regard to the question of working the about was passed by the House of Com tramways, he had no authority to say anything at all. mons only three years ago. Of course, if in the short interval that had elapsed, MR. CHAMBERLAIN said, that the the House of Commons had changed its hon. Gentleman might not have meant mind, by all means let it say so by means to say it, but that he did say it, was of some general legislation such as he had beyond doubt. He thought that in a suggested. It was now 10 years since he matter of this kind, in which there was was at the Board of Trade, and things a bargain to be made between parties, had changed there as much as elsewhere. Parliament should not interfere in favour In his time it was a tradition of the of one party or the other, but should office impressed upon him, and which he occupy an absolutely impartial position. endeavoured scrupulously to fulfil, that As to the general merits of the question the whole weight and influence of the whether Corporations should work the office should be brought to bear against tramways, he admitted there was a great any private Bill which sought to undo deal to be said on either side, and for a particular place or a particular they should endeavour to keep an open purpose the general law and what was mind in regard to it. But there was the general practice. He was told there one reason against it which the House had been great infractions on these prewould do well to keep constantly in cedents in the last year or two. The view, and that was, that if they were House of Commons appointed a Special going to give Municipal Corporations Committee, which might be almost called not only the possession of the tramways, an expert Committee, carefully to exwhich he thought they ought to have, amine the circumstances under which but the right to work them as a commer-power should be given to local authorities cial concern, they were going to bring to provide electric lighting. But that them into direct competition with caused corporation after corporation, and private enterprise in the way of 'buses company after company, to come to the and cabs. Though he put the rights of House, each with a separate scheme. It Corporations as high as his hon. Friend was thus almost impossible that the the Member for Islington, he thought it undesirable that the whole weight of the public purse the whole weight of the rates---should be brought to bear in a competition possibly against existing private undertakings. That was all he had to say on the general question. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, that Local Authorities knew what was good for them better than the House or the Government. But if it were desirable to get rid of the Parliamentary control in this matter which now existed, surely it should be done by a general rule of the Act, and not left to be brought up time after time in a flagging House, when on one day, by a majority of 15, a particular Corporation would get the power, and the next day by a majority of 15, another Corporation would be deprived of the power. If the thing was right let it be done once for all, and let it be done thoroughly. *MR. ALEXANDER CROSS (GlasThis control of which they were talking gow, Camlachie) presumed that what was claimed by the House of Commons they were considering now was the proin a Bill passed a few years ago, estab-posal by the London County Council lishing the London County Council, and that the Standing Order imposing certain the regulation they were now talking conditions before a local authority could House could give to individual schemes the attention they required, and the House decided, once for all, to lay down rules which all companies and all corporations should obey. He understood that at the present time there was before a Committee of this House a Bill for establishing electric lighting which set at naught altogether all the regulations of the House. Again he said he was not at all prepared to argue that these regulations were the best that could be made, and that experience might not show the necessity for changes. But he thought it would be a most disastrous thing if, time after time, on the score of an application made by this or that authority, they were going to allow the general regulations which had been more carefully considered than any single case of this kind could be, to be overridden by a private Bill. But was it to be supposed take over the tramways, should be sus- than before. pended in order that they might obtain that, under the generous, benevolent power to work the tramways without management of the Corporation, they complying with the conditions interposed were going to make a profit at fares 50 by the Standing Order. There was involved in this question a broad issue. If per cent. below those which afforded only the House yielded to any application sub- a small margin to a company before mitted to it on behalf of the City of Lon- He did not believe that it was possible don, it would be impossible to deny that for any Corporation to achieve results right to any other Municipality which such as were achieved by individuals might bring forward any analogous claim. working for their own advantage, and The point they were considering, there who conducted their business more fore, was whether it was advisable or in economically than could be done by a the general interest that they should Corporation. He submitted that it would give to Corporations the right to supply be wise and proper for this House to locomotion to their ratepayers at the interpolate carefully devised yet reasonpublic cost. It appeared to him abso- able conditions before they allowed lutely necessary that the House should Municipalities to have the conduct of consider carefully before they proceeded tramway operations at the cost of the to legislate in such a direction, and deal rates. with the subject in a general and broad MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea) aspect. Were they to give powers to Munici- observed that the right hon. Member for palities without restriction? Were there West Birmingham, to whom he generally to be no defined borrowing powers, and deferred on matters connected with no regulations as to fares? They should municipal policy, had imported into the consider such matters before embarking Debate two matters which, from the upon legislation which might have the point of view of London, ought to be effect of inducing a Municipality to replied to. The right hon. Gentleman undertake the running of cars under suspected as a probability that if the the cost price of such conveyance. It London County Council had the excep would be absolutely essential from a tional power which he (Mr. Burns) denied business point of view that the House that this Motion imposed upon it, that should make certain provisions by which then he could concede the possibility of the it would be impossible for Corporations Municipal Authority owning and working to convey passengers below the actual trams, in the exercise of that monopoly cost and to charge the loss upon the rates. possibly restricting the freedom of living Allusion had been made to the City of and employment of the men who worked Glasgow, but it was premature to say one cabs and rival omnibuses. The city of word as yet as to the success or otherwise Birmingham owed a good deal to the of the tramway operations at Glasgow, be- right hon. Gentleman for having put a cause the finances of the city were so com- stop to private enterprise when that was plicated. He felt it his duty to oppose opposed to the municipal and sanitary the Bill promoted by the Glasgow Cor- interests of his own city. The Corporaporation which came before the House tion of Birmingham owned and leased some little time ago, on account of two the tramways, from which they enjoyed clauses to which he took great excep- annually a net profit of £6,000. Surely tion. But there were other clauses the right hon. Member for West Birin that Bill which he suspected, for, mingham would not deny to the city he whatever the intention, he seriously so ably represented the right, if by a believed they might have the effect of vote of the Town Council they so decided, concealing from the public the actual to terminate the present condition of cost of the working of the tram- ownership and lease, and in the interest ways. It was believed in Glasgow of the people of that city to work the that the Corporation had borrowed about £400,000 in order to provide for the tramways, but it was said they had no parliamentary authority to so employ it. They had, no doubt, in Glasgow splendid new cars, at fares 50 per cent. lower Mr. Alexander Cross. trams without the direct intervention of a private company? He was sure that in such a case the right hon. Gentleman would take up the attitude he had taken up before, namely, that Municipalities, ordinarily speaking, should have the power to dominate over their own muni- election, had been endorsed by 70 votes cipal destinies. He could conceive it to 55. He would appeal to the hon. possible that Birmingham, as in the case Member for Dulwich, who had SO of Huddersfield, might undertake to lose worthily interested himself in cheap a certain amount of money by the workmen's trains, not to stultify his working of their own tramways, and if action by declaring by his vote that the by so doing the housing of the people London County Council should not have and the sanitary accommodation of the a right to provide workmen's trams. city were improved by that small loss. He hoped the House would vote for The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Motion of the hon. Member for when he was at the Board of Trade the Shoreditch. traditions of that Department were SIR JOHN LUBBOCK (London against the locality having powers which University) opposed the motion. He others did not enjoy. That was per- thought it very undesirable that the fectly true. When Corporations came to County Council should undertake to that House to obtain power to own their work the tramways. They were already own gasworks, they invariably did so by overwhelmed with work, which, moremeans of private Bills. It became so over, was of necessity increasing, and inconvenient for the House to be con- yet the hon. Member for Shoreditch tinually discussing Bill after Bill, that, wished them to work the tramways, and for the benefit of every locality that later on the water supply. The real wanted to purchase its gasworks, this leaders of the Progressive Party went duty was delegated, under certain general even further; they wished to municonditions and regulations, to a Com- cipalise, or rather monopolise, almost mittee upstairs, with the result that 198 everything; they wished the London gasworks were now owned by local County Council to manage the Secondary authorities. The same course was sub- Education of London, to undertake the sequently followed in the case of water- Hospitals, to work the Docks, to superworks and electric lighting, and when intend the Port, to keep the Pawnthe demands for working or leasing brokers' Shops-and in fact, in their tramways became as numerous as the view, the ideal of the Millenium would applications in respect of gas and water be that the population of London should undertakings had been in the past, then consist of 118 Councillors, 19 Alderhe was sure that House would refuse to men, and 4,500,000 County Council any local authority the right to come to employés. They wish to turn the the House and discuss these matters, London County Council into a gigantic which were much better left to the Com- trading concern. This policy was conmittee upstairs under the general in-demned by the electors at the last elecstructions and conditions. He wanted tion. The motion in the Council in to point out to the House that the support of the policy advocated by the London County Council practically asked, hon. Member for Shoreditch was only by the suspension of Standing Order carried by a very narrow majority of the 171, that it should be allowed to electors. He believed that a large place itself in the position that Glasgow, majority of the representatives of Huddersfield, and Leeds were now in. London in the House of Commons Why should Glasgow have, either by were opposed to the motion, and he private Bill or provisional order, powers hoped the Government would not again to own and work its own tramways, and use their majority in a matter affecting a Bill to effect the same object for London to override the wishes of London not to be allowed to go to a London members. Of course, if the Committee upstairs? What the Board London County Council could not get had to determine to do was to show that any company to work the tramways, it this big city of five millions should not might be necessary, however undesirlabour under worse conditions than were able, that they should do so themselves. applicable to Glasgow, Huddersfield, and That was a very improbable contingency, Leeds, and he believed hon. Members but it might arise, and it had been fully would subordinate their politics so as to provided for. In such а case the allow the municipal authority to carry County Council could apply to the out their policy, which, since the recent Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade could grant them permission to relief of Lucknow, and was rewarded with work the lines until some reasonable" boon" service of not less than one year offer were made. That fully met the on that account; and, whether, taking case. He thought it very undesirable into consideration the fact that Lieuto increase the ever-growing army of tenant Quilter has received no benefit County Council employés; the County from his "boon" service, he will give Council were already overwhelmed with effect to the recommendation of the work. He felt sure they would make a Government of India ? loss if they attempted to work the THE UNDER SECRETARY OF tramways, and would still further STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTraise the rapidly-increasing rates of MENT (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL, North the Metropolis. Beds), answering in the absence of Mr. *DR. MACGREGOR (Inverness-shire), H. H. FOWLER: Lieutenant Quilter reas a Ratepayer in London, said he might ceived the pension to which he was claim the right to speak on the merits entitled by rank and length of service. of this question, but that was not his It is true that the Government of India object in rising. He wanted to know on recommended an exceptional concession what grounds London local questions in his favour, but the Secretary of State claimed so much of the valuable time in Council was unable to accept this of the House. Only three or four suggestion, which appeared to him to be days since, the Leader of the House based on a misapprehension of the rules. informed the Scottish Members that The present Secretary of State sees he could not find time to introduce one no sufficient reason for disturbing his or two Bills on Scottish legislation. Yet predecessor's decision. London Members came down here week after week and took up the best time of the House with their local affairs, and he as a Scotchman, pining for Scottish legislation, protested against this as an abuse of the privileges of the House. He wished to know whether it was not on the part of London the adoption of all the privileges of Home Rule, while they denied equal rights to Scotland. BRITISH INDIA. MR. D. NAOROJI (Finsbury, Central): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, that as Lord Cromer has stated with regard to his statement of 1882 about the annual average income per head, that though he was not prepared to pledge himself to the absolute accuracy of a calculation of this sort, it was sufficiently accurate to justify his conclusion that the taxpaying community The House divided Ayes 191; Noes was exceedingly poor, and that thus the 158. (Division List No. 41.) QUESTIONS. calculation being sufficiently accurate, whether he will grant the Return for which a Motion stands on this day's Paper, as such Return is the only means of forming a fairly correct idea of the material condition of British India; and, INDIAN ARMY PENSIONS. whether, if he be unwilling to grant as a SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN Return the details of Lord Cromer's (Banffshire): I beg to ask the Secretary calculations, as asked in the first part of of State for India, whether Honorary the Motion, he will give an opportunity Lieutenant Quilter was granted a pension to the hon. Member for Finsbury of of Rs.165 per mensem on retirement on personally inspecting them? 23rd March, 1891, and whether he MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: Conwould have received Rs.240 per mensem, sidering that the statement to which my on succeeding to Honorary Captain hon. Friend refers was confessedly founded Ryan, if he had been permitted to count upon uncertain data, and that any one more month of service for pension; similar calculation which might now be whether his claim to the higher pension made must be founded on equally unwas strongly supported by the heads of certain data and might probably be his Department and recommended by misleading, the Secretary of State is the Government of India; whether unable to agree to my hon. Friend's Lieutenant Quilter took part in the Motion. Sir John Lubbock. IRISH SOLDIERS AND THE SHAMROCK. officer who gave this order, but a noncommissioned officer in one case and a justify the right hon. Gentleman in tele- is alleged I will take the necessary steps. MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.): subaltern in the other. Surely this is a I beg to ask the Secretary of State matter of sufficient gravity, in view of for War, whether he is aware that the fact that there are 20,000 Irish on St. Patrick's Day the Irish artillery- soldiers wearing the Queen's colours, to men in St. James Cavalier and Tign hutments, Malta, were ordered and compelled to remove the shamrock from their helmets on the batteries being paraded for church, the order being stances. If they turn out to be what given in one case by the orderly sergeant and in the other by Lieutenant Quain of Dublin; was a circular issued by the War Office, dated 16th February 1893, in consequence of the punishment of Private O'Grady in the Welsh Fusiliers in 1892, allowing Irish, English, Scotch, and Welsh soldiers to wear national emblems on the occasion of national or regimental anniversaries, at the discretion of Commanding Officers; was the Commanding Officer at Malta a party to Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN : the order for removing the shamrock I occupy a neutral position in this matter, from the artillerymen's helmets; and as I belong to a country, the emblem of whether, in view of the fact that the which does not lend itself to the shamrock is publicly worn on St. Pat- convenience of a button-hole. But rick's Day by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as representative of Her Majesty, the Government will take steps to prevent Irish soldiers being subjected in future to orders to remove the shamrock from their helmets on St. Patrick's Day on the initiative of non-commissioned and subaltern officers? *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR really I think a commanding officer who is responsible and who has to exercise his discretion should, unless he sees any particular reason, such as that to which I have alluded, allow every latitude and facility for the display of a laudable national sentiment. Mr. T. M. HEALY gave notice he should revert to this subject. (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Mr. W. REDMOND asked whether Stirling Burghs): I promised a few the right hon. Gentleman would make days ago to enquire into the particular inquiry by telegraph? incident referred to in the question; *Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN : nothing is known of it at present. With With the Easter holidays so near I hope regard to the general question I may to have information when the House frankly state my view of it. I cannot reassembles. see any harm, as a general rule, in permitting such gratification as the wearing of a national emblem on a national anniversary may afford. But discretion is allowed to the Commanding Officers of Battalions, and this, I presume, for two reasons firstly that, after all, it is desirable that there should be some uniformity in what we call by the name of uniforms; and, secondly, that there may be circumstances in which the wearing of an emblem by one soldier may be a cause of offence to another. Mr. T. M. HEALY: The point of my question is that it was not a commanding VOL. XXXII. [FOURTH SERIES.] POST OFFICE SERVANTS. MR. J. A. M. MACDONALD (Tower Hamlets, Bow): I beg to ask the Postmaster General, whether the Chairman of the Tracers' Association was recently degraded and his pay reduced for forwarding to him, at the request of the Association, a resolution unanimously adopted by its members; and whether, if so, there is any regulation of the Service which prohibits the officials of any union of Post Office servants from communicating with him on behalf of the union? 20 |