said he was sorry to intervene at this stage, but he thought a very important principle was involved in the point he was about to raise, and felt bound to call the attention of the House to it. This Bill contained a proposal by the South Metropolitan Gas Company to raise additional

† See Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxv., p. 592.

capital, and the Committee had varied one of the Standing Orders of the House with regard to the conditions under which the capital was to be raised. The Standing Order was perfectly clear and definite with regard to what should be done by every gas company and every water company when it wanted additional capital. It said that in every Bill to authorise the raising of additional capital provision should be made for the offering of such capital by public auction or tender at the best price at which it could be bought, and if the Committee recommended any variation from that condition it was bound to state its reasons. That Standing Order imposed upon the House fundamental principles with regard to gas and water legislation. It provided that whenever any additional capital was issued it should not be offered to any favoured class of stockholders or consumers, but should be offered to the public, and should be sold to the highest bidder. That was known as the Auction Clause, and it was embodied in every Act dealing with this matter. Before the Auction Clause was introduced scandals arose with regard to the allotment of capital in these companies. The shareholders had had a right, whatever capital was required, to claim that it should be allotted to them at par price; and this scandal had been found so serious that the House of Commons in 1876 adopted the Standing Order which was embodied in the Auction Clause. The Standing Order constituted no hardship to the companies, because it gave them the very thing which a company wanted; it gave them their capital at the lowest prices at which it could be obtained; but this Committee had been induced by the company to allow its stock to be offered to the employees of the company, or consumers of the company's gas, at £5 below the market price. That was a very extraordinary clause, and, if the House would look into it, it would be seen that it was not even provided that all the consumers, or all the employees, should lave an opportunity of taking the stock. £5 was a compromise. The first proposal had been that it should be offered at £7 10s., and it was only on the inducement of a friend of his, who was a member of the Committee, that the figure of £5 was decided upon. This was a very serious matter, because if £5 was to be adopted in this Bill why should not £10 be inserted in any other Bill? It constituted a most serious infringement of the principle laid down with regard to this legislation during the last twenty-five years. The Committee were supposed to give reasons for making a change in the Standing Order. What were their reasons in the present case? The Committee said that evidence was laid before them that the proposed variation would be such as to carry out very effectually the object of the Auction Clause; namely, to obtain for all capital issued by the company the highest possible price. But that, he submitted, was not a good reason for a variation of the Standing Orders of the House. The Report said that the object of the Standing Order was to secure that capital should be allotted at the highest price obtainable at the time. The idea was to prevent any hole-and-corner work—to prevent any favoured class from securing the stock which a public company under Act of Parliament had to offer. They ought to look at the effect which this proposal would have upon the public. This was a very large company, which had a big capital held by the public, and he believed the Committee were induced to allow the capital to be offered in this manner by the idea that the company was to be converted into a sort of co-operative undertaking. But, as a matter of fact, this was not a co-operative undertaking, because, although there were some two hundred thousand consumers of the gas, the stock-holders only numbered about ten thousand. There was indeed no intention of converting the company into a true co-operative company. The effect of the proposal of the Committee would be that the large bulk of the capital of the company held by the public would be depreciated by the fact that the allotment of the capital had been made at a lower price to a favoured circle. He believed the Committee were induced to pass the clause by the most able gas-manager of the South Metropolitan Company, for whose ability he had the, highest respect. He told the Committee that sometimes the auction was not a success. As a matter of fact, of course, the market was sometimes "sick." There might be war rumours about, and consequently it was not always possible to get a good price for this stock. But he was quite willing to meet the company on that point. He would agree that they should be allowed to dispose of the stock in the way they proposed when the auction had taken place. The object which the Committee had in view might have been secured in a better way without the infringement of the Standing Orders of the House, and he therefore begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.

seconded the Amendment.

said this was one of those matters which were extremely awkward, because the House could not possibly understand it unless they had before them the evidence which was laid before the Committee dealing with the Bill. But he hoped to be able to show the House in a very few moments that the argument of the hon. Member opposite was quite illusory. What was really the reason for introducing what the hon. Member called the Auction Clause? It was found in the old days that when the stock of a company was at £150, and new stock had to be issued, it was issued to the shareholders at £100, and the consequence was that they had to issue a larger amount of stock than was actually necessary in order to obtain the money that was required. That was a great disadvantage to those who were permanent shareholders in the company, because it compelled it to pay smaller dividends. It was, in fact, an advantage to no one except to those few people who, having some knowledge of what was being done, would buy up a certain amount of stock in order to obtain the premium which resulted from the allotment. Therefore the Auction Clause-was very excellent in its way. Its object really was that the stock when issued should be sold at the highest price obtainable, and he would like it to be borne in mind that, although it was called an auction, the practice was to issue advertisements for tenders for the stock. It was a very excellent arrangement as long as it secured the end of obtaining the highest possible price, and at a time-when there were great demands for this class of stock, and when, so to speak, the people were tumbling over one another in order to obtain it, it resulted satisfactorily. But that was not always the case, and he could mention instances where a parson, a widow, or a foolish person had paid as much as 5, 6, or 7 per cent. over the market value in order to get this class of stock. The London County Council now issued their stock at fixed prices and not by tender, and the only object of the proposal in this Bill was to give the alternative to the company to follow that example. It seemed to have been forgotten that under the Bill, before the company could issue its stock at fixed prices it would have to obtain the sanction of the Board of Trade. He thought that the £5 which had been fixed upon in the Bill was a rather larger margin than was actually necessary. An absolute margin was difficult to fix, but the issue at 5 per cent. below the market price when they wanted to get their money readily was not too much, while, on the other hand, when the Bank rate was 2 per cent., 5 per cent. was too much. But that was subject to the approval of the Board of Trade, which would take into consideration all the facts, and before they gave their consent would have regard to these facts. All that the clauses did was to give the company an alternative in issuing their stock to put it in such a way as would give them the largest price. The hon. Member said that he would be quite content if the company issued the stock at a fixed price after instead of before the auction sale, or before tenders were invited. But supposing tenders were advertised for and nobody tendered. So long as human nature was what it was people would say, "Oh, you offered your stock by public tender and nobody would take it. We do not want it now." That would be the very worst possible manner in which to issue stock. When they wanted to offer a thing to a person expecting to have it accepted they must not offer it to somebody else beforehand. For the reasons which he had given, and which had been well considered by the Committee upstairs, the proposal could not easily result in injury to any person, but would probably result in advantage to the public, inasmuch as it gave the company an alternative method of issuing their stock; and therefore he hoped the House would reject the Amendment.

said the hon. Member for West Islington had declared that this most important variation on the Standing Order had been made for no reason whatever, and that the result would be that the stock would go at a lower price. But what interest had the company to take steps to lower the price of their own holding? The very direct contrary was the case. Their desire was to get the very best possible price for their stock, and they would take their own time to realise it. They had found out from recent experience that the best way to get a good price was to offer a chance of obtaining the stock to their customers, to shareholders, and to the servants of the company. The company had already been doing splendid work in the way of profit-sharing with its employees, with the result that they had an interest in the capital of the company to the extent of £100,000, derived from their share of the company's profits. That was a feature which was worthy of the attention of the House. He did not wonder that the Committee had encouraged the company to share profits with their employees, for the price of their gas was lower than that of other companies, and they paid their employees higher wages. Why? Through the business capacity of the manager, Mr. Livesey, and their adoption of the profit-sharing principle on his recommendation. The facts had amply justified the Committee upstairs in making the exception they had done as to the rules and the issue of stock. There was no doubt that in issuing the stock they would depress the value of the stock as little as possible. They all knew that the first effect of the issue of fresh stock was to depress the value of the rest of the shares, but they might safely leave such a company as this, under such able management, with such privileges as the Bill provided.

said that as Chairman of the Committee which had considered this Bill, he might be allowed a few words in reply to the hon. Member for West Islington. He had had the honour of sitting on Committees upstairs for over twenty years, and for many years past he had been a Chairman of Committees, and he was free to admit that the decision come to on this question was one which, perhaps, had never been adopted before in regard to the Standing Orders. But still, times varied, and matters varied in regard to company legislation in many respects. The evidence which was put before the Committee as to the very able manner in which this company has been managed by Mr. Livesey was overwhelming. Many hon. Members of the House knew how this energetic gentleman had done more for gas companies than any man living. On the evidence the Committee were perfectly justified in adopting the course they had done The hon. Member for West Islington had read a portion of the evidence given upstairs, but the effect of another part of the evidence was that the object of the auction sales was to ensure the issue of new capital at market price. It was put before the Committee in the most conclusive manner by Mr. Livesey that raising money by tender or through auction sales had not been in any way a success. In fact, during last winter and the winter before the South Metropolitan Company had very great difficulty in raising money by tender. It was necessary to fix a reserve price, and if this was done, a large proportion of the stock was not sold. The number of buyers attending the sales by auction was very limited, and it was found that investors preferred dealing at a fixed price. That had also been the experience of the Government and the London County Council. It was the desire of the South Metropolitan Company to place a large number of their shares in the hands of their consumers, who numbered 200,000, the shareholders, who numbered 9,000, and the employees, who numbered 2,000. The Committee were well aware that this was to a certain extent a novel clause which had been inserted in the Bill, but taking everything into consideration they were of opinion that they did right in allowing the clause; and he hoped the House would sustain the Committee in the decision they had come to, reject the Amendment, and read the Bill a third time.

said he was afraid that the speeches of the Chairman of the Committee and the hon. Member for Radcliffe had only convinced him that the Bill ought not to pass the Third Reading. These hon. Gentlemen placed their arguments solely on the ground of the particular merits of the chairman of the company. He did not deny the merits of Mr. Livesey, who had conducted the company to the great advantage of the shareholders and the consumers. He saw no great objection to the issue of capital at a fixed price if the public were allowed to participate in the issue; because there was no doubt the tender system had become very difficult in working. He was afraid that if the House allowed the proposal in the Bill it would be extended to other cases, and the object of the Standing Order, which was that the best price obtainable should be got, would disappear.

said that the question debated had resolved itself into the consideration of whether the Standing Order had been set aside or evaded. He was sure the House would insist upon its Standing Orders being respected; and if he had thought that in this case the Standing Order referred to had been distinctly set aside by the Committee he would have taken upon himself the duty of bringing the matter before the attention of the House. But that was not his opinion on this occasion. The hon. Member for West Islington, who introduced the discussion, cited a recent case, but hon. Members would remember that in that case he took upon himself the duty of bringing before the House the fact that he thought that one of the Standing Orders had been evaded. What was the Standing Order in point? It said—

"In every Bill by which an existing gas or water company is authorised to raise additional capital, provision shall be made for the offer of such capital by public auction or tender at the best price which can be obtained."

If the Standing Order had stopped there the case of the hon. Member would have been complete; but it went on—

"Unless the Committee of the Bill shall report that such provision ought not to be required, with the reasons on which their opinion is founded."

It would be seen that a dispensing power was given by the Standing Order to the Committee; and the Committee, whether wisely or not he was not prepared at present to argue, for he had not heard all the evidence, had on this occasion exercised that dispensing power. They might have been convinced by the admirable way in which Mr. Livesey gave his evidence as to the past history of the gas market, or as to the present state of the market. There might be a number of other matters which might have induced the Committee to conceive that, in this instance, it was not necessary to insist upon the Auction and Tender Clause. That being so, and the Committee having exercised their discretion after hearing the evidence, he could not ask the House to set aside their decision. Seeing that the Standing Order of the House had not been violated, he ventured to suggest that the motion of the hon. Member for West Islington be rejected, and that the Bill be read a third time. With regard to the point which the hon. Member for West Islington made, that under the clause as it now stood the stock might be offered to certain gas consumers and other persons, Mr. Livesey yesterday informed him that he was perfectly prepared to insert the word "all," so that there was no possibility of the stock being offered to particular individuals or sets of individuals.

said he would not have intervened were it not that he thought it right that the House should be made aware that the Committee was not unanimous in the matter. He himself, as a member of the Committee, divided it on practically the matter now before the House. The Committee went very carefully into the evidence, and he had not the slightest doubt that the majority of the Committee were influenced by the able and clever evidence of Mr. Livesey, the chairman of the South Metropolitan Gas Company. He would venture to point out to the Committee that a Select Committee had been appointed by the House especially to consider this question, and he believed it unanimously reported against the proposal in the Bill. Then the question had come on previous occasions before various Committees of the House, and on every such occasion the Committee had refused to abrogate auction clauses. He thought also the House ought to consider the question of price. The hon. Member for Peckham, who was a great authority on financial questions, said that a £5 discount seemed to be too high, yet the company actually asked for £7 10s. discount, showing that their real object was to give the consumers stock under the market price, to give them an opportunity of buying stock and then selling it at a profit. In his evidence Mr. Livesey said that he made no secret of the fact that he had purposely evaded the auction clauses, and that the company managed to advertise the auction in such a way that as Mr. Livesey very fairly said, nobody would be aware that stock was being offered. He thought the present was neither the time nor the occasion to go back on previous decisions of Committees, and also the Report of the Select Committee, and to abrogate the, auction clause. In his opinion the South Metropolitan Gas Company were anxious to form themselves into a great society composed of shareholders who were also consumers. No doubt such societies might be very desirable and proper, but they should also consider the interests of the working man who was not able to invest money, and who perhaps was only a temporary consumer. The House should not make gas dearer for the poor consumer, even though it made it cheaper for the rich consumer who was also a shareholder. He therefore very strongly supported the motion of his hon. friend to recommit the Bill, and he thought the House ought to pause before departing from previous decisions, and also from the Report of the Select Committee appointed to consider the matter.

rose to move that the Bill should be read a second time upon this day six months. He said that the promoters desired to carry out improvements which would give them facilities for the further development of their passenger, goods, and mineral traffic. Clause 23 enabled the two companies, or either of them, to apply for the whole or any purposes of the Act any money they had now in their hands, or which they had power to raise by shares or mortgage, and which might not be required for the purposes for which the same were authorised to be raised. While it was proposed to develop the line, there was no attempt, there was not even a suggestion for enlarging the London stations, where the accommodation was already in some respects inadequate to meet the expected increase in the traffic. It appeared to him that the companies wanted to enlarge their bottle to the size of a magnum or Jeroboam, leaving the neck at its original diameter. The contention of the Corporation of London was that, while these improvements might be necessary, they could very well wait until the companies fulfilled their far more serious obligations to the public by making their London termini adequate to their requirements. He could name a station, a timber structure, badly lighted, which had rather the appearance of a neglected temporary building than of a station of considerable importance. The approaches to the station and the platforms were badly arranged and quite inadequate, and, altogether, the station was not only inconvenient and inadequate for its requirements, but absolutely unsafe for the public. The attention of the Corporation of London was called to this and another station as far back as 1898, and they called the attention of the railway companies to these defects, but up to this moment nothing whatever had been done except to provide a few extra lamps. The Corporation of London endeavoured to bring pressure to bear upon the railway companies, and only withdrew their opposition to the company's Bill of last session on the understanding that these important and serious matters were to have the immediate attention of the directors. But the company, having got the Second Reading of their Bill, practically told the Corporation that they had gained their object and that the Corporation had no locus standi, and in consequence the undertaking of the railway companies was nugatory. Another Bill was now before them, but there was no proposal in it to do anything to further the interests and the safety of the community. The attention of the Board of Trade had been called to the matters of which he had been speaking, but the company had held the Department, as it had held the Corporation, at arm's length for over two years, and now he did not think it was too much to say that they seemed very much disposed to flout the House of Commons. All the Corporation desired was to have a locus standi before the Committee upstairs to which the Bill would be referred, but, as the company refused to meet them in any way, he had no alternative but to move that the Bill be read that day six months.

in seconding the Amendment, said he did not speak on behalf of any municipality, but on behalf of the working class community of South London who used the surburban line of the company. The Bill was one to extend the operations of the company, and to extend the time for the completion of certain works and widening its lines, and by Clause 23 to use the money the company had in hand for the purpose. He should vote against giving this company any extension of power, against giving it any further concession, until it had fulfilled the obligations into which it had entered in respect of previous Acts of Parliament. Its station at Ludgate Hill was a filthy and foul-smelling rabbit hutch, which, being in the very centre of the greatest city in the world, was a scandal to those who allowed it to remain there, was a comment on the happy-go-lucky conduct of the cockney in all things, and ought to be swept away as an insanitary area at the earliest possible date. There were other considerations which applied to those who used the line every day. The rolling-stock of the company was filthy and dirty to the last degree, the carriages were ill-lighted, and the whole machinery was of the most slovenly and slipshod character. He had sat in a compartment in one of the trains of this company at Victoria, and within five minutes of the departure of the train an official came and swabbed the windows of the compartment while the passengers were in it. At one station he had seen the carriages being swept while the people were in them. The dirty and filthy character of the second and third class carriages and their overcrowded condition was well known. At Herne Hill Station, if a passenger took a first-class ticket and afterwards managed to get a seat upon a fish-box in the guard's van he was very lucky indeed. On behalf of the working-people of South London, who were bitterly opposed to any extension of the powers of this company, he objected to this Bill being passed until they had carried out their obligations contained in former Acts of Parliament.

said he desired to endorse all that had been said by his hon. friend the Member for the City of London in regard to the insufficient accommodation provided by this company. They had been told that this was an innocent Bill, and that it would be unfair for the House to punish the company in respect of this Bill because of its shortcomings in other respects. Though this might be a small Bill, to buy a portion of a biscuit factory, it had underlying it grave questions of public policy. When they came to discuss those questions they were met by the reply of the company that unless they gave them the Bills as they presented them to the House they would withdraw them. In other words, the House of Commons was to be reduced to being the obsequious servant of the directors of this company. His main objection to the Bill was that it was a tinkering Bill. Those who had studied the system of the South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railway would agree that the only remedy for what were evils so far as the public were concerned was a statesmanlike reform in the affairs of the company, and in its service to the public. Year after year fresh powers were sought in order that a little bit of land here or there might be added to the property of the company, but nothing was done in the true sense to secure for the two millions-of South Londoners adequate and cheap access from their homes to the scene of their labours. He would refer very briefly to the clauses of the Bill. Clauses 15 to 21 by no means showed or justified the allegation of the supporters of this Bill that it was simply a measure to purchase a portion of a biscuit factory. Those clauses altered the time limit in respect of previous Acts of the company, and when they came to consider how far the company had exercised the powers from which it now sought exemption, they would find that even the facilities given on the South Eastern railway for lads to attend cricket matches had been withdrawn. A very large section of people known as the lower middle class, who had to be punctual in their attendance at their work if they were not to lose their means of livelihood, had been absolutely precluded from any possibility of living upon the line of this company owing to the disgraceful unpunctuality in the train service, and which would continue unless the House of Commons pulled up this company sharply, and made it behave itself. This condition of things would be made far graver and more intolerable if they allowed those clauses to pass than would appear at first sight. The company was persistently defeating the efforts of Parliament to promote the industrial and physical well-being of the people, by forcing vast numbers of the industrial classes to reside in crowded inner London owing to the lack of trains to and from the outskirts and the excessive fares demanded. The company thus actively promoted all the evils to the physique and morals of the urban population which are inseparable from overcrowding and unsalubrious surroundings. In proof of this he referred to Clause 19. The company pulled down houses in Bermondsey, and, when the Home Secretary remonstrated with it for evading its statutory obligations, the company made a hasty temporary ar- rangement with the Guinness trustees, who had erected a block of buildings near, to relieve the terrible destitution of the population. This was not only a mischievous evasion by the company of the law of the land, but an injury inflicted upon a densely-crowded area, because the company did not build houses in the neighbourhood, and because it appropriated sorely-needed house room which had been provided for that neighbourhood by a philanthropic body. A further injury which this company had inflicted upon the labouring classes of the community was that caused by a sudden, unjustifiable, and an illegal reduction in the housing accommodation of the district, which had the effect of increasing the already prohibitive rents. An appeal against this state of things was made to the Home Secretary, and then the company bought the site dealt with under Clause 19 of this Bill. The company boasted that it had spent £80,000 in Bermondsey to satisfy the requirements of this House, but the company forgot to say that after having procured that site, and after having obtained all the necessary powers required to deal with it, ever since October last that land had been vacant. He had been told that this land had remained vacant because the company were waiting the approval of the Secretary of State to the whole scheme of which this land formed a part. He thought those who had given any attention to this subject would be very much surprised if his right hon. friend announced to the House that he had been the agency by which for something like nine months this site for the housing of the working classes of London had remained vacant when that site was specifically devoted by him, as the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to rehousing those who had been found to have been neglected by the railway company under its legal powers. He hoped that they would be told why the piece of vacant land had been allowed to remain vacant; he believed it was due entirely to the mischievous evasion on the part of the company of its statutory obligations. The efforts of the directorate and the officials of this company seemed to be directed to trying both in spirit and letter to evade the laws of Parliament whenever the housing of the poor was concerned. The population of Bermondsey was a wharfside population. It had to live within hail of its work, which was casual and ill paid, and it was in such a district that this company reduced valuable house room. This district was becoming more and more overcrowded, and the public health of the inhabitants was, consequently, being more and more endangered. The district had been aptly described as a wilderness of poverty, and the reduction of house room there had resulted from the acquisition of property by this company.

The hon. Gentleman is now entering on the general question of the housing of the working classes in London, which on this Bill he cannot do.

said that in deference to that ruling he would not pursue the argument he was endeavouring to elaborate. It was obvious, however, that if the land was allowed to remain vacant there would be overcrowding in the neighbourhood. The powers which had been conferred on the company in the immediate past had not been exercised properly or with a due regard to the real intention of Parliament.

said he was rather surprised that the extreme strength of the language used against the Bill had not been accompanied by an equal strength of argument. He was afraid they had become accustomed in this House to denunciations of these two railway companies. He was not in any way connected with the railways, but he thought the House ought to pause before taking the extreme step of rejecting the Bill, which carried out the understanding arrived at when the amalgamation was sanctioned two years ago. One of the principal conditions was that the access to London should be improved, so that Kent especially should have the facilities for traffic which it deserved. The widening proposed had nothing to do with Ludgate Hill Station, but it was an essential feature of any improvement in the line. The supporters of the Bill pleaded for it because they believed these two companies could never have a chance of improving themselves unless they were given the powers which were asked for in the Bill. It was on that ground alone that he would ask the House to send the Bill in the usual way to a Committee upstairs for consideration. He did not think this was the time to consider the condition of the stock of the Chatham Company, upon which many Members, perhaps, would have something to say. They had been spending a large amount of money in trying to bring up the arrears of very inefficient management in the past. The question of the housing of the working classes had been raised, and he thought he ought, in fairness to the House, to state how that was affected by the Bill. Although the model clause had been put into the Bill the company need not have put it in, because the powers sought in the Bill only affected six houses, making eleven tenements; therefore they had not the limit of twenty required for the clause. That was the sole interference contemplated in consequence of the arrangements that came under this Bill. Delay had been caused in carrying out part of the work owing entirely, he believed, to protracted negotiations with the County Council in connection with the southern approach to London Bridge. These negotiations were now concluded and the plans had been submitted to the Home Secretary. There was no reason why that statement should not go forth. The provisions of the Bill were of vast importance to the great mass of the public who used these lines, and on that ground he with confidence asked the House to pass the Second Reading of the Bill.

said that two years ago he had the pleasure of opposing the amalgamation of the South Eastern and the Chatham and Dover Railways. On that occasion the opponents of the scheme were beaten. Mr. Cosmo Bonsor told them that everything would be for the best in the best of all possible worlds if the amalgamation took place. Since that time things had not changed. The Chatham and Dover was as bad as it was before the amalgamation, and the South Eastern did not appear to have made it any better. The amalgamation of these undesirables seemed to have produced the worst rail- way in the United Kingdom. It had been stated that the object of the Bill two years ago was to improve the London termini. What attempt had been made to do that? Absolutely none at all. Everyone who knew Kent would admit that the way in which these two railways had treated the county was a disgrace to the companies and damaging to the interests of agriculture. The hon. Member for the Ashford Division had spoken about the inefficient management in the past, but in this Bill there was no evidence that the management was going to be rectified. It was a very difficult and, from many points of view, a dangerous thing to throw out a railway Bill. Personally he did not think a railway Bill or a private Bill should be thrown out unless serious reasons were advanced and great causes were stated. The slowness of locomotion, the inconvenience of our railway stations, and the difficulty of housing the poor were serious problems with which the railway companies generally had not grappled as they ought to have done.

The hon. Member is aware that he cannot enter now into these general questions, which are common to all the railways of London.

continuing, said that the South Eastern and Chatham Company had taken no special steps to deal with this problem, but nevertheless they now came to Parliament to seek power to divert the money which they got by previous Bills for the purpose to carry out other enterprises. It was because there was no evidence that the companies were likely to improve their stations that the City Corporation interfered. The Corporation of the City was not in the habit of worrying capital. It had hitherto been a friend of these particular companies, and had given them special facilities, but now the Corporation had taken up a different attitude. It saw that the Ludgate Hill Station was very dark and dangerous, and contended that the money which ought to be spent upon its improvement should not be devoted to other uses. Now, the City Corporation was the statutory authority and guardian of the public welfare in this respect; but the London County Council, although it had no locus standi, joined with the City Corporation in this matter. It would interest the hon. Member who last spoke to know that no less than thirty local authorities outside of London, and the Mayors of Canterbury, Hastings, Maidstone, and Tunbridge Wells, had approached the companies and asked them to carry out the obligations of their previous Bills, to improve their traffic, reduce fares, and grant further facilities to the trade and commerce of the county of Kent, but without result. When he found the City Corporation and the mayors of those towns and cities making a recommendation in favour of pulling the companies up to a proper appreciation of their responsibilities, he could not help believing that there was a strong case made out for action against the companies. Was it fair, he asked, that Ludgate Hill Station should be left as it was? It was the original terminus of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway, and it ought to have at least £100,000 spent on it. The company had power to spend that sum, but if the present Bill were passed the money would be devoted to other purposes. The station as it now was was frequently overcrowded, dirty, and dangerous. So overcrowded was it that the usual waiting-rooms and lavatories could not be placed upon the platforms, while the platforms themselves were so narrow that people frequently ran the risk of being forced upon the line by the crowds going up or down. It was true that the Chatham Company said the public had no necessity to go to Ludgate Hill Station. The directors admitted that the station was narrow and inconvenient, but they turned round and said "There is a station at St. Paul's." That was the mischief of the thing. Instead of spending their money on St. Paul's Station the Chatham Company ought to have used the money upon Ludgate Hill Station and enlarged it, thus making one complete and adequate terminus.

Order, order! I do not understand that there is any money for the improvement of Ludgate Hill Station which by this Bill will be taken and diverted to any other purpose. The hon. Member is not in order in discussing the policy of the railway company in building another station.

said he had no intention to evade any ruling that the Speaker might have made, but there was no schedule to the Bill, or any conditions as to how the money was to be spent. But by sections of previous Acts the company was empowered to raise money for the purposes specified, and his contention was that the companies now had in their hands the unexpended money which they were seeking to divert by this Bill to extra-metropolitan purposes which should be spent upon the improvement of their stations.

Order, order! That is the point which I have previously informed the hon. Member is not in order.

admitted that it would be inadvisable and inconvenient to argue the matter any further, but he hoped the House would, at any rate, see that the Chatham Company carried out their promise of two years ago, and would recognise that it was an abuse of private Bill legislation for the company to divert money that they have for other purposes to extra-metropolitan enterprises. The management of the company had, he said, always been bad, and he did not believe that with the present management the company would be enabled to do better in the future than in the past. The company had abused its power and misused its parliamentary privileges, and he saw no hope but compulsory liquidation. An official receiver ought to be appointed, and then the company should be sold to the London and North Western Company or some other capable company, so that the people dependent upon the line might be sure of proper railway facilities. So long as Mr. Cosmo Bonsor and the other directors were at the head of affairs this valuable railway property would be reduced to sterility simply by the incompetence of its directors.

I do not propose to address the House except for a very few minutes, because I think the consideration of this proposal can be reduced to a very narrow compass indeed. However much I may sympathise with the object of my right hon. friend, I cannot approve or admire the method by which he proposes to attain that object. It is undoubted that the condition of Ludgate Hill Station leaves a very great deal to be desired. That has been proved by the reports of the inspectors of the Board of Trade. But that is not the question which the House has to decide. Because there is an improvement which admittedly ought at some time or other to be made—the sooner the better—is the House to throw out a Bill to the actual provisions of which no objection is or can be made? That is the real issue. It appears to me that if it is to become the established practice of this House to throw out this or any other omnibus Bill on the ground that the clauses of the Bill do not contain something which somebody wants in it, such an alteration of the procedure of the House is not only contrary to the public interests, but is gravely detrimental to those interests. This is not merely a question of the locus standi of the City Corporation before the Committee. My hon. friend must know that, even if the company were willing to grant locus standi to the London Corporation, the question of the condition of the Ludgate Hill Station could not be raised before the Committee. It would be entirely out of order. The question is simply the rejection or the passing of the Second Reading of the Bill. The hon. Member for Camberwell stated he was opposed to any extension of powers to the company, and the hon. Member for Hoxton very strongly complained of the general inefficiency of the company concerned. But these omnibus Bills are not merely for the benefit and convenience of the companies promoting them. They are for the convenience and advantage of the public. They are almost invariably to increase accommodation and promote efficiency, and if the House of Commons is to throw them out simply on account of reasons such as have been adduced this afternoon, it is not the railway companies so much as the public that will suffer. In regard to the question of the housing of the working classes, I may say on behalf of His Majesty's Government that we do not concur in the view that the various railway companies have not properly fulfilled their obligations in this respect. But, however that may be, I think the House of Commons must look not upon a point of detail, but upon the general principle. The House has already thrown out one omnibus Bill on a similar ground, and if this is also to be thrown out it will be set up as a precedent, and whenever a particular complaint is set up against a railway company it will be considered legitimate to throw out any proposal which they may make, irrespective of its importance. Nothing could be more objectionable. The companies would not then come to Parliament. They would remain inefficient and imperfect, and when complaint was made they would say, "It is not our fault, but the fault of the House of Commons." If we establish this practice—that an omnibus Bill can be thrown out on a question not germane to the Bill itself—it will be the greatest discouragement possible to any company to bring forward proposals to improve the working of their line. It is on this ground, and not on a question of detail, that I earnestly hope the House will agree to the Second Reading of the Bill.

observed that the Bill was exactly similar to the Bill thrown out by the House a short time ago, and for precisely the same reason. This company had failed in its responsibilities to Parliament and the public. As the hon. Member for the City had remarked, the company by the Bill was coming into conflict with the local authorities. The local authorities by the Bill of 1891 were responsible for the housing of the working classes, but as regarded this company they were absolutely helpless to interfere. Ten thousand people, taking the metropolis as a whole, had been dishoused by the various railway companies. If any large landlord, either in the metropolis or in the provinces, had attempted to dishouse such a large number of people Parliament would have interfered and prevented the project being carried out.

The hon. Member is now discussing the general question of the housing of the working classes. I have several times ruled that that is out of order.

said he only wished to point out that the company had avoided its responsibilities in this respect. In his own district several families had been dishoused, though he did not mean to suggest that this very railway company was to blame.

Order, order! The hon. Member is again discussing a matter which I have ruled out of order.

, concluding, said the President of the Board of Trade had pointed out that if the House were to reject every omnibus Bill it would inconvenience the public, but he would remind hon. Members, on the contrary, that this was the only means whereby the House could protect the public. This was a matter of supreme moment, and he contended that the railway company should be forced to act up to their responsibilities, and he had great pleasure, therefore, in opposing the Bill.

only intervened to point out the absurdity of the argument of hon. Members opposite when they contended that they were acting in the interests of the working classes. Under this Bill the railway company was trying to do its best to widen the lines and increase the number of trains and their speed. That was in the interests of the working men, who would thereby have cheap trains and rapid transit, and it was nonsense to oppose it. Everyone knew that the great thing that was wanted nowadays was wider railway lines and more trains. If the Bill were sent to a Committee upstairs, and it was thought advisable, new clauses could be introduced. He only hoped that the Bill would be passed, and by a large majority.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state when he proposes to lay on the Table of the House Lord Roberts's reports on the burning of the villages of Bothaville, Ventersburg, Dylstroom, and Wilport.

The information is contained in the Return of buildings burnt in South Africa recently presented to Parliament. I have no further information.

The Return does not give the information in the case of two villages named in the question Will the right hon. Gentleman ask for the information, which was promised some months ago?

We have asked for it, and it is in the Return.

But not with regard to these two villages.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can say when he proposes to lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Correspondence between Lord Roberta and General Botha as to farm burning.

The correspondence is in type, and will be shortly issued.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has now received any answer to his telegram to Lord Kitchener with regard to the possibility of setting free and conveying home the medical officers who volunteered for service in South Africa, many of whom have been out from home much more than a year, exposed to heavy work and risk from contagion and otherwise.

Lord Kitchener has not yet been able to release civil medical officers apart from those whose engagements have terminated. If circumstances admit of it, all possible consideration will be shown.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the number approximately of cattle at present in the Government stock farms in South Africa, the number, and locality of such stock farms.

In response to a telegram Lord Kitchener informs me that with the exception of one Government stock farm at Stellenbosch, our stock farms are temporarily hired for grazing horses and cattle, and continually change. No statistics can be given.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the reason why the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into War Office Organisation, signed on 9th May, did not reach members until 7th June.

Some time was necessarily occupied in printing and indexing the evidence of this Committee, but no delay took place in publication. I would, in addition, remind the hon. Member that the Committee was a Departmental Committee appointed by myself, and I should in any case have required a reasonable time to consider the Report before publication.

Is it not the fact that the members of the Committee expedited the Report in order that hon. Gentlemen might have it before the discussion of the right hon. Gentleman's resolution?

It only reached me two days before the discussion of my resolution. It was impossible for me to allow it to be published until I had considered it.

was proceeding to put another question when—

said he must seek another opportunity of arguing the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that regiments of Yeomanry keep twenty rounds per man of small arms ammunition in reserve at their squadron headquarters for use on mobilisation if called out in aid of the civil power; and whether after the outbreak of the war in South Africa the War Office ordered any of these reserves of ammunition to be returned to Government store; if so, whether the date of this order for the return of the reserve ammunition of the Volunteer forces was before or after the date on which the total reserve of small arms ammunition, in the country stood at 3,300 rounds.

Twenty rounds per man is allowed to Yeomanry regiments as a reserve. This reserve was called in after the outbreak of war and before the date alluded to.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, as many of the Imperial Yeomanry now returning from active service in South Africa are not members of any Yeomanry force at home, can he state what arrangements are being made to induce these men to join regiments of. Yeomanry, so that their future services, may not be lost to the country.

The recruiting for the Imperial Yeomanry rests with the various commanding officers, who may be confidently relied upon to make every effort to secure those men who have seen service in South Africa. In many cases the measures necessary have already been taken.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Report called for as to the number of horses obtained in South Africa has yet been received.

This Report has not yet been received from South Africa.

May I ask whether, seeing that this Report was called for four months ago, the noble Lord will hurry the officials up.

Everything possible is done to hurry them up, but the collection of Returns in South Africa is a more difficult task than at home.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will grant a Return showing the number of cases of soldiers committed whilst serving in South Africa to terms of imprisonment since the opening of the war, the Return to show in each case the rank of the offender, his offence, the nature of the court before which he was tried, the penalty inflicted, how far, if at all, the sentence was subsequently commuted, and whether the prisoner was confined in a civil or a military prison.

I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar question put on the 14th March† by the hon. Member for North Louth.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any decision has now been come to as to the future of the Guernsey Militia.

The proposals of the States for the re-organisation of the Guernsey Militia have been approved, and the necessary alterations in the regulations will be carried out in due course.

Will anything be published in regard to this matter?

I had not thought of doing so, but I will consider it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the

† See Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. xc, page 1546.

Colonies whether he has yet received the Report of Sir David Barbour on the financial condition of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State.

The Report has been laid.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is yet in a position to furnish the House with particulars as to the constitution of the Legislative Councils of the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, the powers to be conferred and the restrictions to be imposed upon these bodies, and the official who is to preside over each; if he is not yet in a position to make a statement on the subject will the Government, before issue of the Royal Letters Patent, inform the House upon these particulars and afford opportunities for discussion thereon, and will he give approximately the date fixed for Lord Milner's return to South Africa and for the issue of the Royal Letters Patent relating to the constitution of the Colonies.

The House is already in possession of the general outline given by me in debate on 7th December, ^* and I have explained to the hon. Member in answer to a question on 6th May† that it would not be in accordance with precedent to submit the instruments themselves to Parliament before they are issued. Lord Milner will probably return in August. I am unable at present to fix a date for the issue of the Letters Patent.

Is it according to the right hon. Gentleman's view of the Constitution that these questions should be excluded from Parliament, or is it only his policy which is unfitted for Parliamentary discussion?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he

^*See Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxviii., page 259.

† See Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. xciii., page 734.

can state when Vice-Admiral Rice's Committee upon victualling in His Majesty's Navy presented its Report; whether this Report will be published; whether any action has been taken in consequence of its recommendations; and, if not, why no steps have been taken.

At the same time may I ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can now state the recommendations of the Departmental Committee appointed last year to inquire into the victualling of the Navy, and what reforms it is proposed to introduce; also whether it is proposed to present the Report, with evidence taken, to the House.

In reply to the question of the hon. Member for South Wolverhampton, and also to that of my hon. friend the Member for Devonport, I beg to say that the Report of Vice-Admiral Rice's Committee will be presented to Parliament at an early date. The question as to whether the evidence will be presented with the Report can only be decided when the Board of Admiralty have had sufficient time to examine it. No decision has yet been arrived at with regard to any action to be taken in pursuance of the recommendations made in the Report. There has not yet been sufficient time to deal with a matter of so much complexity and importance as the whole scheme of the victualling of the Navy.

May I ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can give the House any information as to the boiler explosion on board the ship "Daring" at Portsmouth.

The following telegram, dated to-day, has been received—

"Regret to report, owing to bursting of a tube in boiler of 'Daring,' tender to 'Excellent,' last evening, the following man was killed—Alfred E. Reed, stoker, O.N. 278027, and following injured, severely burnt: Fred Paffet, chief stoker; H. Elliott, stoker; Thos. O. Parks, stoker; George Gammon, stoker. All doing well except Parks. Court of inquiry sits this morning."

Was the full pressure on the boilers at the time the explosion occurred?

Before receiving the Report of the court of inquiry I cannot possibly answer that question.

Was this a water-tube boiler?

Yes.

I do not know with what motive that question is asked. My hon. friend knows as well as anyone in the House that all the destroyers have water-tube boilers. This was a Thorneycroft boiler of a peculiarly safe type. I ask leave to answer the question, because evidently there was a motive in asking it.

Not at all

It was at Thorneycroft type of boiler, which is in use in hundreds of vessels, and, as my hon. friend knows, all destroyers are fitted with water-tube boilers, and there is no possible alternative boiler at, present before us.

I desire, with the permission of the House, absolutely to repudiate any motive save that of obtaining the information I asked for.

Can the Secretary to the Admiralty give the House any information as to the fire on the "Euryalus"?

A telegram has been received at the Admiralty to the following effect—

"The Ramsden basin jetty against which 'Euryalus' is berthed took fire about 10 a.m. to-day. Subsequently attacked ship, involving; sheathing from 19 ft. 6 in. water-marks aft, and 17 ft. forward, and plating to top height above this, extending from the after casemates, on starboard side to stem; sheathing very much damaged and plating buckled. Eire under control at present and no fire on board ship. Further report will follow."

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Report of the Indian Famine Commission was signed at Naini Tal on 8th May; and, if so, whether he will undertake to present it to Parliament without delay.