Works Purchase Bill. Mr. Cross explained the provisions of this Bill on March 2. The principles on which he took his stand were that unification of the eight Water Companies was the great object to be kept in view, if London was to be supplied with water at the least cost and in the best possible manner; and that this unification could not be satisfactorily effected by any arrangement among the Companies themselves. Therefore, the Government proposed to create a central body, to which all the existing companies should transfer their property and surrender their powers. The immediate value of the stocks to be transferred was estimated by Mr. Cross at from 27 millions to 28 millions sterling. The Scheme, as the Times said, was equal in its dimensions to the settlement of the financial and political constitution of many an European state. For the execution of the scheme not a sixpence, in the way of either loan or guarantee, was to be asked from the State. The Government had persuaded the Companies to assent to the issue of a 3 per cent. Water Stock by the new Corporation-to be called the Metropolitan Water Trust-and to agree to take this Stock by way of payment. Disturbance of the Money Market would thus be avoided. With regard to the composition of the new Trust, it was to consist of 21 members-namely, three paid members (a chairman at 2,000l. and two vice-chairmen at 1,800l.), the Lord Mayor and chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works (ex officio), two members nominated by the Local Government Board and the Chief Commissioner of Works, two nominated by the City Commissioners of Sewers and the Metropolitan Board, and 12 members elected by the Metropolitan boroughs and by the water consumers north and south of the Thames not comprehended in any borough.

Mr. Cross's Water Bill was never debated in Parliament, but it raised a storm immediately out of doors. All minor details were left out of sight in a warm discussion whether the purchase-money to be paid to the Companies had not been calculated on too liberal a scale. The consensus of opinion that the Government did propose to be too liberal was overwhelming. The dissatisfaction was irrespective of party. The Daily News, while admitting that perhaps a bad bargain had been made in the large sums which it was proposed to pay for prospective increase in value, stood almost alone in contending that the amount to be paid to the shareholders in Ordinary Stock was only a fair equivalent for the actual value of their existing revenues. The Times and the Standard criticised the scheme with more severity, the latter journal adducing an array of facts as to the operations on the Stock Exchange after the announcement of the scheme, which was more enlightening as to its effect than any amount of argument. "The extraordinary rise," the Standard pointed out, "that has taken place in the price of the shares of the London Water Companies since the Home Secretary brought in his Bill, sufficiently shows what is the opinion of the investors as to the financial character of the measures, and is, we are afraid, unanswerable evidence that the Government have been

too liberal with the public money. It is plain that an enormous additional value has been given to the undertakings of the several Companies, and a magnificent unearned increment has at once. accrued to the parties who held shares at the time when the present excitement arose. The advance in the market price of the shares since the Government Bill made its appearance on Wednesday morning, is the more significant, seeing that it comes on the top of a previous rise. In fact, we get wave on wave, and those who have had shares to sell must have rejoiced in the flood which thus bore them on to fortune. When Mr. Cross promised, in the debate on Mr. Fawcett's motion last year, that no speculative change in the value of the Stocks, or the action of the Companies, would have the smallest weight with the Government in any proposal they might have to make,' a feeling of satisfaction was at once created in the public mind. But we are sorry to say that it will be the opinion of the most competent critics, that if the provisional bargain entered into between the Government and the Water Companies has been uninfluenced by speculation, it cannot be said that speculation has been uninfluenced by the bargain. At the commencement of 1879, the shares of seven of the London Water Companies stood as follows:-Lambeth, 153; West Middlesex, 137; East London, 151; Kent, 210; Chelsea, 153; Grand Junction, 82; and the Southwark and Vauxhall, 110. Taking these same Stocks as they were quoted a year later-that is to say, in the early part of January last-we find they had then risen to the following prices:-Lambeth, 187; West Middlesex, 174; East London, 1944; Kent, 245; Chelsea, 1874; Grand Junction, 1161; and the Southwark and Vauxhall, 185. This of itself would seem an abundant rise, indicating very sanguine expectations on the part of the buyers, and a tolerable inclination to hold on the part of the sellers. But we have to pile Pelion on Ossa in order to reach the golden summit attained by the holders of these shares. Yesterday the market stood thus at the close, after some violent fluctuations:-Lambeth Ten per Cents., 261; West Middlesex, 196; East London, 239; Kent, 336; Chelsea, 242; Grand Junction, 136; and the Southwark and Vauxhall, 278. Thus, in little more than a year, we see an addition made to the selling price of the shares which, in the case of the Lambeth Company, is rather more than 100l., while the Kent has an addition of 126l., and the Southwark as much as 170l. In the last instance we see the value of the shares considerably more than doubled."

Not only was there a vast deal of speculation in Water Stock, but a rumour gained currency, and even went so far as to be made the subject of questions in Parliament, that some speculators had got wind of the intentions of the Government, and made large sums by means of their knowledge. Mr. Cross promised inquiry into the matter, but it was dropped in the heat of the elections. There was a very general impression, considering the tone of the Times and the Standard, that the Ministry, after keeping its

majority unbroken through so many trials, would be wrecked at last upon the Water Bill, and the circumstance offered irresistible opportunities for punsters.

Before it was known that the Parliament was to come to an end without any such catastrophe, there were two standard subjects of debate, the Game Laws and the Temperance question, which received more than ordinary attention, it being understood that the utterances of leading men upon these questions might powerfully affect the General Election, which could not be far off, though it was nearer at hand than was generally supposed. On March 2, Mr. P. A. Taylor moved the abolition of the existing Game Law Code, as being "unjust to the farmer, demoralising to the labourer, and injurious to the whole community." Sir W. Barttelot moved as an amendment, that "it is not now expedient to deal with the question of the Game Laws," and Sir William Harcourt, as an amendment to this amendment, that the word "not" be left out of it. Sir W. Harcourt explained that he proposed this omission to afford hon. gentlemen opposite an opportunity of expressing their opinion as to whether it was or was not expedient to amend the Game Laws, and urged that their vote would be a criterion of the genuineness of their protestations of friendship to the farmer. The opponents of Mr. Taylor's resolution, which was rejected by a majority of 73, were chary of committing themselves to Sir W. Barttelot's amendment, and the curious result followed that, first, Sir W. Harcourt's amendment, equivalent to a motion that it was expedient to deal with the question of the Game Laws, was rejected by a majority of 16; and thereafter Sir W. Barttelot's amendment, that it was not now expedient to deal with the question of the Game Laws, negatived without a division. Sir Stafford Northcote complained that the effect of Sir W. Harcourt's amendment was "to turn the whole thing into ridicule."

Sir Wilfrid Lawson's Local Option Resolution was moved on March 5. One of the incidents of the debate was the maiden speech of Mr. Clarke, the newly elected member for Southwark, who was highly applauded for the vigour with which he defended the existing licensing authority, argued the inexpediency of proceeding in such a matter by abstract resolution, and ridiculed the injustice of such restraint as was aimed at by the Permissive Bill. A good deal was said by Sir Wilfrid Lawson's opponents about the mystifying character of his Resolution, which was identical in language with that of the previous year. The word "mystifying" was caught up and repeated by speaker after speaker, but there was no mystification whatever in Sir Wilfrid Lawson's introductory speech. He made no secret of the fact that his plan for dealing with the drink evil was the plan drawn up in the Permissive Bill. He had seen no reason, he frankly said, to alter his opinion that that was the best mode of regulating the traffic, but when he brought the scheme in all its details before them, all sorts of objections were made to details, and he could

not get the sense of the House upon the question of principle. His object was to unite the votes of all who thought that something ought to be done, and that that something should lie in the direction of giving the inhabitants of districts power to restrain the number of public houses. Sir Wilfrid Lawson's seconder, Mr. Burt, invited the support of the House to the declaration, as a recognition of the principle that the time had come for putting restrictions on the sale of intoxicating liquors.

As

Mr. Bright gave the weight of his eloquent support to the Resolution on the same grounds, deriding the idea that any member need be afraid of supporting it, lest by his vote he should commit himself to the Permissive Bill. The Permissive Bill had disappeared, he said; the advocates of a change in the law relating to the sale of drink were in no way tied to its provisions. He calculated that not more than five members believed in it. The Resolution pledged them only to disapproval of the present system, and that it was bad he held to be conclusively demonstrated. a proof of the growing desire on the part of the public to see the evil dealt with, Mr. Bright cited the fact that a memorial in favour of the Resolution had been signed by 13,600 clergymen of the Church of England, including 15 bishops and other dignitaries. "The facts of the case," Mr. Bright concluded, "were overpowering; they were uncontested; everyone spoke in the strongest terms about the deplorable consequences of drunkenness. addition, we knew that science, education, morality, and religionall the great forces which moved good and wise men to actionwere gathering about this conflict. The cries from our workhouses, the moans from the sufferers in our prisons-these all joined in one voice asking them to deal with this question."

In

The chief objection to the Resolution, made by those who would not have contested Mr. Bright's arguments, was that it was not the way of the House to pass abstract Resolutions condemning a system until there was a larger body of agreement as to the means to be adopted for its cure. The Government could not fairly be called upon to introduce a Bill while there was such diversity of opinion concerning the details of change. On this ground Lord Hartington announced that he would vote against the Resolution, although he found in it something to approve. Mr. Gladstone took up a neutral position. He could not vote against the resolution, because by so doing he would commit himself to the maintenance of the law as it stood. He could not vote for it, because, although he saw nothing to object to in the principle of local option, he had not yet heard of any plan for giving effect to that principle which it would not be premature to adopt. Mr. Gladstone objected also that the Resolution made no reference to existing interests. Publicans had the same right to fair consideration of their vested rights as those following any other trade or calling had when that trade or calling was interfered with by Act of Parliament, and the Resolution ought to have taken cognisance of their claims. Both

Mr. Gladstone and Lord Hartington appealed to the Government to declare their intentions on the subject, and complained that they had not sooner done so after the report of the Lords Committee on Intemperance.

When this report was first published, members of the Government had referred to it as marking an epoch in the history of the question. But Mr. Cross, speaking now for the Government, in answer to the appeal from the leader of the Opposition, declared that to his mind the twenty recommendations of the Committee presented no clear lines of action against excessive drunkenness. The only thing to be done, it seemed to him, was to make the best of the present system by regulation and supervision, trusting to the beneficial effects of education, improved dwellings, and such general influences in building up habits of sobriety. He denied that the present licensing authorities showed any tendency to laxity in the issuing of new licenses. Their tendency was all the other way, and everywhere there had been a steady disinclination to grant new licenses except for special reasons. It was indispensable that the licensing authority should have something of a judicial character, otherwise its decisions would give rise to much dissatisfaction. The tribunal should not be a tribunal appointed ad hoc, and it ought not to be appointed by a popular vote.

The falling off in Sir W. Lawson's support, as compared with the division of the previous year, was perhaps partly attributable to the scare produced by the activity of the publicans, and the revelations of the electoral strength commanded by them in the recent elections for Sheffield, Liverpool, and Southwark. But considerable effect was doubtless also produced by the speeches against the Resolution from members who fully recognised the evils of the existing system, although they were not convinced of the feasibility of any proposed alternative. "We believe," the Times said, commenting on the debate, "that Mr. Gladstone yesterday expressed the opinion of the centre of the House of Commons. The best men on both sides agreed with him. The present system of licensing houses for the sale of intoxicating liquors is far from perfect. It is not merely imperfect as all human laws must be; it has imperfections that might be removed, shortcomings that could be made good."

THE announcement of the dissolution was made in both Houses on

Monday, March 8. The secret was well kept till the moment of its revelation, and everybody was taken by surprise, although everybody, once the announcement was made, could see how steadily the Government had been getting ready for the momentous step.