CHAPTER II.

Statement of New Procedure Rules-Introduction of London Water Bill and Licensing Bill-Report of Committee on Hungarian Horse Purchases: Discussed on Supplementary War Estimate-Indian Famine DebateLords' Debate on Remounts-The Dutch Government's Attempted Intervention-Lord Salisbury's Speech-Debates on Welsh Disestablishment and Deceased Wife's Sister Bill-Loitering in Division Lobby-Debates and Divisions on New Procedure Rules-Wei-hai-wei-Anglo-Japanese Alliance: Favourable Reception; Discussed in Both Houses-Mr. Chamberlain and the City-Proceedings in Parliament on Urban (Site Values) Rating, Shops (Early Closing), Factory Act (1901) Amendment, and Midwives Bills; Railway Servants' Hours; and Lead Poisoning in Potteries-Navy Estimates: First Lord's Memorandum; Secretary to Admiralty's Statement; Debates in Commons-Lords' War Contracts Debate-Lord Rosebery at LiverpoolSir H. Campbell-Bannerman at Leicester-Lord Rosebery's "Definite Separation" Letter-The Liberal League-Unionist Comment Mr. Asquith on Ireland-Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman on the Liberal League-Irish Debate in Commons-Lord Methuen's Disaster; Nationalist Cheers-Army Estimates: The War Secretary's Statement; Increased Soldiers' PayConcentration Camps Debate-Army Debates-Lord Rosebery at GlasgowMr. Morley at Manchester-Abandonment of Royal Visit to Ireland-Mr. Asquith at St. Leonards-Irish Debates in the Commons-London County Council (Electric Supply) Bill-Mines Bills Rejected-War Contracts Inquiry Debate in Commons-Lord C. Beresford in the City-Aged Pensioners and Shop Clubs Bills-Debate on the War-Mr. Dillon's Suspension— Beginning of Peace Negotiations-Death of Mr. Rhodes-Introduction of Education Bill-Irish Land Purchase Bill.

THURSDAY, January 30, was a notable Parliamentary day, for it witnessed the description by Mr. Balfour of the Ministerial scheme for the reform of the procedure of the House of Commons, and the introduction and exposition by the Ministers respectively in charge of them of the Government legislative projects dealing with the supply of water in London and the sale of alcoholic liquor in England and Wales. The general ground taken up by Mr. Balfour was that the existing system of Parliamentary procedure, while it might have been quite suited to days when, as in the middle of the eighteenth century, the only considerable Parliamentary difficulty was to induce the stream of oratory to flow, had distinctly ceased to be suited to our own times. Having cited figures to show how immensely the work of the House had increased of late years, he went on to indicate first a number of minor alterations which he proposed with a view to economising Parliamentary time. Thus it was proposed to restrict the right of challenging divisions on various occasions. The first reading of ordinary Bills would be granted as a matter of course. It was also proposed to simplify the procedure on the report stages of Bills which had been considered in committee of the whole House. An assistant-chairman was to be appointed to take the place of the chairman of committees when necessary, and to exercise all his powers, whether as chairman or Deputy-Speaker. (At present only the Speaker or chairman of committees could put a motion for closure.) Questions of privilege not arising out of

controversies between the two Houses would, instead of giving rise to immediate and very possibly protracted debate, be referred, on the motion of a Minister of the Crown, to the Committee of Privileges.

The next set of changes dealt with breaches of Parliamentary order and decorum. It was proposed that the suspension for disorderly conduct should in future last twenty days for a first offence, forty for a second, and eighty for any subsequent offence-these to be days on which the House actually sat, and the penalty not to be affected by adjournment or even by prorogation. Moreover, the Member so suspended would not be allowed to resume his seat till he had apologised to the Speaker for his conduct. In case of a "scene," the Speaker would have authority to suspend a sitting for such time as he deemed expedient.

Coming last to suggested alterations in the general arrangement of the time and business of the House, Mr. Balfour explained that Ministers had had two objects in view; first, the convenience of Members, who might reasonably claim to know, like their fellow-citizens generally, when they could expect to dine and to sleep; and secondly, the introduction of the element of certainty into public business. It was proposed, he said, that on every working day except Friday there should be two sittings. The first would begin at two o'clock and private business would be taken till twenty-five minutes past two; if it was not concluded by that time it would stand over till the evening sitting. Five minutes would then be allowed for urgent questions about the business of the House, and public business would begin at half-past two, continuing till a quarter past seven. Questions would then be proceeded with, and might go on until eight o'clock; such questions as were "starred" would be answered orally, the answers to the others being printed and circulated with the votes of the House. The sitting would be suspended at eight and resumed at nine, when carried-over private business would be continued; and afterwards public business would be transacted until twelve, when "starred" questions not previously disposed of would be answered. In every week before Easter one whole day (Thursday) would be given up to Supply. The afternoon sittings on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays would be taken for Government business. Monday evenings would also be taken. After Easter the Government would ask for two evening sittings, and after Whitsuntide they would take the whole time of the House, except on two days to be set apart for the consideration of private Members' Bills. There would be no evening sittings on Fridays, which would take the place of Wednesdays under the existing arrangement. Members might ask for leave to move the adjournment of the House at half past two on any day; but if they obtained leave they would have to bring the motion on at the beginning of public business

at the evening sitting. At evening sittings the House was not to be counted out before ten o'clock. The rule allocating a certain number of days to Supply was to be made a standing order.

Mr. Balfour then moved a resolution giving precedence to the consideration of the new rules on the days (excepting Wednesdays) when they should be set down for discussion, and the motion was carried by 289 to 98.

Thereupon Mr. Long (Bristol, S.), President of the Local Government Board, introduced the Bill for establishing a Water Board to manage the supply of water within London and certain adjoining districts and for transferring to the Board the undertakings of the metropolitan water companies. Calling attention to the fact that as the population of London grew the outer parts of the metropolis must become more and more thickly peopled, Mr. Long insisted that any body appointed to administer" Water London" must be representative of the whole area interested. The County Council-towards which he disclaimed any unfriendly feeling on the part of Ministersrepresented inner, not outer London. The plan of the Government was to take the sanitary authorities for all the area of "Water London," and to impose on them the duty to select representatives who were to form the new Board. The authorities selected were the metropolitan boroughs, the City, the urban sanitary authorities for the outside areas, the London County Council, and the County Councils of the adjacent metropolitan counties. Of the twenty-eight metropolitan boroughs, six were to have two representatives on the Board, and the remainder one each; the City, two; the Essex County Council, one; West Ham, two; East Ham, Leyton and Walthamstow, one each; the County Councils of Kent, Middlesex, Surrey, Hertfordshire, and the Conservancies of the Thames and Lea, one each; the London County Council, ten. The urban districts in the outside areas would be grouped, and each group would be represented by a member. The total number of representatives would be sixty-seven, and there might be, in addition, a chairman and vice-chairman elected from outside their ranks. The metropolitan boroughs, the City, and the London County Council together would have a majority of two-thirds on the Board. A member of the Board must be a member of the Council that appointed him. The first Board would be elected for four years, but afterwards the Board would go out of office at the end of three years. The Local Government Board was to have power to vary the constitution of the Board by provisional order. It was made the duty of the Water Board to purchase the undertakings of the London water companies within an appointed time. The purchase was to be by agreement or, failing that, by arbitration. arbitrators would be Sir E. Fry, Sir H. Owen and Sir J. Wolfe-Barry. The usual allowance of 10 per cent. for com

The

pulsory purchase was not to be allowed, and the price to be paid for the undertakings was not enhanced or diminished because the Bill had been introduced. On questions of law an

appeal was to be allowed to the Court of Appeal. The Board would act for the whole area which was now administered by eight different companies. It would issue stock bearing interest at 3 per cent., and was given a power of rating in the event of the income for the year being insufficient for the expenditure. The Board would be authorised to pay the companies in water stock. With regard to money borrowed for the purchase or for the redemption of stock, a period of eighty years was allowed for repayment. Sir H. CampbellBannerman regarded the Bill as distinctly better in some respects than former schemes, and a like feeling marked several of the speeches from the Opposition side which followed, although exception was taken very particularly to the non-assignment of the duties of the new Board to the London County Council. The Bill was read a first time.

Mr. Ritchie (Croydon), Home Secretary, then brought in a Bill to amend the law relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors and to provide for the registration of clubs. The Government did not mean to embody all the recommendations of the Royal Commission in the present Bill, because the attempt to do so would prevent any measure at all being passed this session. They would not deal with the licensing authority, or the reduction of the number of public houses, or the compensation bogey, which had wrecked so many former projects of legislation. Under this Bill a person found drunk and incapable would be apprehended and, in any case, charged; and if he happened at the time to have the custody of a child under seven years of age he would be liable to a penalty of 40s. or a month's imprisonment. If he was an habitual drunkard he might be committed to an inebriate home. The wife of an habitual drunkard was to be entitled to a protection order, and the husband of a drunken wife was to have a right to similar relief. An habitual drunkard who committed a crime was, in certain circumstances, to be prohibited from purchasing liquor for three years, and any publican who served him, knowing who he was, would be punished. If a publican was charged with permitting drunkenness on his premises, and it was proved that anybody was drunk on his premises, it would lie with the publican to prove that he took all reasonable steps to prevent it. Off retail licences were to be put under the control of the justices. Application for occasional licences would have to be made before two justices in open court. All clubs were to be registered, and where a club offended its name would be taken off the register. Anyone would have the right to appear before a magistrate and swear that a club was not properly conducted, and the police could then enter and search the premises, if the magistrate sanctioned that course. In the

case of a club which had been convicted of offence against the law (by a court of summary jurisdiction), the sale of drink in the club building might be forbidden by the court for a term of five years, and provision would also be made against the reopening of a public house, where a renewal of the licence had been refused, as a bogus club. The Bill was read a first time,

after a brief and friendly discussion.

On the same day (Jan. 30) there was issued a document which caused much dissatisfaction among politicians of both parties and the public generally as bearing on the conduct of the war. This was the report of the committee appointed to examine into certain allegations which had been made by Sir J. Blundell Maple, M.P., in regard to the purchase of horses in Austria-Hungary. It was signed by Sir Charles Welby, M.P. (who had been a member of the committee which produced the important report on War Office organisation in 1901; see ANNUAL REGISTER for that year, p. 146), Colonel W. KenyonSlaney, M.P., Mr. C. E. Hobhouse, M.P., and the Hon. Evan Charteris. They declared their belief that there was no justification for any charge of bribery or corrupt dealing against any British officer employed in connection with the purchases in question, and expressed their regret that Sir J. B. Maple, while he repudiated all intention of conveying a charge of that description-a repudiation which they fully accepted-had committed himself to public statements which were universally understood as direct attacks on the honour and integrity of British officers. The only specific case which at first sight seemed to require explanation arose out of a misapprehension which existed in some quarters as to the position of a veterinary officer, Captain Hartigan. His position, however, it was pointed out, was explained to the satisfaction of the committee.

The committee's vindication, however, of the honour and integrity of British officers gave only the more point to their carefully weighed censures on the want of care or intelligence, or of both qualities, exhibited both in connection with the Hungarian purchases on behalf of the Imperial Yeomanry Committee and at the Remount Department over a long period.

As to the Imperial Yeomanry purchases, the report said :"We are satisfied that Colonel St. Quintin (who had come forward reluctantly, and only at the urgent request of the Imperial Yeomanry Committee, to undertake this work) had as his only object the fulfilment of the duty assigned to him. We realise the difficulty of his position owing to the urgency of the demands which confronted him. At the same time we regret that before giving the first contract he did not take more steps to ascertain (a) what would be a reasonable price to pay, and (b) the position and capacity of the contractors to undertake a large contract of this kind without resort to middlemen; and we must point out that, had the first contract been made on the same terms as the second, a saving of nearly 12,000l. would have resulted."