I be to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lore Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give any information as to the proceedings in Downpatrick on Tuesday, the 5th inst. when there was rejoicing on the part of the loyalists in consequence of the entry of Lord Roberts into Pretoria; whether he is aware that the procession of persons bearing the Union Jack was prevented by the police from going, as usual on such occasions, up Irish Street, one of the principal streets of the town; and that loyalists were batoned by the police, and ordered on recent occasions to stop singing ''God Save the Queen"; and whether he will cause a public sworn inquiry to be instituted into the whole conduct of the public and the police in Downpatrick on Pretoria Day.

It is the fact that the police at Downpatrick prevented the loyalist procession on the occasion mentioned from marching through Irish Street, but it is not true to say that it is usual on such occasions for processions to pass along this street. On the contrary, it has been the ordinary practice, for a number of years, to prevent them from doing so, and the arrangement has been acquiesced in by the leaders of the Orangemen. Loyalists have not been ordered, as alleged, to stop singing "God Save the Queen," and the police did not use their batons on the 5th inst. until their cordon had been broken and they had been struck with sticks and flagpoles. The police are satisfied that in acting as they did on the night of the 5th inst. a a very serious conflict between the opposite parties was averted. Proceedings are about to be instituted against a number of persons for assaults on the police arising out of the disturbances, and all the facts will doubtless be fully investigated by the magistrates.

Will the right hon. Gentleman grant a public sworn inquiry?

I see no reason for it, at any rate until the magisterial investigation is completed.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the condition of the water supply at New Quay, county Clare; and if he can state what steps have been taken in the matter by the Irish Local Government Board.

The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The Local Government Board have requested the Rural District Council to obtain from the medical officer of health a report as to the sufficiency and purity of the existing water supply at New Quay. The matter will continue to receive the attention of the Board.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether recently any complaints have been made on the part of the fishermen of Ardglass, county Down, as to the falling off of the herring fishery there; whether this is traceable to the presence of steam trawlers fishing within the three-mile limit; and whether the inspectors of Irish fisheries have power to take steps further to extend the limit; and if so, will they take action concerning the matter.

Representations have been made to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction to the effect stated in the first and second paragraphs of the question. The Department, however, have been informed by the local coastguards that they have not observed any steam trawling within the prohibited limits. I do not think the Department has power to make a bye-law prohibiting trawling outside the territorial limits, but I may observe that the question of the best means of protecting the Irish fisheries from the depredations of the trawlers is at present engaging the most careful consideration of the Department.

Will the Department of the right hon. Gentleman try and induce the Government to send a cruiser to protect these fisheries from the steam trawlers?

I believe the Government have decided that they cannot undertake that work.

Then what is the good of the Navy to us?

Is there any general law, or bye-law, preventing trawlers coming within the three-mile limit?

Notice had better be given of that question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the destruction of the nets of mackerel fishing boats by steam trawlers off the western coast of county Kerry, especially in the Cahirciveen district and the Shannon's mouth; is he aware that the fishing boat "Botsy," from Cahirciveen, during one night last month lost nets worth £100; and will he say if steam trawlers are allowed to come within the three-mile limit, whether any complaints have been made to the Secretary of Irish Fisheries, and what steps have been taken for the better protection of the property of the fishermen engaged in the fishing industry on the coast of Kerry.

Complaints have been made of the nature mentioned in this question. With regard to the third paragraph, I can only repeat what has already been stated by me, that the question of the best means of enforcing the existing bye-laws prohibiting trawling, and of protecting the Irish fisheries from the depredations of trawlers, is at present engaging the most careful consideration of the Department.

Is there any bye-law in existence, either at Cahirciveen or the Shannon's mouth, to prevent steam trawlers coming within the three-mile limit? If not, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps with a view to getting one passed?

I must ask for notice of that question.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether a labourer is disqualified from acting as district councillor by reason of his having obtained a plot of land under the Irish Labourers Acts, the said plot having been entirely purchased by money advanced by the Government, and the tenant's rent now going to relief of local rates.

The Irish Local Government Board have acted on the assumption that the labourer is disqualified, but proceed- ings have been or are about to be instituted to obtain a judicial decision on the point. It would hardly be proper for me under these circumstances to express an opinion on the abstract question put.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Watford, as Chairman of the Committee of Selection, whether the Committee have experienced any difficulty in giving effect to the Instruction of the House, given on the 21st of February last year, that in selecting Members to serve on Committees for the consideration of Private Bills equal consideration shall be granted to any Member on the ground of his private profession, business, or avocation; whether he can state the number of members of the learned professions actively engaged in practice who have served on Private Bill Committees last session and this session respectively; and if he will furnish a list of those Members who have not served on any Private Bill Committee during the past three sessions.

In answer to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question, I have to say that the Committee of Selection have not experienced any special difficulty in carrying out the instruction of the House to which the hon. Member refers. With regard to the second paragraph of the question, the hon. Member can, I think, obtain the information he requires for last session by examining the Sessional Return relating to Private Bills and Private Business, No. 0.273, but it would obviously be impossible to give the information for the present session until the Private Business of the year is concluded. The third paragraph only appeared on the Paper on Saturday, and I have had no notice of it, but it appears to be in the nature of a Return, which should be moved for in the ordinary way. I may point out that Returns of all Members who have served on Committees are moved for at the end of every session, and the hon. Member can easily obtain the information he desires by comparing those Returns with a list of the House.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will consider the advisability of introducing an Amendment to Section 8 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897,. so that persons in the Naval and Military-service of the Crown or their dependents may be entitled to all that compensation: for injuries received which they would have been able to claim for injuries sustained in civil employment.

I think the hon. Member must have mistaken my intention. All I said in answer to a similar question was that the matter was being; dealt with by the Government.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, having regard to the memorial presented to him by 198 Members of Parliament representing all parties, asking Her Majesty's Government to grant special facilities for passing into law this session the Bill for Prohibiting the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors to Children, and, considering the interest felt in; the country in respect of this Bill, whether he will accede to the request contained in. the memorial.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, before answering the question, consider whether he will grant similar facilities for a Bill equally important—namely, the Midwives Bill, which has passed through the Grand Committee?

I will answer the two questions together. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman I have to say-that I am well aware that the Bill to which he refers is one which, both in the country and in the House, has excited a great deal of interest and commands a great deal of support. [An HON. MEMBER: And opposition, too.] The suggestion made, I think, by the right hon. Gentleman when we were discussing the taking of the time of the House on Monday last was that an additional Wednesday in addition to the two already granted should be given to private Members so as to give this Bill and other private Members' Bills a chance of coming on.

That is not my suggestion. I made no definite suggestion.

At all events, the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that he gave a hint.

No, Sir. I only adduced the case of this Bill as a flagrant instance of the unfair way in which our rules at the present time work. That was the whole scope of what I said. I dwelt upon the effect on this Bill of that unfair action.

Of course, I do not dispute the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of his own speech. At all events, I took a different view at the time, and I took some trouble after that speech to consider whether the granting of an additional Wednesday would have any effect on this Bill. Looking over the measures which necessarily stand before it under the rules, I found that the granting neither of one Wednesday nor of two or even three Wednesdays would probably have any effect on its fate. There then remains to be considered the only alternative policy, which is whether additional ordinary Government time should be given to the Bill—whether it should be given, in other words, privileges as a Government measure. I am not aware that that has ever been done for a controversial measure, except with the single case of the Eight Hours (Miners) Bill, and I do not think that that is an example which would induce any leader of the House to favour exceptions of this character. I am convinced that if the right hon. Gentleman were in my place, and if he were of opinion that this was a controversial Bill, he would find it impossible to grant the facilities he asks. There remains only the question whether this is a controversial Bill or not. I have taken some pains to make myself acquainted with its prospects as a controversial measure, and I understand that those who think it uncontroversial do so because it passed the Second Reading with little or no discussion. It must be borne in mind by the House that the Second Reading came on under very unexpected circumstances, by a Parliamentary accident, and that what occurred on that occasion offers no sufficient indication of the degree to which the Bill would be opposed if it came on at a well-known and fixed time for Parliamentary discussion. Of course, it would be quite out of order now to discuss the merits of the Bill, but I observe it does contain two principles which I am quite certain would lead to a considerable amount of discussion. In the first place, it lays down that the publican who does not know the age of a child, and who necessarily has no means of knowing it, is to be punished for giving that child liquor, while the parent who does know the ago is not to be punished for sending the child to get liquor. That is a point on which there must be discussion. Another point is that, while it is to be made illegal to send for liquor a boy of fifteen, it is to be legal to send a girl of sixteen. That is a point which will, and which ought to, provoke discussion in this House; and in these circumstances it is impossible for me to regard the Bill as an uncontroversial measure. That being the case, it is in accordance with the principle which not only I, but my predecessors, have followed, to decline the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will arrange for a day to beset apart at an early date for the discussion of the condition of affairs in India arising out of the existence of plague and famine.

I have already indicated to the House, on a day when the hon. Member was not present, that I intended, under the special circumstances of the present year, to give a favourable opportunity for the discussion of the Indian Budget. The actual day I am not yet in a position to fix.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, to whom I have given private notice of the question, whether his attention has been called to a letter appearing in the Morning Post on Friday last from the hon. Member for Stoke, in which he refers to the recent appointment of Mr. Gill to a post in Ireland, and uses these words—

"Now we know what the bargain was between the Government and the Nationalist party. The Nationalists were not to object to the creation of a new office for Mr. Horace Plunkett's benefit, and in return they were to be allowed a share of the booty in the minor appointments."

In answer to my hon. friend I have to say that there is not a shadow of foundation for the statement.

reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Sir James Fergusson to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee for the consideration of Bills relating to Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure in respect of the Executors (Scotland) Bill, the County and Borough Franchise Assimilation (London) Bill, the Sunday Closing (Wales) Act (1881) Amendment Bill, and the Veterinary Surgeons Amendment Bill, and that they had appointed Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee for the consideration of Bills relating to Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure in respect of the Elementary Education Bill.

Before I move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper, I wish to refer to a matter included incidentally in the Amendment of my hon. friend the Member for Stepney. The words I desire to introduce after the words, "other than a rural district council," are these, "and including a London borough council." This is only to make the intention clear, because it is obvious from the statement in the Amendment that he does mean to give powers to a London borough council to establish lodging - houses outside the district. I quite agree that it may seem at first sight that the words I propose are unnecessary; but on consideration I think there is a doubt, and that the safe course would be to put them in, and for this reason: a London borough council stands in a totally different position from any other council. The power which is now given to a London borough council is not included in any of the series of Acts which are called the Housing of the Working Classes Acts. The position of a London borough council is also exceptional in this respect: that in the Act of last session there is an express provision that the powers with regard to housing so far as a London borough council is concerned shall not be exercised outside the district of the borough council, whereas as regards all the others it is merely an implication drawn from general words. For these reasons, in order at all events to call the attention of the Attorney General to the point, I beg to move the insertion of these words.

I quite understand the object of the hon. Member in calling attention to this matter, but I believe the Amendment is altogether unnecessary. The words of the clause are: "Where any council other than a rural district council." Those words would include a London borough council. I understand that powers to acquire land were given to the London borough councils in the London Government Act.

With the express limitation that they are not to build outside their areas.

If that be so, that express limitation is overridden by the words in the Bill which I have pointed out.

I cannot see any harm in inserting the words; but if the right hon. Gentleman is advised by the legal advisers that the words are unnecessary, I will not press the Amendment.

I think it is very desirable, and, indeed, necessary, that the words I now propose, or words of a similar character, should be introduced into the first clause. The first clause really provides that the councils shall have power to establish and acquire lodging-houses outside their districts. The words "establish or acquire" only occur once in the principal Act—namely, in Section 61, where they are introduced incidentally, and do not throw much light on the meaning which is to be attached to them. In the principal Act there is no allusion to or explanation of the words "establish or acquire." As regards the part of my Amendment which relates to the acquiring of land, it is true that Section 57 of the principal Act empowers a local authority to acquire land for the purposes of Part III. of that Act, but according to the accepted construction of the statute the land there is limited within the district. Therefore, we are really thrown back on the question I raised first of all as to what the words "establish or acquire lodging houses" really include. With regard to the second part of my Amendment, which proposes to introduce the words "hold land," I think those words very important. We are for the first time giving to urban authorities the opportunity of going outside their own districts to provide housing accommodation for the teeming populations. It seems to me an almost necessary corollary from that proposition that you should also give to those urban communities power to acquire land outside their own districts before that land has attained a prohibitive price. If that is not done it seems to me perfectly clear that the full advantage which might be expected from this new departure we are about to make will certainly not be realised. I have now explained both heads of my Amendment.

I am still not quite clear as to what the hon. Member means precisely by "holding land." It seems to me in any case to be unnecessary for the purposes of this Bill, because it must be obvious that a local authority cannot "establish" lodging-houses for the working classes without acquiring land upon which those lodging-houses would be built. It seems to me, therefore, if that is what it means, that the Amendment is unnecessary. If, on the other hand, it means something more than this—powers to acquire and hold land irrespective of the houses altogether—that is another and a different question, which should form an Amendment to the Public Health Act, under which powers are provided if needed, but they are not needed. If the hon. Member will turn to Section 175 of the Public Health Act, 1875, he will find that "any local authority may for the purposes and subject to the provisions of this Act purchase or take on lease, sell or exchange, any land whether situated within or without their district." Then there is a provision that any land acquired by a local authority in pursuance of any of the powers of that Act, and not required for the purposes for which they were acquired, unless the Local Government Board otherwise direct, "shall be sold at the best price that can be gotten for the same." In such a case as the hon. Gentleman suggests they might buy land at some time for the purpose of providing houses, and afterwards come before the Local Government Board for a dispensation, and the dispensation having been given, provision is made in another clause of the Act of 1875 as to the disposal of that kind of land until it is needed for houses. So far as I am able to form an opinion, everything the hon. Member desires is already provided for.

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has quite appreciated the Amendment now before the Committee. In the existing Act there is power to acquire land for the purpose of erecting houses for the working classes. In the Bill which is before us there is added the power of acquiring land for the purpose of erecting lodging houses on areas outside the jurisdiction of the authority concerned. But what I imagine my hon. friend has in view is that we have in London an enormous and almost incalculable increment of population going on week by week and month by month. It almost defies the London County Council to master that question at any one moment. The effect of my hon. friend's Amendment would be that a broad and comprehensive scheme might be devised for taking over by the municipality of any great town, a suitable area of land for prospective development of working-class dwellings in the years to come. I ask the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members who have considered the gravity of this problem if they do not think that that is a proposal of enormous importance, which would go a very long way to make this Bill really useful in the near future. It seems to be absolutely imperative that you should deal with this question in such a way that a local authority shall not be stopped and crushed out of its undertaking to provide for the dwellings of the poor by enormous enhancements of those land values in the immediate districts to the large towns. Undoubtedly, the result of the first clause of this Bill as it now stands would be to throw an enormous and rapidly-increasing unearned increment into the hands of the owners of the suburban land which may be employed for this purpose. It is only reasonable, having regard to the future wants of a great community like London, that you should extend the right to acquire suitable land which may be required for building in the districts surrounding great towns, when by buying at the present value the land can be got for a reasonable amount, in order that there should be a great economy effected in the interests of the ratepayers, and in the interest still more of those inhabiting the crowded parts of London and other great towns. I sincerely hope that my hon. friend will persevere in this Amendment. The issues at stake are of such vast importance with respect to the future of those who dwell in great towns that I hope Her Majesty's Government, before the discussion closes, will meet the Amendment in some more favourable way than the right hon. Gentleman has done.

The law upon this subject is somewhat difficult and complicated, but it depends upon Acts of Parliament, and what I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General is this. Supposing the London County Council were able to get at a proper price a considerable area of land under favourable conditions outside their own district and were willing to buy it with a view of erecting workmen's dwellings, but not at once— if they wished to keep it in their own hands, and not lease it to any person— under the law as it now stands, and under the Bill as it now stands, would it be possible for the County Council to do so? if it would, then the Amendment of my hon. friend is superfluous and unnecessary; but if the clause as it now stands does not empower a thing of that kind to be done, then an Amendment ought to be incorporated in the Bill to make it possible. It might possibly be brought in in a more convenient form later on, but that is not the question.

In answer to the question of my hon. and learned friend, it appears to me that Section 175 of the Public Health Act of 1875—under which the London County Council could acquire any land which is, really wanted for the purpose of erecting lodging-houses, and hold it for a reasonable time subject to the discretion of the Local Government Board—would cover it. I apprehend that discretion would be exercised in this sense: that if there was a reasonable prospect in the near future of the land being actually wanted for the purpose, the Council would be allowed to retain it. Only it is not intended that the Council should be allowed to enter into land speculation.

said the Amendment of the hon. Member for South-west Bethnal Green had not been met by the answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman. If this Bill, or any Bill of this kind, was going to touch the great problem of the housing of the people, it would not have to be determined in a narrow spirit by the reading of another Act which might or might not apply to this particular purpose. The housing question was neither more nor less than the land question. Therefore, when the hon. Member for South-west Bethnal Green sought to give to these local authorities power to acquire and hold land, he (Mr. Maddison) ventured to submit that he would give to this clause a value which it did not possess as it stood. After all, what was the danger in this matter? The Attorney General used some words about local authorities acquiring land for speculation purposes. He (Mr. Maddison) regretted very much that at this early stage of the discussion the bogey of municipal trading should be dragged in. For his part he had no great desire to extend municipal trading except where it was absolutely necessary; and all that he could say was that if hon. Members were going to approach this question in a niggardly spirit, if they were going to define the action of local bodies in the matter of land, they were not going to touch the problem at its roots. The Bill itself, in all truth, was something less than a moderate attempt to deal with the question, and if the question was to be dealt with in the manner he had suggested, he confessed that he had very little hope that this Bill would do any good at all. He hoped the hon. Member would press this most important Amendment to a division, because, although the Amendment might be defeated by the legions of the Government, the supporters of the Amendment would at least have registered their protest against the attempt to narrow down this new policy.

expressed a desire to say one word upon the Amendment. He thought if it were carried it would prevent proper advantage being taken of the Act. Up to the present year the London County Council had been afraid to put into force Part III. of the Housing Act to some extent, because of the opposition of private companies. This Amendment would certainly increase that kind of opposition. He deplored the inactivity of the County Council in not going farther than they did; he wished them to put into force Clause 3. According to the statement of the Attorney General the Amendment was not really necessary if the County Council only desired to hold land for a short time, and therefore, if passed, it might tempt the County Council to acquire land prematurely in the hope that at some future time it might be required. The great object of the Bill was to meet a definite demand. It was not desired to meet demands which might be made ten years hence, and therefore he hoped the Amendment would not be accepted.

thought there was a very wide difference between what might be termed a speculative desire to acquire land by the local authority and a reasonable desire to anticipate requirements in any part of a county. The question was important, having regard to the great problem which had arisen. Owing to the local authority de-siring to anticipate its requirements, a few years ago there was a Bill passed whereby the Government undertook to spend £5,000,000, extended over a period of years, in Devonport. It was obvious that such an expenditure would bring into Devonport several thousands of working men, and the question arose as to how to house them. Supposing that had been taken into consideration before the question of land speculation set in on the part of private speculators, the local authority could have fixed on land in many districts and solved the problem. The Attorney General had pointed out that these powers already existed, but the corporations were ignorant of these powers, and had no knowledge of the powers they had. He could see no reason why the matter should not be made clear, definite, and specific in this Bill, and he could see no objection to the Amendment.

I do not think there is any real difference between us. I am sure we all have the same object in view, and I will go into the matter again, and if there is the slightest doubt as to the effect of the existing law, I will have it made absolutely clear. Personally, I think the statement of my hon. friend the Attorney General is a most convincing one.

This is rather a serious point, because, if you buy the land retail, it will cost you about twice as much as buying it wholesale. It might be a case where ten acres only is wanted immediately, but within seven or eight years you might want fifty acres. If you bought the fifty acres at once you would then get the ten acres you want immediately at about half the price, and you would get the other forty acres very much cheaper. Not only this, but you would get a discount for taking a larger quantity. That being so, I think there is very good reason for this Amendment.

In connection with this question, there is one point which has not been touched upon, and that is the question of the rates. Suppose the London County Council decided to take a large piece of ground outside the London area in Middlesex, would the London County Council be required to pay the full rates upon all the houses built by them just as if they were built by a private individual?

That does not arise upon this Amendment.

There is no doubt that in London it is advisable to buy land in large blocks, and as some of it would stand idle it would be liable to be rated. The question is whether, in such a case as I have mentioned, the county of Middlesex should receive the full rates on the land as if houses were built upon it. When you build within the area of the London County Council in the county of London, then the rates go to the benefit of the county, but when you build property outside that area that particular county gains the benefit. If the London County Council were to obtain a large piece of land near London outside the London County Council area, and lay out £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 upon buildings and in developing it, that would mean under present conditions that the rates would go into the pockets of the Middlesex County Council and not the London County Council. This is a very serious question, because we want, above all things, to encourage municipalities to build these houses for the working classes. I think some arrangement might be made whereby counties outside the area should make some allowance upon such buildings. I submit this proposal to the President of the Local Government Board as a means of encouraging the building of these houses, for it would be cheapening them if the rates were reduced.

As far as I can see, the President of the Local Government Board has given away his case. He says that in principle he agrees with hon. Members on this side, and the only question is whether there is not power to buy this land under some existing statute. If there is this power, surely the insertion of these words will do no-harm but will do a great deal of good. The clause says—

"Establish or acquire lodging-houses for the working classes under that part outside their district."

I am correct, I think, in stating that when this Bill was first introduced the Housing Committee of the London County Council had some correspondence with the Local Government Board, and one of the chief things which the London County Council recommended and asked the Local Government Board to do was to allow them when once acquiring land to hold that land in larger quantities in the interests of the ratepayers. I know that they brought up a recommendation on the lines upon which the hon. Member for South-west Bethnal Green is now moving his Amendment. I must congratulate the hon. Member for Chelsea upon being a new convert to the principle of housing the working classes in London. I find from my eight years experience as a member of the London County Council that the hon. Member for Chelsea and his friends have been some of the most reactionary members of that body in opposing this principle, and when the recommendation of the Housing Committee was before the full Council neither the hon. Member for Chelsea nor the hon. Member for East Islington rose in their places and protested against the recommendation of that Committee, and yet to-day in the House, when we have an opportunity of putting on the Statute-book the very recommendation of the Council of which the hon. Gentleman is a member, he rises in his place and opposes it. But the hon. Member for Chelsea cannot blow hot at Spring Gardens and cold in the House of Commons.

Apparently I did not blow at all.

If the hon. Member did not blow at all at Spring Gardens, he did not rise in his place and protest by his voice against that recommendation the same as he has done now in the House of Commons. The hon. Member must either have agreed or disagreed with it; and if he disagreed with it as he disagrees with the Amendment of the hon. Member for South-west Bethnal Green, he should have said so, and not have waited until he had an opportunity of speaking where he knows he has got a majority of the Government supporters behind him. Assuming that the London County Council were anxious to purchase fifty acres away in Essex, Kent, Surrey, or in any other county, and for the time being they only wanted to build on ten acres, if they can get the sanction of the Local Government Board they can purchase the land. They have to tell the Local Government Board upon how many acres they are going to build for the time being, and then the Local Government Board may say, "We shall not grant you permission to purchase fifty acres, because you only intend building on ten. We will allow you to purchase ten." What will follow? In consequence of the buildings erected on that ten acres the value of the other forty acres goes up double and treble, and the ratepayers will have to pay later on for the unearned increment upon that land to the landowner. As a member of the municipality of London I have no hesitation in saying that I am in favour of purchasing all the land which that municipality can purchase, and holding it instead of allowing the increased value to go into the pockets of the landowner. In the case of land near Covent Garden, the Duke of Bedford is com- pelling the London County Council to pay the full commercial value, although the housing value is not more than £7,000. If the ratepayers had purchased that land in the first instance they would have got the benefit of it.

pointed out that when this Bill became an Act of Parliament it could only be put into operation after the Council had adopted Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890.

said that throughout the twelve years he had been connected with the London County Council he had not blown hot and cold upon this question, but he had strenuously advocated the acquisition of land for houses for the working classes, and strenuously opposed it for any other purpose. If the London County Council, or any other county council, required land with the intention of putting working-class dwellings upon it, then they had it on the authority of the Attorney General and the President of the Local Government Board that the power would be granted. To insert this Amendment would frustrate the object hon. Members opposite desired to secure, because it would make people believe what they would not otherwise have supposed—that the object of the Amendment was to enable the London County Council, as was hinted by the hon. Member for Stepney, to indulge not merely in land speculation, but in land operations which wore foreign to their purpose and entirely outside their province.

I think there is some misapprehension as to the effect of this clause, and also as to the Amendment. There can be no doubt that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board was perfectly right in saying that there is ample power under this clause to acquire land. In regard to that there need be no fear whatever in the mind of any hon. Member; but the Amendment raises another point which I think is well worthy of the consideration of the House and the Government. The hon. Member for Chelsea asked why should we now be called upon to provide lodging-houses for a longer period than ten years? Simply for the very reason that at the end of ten years the land will cost twice as much as it will now. That is the true reason for making this proposal. The Government say that if you take this clause as it now stands the law will be that the London County Council have the power to go outside their district to buy land for the purpose of erecting these lodging - houses upon it. They would not be empowered by this Amendment to do what my hon. friend the Member for Stepney wishes them to do, and they would have no power to speculate and acquire large tracts of country for anything approaching land nationalisation. They would, however, be able to get what they thought was necessary for supplying the needs of their district for housing the working-classes either now or ten years hence. With all due respect to my hon. friend behind me, I think the words of the Amendment are not the best that could be put in, but I mean to support this Amendment, because what I desire is that the London County Council, or any other county council not necessarily confined to London, shall not be compelled by the Local Government Board to sell land if they are not able to use it immediately for the purpose of erecting lodging-houses. I am not going to underrate the Local Government Board in this matter, but I do think that the municipality in London or elsewhere would be better able to judge as to what were the future needs of its district with regard to the erection of dwellings for the working classes than a central department. I see no possible danger likely to arise, and I do think that it would be a very great gain if this Amendment were adopted, certainly to the London County Council and the county councils of all our large towns, if they could buy a sufficient quantity of land in order to prevent that land being put up in price against them when they want to buy it at a future time, when its value will have increased in consequence of the very purchase they have made.

thought the clause as it stood enabled county councils to acquire and hold land for the purpose of erecting workmen's dwellings upon it.

said he had had some experience upon this ques- tion, and he had seen the co-operative system in practice. He thought municipalities would be wise in buying land in larger quantities, and the Bill would be inoperative unless municipalities had the power of holding the land for some term of years. If this Bill was to be a success they should allow this idea to be carried out.

May I add one word upon the views which have been expressed. The Attorney General has told us what he understands the law to be. If the London County Council desires to buy land it may buy for immediate purposes, and it may buy land with a view to future wants. It may hold the land with the consent of the Local Government Board, but as the Attorney General told us, no doubt perfectly truly, what the Local Government Board would be likely to do would be to allow the land to be bought for immediate requirements, but if you want it for some more or less remote period you may not hold it. That is the substance of the law as stated by the Attorney General, and that is the law which my right hon. friend the Member for East Wolverhampton wishes to see amended. That is the object of this Amendment, and I do press this point upon the Government for consideration. Why should we not authorise the local authorities to acquire land to meet the needs that will arise in view of the future expansion of their districts? We do not wish to see land speculations entered upon by the local authorities, but there is a very long way between acquiring land for immediate expansions, and future expansions which may not take place for the next five or ten years; and there is a very wide difference between providing for that and providing for anything in the nature of land speculation. There is a very important principle underlying this Amendment, and I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will not be inflexible, but will consider whether some such proposal as my hon. friend has made may not be entertained.

I think the hon. Gentleman has rather misrepresented what fell from the Attorney General. The powers of local authorities to buy land and hold it for the purpose of establishing lodging-houses are absolutely unfettered, and there is no restriction upon them whatever. Then comes the question as to what is to be done with that land if it is not required for the purpose for which it was bought. It is only under those circumstances that the land must be sold, and I am fortified in this view by the opinion of the Attorney General. The Amendment is absolutely unnecessary, for all the powers exist at the present moment under the present law to do what hon. Gentlemen opposite desire, and which we on this side desire no less than they do. It is perfectly clear that there is no substantial difference of opinion between us. I said that I would reconsider this matter if my hon. friend desired it, and in consultation with the Attorney General I will satisfy myself as to whether or not the statement I made in the earlier part of the debate was absolutely correct, and if the present law does not provide for the view which I have expressed, we will make it perfectly clear in the Bill. I agree very largely with my right hon. friend the Member for East Wolverhampton, but I believe that the views of the hon. Gentleman opposite are fully met by the existing law.

said it was of the utmost importance that the old definition of surplus land should be varied for the purposes of this Act.

The right hon. Gentleman has made a very fair offer if it includes all that we on this side of the House are asking for, but that is a point on which we are not quite clear. The right hon. Gentleman says that the law as it stands will do all that is asked for on this side of the House, but does the right hon. Gentleman understand that the powers we ask for include the holding of land for the prospective wants of a district? If that is so, and if the right hon. Gentleman and the Attorney General agree to look into the words to see if they really carry that out, then I think that most of us will be satisfied with that undertaking. But our point is that it should include the prospective wants, and not merely immediate requirements at the time the acquisition of the land is made, and that is the whole matter.

The local authority can acquire land for prospective use at any future period whatever, subject to the condition—"unless the Local Government Board otherwise direct."

I do not quite accept the statement that there is no doubt as to what the meaning of this provision is. The Attorney General made it clear that unless this land was wanted for immediate use within a reasonable time the Local Government Board would be bound to direct its sale. I will make this suggestion, which I think my hon. friend behind me will accept. My suggestion is to add the words "for supplying the present and future needs of the district." I think those words would make the meaning perfectly clear. There would not be very much of a concession in this case, because the right hon. Gentleman says he is satisfied that the power is there already; but what we want is to introduce something about which there will be no misconception, either on the one side or the other, as to what the meaning really is. We do not want any land speculations, but we do want power in order that the county council may hold land for a period of ten years or more if necessary. They should have power to buy a certain quantity of land to supply the future needs of their districts.

I understand the right hon. Gentleman not to differ from me as to the law on the subject, but he has made it clear that what he wants is some alteration of the law as contained in Section 157 of the Public Health Act, 1875. The aspirations expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite were in some respects of a rather vague character, and before saying that we are disposed to favourably consider any proposal for the alteration of the law I should like to know precisely what is the nature of the alteration we are asked to consider. The view of the Government at present is that the law as stated in Section 157 of the Public Health Act is perfectly adequate. It checks abuses, and it gives every reasonable facility for carrying out the object in view. That section states that if the land is not required for the purposes for which it was bought it shall be sold unless the Local Government Board otherwise orders. If it is proposed to alter the law in this particular case I should certainly desire to know with some precision what the proposed alteration is.

I agree with my hon. and learned friend that we ought to know what we are driving at in this matter, and that it would be well if the Amendment assumed a more definite shape. We are, after all, searching for some amendment of the law, or, at least, the practice of the law, and I would wish to make a definite suggestion on the matter. Before I come to that, I may say that I have remarked that the discussion has been mainly confined to the operations of the London County Council, but any alteration of the law will, of course, extend to every county council in the country, and we should bear that in mind. I understand it is common ground as between the Attorney General and my right hon. friend the Member for East Wolverhampton that the law as it at present stands gives a council the fullest power to acquire land. That is agreed on, and the only difference is as to retaining land not immediately wanted for the purpose for which it was acquired. As the Attorney General has stated, that depends on Section 157 of the Act of 1875, which gives the Local Government Board discretion in the matter. The Local Government Board, of course, acts on some principle in exercising its discretion, but I think the practice has been that the land should be sold if there is not a speedy prospect of its being employed for the purpose for which it was acquired. The suggestion I would make is that we should introduce into this Bill words to the effect that the Local Government Board, in determining whether land should be sold, should consider the early future as well as the immediate future. If the duty is thrown upon the Local Government Board they can satisfy the legitimate aspirations of the London County Council and other county councils without running the danger of the London County Council, for instance, buying up a whole county. We might give the Local Government Board a lead in the matter by directing that in exercising their discretion they should consider the probable early use as well as the immediate use of the land, and should not order land to be sold because it was not required for a period of five years or thereabouts. I do not want any immediate reply to my suggestion. I merely throw it out for consideration.

In reply to my right hon. friend I may say that that is the practice of the Local Government Board now.

All these cases have to be considered from a practical point of view as well as from a legal point of view. When a local authority desires to acquire land it usually asks the sanction of the Local Government Board to raise a loan, and in giving that sanction the Local Government Board, as a rule, considers the purpose for which the land is to be acquired, as well as the immediate needs of the locality. The consequence is that the tendency in all such cases is to limit the amount of land purchased to what is necessary to meet the immediate requirements of the locality concerned. If Birmingham wishes to buy land in Worcestershire for the purpose of housing its working-class population, and if it wishes to house a thousand people, the Local Government Board would look at the proposal with a view to the amount of land required for the housing of that particular number. It would be infinitely better, however, if Birmingham were able to acquire twenty or thirty, or even fifty acres of land, because then it would be in a position to meet future requirements. But under the existing practice, when future requirements arise Birmingham would be compelled to purchase additional land at an enhanced value, which its previous improvements had produced. If Birmingham had originally purchased a small plot of ten acres, and wished to add another ten acres, it would have to pay an undue price, because of the very money it had previously spent in the locality. The Amendment would avoid that. We wish that the local authorities should be able to purchase land, not only for immediate wants, but also for future wants. There is no danger of speculations in land or anything of that kind. The central authority will always refuse its sanction, and I have known such cases within my own knowledge. If a local authority wishes to purchase an estate of 1,500 acres, unless, possibly, it was the London County Council, power would be refused; but if it wanted to purchase 100 acres in view of the future wants of the community it represents, I think it ought to have the necessary power. There is not the slightest danger in adding the Amendment to the Bill. It will encourage local authorities to proceed in the useful work of housing their poor by municipalities outside their own areas. There would not be the least danger in carrying it out, and it would add to the efficiency of the Act.

The County Council of London has no power whatever to purchase land for future requirements, although it has ample powers to purchase land for present requirements. The real point, however, is to provide for future requirements, more especially in London, though also in some other places. I refer to London because it is the local authority with which I am best acquainted. In London, and no doubt in many other places, a very great deal is lost in dealing with this question through want of prescience, foresight, and provision for the future. Where ten acres only may be needed for immediate pressing requirements it would sometimes be wise to purchase forty or fifty acres. The preparation for the housing of the working classes is quite as important as the actual housing. One of our greatest difficulties in clearing away slums in order to substitute better houses is that the old houses have to be pulled down before the new houses can be built. Under these circumstances a great many of the people are permanently displaced—many of them may be rightly displaced—and they make still greater the pressure of housing elsewhere. If we had the power to look forward in this matter we might in many instances be able to erect the now houses in time to receive the occupants of the slums who would be dispossessed. This is one of the most important features of the whole question. I am not pressing the Government to adopt this Amendment, but I would press them to adopt its principle in some form or other, in order that power should be given to the local authorities to purchase land, not only for the present, but the prospective needs of their localities.

I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are trying to carry out such recommendations of the Housing of the Working Classes Commission as are advisable, and that, with a view to cheapening land in towns, the Commission went so far as to propose to impose a special tax on all unoccupied land in the neighbourhood of towns in order to increase the inducements to the owner to part with it on reasonable terms. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the proposal now before the Committee is more moderate and more conciliatory to the landed interest than the very stringent recommendation of the Commission. The whole object of this Amendment is to forestall the enormous prospective value of land, and to prevent ratepayers in urban communities being compelled to pay needlessly heavy rates in the future.

With reference to the suggestion of my right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin, my impression is that the power he proposes already exists. If I understand the right hon. Gentleman opposite rightly, he suggests that the powers should be extended to enable municipal councils to acquire land, even though they do not want to build lodging-houses at present. That is a very different matter from the proposal in the Bill. While no one would desire to restrict unduly the power of the local authority to acquire land if there was some reasonable probability that in the near future it would be wanted for the building of lodging-houses, very great care would be needed to see that we do not authorise the local authority to acquire land merely on the ground that at some time or another it might be utilised for this purpose. The whole subject will be carefully considered by the Government between this and the Report stage, and I can assure the right hon. and hon. Members on the other side of the House that while the Government are anxious not to do anything which might lead to what has been called land speculation in acquiring land under these powers with the mere idea that in the future it might come in useful, there is every desire on their part to see that the local authorities should have power which may be beneficial for enabling them to acquire laud when it may be secured advantageously for the community, without waiting to the last moment when they are pressed for the immediate use of it.

said that the discretionary powers vested in the London County Council were limited. Before the London County Council could acquire any land for the purposes of any improvement they had, first of all, to pass a resolution in favour of that improvement. However eligible a piece of land might be for some contemplated improvement, they had no statutory power to purchase that land before the improvement was actually resolved upon. The object of the Amendment involved, in that view, an alteration of the law, which the experience of the London County Council had shown to be extremely desirable. He might say that proposals had been made from time to time for the acquisition of extremely desirable property for municipal improvements, and which could then have been obtained at a low figure; but when the resolution to acquire that property was proposed the price immediately went up. Having regard to that experience, he i trusted the Attorney General would receive this Amendment favourably.

said he did not know anything more calculated to rush up the price of land than that local bodies should be allowed to enter the noble army of land speculators. When anyone bought land cheap it was not with the object of cheapening the price of adjoining land, and if local bodies were to be allowed to acquire land in this distinctly speculative manner, it would be their interest that the adjoining land should go up in value, and not in the direction of cheapening it. He questioned whether it would be in the interest of the ratepayers that their representatives should be allowed to enter the army of land speculators and buy land in this manner in the open market, because they thought that they might want that land at some future time. Land did not always rise, it sometimes fell in value; and it was quite possible, if the land was not wanted for some years, that the prosperous times then existing might rapidly become less prosperous, that the large prospective influx of workmen to the district might never come, that the land might never be required for workmen's houses, and that great loss would fall on the municipality. That was the experience of those who had had to do with the buying and selling of land. The acceptance of the Amendment would not tend at all to cheapen the price of land, but would rather have an opposite effect.

said that the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for East Wolverhampton proposed as an alternative to his Amendment, to insert after the words, "for supplying, "the words, "the present and future needs of their district." He might point out, in answer to the picture of the municipality engaging in land speculation which the Attorney General had drawn before the Committee, that the word "needs" seemed to sufficiently safeguard against their embarking on land speculation. If the Government were prepared to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman he would be very glad to withdraw his Amendment, but failing that, he proposed to take a division.

said that the point raised was a very important one, especially in connection with what had been said by the Attorney General. What the hon. and learned Member for South Leeds had said was perfectly accurate—that land could only be taken by municipalities for statutory purposes which could be defined. He thought that that restriction should be preserved; and he did not agree that the proposal suggested by the hon. Member on the other side of the House would at all cheapen the acquisition of land. It would have exactly the opposite effect. If they allowed corporations to join, he would not say land speculators, but other purchasers of land, the value of the land would be enhanced. For, as regarded those plots of land, the very fact of there being a new purchaser in the market would enhance their value. That was not only the case in London, but in other localities. But, on the other hand, land had not always gone up in value; it had sometimes gone down. His experience was that the latter result occurred as often as the former. But the reason why he rose was to say that he hoped the Government, in considering the matter before the Report stage was reached, would not give up what was the true principle in all these cases, which was, not to allow corporate bodies to purchase land at their mere will, but only in respect of statutory duties or obligations thrown upon them. So far as the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton was concerned, if they used the words "present or future needs," they would take away all present safe- guards. He was not, at the present moment, considering the question from the ratepayers' point of view; but as a mere matter of business he thought it was a mistake to take away the restriction of the existing law, the absence