To ask the Postmaster General whether he will give the number of vacant postmasterships in Ireland that have been filled by officials drawn from England and Scotland during the past three years, the offices to which the appointments were made, and the emoluments attached to them; and whether he will also give the number of vacant postmasterships in England and Scotland that have been filled by officials drawn from Ireland during the same period, the names of the offices to which they have been appointed, and the emoluments attached to them. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Twelve postmasterships in Ireland (including one twice vacant) have been filled by officials drawn from England and Scotland during the past three years. The names of the offices and the salaries attached to them are as follows:—Abbeyleix,£115;Kilmallock (filled twice in the three years),£140; Londonderry,£440;Youghal,£125;Kilrush,£110;Buttevant,£100;Roscrea, £180;Lisburn,£200;Kingstown,£240; Newbridge,£130;Dundalk,£280; Limerick,£480. One postmastership in England has been filled by an officer drawn from Ireland during the same period, viz., Towcester, salary £150. No officer from Ireland was appointed to a postmastership in Scotland during the period named.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that German lottery circulars are being distributed through the post in unclosed wrappers and envelopes; and if he can say what steps are being taken to prevent this distribution. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) German lottery circulars in open covers have lately been sent to this country from the Continent in considerable numbers, and all those which have been observed have been stopped. Foreign postal administrations have already been informed that such circulars are prohibited by law in this country. It is, of course, not possible to examine every open cover passing through the post, but if any lottery circulars in open covers have been delivered it is only because they have escaped detection.

To ask the Postmaster-General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he will give the purport of the communication to the Pretoria Chamber of Commerce regarding the location of Indian traders. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, for the Secretary of State for the Colonies.) No such communication as the hon. Member refers to has been received at the Colonial Office.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he would draw the attention of the Historical manuscripts Commission to the manuscripts at the residence and in the charge of the Bishop of Galway; and if he would endeavour to have a selection of these writings printed. (Answered by Mr. Hayes Fisher.) The Historical Manuscripts Commissioners have already been in communication with the Galway Archæologiacal Historical Society on the subject of the manuscripts referred to, and it is hoped that in due course a Report will be made upon them.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that landing officers and watchers in the Customs Department receive extra pay for Sunday duty while waterguard officers do not, he will consider the desirability of putting waterguard officers in this respect on the same footing as landing officers, watchers, and other classes of civil servants; and, considering the number of commissioned boatmen who under the present regulations reach the rank of preventive officer, can he see his way to throw open to those of approved service and qualification a certain number of the vacancies in the rank of assistant landing officer. (Answered by Mr. Hayes Fisher.) The character of the various duties of the waterguard renders it imperative to have officers in attendance on the arrival and departure of vessels at uncertain periods, and it is therefore a condition of the waterguard service that such duties have to be performed at any hour of the day or night or on any day, including Sunday. Candidates for appointment as boatmen are informed in the printed particulars issued that their hours of employment extend over Sundays whenever required, and that the extent of such Sunday employment varies according to local conditions. The Board of Customs, however, endeavour to arrange that the officers should have a free Sunday as frequently as possible. No overtime is allowed, and the men join the Department on that understanding. Boatmen enter the Department under conditions of age and examination which preclude them from qualifying for the rank of assistant.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the practice of hunting tame stags by hounds at Maidenhead and Dorking; and whether, having regard to the manner in which this hunting is conducted, he will take steps for its prevention. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) I have caused inquiries to be made as to the two cases of which the hon. Member sent me information, and I do not find any evidence of any illegal act. There may be differences of opinion with regard to this class of hunting; but to prohibit it entirely would require legislation which I am not prepared to undertake.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that the county gaol at Mullingar has been closed for general prison purposes for more than twelve months, he will direct the General Prisons Board to hand over these premises to the County Council of Westmeath for the purposes of technical instruction or for the establishment of an inebriates' home or other local purposes, subject to such reservations to the General Prisons Board as were required in the case of the county gaol at Trim on its being handed over to the Boards of Guardians of the County Meath for the purposes of an industrial school. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The prison at Mullingar was closed as a prison on the 31st December, 1901. It is now used as a place of detention for prisoners awaiting trial, and so long as it continues to be so used, the property in and control over the buildings will remain vested in the General Prisons Board. I regret I cannot at present hold out any hope that the buildings, or any portion of them, will be surrendered to the local authorities.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to improve the position of paid pensioner recruiters as regards pay or lodging and ration allowances; whether he can see his way to giving them a smarter dress to help in attracting recruits; and whether, considering the service done by them in procuring recruits during the late war, some medal or decoration can be given them, and their services as recruiters allowed to reckon towards an increase of pension. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The emoluments of pensioner recruiters have been recently increased in several respects, viz., a nightly allowance of 2s. when absent for short periods on duty, free medical attendance at out stations, travelling expenses on appointment, including those of their families, and free conveyance for a certain quantity of baggage. Lighter clothing to wear in the summer months has been granted to them. It is not proposed to grant any medal or decoration for their services during the war; they have gained material advantages by the increased recruiting. Their service does not count towards increased pension as it is not military service.

To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what progress has been made in supplying transport to Volunteer regiments. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Under existing arrangements each Volunteer corps is requested in time of peace to make arrangements for the supply of transport in the event of mobilisation for Home defence, and I am informed that in the large majority of cases the arrangements have been completed.

To ask the Secretary of State for War will he state the number of the Volunteer recruits during each of the twelve months ending 30th September last, and of the Volunteers resigning or struck off the rolls during the same periods, with the total numbers.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will say what decision has been arrived at on the application from the labourers employed in the Ordnance Department, Dublin, for an increase in their wages, so as to bring it up to the standard paid to labourers in that district; and whether, seeing that a Departmental Order lays it down that labourers and others are to receive the market rate of pay of the district, and in view of the nature of their work, he will take such steps as will bring their wages up to the standard. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) From the information at the disposal of the War Department it does not appear that the labourers in question are underpaid, and accordingly no increase is contemplated.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Francis Frost, who enlisted in the Royal Garrison Artillery on the 10th November 1902, against his parents' wishes, he being under eighteen years of age, and to the fact that his parents' application that he should return home has been refused; and whether, in view of this man's parents' state of health and circumstances, he can see his way to give orders for his discharge at once. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick) The hon. Member has been already informed that the Returns giving these details are not rendered monthly but quarterly; the figures for each quarter of the twelve months ending 30th September are as follows— (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) This matter rests entirely with the General Officer Commanding the District, to whom I would suggest that any communications on the subject should be addressed.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state when the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Sussex Regiment is due to arrive from India; and if, after service in a hot climate, it is to be quartered at Shorncliffe, and in buildings of galvanized iron; and if he will consider the possibility of quartering regiments returning from service in hot countries in barracks and at stations not involving such changes of temperature, and consequent discomfort to all ranks. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The 2nd Battalion Royal Sussex Regiment is due to arrive in England tomorrow. It is to be quartered at Shorncliffe as affording the nearest available accommodation to its territorial district. The allotment of the particular barrack is in the hands of the local General Officer Commanding. There are three infantry barracks at Shorncliffe, two of brick, and one of very good hutments of galvanised iron lined with wood.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that the States (Channel Islands) have declined to accede to the War Office request to provide 1,800 Militiamen, instead of 1,000 as hitherto, and declined to bind themselves to subject the Militia to be under canvas for the time stipulated by the War Office, he will state what steps he proposes to take. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) No official representation of the nature alluded to has reached the War Office, and I am therefore not prepared to make any statement on the subject.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, if, having regard to the answer given by his predecessor to the hon. Member for North-West Sussex, on 2nd March 1899, any provision has been made, or is being made, to meet the pressure of work in the offices of the surveyors of taxes caused by the increased rate of income tax and consequent increase in claims for exemption and abatement; and whether any extra clerical assistance has yet been given, or is contemplated, to meet the further pressure caused by the forthcoming quinquennial revaluation under Schedules A and B. (Answered by Mr. Hayes Fisher.) The answer to both parts of the Question is in the affirmative. Since March, 1899, the established staff has been increased by fourteen surveyors and twenty-five assistant surveyors, and a further increase has been sanctioned as from the 1st April, 1903, of thirteen surveyors. The number of clerks has been increased by eighty-one since 1899, and a further increase of nineteen has been sanctioned from the 1st April, 1903. The work of the quinquennial assessment will next year be executed on a new system, which will spread the work over a longer period. Some of the work has, in fact, already been done. An addition of about £9,000 has been sanctioned to the outlay for extra clerical assistance hitherto expended at this period.

To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affars if he will grant a Return showing the manner in which trade and commerce is administered in the principal countries of the world, and th powers conferred on the Minister of Commerce by those countries which possess such a Minister. (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) I would refer my hon. friend to the Paper laid in 1889, entitled Reports on the Constitution and Functions of Ministries of Commerce or analogous branches of Foreign Administrations. If this is not sufficient, perhaps he will put a further Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of specials recruited since 1st January, 1902.

Up to 29th November 7,891 specials have been recruited.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many of the 1902 Imperial Yeomanry are still in South Africa; and if he can say on what date these regiments will be finally disbanded.

There are at present about 1,500 Imperial Yeomen in South Africa. They will be discharged on completing a year's service from date of enlistment, unless they elect to take their discharges earlier, which they are absolutely free to do.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Mounted Infantry Companies are to be retained as such, or to be returned to their regiments.

A considerable number of Mounted Infantry Companies are still employed in South Africa. Mounted Infantry are being trained at home by passing as many Infantry men as possible through the training schools, returning them to their units when trained.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will explain why the 1st Battalion of the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers has been detained in Africa, notwithstanding their services and losses and the fact that the regiment served during the whole campaign in South Africa, seeing that the Brigade of Guards has been brought home.

Will the hon. Member kindly refer to my reply to a similar question put by the hon. Member for Midlothian on the 27th ultimo?†

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will explain why two officers from English regiments were appointed to the command of the 1st and 2nd Battalions of the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers over the heads of the officers of the regiment who had served throughout the whole of the South African campaign, and several of whom were mentioned in despatches and decorated with the Distinguished Service Medal.

These two officers were appointed during the campaign to fill the places of an officer who had been killed in action and an officer who had been appointed to the staff at the time when the Senior Major was about to retire, the next senior had just been killed in action, and the two next had not qualified for promotion.

Was it not the case that the Irish officers were killed, and the English officers got the rewards? (No answer was returned.)

I beg to ask the under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the claims against the Venezuelan Government, which have necessitated the despatch of warships and have brought about joint action on the part of the British and German Governments, are private traders' claims; and whether there is any precedent for the course taken in order to secure the payment of debts due to private individuals.

The nature of the British claims on Venezuela, which have necessitated resort to coercive measures, will be fully disclosed in the Papers on the subject, which will be laid before Parliament. The claims in question include, amongst other matters demands for compensation on account of unjustifiable interference with British trading vessels, for imprisonment and ill-treatment of British subjects, and seizure and destraction of British property, and for damage to railway lines, rolling stock, etc., the property of British companies. I believe that there is ample precedent for the enforcement, by active measures, of claims analogous to those which I have mentioned.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information, in addition to that in the newspapers, in regard to the position of things in Venezuela.

I do not know that I have very much to add. The House is aware that it became necessary for His Majesty's Government and the German Government to present an Ultimatum to the Government of Venezuela, and some details of the claims contained in that Ultimatum I have already given. Thereupon our Minister was ordered to remain twenty-four hours at Caracas, and failing a reply from the Venezuelan Government to go down to La Guaira and wait on board one of His Majesty's ships for twenty-four hours more. This he did. Both those periods were exhausted at 7 o'clock last night; and unless in the meantime some concession has been received from the Government of Venezuela, His Majesty's ships will undertake forcible action. We have not yet received any information that that forcible action had been carried into effect. As soon as we receive it I shall be only too glad to give the information to the House.

Is the statement in the newspapers untrue that we have seized eight ships, and that the Venezuelans have seized 200 British and German subjects?

We have no information certainly as to the latter part of the question. As to the former part, possibly it may be true; but I cannot give any official information at the present moment.

Can the noble Lord say when Papers will be laid?

I cannot absolutely promise a date, but I can promise the House and the right hon. Gentleman that there shall be no unnecessary delay.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that the Moray Firth was some time since closed against British trawlers for the purpose of scientific research, and that a number of British owned trawlers, by their recent transfer to the Norwegian Flag, are enabled to fish in the Moray Firth, and thus evade the law which, as British trawlers, excluded them from the Firth, will he consider the expediency of communicating with the Signatories to the North Sea Convention, with a view to ascertain whether it is practicable to come to some understanding with the respective Governments, so that areas like the Moray Firth which are closed for scientific research, may be closed against trawlers of every nationality.

The hon. Gentleman put an almost similar question to my right hon. friend the Lord Advocate on December 2nd last. I am afraid I have nothing to add to the reply given to him upon that occasion.†

But surely this is a Foreign Office matter?

At any rate, I can add nothing to the answer given by my right hon. friend.

Will not the War Office approach the Signatories?

How long is this state of affairs to continue? The injustice has been going on for some years, and we have been repeatedly promised that it should cease.

I can only say that the answer of my right hon. friend covers the whole question of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Departmental Committee on the Notification of Accidents have yet reported to him; and, if so, whether they have made any recommendation which will have the effect of distinguishing in the statistics of mining accidents between those occurring to male persons under sixteen and under twenty or twenty-one years of age.

I have just received the Report of this Committee and will lay it on the Table with a view to its issue to Members as soon as possible. The suggestion of the right hon. Baronet, which was referred by me to the Committee, is dealt with in the Report.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Austrian raw sugar manufacturers have provisionally decided to continue the arrangement for limiting the amount of sugar placed on the home market; and whether His Majesty's Government propose to take steps for the adoption of countervailing measures against Austrian sugar.

The Austro-Hungarian Sugar Cartel is reported to have been removed for twelve months from the beginning of November or until the coming into force of the Sugar Convention, which is fixed for September 1st. 1903. It is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to propose to Parliament measures for countervailing any bounty that may; arise from the action of this Cartel between now and the end of August next.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a special train which left Dingwall shortly after noon on Saturday, the 29th November, was derailed between Achnasheen and Garve owing to the breaking of one of the axles of the tender; and will he state whether the accident will be made a subject of a Board of Trade inquiry?

I have received a report of this accident, from which it appears that an axle of the tender broke, but the train did not leave the rails. An inquiry by an officer of the Board of Trade hardly appears to be necessary.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland will arrange for the next Report of the Congested Districts Board to show detailed accounts of the amount expended by the Board in providing new holdings since its establishment.

The form of accounts prescribed by the Treasury does not admit of this being readily done without a separate analysis of the accounts, but the Secretary for Scotland will consider what can be done to give as nearly as possible the information desired.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether crofters and others interested in bee-keeping in the congested area have, through the agency of the Congested Districts Board, the advantage of any instruction as to the best methods to be adopted; and, if not, will the Congested Districts Board consider the expediency of adopting the practice in force in Ireland.

The Congested Districts Board considered the expediency of the course indicated in the Question of the hon. Member, but such inquiries on the subject as they were able to make did not reveal much encouragement and the proposal was abandoned. But wherever any group of people in a district (or even an energetic man) show an interest in bee-keeping the Congested Districts Board supplies them with all the information they want by books, letters, etc. Instructions are sent out with every hive and the Congested Districts Board are satisfied that these are so clear that little more is needed as to method. A local man with a little enthusiasm is of much more use in a district than any lecturer, and such men the Congested Districts Board is gradually finding out.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that H.M.S. "Jackal" is to be employed for purposes of scientific investigation under the direction of the International Research Committee, will he state what vessel will be detailed for the sea police duties on which the "Jackal" has hitherto been engaged?

:The cruiser "Minna" has been ordered to replace H.M.S. "Jackal" in the Moray Firth.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that in the Oxford Central Post Office certain telegraph clerks, who, at the time of their appointment prior to 1896 were asked to undertake telegraph duties only, are now required to perform postal counter duties also; whether, seeing that in the Oxford Post Office the telegraph and postal departments were separate before 1896, he will take steps to remove this alleged grievance without transferring the clerks in question to other districts.

I went carefully into this question in the month of September last. I then satisfied myself that the arrangements in force at the Oxford Office were necessary for the efficient performance of the work of that office, and that the officers concerned were not unfairly treated. I accordingly caused them to be informed that I was unable to relieve them of the postal counter duties to which they referred in their memorial to me; and that I expected them, in common with all other officers of the Department, to loyally perform the work required of them. I have no doubt that the officers concerned will loyally accept my decision; and it is therefore unnecessary for me to consider what action it might be my duty to take under circumstances which I anticipate will never arise.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the fact that certain telegraph sorters in the Central Office, London, are compelled to perform duty in the circulation office from noon to eight p.m. on Fridays, and four a.m. to noon on Saturdays; and whether, seeing that the Tweedmouth Committee recommended that officers should enjoy nine clear unbroken hours at home, exclusive of a reasonable time for the journey from the office to home and back between each duty, he will take steps to alter the duties of these men in accordance with this recommendation.

The shortness of the interval between the two attendances in question is no doubt inconvenient; but I believe it is not generally unpopular, as it admits of the men being free after noon on Saturday. It has been rendered necessary by the exceptional pressure of work on Saturday morning, and I see no other means by which that pressure can be met. The arrangement does not in my opinion conflict with the recommendation of the Tweedmouth Committee.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that in America the using for an improper purpose of the United States mail service is an offence punishable by heavy legal penalties; and whether he will consider the advisability of seeking similar powers to protect the postal service of the United Kingdom.

I am aware that there are many provisions in the Postal Laws of the United States of America for the punishment of offences in relation to the improper use of the post. There are similar, though not identical, provisions in the laws of this country, and I am not prepared to make any proposal for further legislation on the subject at present.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether it would be competent for a local education authority under the Education Bill to make it a condition precedent to the aiding of a non-provided school that any one or more members of the teaching staff should be dismissed, or that their office or offices should be abolished; and, if so, whether such teacher or teachers would be eligible for the compensation to existing officers provided for under Clause 20 of the Second Schedule to the Education Bill.

It is a condition of the maintenance of a non-provided school by the local education authority that the managers should carry out the directions of that authority in respect, among other things, to the number and educational qualifications of the teachers and for the dismissal of any teacher on educational grounds. But the local education authority cannot require managers to break existing contracts, and the teachers in such schools would in any case be entitled to the notice of dismissal which is a term in their contracts of employment. So long as the terms of the contract are observed no case for compensation would arise.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, if, immediately after the coming into operation of the Education Bill, a local education authority issued an order under Clause 7 (i) (a), to the managers of a non-provided school calling for the dismissal of a teacher or for the abolition of that teacher's office, that teacher would be eligible for the compensation to existing officers provided for under Clause 30 of the Second Schedule to the Bill.

The teacher would be entitled to the notice of dismissal provided for in his contract. There is no question of the abolition of an office; the teaching staff of a school must vary from time to time in correspondence with the requirements of the school. If the terms of the contract are observed no case for compensation would arise.

Am I to understand that if the position of the voluntary school teacher is worsened by the operation of the Bill, he will not be eligible for the compensation provided under Clause 20?

There is no question of the voluntary school teacher involved. If he is under a contract with his employer, like the board school teacher, the conditions of the contract will be observed.

Then he will not be eligible for compensation?

If his contract is observed there is no case for compensation.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, if, immediately after the coming into operation of the Education Bill, a local education authority abolished the office of or ordered the dismissal of a teacher in a provided school, such teacher would be eligible for the compensation to existing officers provided for under Clause 20 of the Second Schedule to the Bill.

What I have said as to the teachers of a non-provided school applies equally to the teachers of a provided school.

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman does not quite understand the purport of my question. I am taking a case in which the position of a School Board teacher is detrimentally interfered with or worsened by the operation of the Act. Will he be eligible for the compensation provided by Clause 20 of the Act?

If the contract with the School Board teacher is observed, there is no case for compensation I cannot understand that the position of any teacher will be worsened by the operation of the Bill, the object of which is to leave them exactly in the position in which it finds them. It does not interfere with their contracts.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, in the case of a school rented by or lent to a School Board by denominational trustees, if, after the' passage of the Education Bill, that school be re-transferred to the said trustees and become thereafter a denominational school, and any teacher in the school, as a result of the re-transfer, be dismissed by the managers because of inability or disinclination to give denominational religious teaching, such teacher would be eligible for the compensation to existing officers provided for under Clause 20 of the Second Schedule to the Education Bill.

This question does not refer to any conditions created by the Bill. Such a re-transference could only take place under the provisions of Clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill. The managers of the denominational school would not be bound to take over the staff of teachers employed by the local education authority, and the local education authority would have to take care that the teachers whom it employed received the stipulated notice of the termination of their engagement, or compensation if the terms of the contract were not fulfilled.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he can state what decision has been arrived at with regard to the application made to him by a deputation of Belfast merchants to withhold the valuation lists for Belfast until the Select Committee on Irish Valuation has issued its final report.

Beyond completing his examination of the Appeal cases, the Commissioner of Valuation does not propose to take further action until after March next. In April and May he hopes to arrange for interviews with leading mercantile and other public bodies, as well as with individuals whose valuations are seriously affected by the re-valuation. The appeal lists will probably be issued in June or July, so that those who wish may appear before the Recorder in October, when the appellants would, for the first time, be put to any expense. The Select Committee will doubtless have reported long before that date.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland: (1) whether his attention has been called to the difference in decisions of revising barristers in Belfast in regard to the right of sub-tenants of apartments in dwelling-houses to the householders' franchise; and (2) whether he will consider the advisability of introducing a Bill providing that where a tenant and his landlord reside in different apartments of one dwelling-house, the tenant, for the purposes of the Registration Act, shall be deemed to be a lodger, and the landlord an inhabitant householder.

The question whether a person who occupies a portion of a house for which the tenant is rated, and the remaining portion of which the tenant occupies himself as a lodger or a sub-tenant is, in a great degree, a question of fact. The question has recently been considered in the Court of Appeal on an appeal taken from the decision of one of the revising barristers in Belfast. This decision has not yet been reported, and until there is an opportunity of considering it in connection with the earlier authorities in Irish and English Courts, it would be premature to answer the question.

How does it affect the lodger vote in Rathmines?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the technical instruction grants, which it has been decided to continue up to a limit of £7,000 per annum, will be regarded as distinct from the amount that will accrue to Ireland as an equivalent to the increased grants to England and Wales under the Education Bill.

The decision to continue these grants up to a limit of £7,000 does not dispose of the Question put to me. The decision is definite, but not final, and may serve as a point of departure when we come to consider the question of the equivalent grant in all its bearings.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many of the 184 officials of the United Irish League, who are in possession of evicted farms and eleven months grazing lands, have been prosecuted under The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, during the past eighteen months for unlawful assembly, conspiracy, boycotting, and intimidation; and what has been the result of these prosecutions.

No such proceedings, so far as I have been able to discover, were instituted against any of these persons.

Why was there no prosecution? Was it because they are impostors, like their leaders? [No answer was returned.]

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state when it is proposed to reduce the rate of interest on deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank; and what will be the amount of the yearly reduction of interest in the case of the depositors residing in Ireland, and whose deposits are lodged in Irish Post Office Savings Banks.

I am not at present in a position to make any definite statement, but I hope to be able to introduce a Bill upon this subject early next year. I may, however, say that if the recommendation of the Select Committee in favour of a reduction of interest of one-eighth per cent. Per annum is carried out, the reduction in respect of the amount to the credit of depositors on accounts opened at Irish post offices would be about £10,500.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the result of official soundings made in Blacksod Bay, County Mayo, with a view to having it made a Transatlantic port in connection with the new fast mail service between these countries and Canada; and what further steps does he propose to take in the matter.

I have no knowledge of any official soundings made in Blacksod Bay with a view to having it made a Transatlantic port; I do not propose to take any steps in the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a Resolution adopted by the Leitrim County Council on the 19th ultimo, asking to have a light railway constructed from Arigna to Dromahaire, so as to connect North and South Leitrim, develop the Arigna Coal and Iron Works, the Lough Allen Clay Works, and the Creevelea Iron Mines and Peat Works; and whether he can state what action he proposes to take in regard to this project.

Yes, Sir. But legislation would be necessary to give effect to the Resolution. It is eminently desirable that something should be done in the direction indicated. This project, and others germane to it, are not, however, so far advanced as to call for a public pronouncement on my part.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if, since the abolition of result fees, the time devoted to sewing and to learning the use of the sewing machine has decreased in the country national schools of Ireland; and whether the teachers now receive as much remuneration for teaching sewing as before the abolition of result fees.

Formerly five hours weekly were devoted to needlework. The Commissioners of Manual and Practical Instruction were of opinion that the requirement in this respect was excessive, and the time has accordingly been reduced by the National Board to three hours per week. The consolidated salaries now paid to teachers include a full equivalent for former payments for instruction in needlework.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the amount spent by the Crown in the prosecution of Messrs Studdert in the remount case at the Munster Winter Assizes; how much has been claimed by the defendants as expenses of witnesses for the defence; and how much has been paid to them.

At the request of my right hon. Friend I will reply to this Question. Several of the claims have not yet been paid. The accounts have not been closed, so that it is impossible for me at present to answer the Question fully.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in order to afford an opportunity for putting the House in possession of the facts relating to unemployment and the amount of distress and suffering due thereto, he will endeavour to arrange for at least one sitting of the House being given before the session closes to a consideration of the Motion which stands on the Notice Paper relating to Poverty (Remedial Measures).†

The hon. Gentleman has been good enough to supplement his Question by a private letter, which I received this morning. In this he indicates that, in his view, the workhouses are insufficient to meet the demand, and that the charitable organisations for the relief of distress cannot cope with the increased pressure thrown upon them by what the hon. Member regards as the exceptional distress. No information which I have been able to obtain confirms the view of the hon. Gentleman. I only read his letter this morning, and have not had time to make very full inquiry; but I am convinced that the hon. Gentleman has given a very exaggerated view—quite unintentional, of course—of the present state of affairs. I do not think anything is to be gained by a discussion in this House on the subject. The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that a Select Committee sat six or seven years ago on a like Question, which excited a great deal of attention at the time, and the results of its labours certainly do not indicate that any profitable result would follow for the distressed classes from further debate in this House. MR. KEIR IIARDIE: Is not the reason that the Committee came to no finality to be found in the fact that a General Election interfered with its labours and changed its composition? [No answer was returned.]

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the distress at present prevailing, the Government will now take steps, either legislative, administrative, or by way of inquiry, in order that provision may be made of opportunities for work for the unemployed.

I hope the hon. Gentleman will feel that the reply I have given to the Question of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil deals adequately with the Question he has put on the Paper.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of suggesting to the County Council and the various municipal bodies that they proceed with street improvements and other public works, with a view to providing employment during the remainder of the winter?

I could not, of course, answer a Question of that sort without notice, but I would suggest to my hon. Friend whether that is not a matter which should really be left to the discretion of the local authorities.

Can the Prime Minister now say what the business will be on Friday?

Is it intended to take the Committee on the Militia and Yeomanry Bill after the London Water Bill?

I see that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to move the suspension of the Twelve o'Clock Rule if the London Water Bill is not disposed of by midnight. I hope he will confirm the arrangement, which was certainly understood, that, supposing the Bill is finished before twelve o'clock, no substantial Government business will be taken after it.

When is it, proposed to proceeed with the Irish Local Government Bill?

In answer to the various Questions that have been addressed to me, I have lo say that I shall not propose to take the Militia Bill after the Water Bill today if it is regarded as contentious; but I rather hope that the arrangement made by general consent yesterday will prevent it being treated as contentious; otherwise I shall put it down for tomorrow. The proposed suspension of the Twelve o'Clock Rule only applies to the Water Bill, and will not give the Government a general licence to go on with their business after midnight.

Some of us object to the suspension.

Yes; I am aware that there is a difference of opinion between the hon, gentleman and his friends. As regards tomorrow (Thursday) the first business will be the Report of the Committee on the Uganda Railway, the second Order will be the Osborne Estate Bill, and the third the Militia Bill. But I do not desire absolutely to pledge myself as to the order in which these various Bills will be taken, though certainly the Uganda Railway Bill will be the first. For Friday it may be for the convenience of the House to take a measure which, I believe, meets the wishes of Irish representatives belonging to many sections and interests, and which I am sure it is for the interests of Ireland that Parliament should pass in the course of the present session, the Irish Local Government Bill.

said that he offered no apology for moving the omission of Clause 1, because hon. Members on his side of the House regarded it as the very foundation of the whole Bill, and a false foundation as well, and they were naturally anxious to do their best to exclude it and thus defeat the whole measure. During the debate on the Second Reading it was pointed out that the Government had two models on which they could have based their Bill—the Metropolitan Board of Works and the London County Council. To this day no one could understand why the Government did not prefer the London County Council in lieu of a body which expired in the midst of infamy, after an inquiry held at the instigation not of Radical Members but of Lord Randolph Churchill, which brought to light so many misdeeds, so much corruption, and so much jobbery, that it was literally hounded out of existence and superseded by the London County Council. Hon. Members opposite had tried in vain to put their fingers on any blot on the escutcheon of the London County Council, and from the time that that body was constituted down to the present moment, it had never been proved to be guilty of any of the offences which were so characteristic of the old Metropolitan Board of Works. Its hands were perfectly clean, and not one of its most violent enemies—and he was sorry to say they were numerous, especially in the House—had been able to charge the London County Council with any of the nefarious practices which were so common in connection with the Metropolitan Board of Works. Here they had a body absolutely above suspicion, and on the basis on which it was constituted the Government might well have built up their new Water Authority. But the Minister in charge of the Bill passed it by, pure and efficient as it had proved itself in the many great works it had undertaken, and had preferred to take as his model an old and corrupt body like the Metropolitan Board of Works. Surely that fact in itself was sufficient justification for their opposition to the Bill. There was no precedent, so far as he could gather, for the extraordinary course which the right hon. Gentleman had pursued in outlining his Bill. There had been various Committees and Commissions from time to time which had reported on the London Water question, but not one of them had ever proposed the constitution of a Water Board such as the right hon. Gentleman was seeking to establish. All of them, in fact, suggested a much smaller body, of not more than thirty-five or forty members, whereas the President of the Local Government Board preferred a board of extraordinary magnitude which would prove absolutely unworkable, most inefficient, and most costly. There was another reason which justified them in moving the omission of that Clause, and that was that the Committee which was appointed on the motion of the right hon. Gentleman to inquire into the nature and character of his proposals at first decided in favour of a Board of thirty-five members, and then, owing to some extraordinary pressure which he had never been able to understand, it reconsidered its decision, and finally accepted the right hon. Gentleman's own proposal. Why it thus climbed down he had no knowledge—they had never, in fact, been able to understand what mysterious influence was brought to bear on the Committee. Probably, however, it was not worth while at that stage to try and investigate the nature and character of the influence which undoubtedly was exercised. He was therefore proposing to revert to the proposal of the Committee appointed by the right hon. Gentleman himself. Amendment proposed to the Bill—

"In page 1, line 6, to leave out Clause 1."— (Mr. Cremer.)

said that before he said a word or two in reply to the hon. Gentleman who had moved this Amendment, perhaps the House would allow him to state very briefly, and without any argument for or against, what the course was which the Government proposed to take in regard to the Bill on the Report stage. It was for the convenience of the House that he should do so, and it would facilitate discussion if hon. Members knew what the intentions of the Government were. Various suggestions had been made for the Amendment of the Bill, and he would take them in the order as they stood on the Paper. In the first place, it had been pointed out that if the chairman and vice-chairman were elected from within the Board, it would create vacancies in their respective seats. It had been urged that that was unnecessary, and the Government were prepared to accept that view, and to introduce an Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Poplar, which would give effect to it. He now came to the question of numbers. The House would remember that the Bill, as originally framed, provided that the number of members of the Water Board should be seventy-three. In Committee they took out five numbers from five Metropolitan boroughs, and he promised to consider whether he could not re-arrange some of the outside areas and add their representation to that of London within. He had very carefully considered this matter, and he had been able to find four members from the outside areas which he proposed to add to the representation of the London County Council. This would make the total number of the Water Board at sixty-six, or, if the chairman and vice-chairman were elected outwith the Board, sixty-eight. Another point was whether the Water Board should agree to purchase without arbitration. The Government were unable to assent to that proposition. What they suggested was that purchase by agreement should not be valid unless the purchase arrangement had been submitted to the Court of Arbitration; and they gave full power to the Court of Arbitration to consider each contract when it came before them. As to the New River Clause, that was an "agreed Clause" which had been very carefully prepared by the New River Company, and approved of upstairs by the Joint Select Committee. While admitting that the Clause went too far, and would do more than was either desirable or necessary, he was unwilling to alter it here without realising what the effect of the alteration would be on the New River Company, but he proposed to undertake on behalf of the Government that the necessary alteration would be made in the Clause in another place.

What about the franchise?

said he was advised that no question of the franchise would arise, as the franchise depended on the land; and the franchise would come to an end by the transfer of the land to the Water Board. Another suggestion was made by the hon. Member for Batter-sea that the members for the new Water Board should cease to be members of that Board if they ceased to be members of the constituent bodies sending them to it. There was an Amendment on the Paper which would give effect to that proposal, which he proposed to accept. He had also felt that it would be wrong that the position of vendor and purchaser should be occupied by one and the same person, and that, therefore, it was desirable that a man who was a director of a Water Company should not be a member of the first Board.

What about the shareholders?

said he thought that would be an absurd limitation, for, after all, the shareholders were very numerous; and if a man was not to be trusted to deal with contracts of this kind, it would be very difficult to find qualified people to sit on the Board. There was only one other point. On the new Board there were representatives of the Thames and Lea Conservancy. His attention had been called to the matter by the hon. Member for North Camberwell, in the course of the debate, and, in his opinion, it was not quite fair that these Conservators should, on the Water Board, take part in the decision in regard to purchase. He proposed to put an Amendment on the Paper which would exclude those Conservators from taking part in the proceedings for the settlement of the purchase. He did not propose to say very much in answer to the speech of the hon. Member for Haggerston. He recognised fully that the hon. Member had felt it his duty to make that speech; but the Government had expressed their views on the subject, and had, on the vote, obtained an overwhelming majority. He might say that in arriving at the decision to which the Government had come they were not actuated by any feeling of hostility to the London County Council. [Cries of "Hear, Hear!" from the MINISTERIAL Benches.] Their governing principle had been that of representation. Nobody could deny that in all the proposals made in connection with this question, none had found more general acceptance than that of representation, which would receive the confidence of all concerned. Therefore they had not given power to the London County Council alone, but to all the other local authorities interested. He had now only to return to the worn-out story of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He was a member of that Board when it was abolished; and if any one were to argue that because that Board was guilty of grave errors of omission and commission it ought to be condemned outright, he would be greatly mistaken. The Metropolitan Board of Works did au immense deal of excellent work. The hon. Gentleman failed to recognise that the Metropolitan Board of Works was elected by the vestries of London on a broad franchise; and he ventured to say that if they had handed the management of the water to the London County Council it would have been violently opposed by all the other local authorities, and that it certainly would not have passed this House. He contended that if they had proposed a popularly elected ad hocbody it would have been a very unwise and unpopular system, whereas in the proposal which the Government had made they had taken the necessary steps to secure the appointment of a practical and business-like body. He did not share the hon. Gentleman's vaticinations, and he hoped the Clause would be carried by a considerable majority.

said that he and his friends recognised to the full the very courteous and conciliatory attitude which the right hon. Gentleman had taken up in this matter and the concessions which he had made. The right hon. Gentleman had recognised that the addition of four more representatives of the London County Council on the Water Board was a very considerable improvement on the Bill. They on the Opposition side objected to the principle on which the Bill was based, but he thought that the Committee would recognise that in accepting Amendments, moved chiefly from the Opposition side, the right hon. Gentlemen had rendered the smooth and effectual working of this new body more likely. Whatever might be the opinions held with regard to his own position in this matter, he considered that the action he had taken on the Bill had been fully justified. It was all very well for those who had not been in attendance to say that the Bill should have been fought through. With such a small following it seemed to him hopeless to attempt to kill the Bill. It was obvious, with only thirty or forty Members at his back, of whom there were only seven or eight who would speak in Committee, that it was hopeless for him to attempt to kill the Bill. The only alternative was to see whether the right hon. Gentleman would meet them in the matter, and that alternative he adopted. The sole object he had in so doing was to improve the Bill and make it workable, He had ventured to make these few remarks because he felt somewhat annoyed at the strictures that had been passed upon him. In his opinion the concessions made by the right hon. Gentleman were vitiated by the principle of the Bill, and as the omission of this Clause had been moved by his hon. Friend he should certainly vote for its omission. In the opinion of the Opposition in regard to the question of a municipal basis, and in regard to this being a business-like and workable Board the proposals of the Government had vitiated both principles. What had just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman had not satisfied him or encouraged him to think that this Board would be an advantage to London. The right hon. Gentleman had laid down the principle that the basis of local government should be indirect election, and that was not their view. With regard to the Board of Works he had no desire to say anything against it, but he might just point out that that Board was shown to be so defective, inefficient and corrupt, that the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman himself was a supporter swept it away. That surely was a sufficient condemnation, not only for the Board of Works but for the system of indirect election also. That was the only instance of a large public body being founded on indirect election, and the right hon. Gentleman was now going to elect this new body on the same basis. [An HON. MEMBER: What about the Metropolitan Asylums Board?] The Metropolitan Asylums Board stood upon a different basis altogether, but many people even with regard to that body did not think it was the best possible body for the purpose. The right hon. Gentleman had said he was not actuated by any hostility to the London County Council in this matter. Mrs. Penruddocke might as well say she was not animated by any hostile feeling towards the child she bullied. The County Council could have been brought in to deal with this matter very easily indeed on the basis of direct election through the County Council. Why direct election through the County Council was not accepted by the right hon. Gentleman except through hostility to the County Council he could not understand. The basis of this Board ought to have been more in the direction of direct election, and inner London should be represented to a greater extent than outside London. He desired to enter a strong protest against this Bill being taken at all at this time of the year; it was not fair to the House, to the London Members, or to the London ratepayers. This Autumn Session was taken for educational purposes and not for the purposes of this Bill, and to force a Bill of this kind down the throats of the House in December, when it could have been dealt with in the previous August, was not treating the House or those interested in that great question with the respect to which they were entitled. The ultimate result of this procedure would be that the Bill, which otherwise would have been most satisfactory, would not be the success they all desired.

quite agreed that the highest praise was due to the right hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he had conducted the Bill, but such praise as was given to the right hon. Gentleman did not prevent them from taking exception to the principles which the Bill contained. He regretted that his hon. friend should have said what he did with regard to the arrangement that had been made, because it was not quite an open question. What some of them complained of was that this arrangement should have been made without its being sanctiened by a meeting of the Party. No one on that side of the House regarded his hon. friend with feelings of greater respect, or would follow him more closely in his proper sphere than he (Mr. Lough) would. But the sphere of his hon. Friend, as a late Under Secretary for the Colonies, was the Colonies. With regard to London matters, if they had any Leader at all on the Front Bench, that Gentleman was not his hon. friend but the hon. Member for Southwark. But the London Members who sat on the Back Benches would receive no tyranny from the Front Bench on London matters at all. With regard to the concessions made by the right hon. Gentleman there were several important points which had been omitted. There had been no concession made with regard to compensation for purchase, for instance, and the concession with regard to the constitution of the first Board would require some extension. His personal complaint against the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen opposite was that hon. Members opposing this measure had not been given any opportunity to fight their battles. Clause 1 illustrated the impossibility of anybody holding the views he did adopting a friendly attitude towards this Clause. Anybody who called himself a Radical and a friend of democratic politics in this country must oppose this Clause with all the force in his power. It remained as objectionable now as when it was introduced. The number of the Board was exactly the same as the number in the Bill as it was originally introduced, and all the objections taken then held good at this moment. It was true that the right hon. Gentleman had given the London County Council a representation of fourteen instead of ten, but according to the opinion of the London County Council, as expressed at a meeting held on the previous day, that did not do the County Council any good whatever. It increased their responsibility, but it did not increase their power to enforce that responsibility. The London County Council was still hopelessly outnumbered, and not placed in any better position for fighting its battles. If for the moment they confined their view to the representation of boroughs within London alone on this Board, the Metropolitan Borough Councils had a representation of thirty-one as against ten representatives of the London County Council, so that, without counting the outside boroughs, the London County Council, was hopelessly outnumbered. The constitution of the Board was as bad as it could well be, and he did not believe any Member of the Opposition had sacrificed for the concession that had been made the rooted objection he had to this Clause. There was no direct election from the London County Council to this Board. The system on which it was based was most absurd—twelve or fourteen local authorities were formed into an electoral college to elect one member to this body. This system of indirect election was not one that should be set up at this time of day. A compromise would have been possible in this matter. There was the compromise proposed by the hon. Member for North Wilts: a compromise suggested by the Joint Committee, to whose decision he submitted weight should be attached. The Joint Committee, when it was left free, before it was influenced by the Government suggested a compromise which the hon. Member for North Wilts had moved in the House. That was a compromise which would have been accepted by the Opposition, and which would have been a real compromise. It would have got rid of these electoral colleges, and given a small and compact Board with a respectable representation to London, and adequate representation to Essex, Kent, and other counties around London. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had not accepted that compromise; he had not had regard to the suggestion of the Joint Committee; he had not met the objections of the Opposition to this Clause, and he (Mr. Lough) was very glad they were all going into the Lobby to vote against it.

expressed the opinion that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had treated the London Members who opposed this Bill very well indeed. There were only seven of them, and for every one who stood up to oppose the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman could put up eight on his side to support it. He was entitled to do so, but he had not done it, and for having exercised that self-denying ordinance he was entitled to the thanks of hon. Members. The fundamental issue which overshadowed, and in fact entirely dwarfed all others, was the question of the constitution of the Board. That was the main point of this Clause, and he, for the last time, vehemently opposed it. The Board consisted of sixty-eight members. It was still too large and unwieldy; there was nothing like it on any Select Committee or Royal Commission; there was nothing like it in any previous Bill for London water, and there was nothing like it with regard to any municipal supply throughout Great Britain. There was from £30,000,000 to £40,000,000 of the ratepayers' money involved in this Bill, and he did not consider that this Board was competent to deal with that sum in a wise and careful manner. What he felt was that it would blunder in its inexperience at a most serious cost to the ratepayers, and that the blunders which it would make would be those which were bound to be made at the outset of its career. With regard to the Board of Works, which had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, the report of Lord Randolph Churchill's Commission, which investigated the affairs of the Board, was of a most serious character, and revealed a most lamentable scandal with regard to two members of the Board and some of the servants as well. And the Commission went out of its way to do so. He thought the Government were hopelessly wrong in the way they treated the County and Borough Councils in this matter. He thought the increase of the Board from thirty to sixty-eight all arose from the mistaken desire of the Government to insist upon the representation of Borough Councils upon it. The Joint Committee carried, by six votes to three, a recommendation that the representation of Borough Councils should be struck out, and then the counsel for the promoters, who were the Government, came to the Joint Committee and said that the promoters had heard with profound regret that the representation of Borough Councils was struck out. A motion to adhere to the decision to strike out the Borough Council representation was then put from the Chair, and upon it there voted five as against five, and by the casting vote of the Chairman it was lost. So that, on the casting vote of one man, London for all time was condemned to an unworkable scheme. Viscount Hampden, in regard to that matter, said the Government had shown in an unmistakable way that they dominated the Committee through their own Chairman, and they had not shrunk from coercing the Committee into going back on its own decision to establish a more efficient and workable Board, and the noble Lord had gone on to say that if the Water Companies were to be done away with the London County Council was the only body left to deal with it, provision being made for the representation of the outside areas. It was a pity that the Government should impose upon London an authority so grotesque as that which they seemed determined to establish. He was still as opposed to this Board as ever he had been. It was too large and unwieldy; it was removed from the effective control of the ratepayers; it had not the necessary experience and knowledge to carry out the duties of purchase; it was founded on the discredited model of the Metropolitan Board of Works; and despite the pressure of the Government it had not even now the sanction of the majority of the Joint Committee which examined the details of the Bill.

said that the County Council for thirteen years bad persistently pressed on the Government a solution of the water difficulty by asking that, as in every other municipality, the water supply should be placed in its hands. By Clause 1 the Government had said that the water supply of London was anomalous, defective, and expensive, and ought no longer to remain in the hands of private enterprise, but that it should be transferred from private enterprise, with its waste, extravagance, mismanagement, and occasional droughts, to a public body. He sincerely regretted that instead of entrusting it to the London County Council the Government had decided to set up this Board of sixty-eight members, drawn from seventy-seven districts, and elected in the most extraordinary way. By their majority the Government had superimposed upon the proper municipal authorities the representation of thirty Borough Councils. Unfortunately for the Government the Borough Councils had shown no enthusiasm in the matter, nor were the ratepayers excited on the issue. He had looked in vain to see the people of London "in fine frenzy rolling' walking either to Trafalgar Square or Parliament Street to press for Borough Council representation. In the course they had taken the Government had neither facts, experience, nor wisdom on their side. The whole tendency of government in the municipal sphere, and even in the centralised area of State action, was to remit technical subjects, practical questions, and administrative matters, to small bodies. With other London Liberal Members, he objected to the Board on account of its size, and so far as they had been able to reduce the number of members they had proportionately increased its efficiency. If the London County Council, with 139 members, could discharge 21 statutory functions ranging over the whole ramifications of local, social and sanitary municipal life, there was no reason why a body of 68 should be created to look after one of the simplest, although the largest, of sanitary duties. The size of the Board made for inefficiency, its composition might make for extravagance; and the relative inexperience of the 68 members would very likely lead to an increase of the rate. It would, therefore, be the duty of President of the Local Government Board and his officials to keep their eye very closely on this Board in defence of the ratepayers. To those who desired wherever possible to secure direct and effective popular control in municipal matters, Clause 1 was a great disappointment, and he hoped that at some time in the future the right hon. Gentleman would be able to bring in an amending Bill, and that the Borough Councils would not be drawn into conflict either with the London County Council or with the six outside County Councils, but that they would agree harmoniously, if possible, in the interests of everybody concerned. This body ought not to be allowed to sit in a back street and buy pipes, as the War Office bought horses, in a fourth-floor garret. He hoped it would do its work in the full glare of publicity, and that in every sense of the word it would be a public statutory body discharging its duty in the clear light of day. Those with whom he acted, now that they had been beaten, desired to see the Board a success. If it did enter upon a career of usefulness it would be largely due to the fact that those who had objected to the Board on principle had placed the House and the public in the possession of facts and fears which would make every Department responsible for the Board watch its future progress with great care. This Board would have to spend large sums of money on pipes, engines, and so forth for the carrying out of large public works. The President of the Local Government Board should, therefore, see that the new water authority had sub-Committees formed of men who were beyond suspicion and above reproach. The tenders should be open and the contracts carried out with justice to everybody, and there should be no preferential treatment of an exclusive ring of contractors, such as had sometimes happened. Above all, it was to be hoped that local grievances would not be magnified, and that districts which happened to be ably represented would not be able to extract from the Water Board special concessions and advantages which poorer and less ably represented districts were not able to secure. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the concilitory tone and temper with which he had met many of their proposals. From conversation with members of the London County Council he could assure the House that that body would send to this Board fourteen of the ablest and most experienced men on the water question in London, who would do their best openly and fairly to inspire the other members with their experience, and to co-operate with them in travelling the knot into which the London water question had got through the apathy of London, the ineffectiveness of Parliament, and the indifference that too many London bodies had displayed on the subject. It was the duty of the Metropolis of the Empire to have the best water supply in the world, and to see that Old Father Thames was no longer depleted of the enormous quantity of water of which the present system deprived it. To secure these two objects this Water Board had been created, and in its work it would have the help and good wishes of all those who had opposed it on principle.

said he would try in what he had to say to imitate the tone which the hon. Member for Battersea had displayed in his speech. This was a question with which he was conversant, and one upon which he had heard the opinion of men belonging to all classes in a large industrial community. After due consideration he felt it was incumbent upon him to support this Bill. Feeling that this water question in London was one of immense urgency, he voted for the London County Council Water Bill, and he believed that he was the only hon. Member on the Ministerial side who did so. It had been said that this Bill, by giving representation to the municipal authorities on the Water Board, had given the go-by to the true feeling of London, but he thought that was an entire mistake in regard to London as a whole. He had daily contact with Londoners of various opinions, and all he could say was that when hon. Members stated that the London County Council was the only true body In represent London they erred very greatly. The Borough Councils were becoming the true representatives of these vast communities in London more and more, daily and hourly, and the London County Council seemed to be getting out of touch with those whom they were supposed to represent. The Borough Councillors were generally men who had businesses in the locality and were resident amongst the working class community, and therefore it was absolutely idle and incorrect to pretend that the County Councillors were the only true representatives of London in this matter. He was sure that every hon. Member would re-echo the hope and intention expressed by the hon. Member for Battersea, who, by his unceasing, single-minded work on behalf of London had not only earned the high reputation he enjoyed outside this House, but also the warm sympathy of those hon. Members who differed from him in his views. The hon. Member for Battersea, however, made an error when he demanded that the London County Council should have the control and management of the water question by a majority of its representatives on the ground that it contained 139 members who were now efficiently discharging twenty-one statutory duties. By this argument the hon. Member had adduced the most powerful reason of all why the London County Council was not the best body for the purpose. Surely if 139 men already had twenty-one statutory duties to perform, and remembering that the duties of the Water Board were so very intricate and onerous, that constituted an indisputable argument why the London County Council could not possibly be the most efficient administrators of the water question. What Londoners desired was to see an adequate, cheap, and regular water supply, and they felt that the Government, by the institution of the Water Board on its present lines, had created an authority which did represent in its fullest sense all the various interests both inside and outside of the London area, which, hereafter, ought to have a voice in the management of this business, Personally, he believed that his right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board would receive the warmest thanks of all the interests concerned both inside and outside of the county of London for this Bill, and his statesmanship would find a proper place in Metropolitan history. It was on these grounds that he was grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for carrying through this Bill, and he cordially joined in the expressions which had fallen from the other side of the Committee that they were willing to bury all that controversial spirit which had so long surrounded this question, and, as true Londoners, assist the Water Board to work for the benefit of the whole population of the Metropolis.

said he was astonished to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Hoxton, who took such a deep interest in social matters connected with London. The action he had taken on this question seemed extraordinary, and he did not think the hon. Member's constituency would be grateful to him for the course he had taken. Dr. Mansfield Robinson, a great water expert from the borough of Shoreditch, in his evidence before the Water Commission, read a resolution passed by the Shoreditch Borough Council on February 18th, 1902, strongly protesting against the London Water Bill now before Parliament, and disagreeing with the proposed constitution of the Water Board. Therefore the constituents of the hon. Member for Hoxton' had protested against this proposal.

Not all my constituents. Will the hon. Member read on.

said the resolution urged that the London County Council should be the Water Authority, and recommended that a copy of the resolution be forwarded to each Member of Parliament for the borough. It also urged them to oppose the passing into law of the London Water Bill, and to support the measure put forward by the London County Council. In the face of

moved to leave out in line 20, Clause 1, "a chairman, a vice-chairman, and other," and insert "sixty-eight." He did not know that the Amendment he was proposing would be the best form in which to carry out the object he had in view, which was, that the election of the chairman and vice-chairman should rest with the Water Board itself. He understood that the President of the Local Government Board agreed with that object, but perhaps the Amendment would come better on one of the Schedules.

said the Amendment should be made by altering Rule 1 in the Third Schedule.

said he would move it there.

moved to leave out from "shall" in line 21, to "be" in line 23, Clause 1.

said he deeply regretted that the Government had thought it necessary to move the rejection of the Amendment which was carried in the Joint Committee at his instance. By his Amendment, as the House was aware, the first selection of a Chairman and a Vice-Chairman would have been vested in the Local Government Board. He still thought it would be in the interest of the administrative efficiency of the Board that the first Chairman and Vice-Chairman should be appointed on the responsibility of the Local Government Board after anxious deliberation. He was sure the members of the Board at their first meeting would feel that they were called upon to discharge one of the most difficult and delicate duties they would ever have to perform, and he was perfectly certain they would regret that they did not find themselves presided over by a gentleman of distinction carefully selected by the Local Government Board. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had preferred the theoretical principles of municipal Government in this matter to practical considerations which he thought were much more important. He felt there was no good in prolonging his resistance, and therefore he would only express his strong conviction that the arrangement he proposed would have been better.

moved—

"In Clause 1, page 1,line 23, and page 2, line 1, leave out 'by the Local Government Board and afterwards.' "

moved—

"In Clause 1, page 2, line 2, leave out' elected and insert 'appointed.'"

said if he remembered rightly this was an Amendment accepted by the right hon. Gentleman on Committee stage to which they attached considerable importance. He desired to secure that all the members of the constituent bodies should have the undoubted right to elect a member to the Water Board.

said the hon. Gentleman was perfectly right. This was the ordinary word used on such occasions.

said it was quite clear that the Conservancies were moribund bodies, and the right hon. Gentleman was well advised in leaving them only one member. Some of them had ventured to point out that, under a population or ratable basis inner London was not represented on the Board as compared with outer London, and the alteration proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would bring about a much better and fairer proportion between the representation of inner and outer London. He was not going to say, however, that this addition of four members to the representation of the London County Council made him any the less opposed to the principle on which the Bill was founded. He trusted that those who took a strong view as to the position of the London County Council would feel that they were now in a much stronger position than they were under the Bill as it was originally framed, seeing that they would now have one-fifth as against one seventh of the whole representation. At the same time, the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to him to have much weight in this connection. The right hon. Gentleman said that this would bring up the representation of the London County Council to the proportion suggested by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire. He did not think so. The proposal of that hon. Gentleman was to give the London County Council practically, if not an actual majority of the Board, an overwhelming position on it. He did not, therefore, desire to put the concession made by the right hon. Gentleman higher than it ought to be put.

said he wished to express satisfaction at the increase of four members which his right hon. friend had given to the London County Council. That satisfaction, however, was tempered by the fact that, in giving four extra members to the London County Council, his right hon. friend had taken away a member from a constituency in which he was interested.

said he thought the London County Council had been hardly treated under the Bill. For eleven years it had been the water authority for London, and had done its business very ably indeed. He was glad to see that the London County Council were getting more representation on the Water Board, but he thought it should have been larger still.

said that the object of the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper was to take away the representation of the Metropolitan Borough Councils. He desired to give the President of the Local Government Board one further opportunity of reducing the number of his Board. The most extraordinary thing was that the poorest parts of London, which were most interested in the water supply, were not in favour of being represented. The Metropolitan Borough Councils had shown no genuine demand for representation on the Water Board; in fact, six of the Councils had passed resolutions against their being represented on the Board. The time of these Councils was fully occupied in strictly local matters. They had never had to deal with the water question at all, but had looked to the London County Council as the proper body to deal with it.

said that the hon. Member for Battersea had proposed an Amendment by which when a member had ceased to be a member of a Local Board, he ceased to be a member of the Water Board.

said that matter was quite safe in the hands of his hon. friend the Member for Battersea, and therefore he would not say anything more about it. He did not quite understand it. He understood that the members of the Water Board were to be taken from the various local authorities, and directly these gentlemen ceased to be members of the local authority they ceased to be members of this Board.

said the hon. Gentleman had truly said it was not possible to say anything new either for or against the proposal he made, which was that the scheme of the Bill should be altered at this the last moment by the elimination of the Borough Councils. One thing he had not said anything about, and that was the effect the Amendment would have. If the Amendment were carried the Metropolitan Boroughs would be cut off, and the principle for which hon. Gentlemen had so strongly contended in the previous Amendment would be cut off altogether. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of six Metropolitan Boroughs which he said were opposed to this proposal, and he had stated that those were all poor Boroughs in the south of London; he had forgotten to mention that they also sided with him politically. The hon. Gentleman had stated that none of these Boroughs had expressed a desire to be put on this governing body. But it the hon. Gentleman was entitled to quote these six Boroughs against the proposal of the Government, the Government were also entitled to quote the remainder in its favour. No pressure had been brought to bear on the Boroughs to support this measure, and since the Bill had been introduced they had not altered in one iota the desire they had to be brought into the Bill. Hon. Gentlemen opposite knew quite well that they did their best to get up agitations against the Bill, and that they had failed; there had been no response to their suggestions from any part of London. And they knew perfectly well that the Government had received overwhelming support. He believed the Government had taken the right step in including the Metropolitan Boroughs in this Bill, and he asked the House to support the Government by rejecting this Amendment.

thought the right hon. Gentleman had rather misrepresented the argument of his hon. friend the hon. Member for Southwark, and what his hon. friend had proved by it. The right hon. Gentleman had also omitted to mention the most important fact in this matter, which was that the Joint Committee recommended the very suggestion which his hon. friend had just made. The Joint Committee recommended that the representation of the Borough County Councils should be struck out, and it was only when the Government sent back to that Committee the message that they had received this recommendation with profound regret that those who had already voted against it agreed to the inclusion of these boroughs in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had insinuated that if hon. Members went into the Lobby in support of this Amendment they would be voting for the reduction of London representation, but that was not so, because the effect of this Amendment, if carried, would be to get rid of all the inside and outside boroughs. The argument in support of this Amendment was that those boroughs had no duty analogous to that which would be thrown on their shoulders, and that if they had they would, however important these boroughs might be in themselves, derive no good by sending one member to a Board of 68. The appointment of these members did not synchronise with the election of the Councils themselves, so that in all probability the members appointed to the Water Board would remain members of that body long after they had ceased to be members of the Borough Councils. He thought his hon. friend was perfectly justified in dividing against it, and that it could not he said that they were in any way treating the representation of London unfairly by supporting the Amendment.

said he strongly opposed the Amendment. He happened to know that so far from the Borough of Islington not desiring to be represented on the Board, they had sent in a requisition that they should be allowed to have two representatives on it instead of one. They thought it was hard, as they were the wealthiest and largest ratable borough in London, that they should only have one representative

said he did not see why the Thames Conservancy should only have one representative on the Board. It must be remembered there was a question now before a Royal Commission of dividing administration over the river into two parts, and, if this suggestion were carried out, the Thames Conservancy should have at least two members.

said he had been reluctant to reduce the representation of the Conservators, but the reduction was necessary from the considerations that bad already been discussed, and be asked the House to abide by the distribution which had been arranged. The Thames Conservancy was no worse off than any other constituted authority. He was surprised that his hon, friend should have quoted the Report of the Royal Commission, because that Surely was a strong recommendation for the course the Government had adopted. All the work which had to do with this new Hoard had relation to the upper Thames, and, that being so, it was only the upper Thames that should be represented on the new Board. He regretted having to reduce the representation of the Thames Conservancy, but he could not now ask the House to reconsider the matter.

said that the Thames Conservancy was the body to which the whole control of the water of the Thames was given, and therefore, he should, if opportunity arose, move that the word "two" be inserted instead of one.

The form will be to negative the word "one," and if the hon. Gentleman succeeds in negativing "one," he may move to insert "two." Question, "That the word 'one' stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to

said as the Clause read now, the first words were—

"The Water Board shall pay to each company as compensation for the transfer of their undertaking."