Commons Sitting of 28 March 1881

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Agricultural Holdings Act (1875) Amendment*[127].
Second Reading—Inclosure Provisional Orders (Scotton and Ferry Common)*[115]; Inclosure Provisional Orders (Wibsey Slack and Low Moor Commons)*[114]; Army Discipline and Regulation (Annual)*[123].
Committee—Report—Leases[108].

QUESTIONS.

  THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—ST. JAMES'S PARK.
  MR. W. H. JAMESasked the First Commissioner of Works, If he can state the reasons for the inclosure of a piece of ground in St. James's Park, between Spring Gardens and Carlton House Terrace; and, whether, if there is any objection to the removal of the railings, there is any ground why access within them should not be given to the public?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Sir, the plot of land to which the hon. Member refers has always been inclosed by iron rails, because, I believe, it lies near the entrance to the Park, and if the grass were trampled down it would be a disfigurement to the Park. It would not be desirable to remove the fences; but I have given directions that a gate shall be opened in the summer time, when people may care to sit under the trees there.

  POOR LAW (ENGLAND)—THE OLDHAM GUARDIANS—CATHOLIC CHILDREN.
  MR. BELLINGHAMasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been drawn to a statement in the papers that the Oldham guardians have refused to allow Catholic children to attend any other place of worship than the Church of England; whether such a statement be true; and, if so, whether such a course of proceeding is justifiable; and, whether he can take any steps in the matter; and, whether it is a fact that a large proportion of this body were Radicals and Liberals?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, there has been no correspondence on the subject, and I can give no information in regard to it. I will, however, request the Inspector of the district to take an early opportunity of visiting the Union and ascertaining the facts of the case. I did not hear the last part of the Question.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— MODEL SCHOOLS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has any objection to explain why, in their recent reports, the Com-
  6
  missioners of National Education have not stated the average yearly attendance at each department of the Model Schools; whether more detailed information on this point will be given in the report for 1880; and, whether he can state how many Model School departments had an average attendance of thirty, or under, during the years 1878, 1879, and 1880, and how many of these departments had the benefit of assistant teachers?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, the reason why the Commissioners of National Education have not given the statistics referred to is on account of the expense of publishing such minute details. They have, however, decided to give them triennially, and the Report for 1880 will contain them. The hon. Member will find in that Report that in the year 1878 there were eight school departments, with an average attendance of 30 or under, four of which had assistant teachers; that in 1879 there were eight departments, three of which had assistant teachers, and that in 1880 there were seven departments, three of which had assistant teachers. These assistant teachers will be transferred to other schools as vacancies occur, and we hope they will disappear altogether from the smaller schools.

  THE CIVIL SERVICE—THE "PLAYFAIR SCHEME."
  MR. JOHN HOLLONDasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, To what officer of the Crown the scheme known as "The Playfair Scheme" of re-organisation has been applied, and whether it is intended to apply it to all offices; whether the Treasury is prepared to grant special allowances, under section 7 of the Superannuation Act (22 Vic. c. 26), to all persons willing to retire from office in order that the scheme in question may be applied; and, whether, in offices in which clerks of obsolete establishments remain unabsorbed, steps have been taken to secure to lower division clerks the advantages of duty pay hold out to them in the 16th Clause of the Order in Council of the 12th of February 1876?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, I am afraid I cannot adequately reply to the hon. Member without asking the House to allow me to exceed, in some degree, the usual limits of an

  7
  answer. I should explain, first of all, that the Playfair Scheme had its origin in the Report of a Departmental Committee of Inquiry, appointed in 1874, which the present Chairman of Committees presided over; but that the Report of this, as of all similar Committees, amounted to no more than a recommendation which the Government of the day might or might not, in the exercise of its discretion, adopt. A reference to the Order in Council of February 12, 1876, will show my hon. Friend the extent to which the Playfair Scheme has been adopted by the Government. Effect was given to so much only of the Report as provided for the introduction of a lower division into the Civil Service; and if hon. Members will refer to the Civil Service Establishment Estimates, they will find that clerks in the Lower Division have been largely adopted throughout the Service; and I may add that the Treasury is constantly being called upon to further the gradual re-organization of Offices on that basis. With respect to the Upper Division, the Government regard the Playfair Scheme as one way among several in which such a division may be formed; but they have not adopted it as the sole way of forming such a division. With regard to the second part of the Question, the Treasury is certainly not prepared to commit itself in unqualified terms to grant special allowances to all persons willing to retire from office in order that the scheme in question may be applied. Each case of the kind must be judged on its own merits, and the test applied to them must be the promise which they severally afford of increased economy and efficiency in the particular Office under consideration. Until this point is settled in each case, no question about special allowances to individuals can arise. With regard to the last part of the hon. Member's Question, I presume he refers to Offices in which clerks of some existing scale, which allows salaries above those of the Lower Division, have been permitted to remain on their actual scale of pay until they retire. In such cases, wherever it is possible, the clerks on the old and higher scale of pay are required to perform the duties which might otherwise be allotted to Lower Division clerks with duty pay. It is evident that in such cases the same duties would be paid for twice over, if this last part of
  8
  the hon. Member's Question were answered in the affirmative; and I must observe that, apart from the actual performance of duties which exceed those covered by the ordinary scale of the Lower Division, no clerk of that Division has any claim whatever to duty pay. The Report of the Committee is in no point more decided than in the distinction which it draws between those periodical payments which are personal to the clerk and those extra payments, called duty pay, which are attached to certain duties, and accrue only to the Lower Division clerk who is called upon to perform and who actually performs them.

  THE BERLIN CONFERENCE—THE FRENCH AT TUNIS.
  MR. RYLANDSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been directed to statements which have recently appeared in the press to the effect that at the time of the Berlin Conference it was distinctly stipulated by M. Waddington, and agreed to by Lord Beaconsfield and Lord Salisbury, that the price which England would pay for the occupation of Cyprus would be the concession to France of full and free leave, so far as England was concerned, to establish herself permanently at Tunis whenever it seemed good to her to do so; and that documents irretrievably committing the late Government on the subject of Tunis exist in the archives of the French Foreign Office; and, whether he can give the House any information in regard to these statements?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, I am, of course, unable to say what documents may exist in the archives of the French Foreign Office. Some conversations took place at the time of the Congress of Berlin between Lord Salisbury and M. Waddington, in which the position of France towards Tunis was mentioned; but Lord Salisbury demurred to the construction which was put upon his words, and I do not think that it would be wise to re-open the subject.
  MR. MONTAGUE GUESTasked, If the hon. Baronet would state whether there was any letter from the Foreign Minister of France to the late Government, detailing an account of the conversation which took place between him and Lord Salisbury; and, if so, whether

  9
  the hon. Baronet would lay it on the Table?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: There are a considerable number of despatches on the subject; but I am very doubtful whether it would be desirable to lay them on the Table of the House.

  ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION (ANNUAL) BILLS—SUMMARY PUNISHMENTS—THE 4TH CLAUSE.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS,who had given Notice to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether, before the Second Reading of the Army Discipline and Regulation (Annual) Bill, he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Rules to be made by him with respect to summary punishment under the 4th Clause, wished to know whether the Rules, as printed this morning, were the final Rules?
  MR. CHILDERSobserved, that no Notice had been given of the latter Question. The Secretary of State had power to make Rules from time to time; but for the present the Rules, as published, were final.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—PRISONERS IN KILMAINHAM GAOL.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the writ for rent served on Mr. Patrick Fury, in Kilmainham Prison, on the 16th instant, was served in the ordinary visiting cell of the prison; and, if so, how the person who served the writ contrived to pass it through the pair of iron gratings, separated from each other by a space of several feet, which stand between the visitor and the prisoner; if the writ was not served in the visiting cell, then where, and in what manner, it was served; whether facilities denied to ordinary visitors were afforded to the person who came to serve the writ; and, whether it is to be understood that landlords, whose tenants, unconvicted of any offence, are confined in Kilmainham Prison, will be enabled by the Government to push forward processes of eviction, while the tenants are prevented, by the fact of their imprisonment, from acting in defence of their own interests?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, facilities were given for the service of the writ in
  10
  question, and it was served in the ordinary way. The Government do not think that a man should be safe from the service of a notice for the non-payment of rent because he has been taken up on a warrant under the recent Act; nor do they think that any additional facilities should be given for obtaining the payment of rent. At the same time, they wish, as far as possible, to prevent his suffering in any civil case in which he has taken action against any other person.

  SOUTH AFRICA—BASUTOLAND (NEGOTIATIONS).
  MR. W. H. JAMESasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can state to the House whether any information has been received as to any modification of the terms of peace to be offered to the Basutos by the Cape Government?
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked, Whether any information had been received as to the reported six hours' fighting, in which General Carrington was said to have been wounded?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, my hon. Friend will, perhaps, allow me to answer his Question, and to tell him that we have received no information upon that subject; but Sir Hercules Robinson has told us that he has again urged Lerothodi to place himself unreservedly in his hands. As to the reported fighting, I believe the telegram to be correct.

  AFGHANISTAN—CANDAHAR (POLITICAL AFFAIRS).
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Secretary of State for India, If he will be good enough to state the amount of military force with which he expects the Ameer of Cabul, Abdul Rahman, will occupy Candahar and Southern Afghanistan on the withdrawal of the British troops?
  MR. ONSLOWasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true, as stated in the "Times" of that morning, that General Hume, commanding at Candahar, refused to leave it on sanitary and humane grounds, and whether any special arrangements have been made to secure the health of the troops marching at this season of the year, now that the Government have ordered their immediate withdrawal from Candahar?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the information which has been re-

  11
  ceived, and which was communicated to the House last week, was to the effect that 4,000 Infantry and 1,000 Cavalry had left Cabul for Candahar. I am not aware whether this force is to be followed by any larger one, or what are the numbers of the forces to be collected locally at Candahar. As to time, it is believed that the Cavalry would reach Candahar in about 12 days from the date of their departure from Cabul; I do not recollect what the date was. It was expected that the Infantry would reach Cabal four days after the Cavalry. I have received no information whatever which corroborates the statement referred to in the Question of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow).

  NAVY—QUARTERMASTERS OF ROYAL MARINES.
  MR. GORSTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is a fact that Quartermasters of the Royal Marines are not eligible for Greenwich Hospital Pensions, either as men or officers; and, if so, whether their case will be considered by the Committee recently appointed to inquire into Naval and Greenwich Hospital Pensions?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the quartermasters of Royal Marines are not eligible for Greenwich Hospital pensions as officers or as men. Receiving as they do 10 s. a-day retirement, they are not fitted to be recipients of the 5d. and 9d. a-day age pension, and no officer's pension has been allotted to their class, the fact being, I suppose, that their well-deserved promotion has placed them in a better position as compared with that in which they entered the Service than is the case with any other class of officers in the Navy. Their case does not come within the scope of the Pensions Committee.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—LEGAL PROCEEDINGS OF LANDLORDS.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether many Irish landlords have, in their legal proceedings against their tenants, resorted to the Superior Courts instead of to the Courts of Quarter Sessions; and, if he will be willing to produce periodical Returns of the number of Writs issued out of the Inferior Courts in such cases, where, at much less cost to the defendants, pro-
  12
  ceedings might have been taken in the local Courts?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, if the hon. Member will refer to the Returns No. 40 and No. 93, presented on the 28th of January and 21st of February last, he will find the answer to the Question. These Returns show that not many Irish landlords have resorted to the Superior Courts for proceedings against their tenants. It appears from the first of the Returns to which I have referred that the number of judgments entered up in the High Court of Justice for non-payment of rent during the eight months preceding the 31st of August was 56, as against 674 decrees in the Inferior Courts, in the Michaelmas Session alone, and that there were 19 judgments in the Superior Courts between the 1st of January and the 1st of September, as against 506 in the Lower Courts.

  ARMY RE-ORGANIZATION—DISTINGUISHED SERVICE PENSIONS.
  CAPTAIN O'SHEAasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, under the reorganisation scheme, general officers who are in receipt of distinguished service pensions will lose them on compulsory retirement, and will retain no advantage over officers who have not received those rewards?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend I have to remind him that, under the present system, a general officer, on appointment to the colonelcy of a regiment, is obliged to give up his good-service reward; and I see no reason why he should not do so when, under the new system, he is retired on a pension. I could not consent to make so great an addition to the charge for general officers as my hon. Friend's suggestion would involve. I may remind him that all present general officers will be allowed the option of the present or the future system in respect of half-pay and retired pay.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) ACT, 1870, COMMISSION (THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH'S)—THE EVIDENCE.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Having regard to the serious charges made against many persons in the first volume of the Evidence given

  13
  before Lord Bessborough's Commission, when the second volume, which it is understood will contain contradictions and explanations, will be printed?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I am as anxious as anyone can be to get the second volume of Evidence out as soon as possible, and I have done all I could with that object; but the matter rests with the printer in Dublin. He promises that the volume will be completed and ready to be despatched from Dublin next Thursday. Of course, it will be circulated, immediately on the receipt of it, at the Stationery Office here.
  MR. PLUNKETasked the right hon. Gentleman when the index would be issued?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hoped the index would be out soon; but he could not say exactly when. A digest of the evidence of each witness was published in the second volume.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—TRAWLERS' LIGHTS' COMMITTEE.
  MR. HENEAGEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in the event of the Motion of the honourable Member for Norfolk, with regard to trawler's lights, being again postponed in consequence of the urgency of Government Business, the Government will undertake that no steps shall be taken towards carrying out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on trawler's lights, which is at direct variance with the Report of the Select Committee appointed last Session, and the evidence given before it, until the House has had an opportunity of fully discussing the question?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY,in reply, said, that the Board of Trade would delay as long as possible acting on the Report of the Committee, in order to allow the Motion to be previously discussed in the House; but they could not do so indefinitely, as the regulations had to be published a certain time before they could be acted upon.

  DOMINION OF CANADA—IRISH EMIGRATION.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If any reply has been sent by Her Majesty's Government to a message for-
  14
  warded by the Governor General from the Privy Council of Canada, sympathising with Irish distress, and desiring to co-operate for its relief; if it be the fact that the measure offered by Canada is, that the Imperial Government should subsidise an emigration scheme that is to cost £80 per family, while Canada is to get the benefit of the new labour, but to bear no part of the pecuniary cost, and do nothing beyond what she now does for all other immigrants; if it be the fact that part of the British Government subsidy would, under the scheme, be applied in paying the Canadian Government a patent fee of £2 for each grant of land, while that land was ceded to Canada by Britain free; and, if the foregoing allegations are well founded, whether Her Majesty's Government will, in any negotiations that may follow, propose a more equal arrangement?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend's first Question, I have to say that the Governor General of the Dominion has been informed that the matter has been referred to the Irish Government. In reply to his second and third Questions, I have to say that, as I read the despatch, the offer of the Dominion Government is a very much more liberal one than he supposes. In reply to his fourth Question, I have to say that I make no doubt that, if further negotiations take place, Her Majesty's Government will be as desirous as I am sure that the Dominion Government will be that the arrangements made should be fair to all parties.

  ARMY RE-ORGANIZATION (AUXILIARY FORCES)—PROMOTION IN THE MILITIA.
  MR. DALRYMPLEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether promotion in the Militia regiments, which will now be the 3rd and 4th battalions of the Territorial Regiment, is to be in the battalion in which the vacancy occurs, or whether officers may be liable to be promoted out of their own battalion into the other Militia battalion of the Territorial Regiment?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that I had not intended to disturb the rule of promotion in Militia battalions; but I am much obliged to him for his suggestion, which we will consider.

  CONFERENCE AT BERLIN—GREEK INHABITANTS OF CEDED TURKISH PROVINCES.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether in making or sanctioning any proposals for annexing of portions of Turkish territory to Greece, Her Majesty's Government have taken any steps to ascertain whether such annexation will be acceptable to the population of the districts proposed to be thus ceded; if so, what is the nature of such steps, and whether the Correspondence detailing them can be laid upon the Table; and, whether the text of the Petitions addressed to the Conference of Berlin by the inhabitants of several districts in Albania and Thessaly can be presented to Parliament?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have taken steps to ascertain the feeling of the population in the territory proposed to be ceded. Her Majesty's Government have every reason to believe that the Christian population, which in the territory which was the subject of the proposals of Berlin amounted to six-sevenths of the whole, and which in Thessaly alone formed a much larger proportion, is unanimously in favour of annexation; and Her Majesty's Government hope that any Mussulmans who may be transferred to Greek rule will enjoy better security for life and property than at present, and will receive those ample guarantees in regard to their religion and their civil and political rights which were stipulated for by Lord Odo Russell at the fifth meeting of the Conference at Berlin. The Petitions addressed to the Conference were not sent to the respective Governments; but their titles and purport are printed with the Protocols in the Parliamentary Papers, Greece, No. 3, 1880.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the hon. Baronet whether further Papers would be published before Easter?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, I think it highly improbable that Papers upon the subject will be laid on the Table before Easter. It is the desire of all the Ambassadors now at Constantinople that the strictest secrecy shall be observed with regard to their proceedings.

  CUSTOMS RE-ORGANIZATION—CUSTOMS CLERKS (LIVERPOOL).
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Treasury have yet arrived at any decision in reference to the memorial from the Liverpool Customs Clerks, dated last May, asking the equality, hitherto allowed, with clerks performing analogous duties in London; and, if so, in what manner it is intended to improve the recent classification which has entirely failed to give satisfaction to the clerks of the second class, who complain that, whereas the clerks in London and other outports were materially benefited by the re-organisation, not a single case of promotion was effected by it at Liverpool?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, I must say, in the first place, that although the re-organization did not give any immediate promotion to the clerks at Liverpool, I cannot admit that they received no benefit by it. I should be prepared to give the details on which this opinion is founded; but it would be difficult to make scales of salary intelligible within the limits of an answer. With regard to the Memorial, I find that the reply of the Treasury was, by some inadvertence, not communicated to the memorialists by the Board of Customs. Upon the application of the memorialists for the transmission of their Memorial to the Treasury, they were informed that it was proposed in future, instead of confining promotion to the limits of their own establishment, to make the second-class clerks at Liverpool eligible for advancement to higher posts at the outports generally, and the second-class clerks at other outports eligible for first-class clerkships at Liverpool. The chances of promotion were thus, to a great extent, equalized throughout the service; and the Treasury expressed their satisfaction with the arrangements, by which they considered that the complaints of the memorialists were adequately met. I understand that the effect of the arrangement already has been that two Liverpool clerks have obtained promotion, which they would not otherwise have had. Under the new scheme, 55 may rise from £80 to £250; the difference of number is due to the writers who may become clerks. Under the old system the progress from £230 to £540

  17
  was broken twice at £340 and £440. Under the new scale there is only one break at £400 between £265 and £600, and this break is in four instances at £450, including duty pay, instead of £400. The change involves an average increase of more than £2,600 per annum.

  POST OFFICE—INDICATORS TO PILLAR LETTER-BOXES.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Postmaster General, Whether he can now give to the House the further information which he promised regarding the affixing to pillar letter-boxes of indicators, showing when the last clearance was made?
  MR. FAWCETT,in reply, said, he was happy to inform his hon. Friend that he would find a Vote in the Estimates in reference to the supplying of the indicators in question. He intended to have them affixed, with the least possible delay, not only to all pillar-boxes, but to all wall letter-boxes in the United Kingdom.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL (NEGOTIATIONS).
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE (for Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, When the Royal Commissioners in the Transvaal will commence their work; and, whether the Instructions to the Commission and any Despatches on the general subject will be laid before Parliament in addition to the telegrams already presented?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: The right hon. Gentleman will, perhaps, allow me to answer his Questions. As to the first, I have to say that my noble Friend is in communication with Sir Hercules Robinson with regard to the place at which and the time when the Commission should meet. I may add that Her Majesty's Government is anxious that it should commence its labours as soon as possible. As to the second, I have to say that the Correspondence has been almost entirely telegraphic, and has been already laid before Parliament. As to the third, I am not yet able to make any reply.
  MR. GORSTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Instructions issued to the Commander of the British Troops remaining in the
  18
  Transvaal till the final settlement, as to the manner in which those Troops are to perform the duty of preventing the party that has been loyal to the British Government from using the situation to the prejudice of the Boers?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, this Question has been passed on to me by my right hon. Friend; and, in reply to it, I have to say that during the interval, until the country is handed over to the Boers, it will be our duty to maintain order as far as possible, and the troops would, if required, act in support of the civil authorities, without any special instruction. But the Commissioners will direct their attention to this as well as other points; and Sir Evelyn Wood will proceed, as soon as his other duties permit, to Pretoria to make the necessary arrangements.
  MR. GORSTasked, Whether the Instructions to the Commission would be laid on the Table before Easter?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: I can give no certain reply to that Question; but I should hope they may be.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: With reference to a statement in this morning's paper, that all English residents have been ordered out of the Transvaal, and that refugees returning to their homes in that country are threatened with confiscation, said, he trusted there was no foundation for the rumour, and hoped Her Majesty's Government would be able to contradict it.
  MR. GRANT DUFF: In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that no such information has reached us, and I give no credence to the rumour.

  STREET TRAFFIC (METROPOLIS)— THE VESTRIES.
  MR. CARINGTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will take into consideration the advisability of counselling the vestries of the west end of London to depart from or to modify their usual practice of repairing the main thoroughfares of London during the busiest times of the year?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, the hon. Member is probably aware that I have no authority over the Vestries, and I never found that very much good was done by giving advice to those who were not obliged to act on it. The Ves-

  19
  tries are supposed to consult the interests of the district they administer. They are elected by the persons who live in those districts, and the proper remedy would be for the electors to take care to elect those persons who will consult their interest.

  TURKEY AND GREECE—THE FRONTIER QUESTION.
  MR. BOURKEgave Notice that tomorrow, if convenient to the Prime Minister, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether a statement with respect to the Greek Frontier would be made before the Easter Recess?
  MR. COOPEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether a map might not be hung in the Library showing the successive frontiers offered by Turkey and discussed by the representatives?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would communicate with the Intelligence Department of the War Office as to whether such a map could be placed in the Reading Room for the use of hon. Members.

  HIGHWAYS—MAINTENANCE OF MAIN ROADS.
  In reply to Mr. HENEAGE,
  MR. E. W. HARCOURTsaid, that if he was not able before 10 o'clock that night to bring on his Motion in reference to the maintenance of main roads, the Government had promised him the first day after Easter for that purpose.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Government cannot possibly give the first day after Easter. The hon. Member will remember that that day is already heavily mortgaged.
  MR. E. W. HARCOURTsaid, he understood he had been promised the first day.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: As I remember it, the Government promised that they would endeavour to give the hon. Member the earliest day they could after Easter.

MOTION.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  Ordered, That the Orders of the Day, subsequent to the Order for the Second Reading of the Army Discipline and Regulation (Annual) Bill, be postponed until after the Notices of
  20
  Motions relating to the Maintenance of Main Roads and Fishing Vessels' Lights.—(Mr. Gladstone.)

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION (ANNUAL) BILL.— [BILL 123.]
  (Mr. Secretary Childers, the Judge Advocate General, Mr. Trevelyan.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGAN,in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he understood that it was the general wish of the House that the debate should conclude at an hour which would enable the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. E. W. Harcourt) to bring forward the Motion for which he had twice secured a first place, but which place he had each time lost through what he (Mr. Osborne Morgan) might call the fortune of war. It would, however, scarcely be respectful or fair to the House if a Bill of this importance, involving, as it did, a considerable change in the discipline of the Army, should be thrown upon the Table of the House without a single word of explanation. What he proposed to do was to make the statement which he would have made if he had had the opportunity on the bringing in of the Bill, and he would confine himself to that which was the only novel or controversial point in it—he alluded to the abolition of corporal punishment, and the substitution for it of other summary punishments. He knew that was a question upon which military men felt strongly and expressed themselves warmly; and for that reason, as well as for every other, he would take care not to say a single word which could offend, he would not say the prejudice—that would not be the proper word—but the honest conviction of any hon. or gallant Member on either side of the House. He need not appeal on that point to the right hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Stanley), because he was always fair, and no Minister ever encountered a more courteous critic or a more generous opponent. But he would ask, was it possible, or if it was possible, was it desirable to retain this shred—this mere fragment of punishment—which was condemned by popular opi-

  21
  nion, which had been discarded by every other European Power, and which military critics admitted, however efficacious it might have been at former times, was, as at present restricted, not now worth keeping? That question would, no doubt, have to be determined by professional experts; but it could not be looked at altogether from a military standpoint. It must also be looked at from a popular point of view, for the numbers of our Army were kept up entirely by voluntary enlistment. As the Inspector General of Recruiting said—
  "It must always be borne in mind that the Army is a voluntary Army, and that the secret of its strength in a recruiting point of view consists in its popularity throughout the country."
  If, therefore, there were any cause which kept the best men out of the Army, it would not be denied, he thought, that a primâ facie case had been made out for the removal of that cause. Public opinion had undergone a very great change with respect to this question. There was a time when men were flogged for slight breaches of discipline. In the year 1868 his hon. Friend the Member for Rochester (Mr. Otway) carried an Amendment to the Bill with reference to the abolition of corporal punishment in time of peace. He was not in the House at the time his hon. Friend did so; but he well remembered the prophecies which were indulged in as to the future of the Army if the Amendment were carried. It was said that the Army would become a mere armed mob—that if corporal punishment were abolished other punishments would have to be doubled or tripled. Those were the prophecies; but what, however, were the facts? He had examined the Returns of general, district, and regimental courts martial at home and abroad from 1865 to 1879, with especial reference to the number of punishments inflicted. In the year 1866 the total number of punishments—510 men being flogged—was 22,832; but in 1868—the last year in which corporal punishment was inflicted—the number of punishments rose to 25,804. He ought, however, to say that this was the year of the Abyssinian War, and in war time it might, perhaps, be expected that the number of offences would increase. In the year 1869, when no man was flogged, the number of punishments fell to
  22
  18,128; and in the following year, in which there was only one flogging, it had come down as low as 12,664. Between that time and the year 1879 the number of punishments fluctuated; but it never rose higher than 15,877, which was the year of the Afghan War. The proportions of punishments per 1,000 men in the Army were—In 1866, 125; in 1867, 124; in 1868, 144; in 1869, 107; in 1870, 77; and in 1878, 88. The decrease in the gross number of punishments by court martial was doubtless due, in some degree, to the fact that, in cases of drunkenness, fines had been inflicted by commanding officers; but it was also due, and he thought in a large extent, to the abolition of the lash, which had decreased the ratio of crime in the Army, by inducing a better class of men to enlist. He was sorry he could not bring his statistical statements down to a later date, owing to the fact that the Returns had not been completed. That brought him to the Army Discipline Bill, 1879, during the passage of which his noble Friend the present Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington) introduced a Motion the object of which was to condemn the permanent retention of corporal punishment in the Army. That Notice was rejected by a large majority. But did that majority represent the feelings of the country? Anyone who pleased might easily test that for himself. Let him go down to any borough in the Kingdom, and put at the head of his address—"I am in favour of retaining flogging in the Army." He wondered what that man's chances of being returned would be. But he would not rely on his own opinion. At the commencement of this Session the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg), who seconded the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech from the Throne, and who had a better right to speak on the subject than any man in the House, for he had been returned by the largest number of votes recorded for any candidate at the late Election, said that in the large constituencies, which were the largest recruiting grounds for the Army, no Message from the Throne could be more acceptable than that which promised an abolition of corporal punishment in the Army. It was the opinion of the men best qualified to judge that the punishment of the lash had had the effect of deterring the best class of men

  23
  from which the rank and file of the Army could be drawn from entering the Army. It did not, of course, deter the village ruffian class from joining the Army; but it had certainly kept out of it many men of a higher class who would have been glad to look on the Army as a profession. Of late years, and particularly since flogging had been reduced to a minimum, this better class of men were beginning to join the Army in such considerable numbers as to lead to the conclusion that the soldiers of the future would be a very much superior class of men to the soldiers of the past, or even of the present time. He gathered this from the Annual Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting for 1881. The Returns of the Army on the educational acquirements of the men serving also showed a decided improvement. On the 1st of January, 1861, there were 76 per 1,000 of superior education, and on the 1st of January, 1872, the ratio had increased to 137 per 1,000, from which year the increase became much more rapid, until the proportion on January 1, 1880, reached 576 per 1,000. But there was one more important fact which was constantly overlooked in dealing with this question. In 1879 flogging in the Army was abolished altogether, even in time of war, except for offences punishable with death, which were those of treachery, cowardice, mutiny, or violent insubordination, and in a few other cases, such as that of a sentry sleeping at his post. As to cases of cowardice, you could not make men brave by flogging them; and it was mere maudlin sentimentality to say that a man guilty of treachery should not be shot, because if such a man should not be shot, he did not know any crime for which the punishment of shooting should be inflicted. In the German Army there was no punishment for mutiny except that of death. Yet, during the whole of the Franco-German War, only three men were shot for the offence in the German Army. By the course taken by the late Secretary of State for War, by far the largest proportion of the offences for which in former days the lash was the punishment were no longer so punishable. He alluded principally to offences which were the result of drinking, a habit to which English soldiers were, perhaps, more prone than the soldiers of any other
  24
  European country. It was said, with at least some share of justice, that the lash was the readiest, and perhaps the most appropriate, punishment that could be inflicted for drunkenness, and the crimes which resulted from that inherent vice of the British Army; but the late Secretary of State for War, by the changes which he had made in the Bill of 1879, had deprived himself of this plea for its maintenance, and he supported the proposal of the noble Lord. Flogging, as limited by that Bill, could not be defended. The only excuse for it—namely, that it could be resorted to when imprisonment was impossible and death too severe—was gone. As his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) had stated in 1879, some other form of punishment would have to be devised to replace it, and that speedily. He had taken the trouble to have a Return prepared of the number of cases of corporal punishment which had been rife in the field, and reported to him, since the 12th of May, 1880, when he entered Office. Since that time we had had two serious wars—one in the Transvaal, during which only one case of corporal punishment had at present been reported to him, and that had been remitted, and the other in Afghanistan, during which there were only 15 cases of corporal punishment. Practically, therefore, corporal punishment had been killed by the Act of 1879. A letter on the subject, which had appeared in The Standard recently, proved too much; for if it proved anything, it went to show that the Act of 1879 should be repealed altogether—a course which Parliament, he felt sure, would not be prepared to adopt. Practically, therefore, there were only three courses open to Her Majesty's Government in this matter. They might have left things as they were—a course which it was impossible to take at the present time. Secondly, they might have abolished flogging in the Army altogether, as they had done in the Navy, without providing any substitute for it; but, in doing so, they would have done that which had been done in no other Army in the world. It must be remembered that while on the march a soldier could not be put in irons as a sailor could be at any time on board ship. The third course was that which was proposed by the Bill—namely, to abolish corporal punishment altogether,

  25
  and to substitute for it some other form of summary punishment, not that, as he hoped, these summary punishments would, with the improving condition of the Army, be often resorted to. No doubt, the punishment list of the British Army was a very black record. But there were not wanting signs of a better state of things. A Return lately moved for by the hon. Baronet the Member for King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien) of the number of offences committed in each regiment showed a most extraordinary result; in some regiments crime being almost unknown, while in others nearly every third man was a criminal. There was a redeeming feature in the Return, for it did seem to show, some way or other, how he would not pretend to say, that you could make the British soldier pretty nearly what you liked; and that if, on the one hand, he could be powerfully influenced for evil, on the other hand he could be powerfully influenced for good. How was that object to be carried out? They would not do it by the lash; they would not do it by these summary punishments, however necessary they might be; but they would do it by raising the character and morale of the soldier, by removing the temptations to drunkenness, which was his greatest curse. They would do it by the means which his right hon. Friend proposed to adopt, and he hoped successfully. They would do it by raising the character and status of the noncommissioned officer. They would do it by giving the soldier something to live for and hope for, and by cultivating in his breast that sentiment of self-respect which, in the opinion of one of England's greatest soldiers, Sir Frederick Roberts, so far from being an enemy of discipline, was its surest and firmest ally.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Osborne Morgan.)
  COLONEL STANLEY,after expressing his pleasure at finding that the right hon. and learned Gentleman entertained an earnest desire to promote the welfare of the soldier, said, the events of 1879 were not far from them, and so many of the Members took place in the discussions on the subject in that year, that he did not think it either incumbent or advisable for him to speak more than
  26
  very briefly on the references which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had made to what passed in 1879. This, of course, had been apparent all along—that the debate which they were commencing pointed really only to one foregone conclusion; and, therefore, he might confine himself to some very few points on the several questions which had been raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked of corporal punishment as it was formerly understood—namely, punishment by the "Cat," as being done away with by this Bill; but, undoubtedly, it was to be replaced by a corporal punishment which might be one of extreme severity, and which, as far as the soldier was concerned, if carried out publicly, might convey to his mind a very considerable sense of degradation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had read to the House certain figures with the view of instituting a comparison between the Army at one period and another; but such a comparison was fallacious, inasmuch as the conditions of the Service were not identical at both periods. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that corporal punishment had a deterrent effect on recruiting; but that was a point on which there was a variety of opinion, for while there were many who would agree with him, there were others who took an opposite view on grounds equally satisfactory to themselves. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also pointed out with satisfaction that the class of men who had lately been coming into the Army was of a better class than formerly. That was an argument that cut both ways, because, if a better class of men had come and were now coming into the Army, it was quite clear that the existence of corporal punishment had not deterred that class from entering the Army. It would be remembered that when this subject was before the House in 1879, he (Colonel Stanley) was pressed very hard to abolish corporal punishment by the lash. The Army was then in the field, and such information as he was able to obtain did not satisfy him that it was right at that time to abolish the punishment. The Government, however, thought that if they could possibly meet the general feeling of the House they ought to leave nothing undone calculated to lead to that result; and as

  27
  the Returns of courts martial showed that in the large majority of cases of corporal punishment the number of lashes given was 25 or under, they thought they could adopt the system embodied in the Act of 1879 without injury to the Service. The right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that the concessions then made, and the general feeling of the House as it was then expressed, had so minimized the amount of corporal punishment that its retention was rendered practically of no importance. He (Colonel Stanley) might be thought obstinate or prejudiced; but he adhered to the opinion that the course which the late Government took in 1879 with regard to corporal punishment was the right course to take at the time. He was pretty conversant with the arrangements which the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed; and though he (Colonel Stanley) might have been wrong, he came to the conclusion, at the time he was the responsible Executive Minister, that they could not be carried out satisfactorily to the maintenance of discipline in the Army. He thought that when they reached the stage of Committee, it would be incumbent on the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and on those who acted with him, to make it perfectly clear that discipline could be kept up effectually under this measure. If their positions were reversed, what interruptions would have proceeded from Benches on that (the Opposition) side of the House if he (Colonel Stanley) had ventured to say that for many crimes which came under the notice of the Judge Advocate General the appropriate punishment would be death. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was not fettered by professional prejudice; and he, no doubt, looked at the matter from a popular point of view. Whether in a constituency or in the Army, he did not think there would be much hesitation as to the answer that would be given if the alternative were proposed between death and corporal punishment, as they proposed it in 1879. He did not think, in the General Election of 1880, a question on the subject was asked him half-a-dozen times; and, so far as the persons with whom he came into contact were concerned, there seemed to be no very strong general feeling about it. As regarded this stage of the Bill, it
  28
  was not his own intention, nor, he believed, the intention of those with whom he habitually acted, to offer any opposition. Of course he felt strongly on the subject; but if the Government were satisfied they could maintain discipline in the manner proposed, so much the better. The responsibility must rest with them; and he only hoped that the present proposal was well considered, and not made merely with the view of redeeming a pledge given in a moment of excitement. He hoped, also, that they were not now making an alteration which would in any way weaken discipline or diminish the power which a commander in the field should have in his hands. It was not only for the internal discipline of the Army, but also for the protection of the civil inhabitants of a country in which an Army was engaged in the field, that they should have the power of inflicting summary punishment; and he hoped that the application of this punishment might be so regulated as to give the commander in the field the most absolute power over the discipline of the men, should it be necessary. In view of the general tone of the discussions on the subject, and the very natural jealousy of the House and the Legislature to part with any of their authority over the Army, it seemed to him that the Secretary of State for War was claiming a very considerable power when he asked that the substitutes for flogging should be certain summary punishments regulated by rules to be made from time to time by the Secretary of State. That was a very great and vital departure from the old system. When the annual Discipline Bill was brought before the House for the future, there would be no power on their part to interfere except by way of address to the Crown. He could not sit down without saying he was glad to hear that the Judge Advocate was able to bear testimony to the general good working of the Army Discipline Bill of 1879. It was always satisfactory to hear that the gloomy predictions indulged in in former times had not been realized. He had no doubt upon the point himself; but he was glad to have his conviction confirmed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The whole responsibility for the course now proposed must rest with the Government; and he hoped, if they

  29
  should find that the proposed arrangements did not work satisfactorily, they would not be precluded, by any feeling of false pride, if he might use the phrase, from making such changes and revisions in the rules as might be thought necessary; and it would add to the power of Ministers in this respect if they made the House of Commons one of the principal parties in the matter.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he felt thankful to Her Majesty's Government for having dealt with this matter boldly and completely, and in a manner which, he believed, would be satisfactory to the country at large. The very best way for getting the Army recruited by a class of men not likely always to be in the hands of discipline was by doing away with a degrading punishment. The fact that it was possible for those who became soldiers to be exposed, under certain conditions, to such a punishment, caused men who respected themselves to shrink from entering the Army. While prepared to criticize the punishments substituted for flogging, he presumed the Government would say that those punishments were to be put upon their trial, and that, therefore, there should be a certain amount of elasticity in regard to them, so that the hands of the Administration might not be too closely bound, and that after a time they would consider whether any change should be made. He sympathized with the late Secretary of State for War in his remark as to handing over to the Government a very important power outside the control of Parliament. He would ask for some assurance that, after the experience of a year or two, the Government would put in the Bill itself a Schedule containing the punishments. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not be unwilling to consider, during the present year, whether he could not undertake that any changes made in the punishments should be laid upon the Table of the House.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he was inclined to exclaim, "How are the mighty fallen!" when he saw the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) so meek and submissive. If his right hon. and gallant Friend the late Secretary of State had ventured to propose one tithe of what had been proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, words could not have expressed the abhorrence of the hon. Member. But
  30
  now the hon. Member was like a sucking dove, he was so meek and mild, and ready to support the Government in any way. The hon. Member had forgotten his old characteristics, and had subsided into a humble follower and partizan of the existing Administration. The Judge Advocate General said, most truly, that it would not have done to lay so important a measure on the Table without a single word. He had hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have told the House something of the working of the Act of 1879, considering that recent wars must needs have enabled the authorities to form some opinion on the subject. Speaking of the war in the Transvaal, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had praised the behaviour of the troops, saying that there was no accusation against them, and that only one man had been flogged. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman must have been aware that very grave charges had been made against the troops both in Zululand and in the Transvaal on the well-known authority of Dr. Russell; charges which ought to have been at once refuted or withdrawn. It was understood that an inquiry had been ordered; but the result of the investigation remained unknown. If those charges were true, they proved the absence of proper discipline and the insufficiency even of the present military punishments; and if they were not true, they constituted a calumny on the British Army which no Minister for War should rest for one moment without authoritatively refuting. In any case, it was due to the Army that the real facts of the matter should be made known. No doubt there had been a denial by Sir Garnet Wolseley; but the statements to which he referred had not been authoritatively refuted; and he had heard it again stated that they were true. The House had been told by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that up to a certain point there was an enormous amount of crime, and that afterwards it gradually diminished. Thus in 1866 510 men were flogged, and, altogether, 22,832 were punished; while in 1868 the number of floggings had fallen to 412, though the total of punishments had risen to 25,804. The fact was that since this latter year a better class of men had been entering the Army, and the extreme punishments naturally be-

  31
  came less frequent; but even now there was a yearly average of 15,000 punishments. He complained that the question had never yet been fairly dealt with, either by the House or by the public. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had been unintentionally unfair to the late Parliament in stating that the majority in favour of retaining corporal punishment did not represent the views of the constituencies. It ought to have been said that flogging had been advocated by the present Secretary of State for War when he was at the Admiralty, and by the noble Marquess when Secretary of State for War, that the Leaders of both sides of the House had believed in its necessity, and that the military authorities were of the same opinion. No question had been more unscrupulously used against the late Government and the Conservative candidates at the time of the General Election; and even hon. Gentlemen who had given no vote on the subject had been denounced and caricatured as advocates of flogging. The truth was that no one wished to retain corporal punishment for its own sake, though the circumstances in which our Armies campaigned in various quarters of the world made it difficult to find a satisfactory substitute. For instance, it was hard to see in what other way such crimes as drunkenness in the face of the enemy could be punished—a crime which might lead to the most disastrous consequences. If the Austrian manacles were to be tried, he hoped that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) would insist on having them exhibited in the Library, like the sealed patterns of the regulation "cats," so as to be seen by everyone. Hon. Members were not, as a rule, familiar with the punishments used in foreign Armies; but, whatever was done in the present case, it was certain that the new punishments would not be applied brutally. Again, all the rules made should be clear and explicit, and be inserted in the Bill; and when sanctioned by the House they should remain till another year, and not be altered at the will of any Minister. With regard to another point, the able Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting had just been received. He did not know why it had not been received before. It carefully distinguished between the two classes of deserters—namely, those who
  32
  deserted absolutely, and those who, having deserted from one regiment, re-enlisted fraudulently into another regiment. At the same time, more complete statistics were wanted as to the number of deserters ultimately recovered. It appeared that in 1880 the net loss from desertion was 3,284 men, the total number of deserters being 4,811, of whom 1,527 rejoined; while in the year before the net loss was 1,800, and the total of deserters 3,050, of whom 1,250 rejoined. There were one or two other points which he desired to mention. In the first place, he should like to know why £10 was fixed upon as the sum to be paid by a recruit who at the expiration of three months did not wish to remain in the Service. Then there were very few cells at the depôt centres; and the consequence was that when a Militiaman had to be punished he was sent to the prison, instead of being placed in a cell. This was, in his opinion, detrimental, as far as the Militia was concerned. He had no doubt that the Secretary of State for War would do everything he could to maintain discipline. He was not asking for the retention of flogging; but he had ventured to make these remarks in order to show that hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House were just as anxious as hon. Gentlemen opposite that flogging, if it was possible, should be abolished. Still, discipline must be maintained; and on the Secretary of State for War he threw the whole of the responsibility.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLANsaid, that in the debates on the Army Discipline Bill of 1879 he expressed opinions in favour of retaining corporal punishment, on account of its being the most convenient and efficacious mode of dealing with cases of drunkenness or insubordination in presence of the enemy, or of marauding in the enemy's country. To that opinion he still adhered, and he would go even further, and say that the experience of the last campaign showed that a serious punishment was necessary, and that, failing the "cat," a graver one would probably have to be inflicted—namely, the punishment of death. He thought, however, when the late Secretary of State for War in his Schedule abolished corporal punishment as a means of meeting flat particular class of offences to which he had referred, that at once and for ever the ground for

  33
  the retention of corporal punishment in other cases was cut from under his feet. In this country public opinion would never allow them to take a backward step. Until the last General Election he had no idea how widely prevalent was the detestation among civilians of this kind of punishment. That detestation, no doubt, originated in the brutal manner in which corporal punishment used to be inflicted 25 or 30 years ago. The recollection of what then occurred had remained in the minds of the classes who had not themselves passed into the Military Service; but he believed that if the soldiers were polled, the universal opinion among them would be that no one need fear corporal punishment except by his own deliberate and wilful misconduct. The tenacity of popular delusions was most extraordinary; but as they existed they must be taken into account by legislators. As to the proposed alternative punishment, he was bound to say he did not feel sanguine that it would prove efficacious to put down drunkenness and insubordination in face of the enemy. He did not believe that by substituting it for flogging we should diminish either the cruelty or the degradation of the punishment. However, as soon as the House accepted the proposal of the late Secretary of State for War, that corporal punishment was to be done away with for the class of offences he had referred to, the decision was irrevocable. He thought the figures quoted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman afforded grounds for expecting a favourable solution of this matter eventually, unconnected with the degree and nature of the punishment which might be awarded. He believed that Government had settled the question in the only way open to them, and he had great confidence that the abolition of flogging would lead to the influx into the Army of a better class of men, who would be above committing the kind of crime for which corporal punishment was now inflicted.
  SIR JOHN HAYdid not see how, when they were all liable to be flogged for certain offences, the soldier should be exempted from similar treatment when he was guilty of the like offences. Fifteen or sixteen years ago an hon. Member was garotted on his way home, and next day they all came down to the House—a Liberal Government being in
  34
  Office—and passed an Act of Parliament through both Houses to give the lash to any person guilty of garotting. Why should a soldier garotting his comrade escape from a punishment to which every one of them was liable? He could see no reason for it. It had been alleged that hon. Members were afraid to defend corporal punishment on the hustings, or before their constituents. He had defended it before his constituents, and on these particular grounds—that it would be very hard on any respectable person if he had not the same appliances for protection against disorderly and violent conduct in a soldier that they could get applied against anyone in civil life, and that it was a foolish pandering to ignorant prejudice, and that the result would be, in the first place, absence of discipline, and then the infliction of various tortures. Dragging men for 14 days with irons on their persons would be found impracticable, and the Secretary of State would then go in for the thumbscrew or the "Boot," or some of the modes of torture adopted in foreign countries; and he anticipated that that would be followed by a re-action in the country in favour of the lash. He would have an opportunity of speaking at greater length on the Navy Bill; but he thought it right to call attention to the circumstances of which he had spoken, before they passed an Act which he believed would be to the disadvantage of the Army.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he wished to say a few words on this matter from a different point of view than other Members who had spoken. He had been a private in the Army during the time that flogging was permitted for offences now described as trivial, and he heard the same argument used, that it would cause a relaxation of discipline if flogging were abolished. If hon. Members opposite knew the feeling of the soldiers at that time it would have much modified some of the speeches delivered to-day; and the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) would be surprised to hear the number of letters he had received from private soldiers asking him to speak on this subject to-day. There was a feeling of utter detestation against the punishment, not simply on the part of the men who were likely to suffer from it, but on the part of everyone else. Private soldiers in Eng-

  35
  land occupied a position which no other private soldier in the whole of Europe occupied; and he did not know any other country in the whole world where it was a disgrace to wear the uniform of the country. He remembered, upon one occasion, he went into an hotel in a great city and ordered a cup of coffee, and was told that he could not be served because he wore the uniform of his country. All punishments which made soldiers seem less reputable than their fellow-citizens ought to be abolished. He asked the Government to allow nothing whatever to influence them in favour of this most degrading punishment. The men who once felt the lash were not loyal to any command, and they felt a bitterness and an abhorrence of everyone connected with the ordering of the punishment. If they flogged a man engaged on active service he was either a good man or a bad man—a man of some spirit or none at all. If he were a man of any spirit there were weapons in his hands, and he might use them for purposes of revenge. The right hon. and gallant Member for Wigton Burghs (Sir John Hay) talked of men who preferred the lash. The Army would be far better without such men. He had seen the lash applied—the man tied up and stripped in the sight of his comrades; he had seen the body blacken and the skin break; he had heard the dull thud of the lash as it fell on the blood-soddened flesh, and he was glad of having the opportunity of making his voice heard against it to-day, and trusted that nothing would induce the Government to retain, under any conditions, such a brutal punishment.
  CAPTAIN HERON-MAXWELLsaid, he was in the Service when corporal punishment was in full swing; and he never in his life witnessed such degrading, revolting scenes as when the soldier was lashed to the triangle on which he was placed, and had to submit to this degrading punishment. As a punishment for drunkenness, for which it was inflicted, he could say that it was perfectly useless. They would never flog a drunken soldier into sobriety. He hoped the Government would insist on carrying their Bill through. What they had to consider was, how they were to raise the tone of the British Army; and he held that they would never raise the moral tone or social position of the British soldier as long as corporal punish-
  36
  ment remained. Only the other day he had the opportunity of discussing the subject with his constituents, including several who had sons enlisted in the Army; and they considered that those sons of theirs were lost to society, because they had enlisted in a Service in which punishment of this sort was involved. Instead of marching the soldier for hours in a barrack square, which did him no good, he submitted that he should be ordered to attend a military school, where education of some kind should be enforced, for it was only in that way that they could hope to make the soldier a more intelligent, reasonable, and valuable man.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, the real question was the punishment they proposed to substitute for the flogging; and he feared they would not have much opportunity of discussing that in Committee. He wished to know whether, when it was stated on the part of the Government that the new Rules had received the approval of the highest military authorities, it was meant that they were sanctioned by the Commanderin-Chief and the Adjutant General, who were responsible for the discipline of the Army? He hoped the Secretary of State for War, when he came to speak on the subject, would tell them whether this was the case or not, because the statement would have great weight with the House. Of course, if those high authorities were in favour of these Rules the House would approve of it. He had seen sundry punishments put in practice both in the English and the French Army. The had seen a soldier lashed to the tail of a cart and drawn along the road because he would not march, and he had seen a French soldier lashed to a horse or a mule on the line of march—just as Mazeppa was lashed to the wild horse in the plain; and he should never forget the writhings and agony of the man to free himself from the position in which he was placed.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURpointed out that in the campaigns in Afghanistan, and particularly in Zululand, there had been many reports in the public Press of various disorders among the soldiers, for which corporal punishment was formerly authorized to be inflicted. Under this Bill, however, this kind of repression could no longer be applied, and it became important to find

  37
  out the mode of maintaining discipline in the field. Now, he must remark that these disorders, he considered, arose from the fact that they sent men out into the field before they had been brought into a proper state of discipline. Seeing that Parliament had granted funds on a lavish scale for the efficiency of our Army, he complained publicly against that system of sending inexperienced men into the field—men who had been insufficiently drilled, who had not been trained to discipline, and who, by their ages and physical condition, were utterly incompetent to do the heavy field work. The first consideration was that no man should be allowed to join the Army as a soldier until such time as he had been proved to be fit for the ranks. That was a point to which the House of Commons had never given sufficient attention. No doubt, assurances had often been given in Parliament that no soldier under 20, and none under two years' service, should be deemed fit soldiers for war; but from the Reports and Returns and from newspaper articles it was clear that those assurances had not been kept. Nothing could be more conducive to the improvement and discipline of the Army than that the Commander-in-Chief should make annual Reports to the Secretary of State for War, on the state and condition of the soldiers in all respects, and that these Reports should be laid before Parliament, so that the Legislature might know whether our soldiers were qualified for duty in the ranks, as well as to take the field. In order, also, to prevent men from committing crime, he thought there should be a larger police force in the Army. Such a force would be invaluable in preventing young soldiers from getting drunk. It was folly which was more to be feared than any military crimes, of which there were usually few in active operations.
  MR. DALRYMPLEobserved, that there was the greatest unanimity in the House in favour of the Mutiny Bill passing; but he had not heard a single word said by anyone in favour of the new Rules. The hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) spoke with regard to the abolition of flogging for such crimes as drunkenness in the field; but it remained to be seen how such a crime as that was to be met by the new Rules. He
  38
  that, for a great and powerful Government, such as this Government professed to be, and one specially dedicated to humanity, he would desire, above all things, that the punishments inflicted upon our soldiers should not be of a degrading kind; but to find a Government of that kind proposing the Rules laid before the House a few days ago was a matter of great surprise to him. He would say nothing about putting an offender in irons; but he wondered what was to be said about attaching an offender to a cart or a horse while the men were on march. What kind of horse was this man to be attached to? If a horse of no value, it ought not to be retained in the Service; if a horse of any value, it would kick the man—and thus the proviso that no permanent mark should be left on the offender could not possibly be secured. There was, further, a provision that whilst the offender was in irons, or otherwise attached so as not to injure him, he might be moved from place to place in a cart or other vehicle. But there was the drunken soldier on a hot day in the cart, or a number of them, on the line of march. Could anything be more degrading, or anything more difficult to carry out? He should think that the self-respect of the offenders was likely to be offended by the punishments proposed. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) had spoken about the degradation of flogging, and also about the degradation of not being able to obtain a cup of coffee; but the connection between the two was not pointed out. If they were going to substitute a punishment which would not inflict injury on the self-respect of the soldier, it would not be found in those precious Rules laid on the Table. His own opinion was that no good soldier need ever in the least fear a flogging, and that the soldier not likely to be flogged was not likely to have his self-respect injured. If at all likely to be injured by flogging, it would be injured by these Rules. He would like to know whether the Rules had the sanction of the highest military authorities. If these Rules had not obtained their sanction, they were not likely to be looked upon by the House in a very favourable manner. But they knew the present Government did not lay great stress upon the opinions of such individuals, where not convenient. He was

  39
  astonished that the terms of the Rules should not receive more attention from the House, as he did not see at what other time they could be discussed. In conclusion, he would suggest that specimens of the new manacles to be used should be hung up in the Members' cloak-room, after the same fashion as specimens of the "cat" were two years ago.
  MR. OTWAY,alluding to the early efforts of the advocates of the abolition of flogging in the Army, observed that it was a matter for regret that the disciples of progress opposed the change for some time in a very determined manner. That the leaders of the Liberal Party had at last been induced to take a course which ought to have been taken years ago was due to the persistent efforts of a small number of Members. The mistake made by hon. Members opposite was that they thought British soldiers were not constituted like the soldiers of other countries. He held that the English soldier was not a foul and degraded brute, who could only be disciplined by the lash. He had always felt, when asking the House to adopt a Resolution in favour of the abolition of flogging, that it was better to limit the change to the period of peace, as there was a great difficulty in finding a suitable punishment in the field. But he felt, also, that the question was one of such a character that whenever it came to be discussed it would have to be settled by abolition. It was quite possible that in a campaign it might be necessary to have the punishment of death; but he was certain that after that punishment had been inflicted the crime of which it was the penalty would cease, because soldiers were not fond of exposing their lives in that way any more than civilians. He thought that on the subject of flogging the statement of the hon. Member for Northampton would outweigh the opinions of hon. Members on the other side. By the abolition of flogging the Army would be relieved of a great degradation. He shared the opinion expressed by Jerome, King of Westphalia, that flogging "degrades the man and destroys the soldier." Although he could not express any enthusiasm about the new Rules, or even an appreciation of them, he heartily congratulated his right hon. Friend on having done so thoroughly that which
  40
  he believed would prove to be a most beneficial reform.
  MR. HOPWOODwas proud of the triumph won by the Liberal Party in abolishing the odious punishment of flogging. It was the triumph of common sense over a brutal mode of dispensing justice and maintaining discipline; the triumph of the civilian population over those who governed the Army, and it was a triumph of the civilian Members of that House over those who claimed exclusive authority on discipline. Experience taught us that mere flogging would do little good. It was well known that one commander without punishment maintained discipline better than another could maintain it with the utmost severity. He congratulated the Government for having, so early in the Session, redeemed the pledges which they had given in the last, and satisfied the earnest desires of the whole civilian population from which the Army came; and he was quite sure there was no man belonging to the British Army that would not walk a prouder man from the day that the Bill received the Royal Assent.
  MR. CHILDERSthought the House would be anxious to pass from the present subject to the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Harcourt). He had, at first, thought of putting the substituted punishment in the Bill; but on consideration he thought the best course to pursue, until they had had some experience, would be to give the Secretary of State power to make, from time to time, the rules for the substituted punishment, although it was a responsibility which he by no means desired to undertake; but it would be very unfortunate if, by putting the Rules in the Schedule to the Bill, they should stereotype measures which it might be found convenient to alter. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) had asked him whether the proposed Rules had been approved by the highest military authorities? His reply was that those authorities had been consulted; but that he had taken the same view of his duty which had been laid down in 1879 in reference to a similar question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon, who was then Leader of that House, and who said that, although the Government had consulted the military authorities, they declined to shelter themselves

  41
  behind them, and took upon themselves the full responsibility of what they had done. With respect to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) about the controversy between Dr. Russell and Sir Garnet Wolseley, he could not without Notice say more than that he thought Dr. Russell had written well, but Sir Garnet Wolseley had written better. The criticism of the hon. Member for Buteshire (Mr. Dalrymple) on the suggested rules was very amusing. He said—"Imagine a drunken soldier in a cart on a hot day." He (Mr. Childers) had seen this terrible sight, and he must confess that it did not appal him. But he had every reason to anticipate that if the Bill passed in its present shape he would be able to substitute an efficient punishment for what the country had determined to abolish as a punishment for military offences.
  MAJOR NOLANhoped they might have an opportunity of discussing the new Rules in Committee. He thought the punishment of tying to a waggon ought only to be applied to the case of a man refusing to march. He did not, however, propose to enter upon the question of punishments; but desired to offer a few observations upon the violent revolution attempted in Clause 5. It was actually proposed to abolish the oaths of members of courts martial and those of the witnesses. A private soldier was therefore liable, under this Bill, to be convicted upon unsworn evidence. That was a great revolution in courts martial. If ever this country were placed under martial law what a dreadful latitude was given by this Bill to those courts which might have to try the civil inhabitants. He would endeavour to show the way in which summary courts martial had grown and become adopted in the Bill. For the last 60 or 70 years there had been a detachment general court martial; but that was carefully limited to a specific class of offences. It was limited to offences against the inhabitants of the country; and if a sentence of death were passed it could not be put into execution without being confirmed by the Commander-in-Chief of a force in the field. Practically the whole responsibility rested on the Commander-in-Chief. The summary court martial applied to every military offence; but instead of having the
  42
  Commander-in-Chief to confirm the sentence, the duty might be performed by any major in command of a detachment; he might command a baggage guard, or rear guard, or perhaps only a picket. The lives of our soldiers, therefore, would be at the mercy of a single colonel or major. His experience was that lawyers, when dealing with military matters, sacrificed all their ideas of law and equity. He believed that the introduction of this clause would very seriously demoralize all courts martial, and have an extremely bad effect.
  GENERAL BURNABYsaid, that serious complaints had been made to him by licensed victuallers of the inadequate compensation made to them for the accommodation they afforded to soldiers on the line of march; and he must say he thought, when he considered that 13½d. was all they received for the stipulated refreshment they had to provide, exclusive of the lodging and attendance of 2½d. in return for attendance and plenty of elbow-room for the troopers, their complaints were not unreasonable. He thought those allowances were very insufficient, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to augmenting them.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHERsaid, his opinion was that the new mode of punishment would have little effect in the field. There was a certain class of men who would rather be punished than occupy an unpleasant and dangerous post on guard or picket in an enemy's country.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

MOTION.

  HIGHWAYS—MAINTENANCE OF MAIN ROADS.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. E. W. HARCOURT,in rising to move a Resolution to the effect that part of the maintenance of main roads ought to be defrayed from other sources than county rates, said: Sir, we maintain that, in the present depressed state of the agricultural interests it would be manifestly unfair to lay upon the land any inordinate burdens. We maintain that it would be unfair to tax exclusively

  43
  particular class of property for benefits which are received by the whole country; and we say that if we find the income of the country amounts to £900,000,000, and if only about £250,000,000 is assessed for local rates, and if £650,000,000 pays nothing whatever under this head, then a gross injustice is being perpetrated. Why, may we ask, should such partiality be exercised in matters which concern all householders alike, whether their incomes are derived from personal or from real property? Some justice has been done in these respects in the matter of the county police; but there is another thing which presses very heavily and with great inequality upon the county ratepayers, and that is the highway rate. In the days of turnpikes, each man paid for the roads according to the use he made of them—a fairer arrangement could not be conceived—now, however, the unfortunate individual through whose lands the highways may pass are made to pay, not only for the accommodation which they themselves receive, but for the benefit received by the general public. Benefit received is a very fair test—I may say the only fair test—for the imposition of taxation for local purposes. I do not suppose that turnpikes will ever be restored. The inconvenience of putting your hand into your pocket to satisfy the toll-keeper was the cause of doing away with a just impost. The alternative which has been resorted to of making a portion of the public pay for the accommodation of the whole is founded upon no equitable basis. Why, we may well ask, shall a brewer who has been in the habit of paying £500 or £1,000 per annum in tolls for the use of the roads over which he has conveyed the beer with which he has supplied his customers suddenly find himself delivered from this expense, without any benefit to the public in a reduction in the price of beer; and why should this bounty be taken from the scantily filled pockets of the rural classes alone? It may be argued, neither would it be fair that the unbenefited public should be taxed for the sake of greasing the brewer's wheels; granted, but it would be unfairer still that a small portion of the public should bear the whole of the burden, and that small portion, too, which is also so heavily taxed in the matter of poor rates and school rates. I suppose that the public at large, who
  44
  have no interest in inquiring into these things, are utterly ignorant of the extent to which this injustice is carried; it must be ignorance alone which keeps down the righteous indignation of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, whose liberal hearts would be sorely hurt if they were fully aware of the injustice and oppression to which their brother men are subjected in country districts. The tale would be too pitiful if I were to unfold it all at once. I wish to spare the feelings of a Liberal and a sensitive Government; and, therefore, for the present at least, I will make no allusion to the poor rate and the school rate grievance. I will simply narrate a few facts relating to the maintenance of main roads. It is not my desire to plague the House with statistics, and I will take the position of one highway district as fairly demonstrative of the whole. The Bullingdon highway district, near Oxford, consists of an aggregation of 49 parishes, and we find that the expenditure has increased in this district from £2,668 8s. in 1872 to £4,945 19 s. 10 d. in 1880. Turnpike roads began to fall upon the common fund of the Bullingdon Highway Board, under the piecemeal legislation of the Turnpike Continuance Acts, in 1872; and the expenses of repairing turnpike roads were, with the salaries of the officers, &c., the only charges which from that date fell upon the common fund, until the 41 & 42 Vict. c. 77, caused all the expenses of the Highway Boards to fall upon the common fund. This gave but little relief to the Bullingdon Board, as the general effect of the Act was to relieve the small urban places at the expense of large rural parishes. Clause 13 of the Act above quoted provides that disturnpiked roads shall become main roads, and that half the expense of their maintenance shall be contributed out of the county rates, on the certificate of the surveyor that the roads have been properly maintained. What I should like to propose would be that part of the expenses mentioned in the above clause shall be contributed out of money provided by Parliament. I would propose that the whole of the expenses of the maintenance of main roads should, in the first place, be borne by the county authority, and that the county authority, in its turn, should be recouped by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury as far as one-half of those expenses

  45
  were concerned. The payment by the Treasury should be dependent upon the certificate of a surveyor, to the effect that the main roads in respect to which a contribution was to be made had been maintained to his satisfaction. It strikes me that all this is very simple and very just. I do not know, of course, how my proposition may commend itself or the contrary to Her Majesty's Government—but this I know—that if they are in earnest in wishing to assist the agricultural classes, they will give that assistance in a way which will be of real use to those whom they profess themselves desirous to serve. I have a letter here from a tenant farmer in Oxfordshire—not a tenant of my own—which perhaps the House will permit me to read—
  "DEAR SIR,—I find that in the old turnpike days, and having a turnpike close to my house, I used to contract with the gatekeeper for £4 a-year; now, sometimes, according to the new Act, we get a shilling rate, out of which I have to pay about a fourth, which comes to over £20 instead of £4. I have heard from good authority that it saves one of our local brewers over £500 a-year. Now, if you could bring in a Bill, either to put up the gates again or remedy this evil in some way or other, so that those who used the roads should keep them in repair, it would be of more benefit to the farmers than the Ground Game Act or doing away with the malt tax. Then, again, there are the school and sanitary rates, which are extra within the last few years; but I think the highway rate the most unfair of all."
  I see that my Resolution is to be met on the other side by moving the Previous Question. What does the Previous Question mean? Why, it means procrastination, it means delay, it means appointing Committees, it means falling back upon the general question. What it does not mean is giving immediate relief to the agricultural interests. It is just the same as if a man were dying of hunger, and a physician were to come, and instead of giving him the nourishment he required, he were to say he would go home and form a committee of his sisters, and his cousins, and his aunts, and they would consider the general question. When that silly man came back he would find his patient dead. I know I shall be met with the statement that, if any assistance is given to rural districts in these matters, justice would require that an equal assistance should be given to urban districts—and I shall be told that
  46
  urban places have made no complaints under this head. Here I am afraid I shall be obliged to ask the House to follow me into a few statistics, in order that I may make good my case. The population of rural districts numbers about 10,000,000, and is located upon about 34,000,000 of acres of land. The population of the urban districts numbers about 13,000,000, and is located upon about 3,250,000 acres of land. The number of horses and vehicles kept by the urban population throughout the country is, as compared to those kept by the rural population, as about seven to one—as may be gathered from the horse and carriage licence Returns. The rural population maintain 106,000 miles of highways—exclusive of turnpike roads—at a cost, according to the Returns made to Parliament for the years 1872–3, of £1,487,820; besides which the turnpike roads cost in maintenance during the same years £787,620. It is in the matter of this last item of expenditure that we seek relief. And now let us turn to the position of the urban population. According to the same Returns, and in the same years, we find that the cost of highways in urban districts—that is, in cities, towns, local boards, &c., independent of the Metropolis, amounted to £1,061,098, which is £426,722 less than is paid by the rural population, without any reference to the main roads, which, as we have seen, cost £787,620; and these two sums taken together show an excess of payments of £1,204,342 by the rural over the urban populations. I have said before that it is only in respect of main roads—that is to say, disturnpiked roads—that we seek relief. Let us consider a little what turnpike roads were originally constructed for. They were made for the purpose of connecting centres of population comprised in urban districts. They are required by the country at large for commercial, postal, and military purposes. We have deduced that of the entire population of the country a very small proportion pays anything to local rates; we have deduced that the urban population pays considerably less for their highway accommodation than is paid by the rural population; we have deduced that since the abolition of turnpikes the municipal boroughs pay nothing whatever towards the maintenance

  47
  of main roads, although they use them on equal terms with the rural population, and with an excess of seven times the horse and carriage power; we have deduced that the main roads were constructed for the benefit of the nation; and it is a fact that any individual may prosecute any local highway authority if the roads are not maintained to his satisfaction, and to suit his convenience. I think, then, Sir, I have logically arrived at the conclusion that to relieve the public from contributing to the maintenance of main roads, and to throw the whole burden upon the country ratepayer, is manifestly unjust. I do not know what Government and what Party are going to redress these grievances. They ought not to be Party questions. I am well assured, however, of this—that these grievances are so real and so crying in their nature that some Government and some Party will be forced into redressing them before long. I beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name.
  MR. R. H. PAGET,in seconding the Motion, thanked his hon. Friend for the great ability and the remarkable moderation with which he had introduced that subject. He hoped that the Government would not refuse to accede to the moderate and reasonable demand just made by his hon. Friend, who, he thought, had established his case. They were not now asked to enter into an elaborate discussion of so important an investigation as that of a re-adjustment of local taxation. There was no better test of the civilization of a country than the state of completeness and perfection of its roads. In early times, when manufactures wore slight and trade but scarce, a few ordinary bridle roads were sufficient to carry on the commercial transactions of the nation. Now, however, we had a costly system of well-kept roads intersecting the country in every direction. The roads of the United Kingdom, including highways and turnpike roads, were not maintained for less than about £7,000,000 sterling per annum. The fact was that the roads were used by all, they were wanted by all, and they might to be paid for by all. The turnpike system did provide that those who used the roads paid for them in proportion to their use of them. The turnpike system was dead, and he did not propose
  48
  that it should be revived in any way. In anticipation of the ultimate discontinuance of the system, each Turnpike Act was passed for a limited time. The Acts were renewed singly for limited periods, and they had gradually expired one by one. If it had not been for the existence of the railway system, the turnpikes could not have been extinguished without a material contribution from the State towards the expense of the roads. The injustice of leaving them a charge on the local rates would have been so glaring that a remedy must have been found forthwith. The fact that the railways had taken a great amount of the traffic that would otherwise have gone on the roads had had the effect of minimizing the grievance; but it was none the less a grievance; and any grievance, however small, was felt with severity in the present depressed condition of agriculture. The particular grievance they desired to discuss was that of the main roads. Since 1870 15,000 miles of road had been disturnpiked; and, assuming the cost of maintenance to be £30 a-mile, the annual charge thrown upon the rates would be close upon £500,000 sterling. The only reason why there had been no combination to resist this result was that the Acts had expired one by one. But now it was possible to realize as a whole the burden which had been thrown on the county rates. Assuming the case to be made out, the question was how relief was to be given, and to be given immediately, and as a temporary expedient. It was nut suggested that there should be a Government subvention in perpetuity; but if there were to be one, it would be a temporary expedient to enable the case to be dealt with this Session without legislation. As to other suggestions, there might be a new horse tax or a new wheel tax. He was not prepared to advocate either, but he would not discard them. There were difficulties in the way of imposing new taxes and reviving old ones. One difficulty was that such taxes would have to be accompanied by the great evil of exemptions. He had suggested the transfer to the local authorities of the dog tax, which was largely collected through the agency of the country police, and in Ireland was paid over to the local authorities in aid of local taxation. There

  49
  was the possibility of the future transfer of the house tax to the local authorities, and some such scheme might be the ultimate solution of the difficulty. In any scheme care must be taken that the relief was greatest where the grievance was most keenly felt. At present there was an absence of Returns to enable them to work out in detail any definite plan for the transfer of taxation. A Return of 1872 was valueless because it omitted the dog tax, which produced over £300,000; and this and a later Return were also valueless because they adopted areas which did not coincide with those adopted for local taxation. Those who complained could not come forward with a complete remedy because the necessary information was not accessible to them. If they could not come forward with any definite scheme of their own, there was nothing left to them but to place such a proposal as that made by his hon. Friend before the House as a temporary expedient. It was for the Government to consider and settle a method of dealing with the question. There were two Amendments on the Paper, and a third, of which Notice had been given; and, without suspecting the hon. Members who had given those Notices, he believed their Amendments shadowed forth the nature of the official reply. He should be pleased to think that the official reply would be the promise of a remedy; but he feared it would be an admission of the fact that the Bill of 1878 required to be remedied. He did not deny that fact; but that would merely mean indefinite delay. Again, it might be said that there was a Committee of the House of Lords sitting. No doubt there was. But that Committee sat last year, and might, for aught he knew, sit next year. They might look forward to a very valuable Report from that Committee; but that, again, meant delay, and what was demanded was immediate action. Then, again, the official reply might be that the proposed transfer of taxation would require the establishment of a County Board. But the demand of his hon. Friend might well be complied with while the scheme as to a County Board was being matured. The question of the incidence of taxation would be referred to. But figures of a rateable value were misleading, because the burden of taxation was in proportion to the ability to pay. These figures gave
  50
  no notion of the ability to pay, and throughout the whole of the length of England the ability of the farmers to pay was less now than it had ever been during the present generation. He had often heard it asked—"Why did the farmer make such a fuss when 1d. in the pound was added to his rates?" He would tell the House why the farmer was entitled to complain of such an addition. Let them take the case of a farmer whose rent was £300 a-year. His income was assumed to be half his rent, and the Income Tax was levied on that amount. The addition of 1d. in the pound in the Income Tax would mean the payment by him of 150 d., while the addition of 1d. to the rates would mean the payment of an additional 300 d. His case was aggravated by comparison with that of his neighbour. A man with an income of £150 a-year, living in a house close by, would pay the same amount of Income Tax as the farmer; but as he would probably live in a house rated at £20, a 1d. rate would only take 20 d. from him; so that each 1d. rate would hit one man 15 times as hard as it hit the other. He had always taken a deep interest in this question, and not the less that his entire constituency were interested in it, and considered their case so strong that they could not wait. The Amendments, on the other hand, simply said wait. The farmers said they had waited too long already. The demand put forward was a reasonable one, and it was urged on behalf of that eminently loyal class, the British farmer. They asked for justice and no more; and he confidently appealed to the sense of justice of the Government not to refuse the present very reasonable demand.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That in the opinion of this House, it is expedient so to amend 'The Highway Act, 1878,' that part of the maintenance of main roads may be defrayed from other sources than county rates."—(Mr. Harcourt.)
  MR. J. W. PEASEsaid, that he had listened with great attention to the two speeches made by his hon. Friends in favour of this Motion; and no one who represented a county constituency but must sympathize with his hon. Friends in the object which they had in view. It had been stated by his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Somerset (Mr. R.

  51
  H. Paget) that the annual cost of the roads in England and Scotland was something like £7,000,000; but Ireland and Scotland were entirely out of the question in dealing with the highways of England and Wales, while it should be borne in mind that his hon. Friend had also included in his calculation the very large extent of the roads maintained in the Metropolis and other local authorities. The actual cost of the highways in England and Wales was £1,800,000 per annum; but, according to a Return published in 1878, he found that the maintenance of the disturnpiked turnpike roads from 1870 to that year was something under £200,000. There was also a Return which showed that the turnpikes which would probably be disturnpiked during the following five years might be put roughly at £80,000 more, so that the House was now asked practically to deal with a sum of £280,000; and it was of one-half that amount, or £140,000, that his hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Harcourt) proposed to relieve the highway authorities by placing it on the Consolidated Fund. Now, there could be no doubt that there was a great feeling of soreness among the farmers, because of the fact that the highway rate and other rates had come upon them one after another. He found that in one Union in his locality there had been an increase of taxation of 9¼d. in the pound in the aggregate; and, under these circumstances, it was no wonder that they looked round to see in what manner relief was to be obtained. He was one of those who were of opinion that unless we had much better harvests than we had had for the last two or three years, the farmer would have little less than ruin staring him in the face. His sympathies, therefore, went very much with every attempt which was made to relieve him from any portion of his burden. The position of the landlords, he might add, was only one degree better. They had largely reduced their rents; they had, too, spent large sums of money in drainage and other improvements, in order to keep the farmers in good heart. Again, there were settlements, and other encumbrances, which they had to meet out of depleted pockets. Taking, then, £140,000 as the figure, the farmers would repay about half that sum
  52
  in Income Tax, and that would reduce the amount to £70,000, or, at most, £75,000. Still, he could not make up his mind to think that his hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire was right in asking the House to deal with the question before it by putting his hand into the Imperial pocket to make up the deficiency. Was his hon. Friend prepared, he would ask in the first place, for a large system of Government inspection, for that must be the result of his Motion if carried? For his own part, he should by no means like to see a new race of Government Inspectors sent into the country to interfere with the highway rates. But there was another difficulty in the way of his hon. Friend, and that was that the Highway Act, as to the main roads, applied only to England and Wales, and he could scarcely ask Ireland and Scotland to contribute. Now, he should like to read a few lines from the evidence given before the Committee of the House of Lords by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth).
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONasked whether the hon. Gentleman was in Order in quoting from a Report which had not been laid before the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: I understand the hon. Member to be about to quote from a Parliamentary Paper.
  MR. J. W. PEASEsaid, the Paper was one which had been delivered last year, or early this Session; and the right hon. Gentleman to whom he referred, in answer to a question which had been put to him, stated that, in his opinion, the cases in which the inhabitants of the country parishes received no benefit from the turnpike roads were comparatively rare, and that the cases in which the owners of property derived no benefit from them were still rarer; while to throw the charge for their maintenance on the central authority would, in his opinion, necessitate a system of interference which was open to objection. As for the Motion of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, he thought the principle was wrong; but he must, at the same time, express a hope that his right hon. Friends on the Bench below him would deal with the question as soon as the opportunity presented itself. There could be no doubt that the Act of 1878 ought to be amended,

  53
  and he hoped right hon. Gentlemen would deal with it as soon as they had the opportunity. That Act was one of those unfortunate measures which was rushed through the House when nearly all the Members had gone homewards. The 16th of August was the date on which it received the Royal Assent; but had it been subjected to patient scrutiny, which hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side and many hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side would have applied to it, he believed that it would never have become law in its present undigested form. The Act had caused great inconveniences and anomalies. Under the Act certain thoroughfares were to be made main roads. As far as the district in which he resided was concerned, the question of main roads operated most unfairly. Although it was a moorland district one-third of the moiety fell on the county rate of the cost of main roads, and received nothing whatever in return for that contribution. He had no doubt that what occurred in his district occurred in the districts of many hon. Members. There were other anomalies occasioned by the establishment of district rating under the Act of 1878—for instance, one township with a mile and a-half of road, which used to cost them £100 to £150 per annum, now had to pay £900 a-year; whilst another moorland township, with about 54 miles of road, which used to cost about £7 10 s. per mile, now escaped by a payment of little more than half that amount. In addition, under the Act of 1878, unless action was taken to dismain turnpike roads before February of the following year, they remained main roads for ever, although it might have been a mere accident that steps were not taken in the short space of time allowed to the Justices to deal with them. He could not support the Motion, because he thought it would produce an infraction of a principle which he thought most of them assented to. The Select Committee of 1870 reported to the House that in any reform of the existing local taxation it was expedient to adjust the system of rating in such a manner that the owners and the occupiers might be brought to feel an immediate interest in the increase or decrease of local expenditure and in the administration of local affairs, and that it was expedient to make the owners as
  54
  well as the occupiers directly liable for a certain proportion of the rates. He believed these highway rates required an entire revision. The present mode of taxation was exceedingly irritating to the farmer. It was all very well for philosophers to say that the owner of land was the man on whom ultimately the burden of rates fell. For a generation the incidence of taxation fell upon the man who was the immediate occupier of the soil. Though he sympathized very much with the object of the Motion, he begged to move as an Amendment that all the words after "expedient" be omitted, in order to insert—
  "To amend 'The Highway Act, 1878,' and especially those portions of the said Act which relate to main roads."
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out all the words after the word "expedient," in order to add the words "to amend 'The Highway Act, 1878,' and especially those portions of the said Act which relate to main roads,"—(Mr. J. W. Pease,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. WALROND,in supporting the Motion of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Harcourt) urged that the present system of highway rating was most inequitable. Only one-fifth of the property of the nation was real property, and he held that other kinds of property should bear a share of the burden, which had become much heavier than it was before the passing of the Act. There was, undoubtedly, a great amount of discontent existing in the country on this subject; it had caused more heart-burning during the last 10 years than any other question, and they could not conceal from themselves that the evil must be removed. He could mention, from his knowledge of Devon, a great many conspicuous instances of the way in which the burden of maintaining the highways had increased, and from information received from other counties—such as Nottinghamshire and Norfolk—he had no doubt that the same thing was happening all over England. When, to quote a phrase used by one of his correspondents, the whole country was "seething with discontent," it was evidently high time to remove the grievance of which the agriculturists com-

  55
  plained. Admitting the desirability of doing so, it became a question whether it could best be done by the means proposed by his hon. Friend. The idea that special taxes should be imposed with that object might be dismissed at once. All things considered, he held with his hon. Friend that the old turnpike roads, having been originally made for Imperial purposes, ought to be maintained by Imperial funds. Indeed, he went further than his hon. Friend, and would throw on those funds not a moiety of the charge, but the whole. It had been suggested, but not in the House, that the turnpikes should be replaced; but that, in his opinion, would be an absurdity and an inconvenience, to say nothing of the fact that the cost of keeping up the turnpikes themselves was a serious percentage of the sum collected. His hon. Friend asked only that a moiety of the expense should be borne by the Imperial funds; but he feared he knew the answer that would be given by the Government. They would probably say that, pending the inquiries by the House of Lords and a Royal Commission, the matter ought to be allowed to rest. That was very much to be regretted, as the Government had it in their power, by granting the demands of Chambers of Agriculture all over England, to do a much-needed act of justice.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEexpressed his astonishment both at the ingenuity with which the Motion had been drawn and at the speech of the hon. Member who had seconded it. The Resolution had evidently been drawn up so as to catch all sorts of votes; and when he looked at it he thought the hon. Member must have crossed the House and obtained the assistance of his right hon. and learned Relative the Home Secretary. "The hand was the hand of Esau, but the voice was the voice of Jacob." However, the meaning of the Motion was clear. It meant a long pull and a strong pull and a pull altogether at the public purse, and an immediate increase of the grant in aid of local taxation, such as was now given in aid of the police rate. He thought that that recommendation had been disposed of by the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for South Durham (Mr. J. W. Pease). It was an objection to the Motion that it touched a single part of
  56
  the question which the Act of 1878 was intended to solve. That Act had produced great dissatisfaction in many ways and was very imperfect, partly, perhaps, on account of the haste with which it had been passed; but the subject would have to be dealt with as a whole. A decision of the late Attorney General had given great dissatisfaction, by which, if it were sought to dismain any part of a road, the whole of it must be dismained. That decision had been questioned by lawyers of as great eminence as the late Attorney General himself; but the result had been that many miles of road had been made main roads which ought never to have been made so. Then difficulty had arisen from the clause by which half the costs had to be paid back to the local authorities by the county authorities. He did not think that those who had passed the Bill had at all realized the complexity of the system and of accounts. The county was in account with every urban and rural highway authority, and with every separate highway parish. There was a tendency to confuse Quarter Session boroughs and urban sanitary authorities. It was only the former which were kept distinct from the county authority. In boroughs other than Quarter Session boroughs county rates were paid, and half the cost of main roads was repaid by the county authorities. Thus great complexity of accounts was caused. Sometimes claims for a quarter of a mile of main road were sent in; such claims had to be examined, and it was sometimes a year before such claims could be settled. He had had personal experience of the difficulty of dealing with such claims in his own county, where he had much trouble in getting two small urban sanitary authorities to send in their claims. Then there was a difficulty in framing what might be called the County Budget, as the year was divided for different purposes in different manners. The county financial year ran from the 1st of January to the 31st of December; the highway financial year began with the 25th of March; and it had been held that the recent Act for making the accounts of local authorities run to even dates did not apply to county authorities. Then there was the question of overlapping areas, as the highway district and the district under the Board of Guardians were not coincident.

  57
  That difficulty had, to some extent, been dealt with in the Bill passed by the late Government; and he was glad to acknowledge that the Bill had, in that respect, been of real service. But the cardinal fault of the Act of 1878 was that it gave the county authority no control over the money it paid to the local highway authorities, and hence an extravagant expenditure had arisen. If he could not support the Motion, it was not because he did not concur in the end at which it aimed; but he took a different view of the means best adapted to secure that end. It must not either be forgotten that the abolition of the turnpike system threw bridges as well as roads upon the county rates. In his own county, in 1876, the cost of maintaining bridges was only £780; but now it was £2,148. It was true that part of that expenditure ought to be placed to capital account, as many bridges were in a state of disrepair; but there was, without doubt, and there still would be, a great increase in the annual cost of bridges. He thought there was far too great a tendency to ask for Government help. There was always a cry for assistance out of Imperial taxation. That was a great evil. If persisted in, the result would be that the sound principles of local self-government would be undermined. Government help meant Government interference, and that interference operated as a stimulus to bad administration. It encouraged the tendency, already rife, to spend 5s. in order to get back 2s. 6d.; and the local authorities were too apt to overlook the fact that, in the end, 7s. 6d. had really to be paid in one form or anothor. Instead of asking that the Consolidated Fund should bear the burden of bad administration, it would be far better to preserve local independence, to avoid Government interference, and to bring about good and economical administration. He knew of instances in which that would effect a saving of double the amount ever likely to be obtained from Government by any form of grant in aid. He had worked the matter out for one locality, and he believed that what was true there was more or less true of the whole of England. The Government might, perhaps, render useful assistance by appointing a surveyor for each great Poor Law division and placing his services at the disposal of the county and local autho-
  58
  rities. But he deprecated Government interference in the matter of roads. He would much prefer that the Government should bear a larger share of the cost of education, for that was not an hereditary charge on the land, as roads and bridges had always been considered to be. But otherwise he would look rather to the reform of units of administration within county boundaries and the strengthening of the representative element as a means of increasing public interest in local managements and bringing about an economic and efficient system of local government in the counties.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON: I will not follow the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) into the intricacies of county government and administrative details through which he has carried us. The noble Lord seems to have wandered rather far from the subject before us. I will venture to recall the House into the simpler and purer atmosphere of fact and principle. But first let us welcome the appearance of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister on that Bench, who comes like a Deus ex machina among us, and who acknowledges by his presence that the subject is a dignus vindice nodus, which it undoubtedly is in its larger issues. Sir, the extent of the turnpike roads in England and Wales is about 20,000 miles, of which 15,000, or just three-quarters, have been disturnpiked; and their cost in counties and boroughs—for we must not separate the boroughs—is about £750,000 a-year; or, in round numbers, when the present and prospective roads are disturnpiked, the cost will amount to something like £1,000,000. We simply ask, now that tolls are done away with, and carriages and horses pay nothing, that this charge shall not be unjustly thrown upon the already over-taxed ratepayers in town and country, and more especially on the agricultural ratepayer—namely, the tenant farmer. It is often assumed, and we have already heard it to-night, that the maintenance of roads is an ancient and hereditary charge on land. Sir, it is nothing of the kind; it was a charge equally imposed on real and personal property, as a local income tax. We all know that the Statute 43 Eliz. imposed rates on personalty, "according to ability of the inhabitants of the parish," and out of that rate the road

  59
  rate was afterwards directed partly to be paid. But there is a far stronger statute—namely, 3 Will. & Mary, c. 7, which first imposed the rate. It is there directed that the rate for all roads, not main roads only, shall be paid by a rate not exceeding 6d. in the pound on lands, "or 6d. for every £20 of personal estate"—that is to say, both personalty and land were taxed on an exactly equal basis. Now, neither of those statutes have ever been repealed. By a Continuance Act, passed every Session since 1840, stock-in-trade is exempted from rating; but the Legislature has never dared to repeal either of those Acts. Well, now, 100 years ago or so, turnpike trusts were created, and the maintenance of main roads was taken off the shoulders of the ratepayers, or, rather, the charge was practically dormant. When the gates have been taken off, the ratepayers wake up to find the roads gradually thrown upon one species of property—that is to say, the incidence altered for the sake of convenience, and a most grievous and unjust charge thrown upon them, not only contrary to justice, but contrary to law; and that at a time when agriculture is suffering more than any other interest in the Kingdom. Give us Free Trade by all means; but give us also fair play. Do not handicap us in this intolerable manner. Do not take and tax us to the amount of half our income for national purposes, when other interests are only contributing 1–20th. Yes, Sir, one-half our income, as I shall presently show. For what is the amount of these rates? and what, first, is the amount of this charge for main roads in excess of what the tenant farmer, for instance, paid before in tolls? Sir, we can compute it to the fraction of a penny. It is found—and any hon. Member may calculate it for himself—that on the average a tenant farmer formerly paid in tolls what would be equivalent to a rate of 1½d. or 2d. in the pound, and that not only paid his way, but covered the cost of collection and debt. Therefore, in doing away with turnpikes and the cost of collection and debt, the rural ratepayer ought to take his share in the economy, and his rate reduced to 1d. on the average. But what is the result? The tenant farmers are in most places paying a rate of 6d. in the pound; and in some places a great deal more, in
  60
  consequence of the gates being taken off—that is to say, they are paying in many places a rate of 5d. in the pound in excess of what they ought to pay, or an income tax of 10 d. in the pound for the general public; for a farmer is assessed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue on half his rent as his income, and therefore every 1d. he pays in rates is an income tax of 2d. in the pound. Now, as it is impossible to separate this question of the charge for main roads from the whole question of local taxation, let me read a letter received from a clergyman in a Midland county on the subject of the intolerable burden of these rates—
  "I am rector and tithe owner in a parish skirted by a highway from London, very little used by the parish, as the land lies in other directions; but it is charged on the ratepayers, My tithe average for 1880 amounted to £325. nearly the whole of my income; and I am assessed on tithe and house £303. The rates were—and I beg you to note the amount—for poor, highway, and school board, £80 16 s., or over 5s. in the pound. The reverse picture is this—1. A parishioner, driving two carriages, four horses, and two carts, and enjoying an income of £4,000 a-year, pays £25 yearly. 2. A Government clerk, with an income of £600, pays £11 3s. 3. A tradesman, turning over £7,000 a-year, driving pony carriage, two carts, and two horses, pays £6 10 s., and so on. I have, in addition, Income Tax, insurances, dilapidations, ecclesiastical fees, and all the poor to relieve. So much for oneself … … As for the farmers, the land cannot bear the burdens. My tithe is unpaid, as they prefer to trust to the tender mercies of the parson rather than to those of the rate collector. One man failed, another cut his throat, another threw up his farm. The country all round here is woeful, going out of cultivation, ruined!"
  [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh; but to us on this side, who live among these men and see their sufferings, it is no laughing matter. It seems to me, Sir, like a tragedy of unjust taxation and ruin. Just consider, in this parish the rates are over 5s. in the pound to a farmer—that is, an Income Tax of 10 s. in the pound, and that in these days of confiscation and ruin. Well, Sir, so much for the law of the case and the incidence of these taxes, and now for the remedies. There are three modes, I think, or general lines of relief that are applicable for the main roads. First, as to the old system of tolls, which was undoubtedly the fairest, I will only observe, without suggesting the possibility of their revival, that the Govern-

  61
  ment is maintaining the system in South Wales under a Department of the Local Government Board. So that, while throwing these charges on the unfortunate ratepayers, in other places they are maintaining the toll system in their own district. Secondly, it has been suggested that the objects which formerly paid toll should now contribute by a carriage or wheel tax. That has much to recommend it on grounds of equity, and there is the precedent of the Isle of Man, where the roads are maintained by a wheel tax; but properly to distribute or graduate the tax would be found very difficult and invidious. If everyone paid in proportion to use, as they formerly paid in tolls, you would have to ask the doctor to pay £20 or £30, the miller and tradesman to pay £40 or £50, and the brewer, perhaps, to pay £100. I have heard of cases where brewers and others have been saved £500 to £1,000 in tolls by taking down the gates. There is the carriage tax that might be still collected by Government, and made over, by way of contribution, to the repairing authorities; but that would amount almost to a charge on the Consolidated Fund, and you might as well put ¼d. on the Income Tax. Then, thirdly, there is the principle of extending the area or incidence of the tax generally, and there I would call attention again to the provisions of the Statute of Will. & Mary, which I quoted before. One suggestion is to extend the rate to the boroughs within the county whose vehicles use the roads. There would probably be opposition to that, and I am not in favour of it, because there would be constant friction of authorities as to the main roads repairable; but it must not be forgotten that there are many miles of disturnpiked road in boroughs, and I am entirely in favour of subverting them in the same way as the county roads. Then there is an alternative which finds favour in some quarters, of dividing this and other rates between landlord and tenant. Well, that would be a very inadequate relief; but I am in favour of the landlord paying a fair share of rates, on the ground that it will improve the administration, and I think also get more attention paid to these subjects in this House. But you will find it difficult, if not impossible, to share the rates administered by an old authority. If you constitute a new authority and a
  62
  new rate, there is no difficulty; and you have the cattle plague rate as a precedent. I am entirely in favour, for instance, of the school board rate being shared, and if we create a new River Conservancy Board that rate should be shared. But you must, of course, give equal representation to owners, and with regard to any old rates and old authorities—such as roads and poor—you have to deal with leasehold property as well as representation, which makes any change exceedingly difficult. Then there is a third alternative, which will, perhaps, be found the most simple—namely, to apportion or appropriate an Imperial tax by way of subvention—such as the house tax. That exactly represents a local Income Tax, and was proposed once by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) to be given up for poor relief. It should not be handed over to the local authority, but dispensed by the Government under inspection. If this tax were applied, half to the in-door poor, and half to the cost of main roads, it would, in my opinion, be an equitable settlement of those two questions, and lead to economy and sound administration. But it will be said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone), or anyone else filling the Office of Chancellor of the Exchequer—"If you take this £1,600,000, you are practically taking it out of the national purse; I must make it up somehow." [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] I entirely sympathize with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I will say at once that I am opposed to general charges on the Consolidated Fund; but special grants appropriated to special taxes which can be increased or lowered are very different things; and that is the direction in which we should go in this great question, for it is a great question. There is a sum of nearly £2,000,000 now charged upon the Treasury for police and lunatics. Now, what produces crime and lunacy? Why, intemperance. If all the crime and lunacy that comes from intemperance were got rid of, we should not ask for any contribution from the Treasury for those purposes at all; and, therefore, this grant for police and lunatics should be thrown on the excise—½d. a gallon on beer, and a similar charge on spirits, would meet the case, and set free the present charge to balance the house tax. I must apologize, Sir,

  63
  for enlarging on the subject; but it is quite impossible to deal with the fringe of the question on rational grounds without going futher into the bearings of local taxation. What I suggest now, in supporting the Motion of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Harcourt), is that an immediate temporary grant from the Exchequer be made for one or two years until the whole question can be fairly dealt with—that is, a sort of rate-in-aid; and one additional reason for that is that, owing to the state in which the roads were given up, the present ratepayers are having to re-make them. I should include all disturnpiked roads in boroughs; in some places, a very heavy charge for a mile in a borough costs more than double a mile in the country. And as regards Scotland and Ireland, which have been mentioned, they ought certainly to be also included; wherever the house tax is payable there the relief should be given. I thank the House for the patience with which it has listened to the somewhat extended statement I have been compelled to make to bring oat what appears to me the full bearings of this large subject.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he had listened with sympathy and interest to the various speeches which had been made that night on the subject, because, as a resident in the country, he knew where and how the shoe pinched, particularly with regard to the highway rate. In these times every increase of an old rate, or every additional new rate, was most severely felt by the agriculturists, who had suffered so recently from bad seasons. Highway rates, in particular, had increased of recent years, and they had appeared to grow more than they really had, because highway districts had been created, involving a certain shifting of burdens between parishes. The result was that the parishes which suffered by the new arrangement naturally remembered it and cried out, while the parishes that gained quite as naturally forgot it and remained silent. There was no doubt, also, that often when a highway district was first created it involved an increase of total expenditure, because a highway district took over the roads of some parishes in very bad condition, and the new Board had to put them in repair, and it was well known how very expensive it was to put in good
  64
  order roads which had been allowed to get thoroughly out of repair. Another cause of the addition to highway rates was the extinction of turnpike trusts and the charge upon highway rates of roads formerly maintained by toll. Within the last 10 years highway rates had increased by £400,000. They had grown up from £1,300,000 to £1,700,000. Some hon. Gentlemen had shed a tear of regret over the abandonment of turnpikes. ["No, no!"] He was glad to hear that disclaimer, for he looked upon the turnpike system as the most extravagant mode of maintaining roads which the ingenuity of man or of fiend could devise. Though highway rates had increased by £400,000, the actual cost of the roads had diminished by £130,000, because tolls had been reduced by £530,000. His hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Harcourt) claimed Imperial support for the roads on the ground of the facilities they afforded for military and commercial transport. [Mr. HARCOURT: I said originally.] He was glad to hear the correction, because, since railways had been created, road traffic had become year by year more and more local and subsidiary; and, therefore, the justification for looking upon roads as a matter of Imperial charge had been year by year diminishing. He looked with great fear upon any proposition which would enable any person to put a hand into the Exchequer and take out of it one moiety of whatever he should think fit to spend upon a matter admitting of indefinite expenditure. What had taken place in connection with the grant in aid of police served him as a caution. Sir Robert Peel, many years ago, gave to the county and borough police in England and Wales a grant in aid equal to one-fourth of their pay and clothing. The grant was increased in 1873–4 to one-half of the pay and clothing. The grant in 1873–4, the last year of Sir Robert Peel's grant, was £294,000. What, however, was the amount which the Exchequer had to pay in 1870–80? It was £857,000, so that it seemed to have nearly trebled. [An hon. MEMBER: By increase of pay.] He very much questioned whether the rate of pay was much higher than in 1873; the cost of clothing was probably less. He had taken the published Returns of the Local Government Board, and hon. Members

  65
  could make the comparison for themselves. In the year 1873–4 the charge upon county rates and borough funds for county and borough police was, after deducting the grant received, £1,239,000, whereas in 1879–80 the net charge for county and borough police was £1,018,000, showing a saving to the local rates through the increased grant of £221,000. But that relief of £221,000 was purchased by a loss to the Exchequer of £563,000, so that for every 1s. of relief to the rates 2s. 6d. was paid by the Exchequer. Further, in 1873–4 for the county police the charge per man was £92; in 1879–80, when one-half of the pay and clothing was found by the Exchequer, the charge had risen to £101, showing an increase of £9. But when he said that half the pay and clothing was defrayed by the Imperial Exchequer, it only really represented two-fifths of the entire cost of the police. Now, his hon. Friend proposed that half the total cost of the main roads should be borne by the Exchequer; and the proportion of contribution would, therefore, be larger than in the case of the police. Moreover, under the Act of 1878, it was left to the discretion of the local authorities what should be declared main roads. The result, if half the cost were paid by the Exchequer, would be that the list of main roads would be largely increased. It had been suggested that assistance should be given to main roads by the surrender or the creation of a tax to be handed over to the local authorities. Two Governments had considered that scheme. The right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) had proposed to surrender the house tax; but that proposition had not met with much favour. The late Government had also considered the surrender of a tax. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer had increased the grants to the police, and also to lunatics. But he had made that proposal avowedly as a stop-gap, as he said that the Government had really not had time to consider the question. There were great difficulties about the surrender or creation of a tax, although it would have a distinct advantage over grants in aid from the Imperial Exchequer. The difficulty was in finding an appropriate tax. The advantage would be the absence of central interference, and of any stimulus to expenditure such as attended grants in
  66
  aid. But it would be difficult to find a suitable tax which could be collected by the locality; and, if it were imperially collected, it was difficult to ascertain the best mode of distribution. If distributed to localities according to their rateable value it would give most assistance to the richest places, which were least in need of it. If distributed in proportion to expenditure it would have the effect of stimulating expenditure; and if, in dealing with highways, the tax were given according to mileage, they would still be giving it unequally, because mileage was no measure of traffic and wear and tear, or of the abundance and cheapness of the materials at command for repairing the roads. Lastly, mileage was only a measure of the length of roads, and not of their breadth, which was a very material item in estimating cost. It appeared to him that the present system of grants from the Exchequer required consideration, in the interests both of the localities and of the Treasury, as to the mode in which they were given, and in some instances as to the purposes for which they were given. In making such grants the Government ought to consider—first, whether the charge to be borne by the Treasury would have the effect of producing a corresponding amount of relief to the local taxation; secondly, whether a stimulus would be given towards increased expenditure; thirdly, the extent of the liability undertaken by the Government should be definite. Now, in the case of roads, even more than in that of the police, the Government would be undertaking an indefinite liability. The fact was that the law relating to roads was in a state of transition. They had been for years considering whether the roads should be transferred from parishes to districts; and it was yet unsettled whether they should be transferred to districts formed for that special purpose, or to sanitary districts, or to the counties, or in part to districts and in part to the counties. There was much difficulty attending the constitution of those districts. A Committee of the House of Lords was sitting on the subject, from which they hoped to derive much assistance; but, meanwhile, they had no representative body in the counties to which they could satisfactorily refer the management of roads. He had hoped that the Government would have been

  67
  able to deal with the system of county government during the present Session, and it was only the pressure of absolute business which had induced the Government to abandon their intention for the present Session. With reference to the Act of 1878, it was passed under circumstances of considerable difficulty, late in the Session of that year; and he believed that his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had not the time or means at his disposal then to pass a more complete measure on the subject. But he quite agreed with the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. J. W. Pease) that that Act stood in need of amendment, more especially in regard to main roads. He had already given one reason for saying so. He would now give another. He did not think that the system which had been established of dividing the cost of main roads between county and parish, or county and district, was a good system, because it involved a double system of surveying and inspecting, which was attended with expense. He went further, and said that the entire law which regulated the maintenance of the highways stood in need of revision. He had already said that their system of county government stood in need of reform, and the existing grants in aid stood in need of careful examination as to their mode and their object. Under these circumstances, he could not accept the Motion of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Harcourt). This was not from any want of sympathy or appreciation of the importance of the subject. If he accepted the Motion, it would be received by those in whom the wish was father to the thought as an assurance that the Government were going to deal with the subject of main roads in the manner proposed by the Resolution. On behalf of the Government, he had to say that they wished to keep themselves free to deal comprehensively with a matter which they consided required to be so dealt with. He could accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Durham, and, therefore, if his hon. Friend went to a division he should vote for the Amendment. He was prepared to go further than that Resolution but he should accept it as an expression on the part of the Government of their bonâ fide intentions to deal with the subject at the earliest available moment.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he had no fault to find with the allusions made by the right hon. Gentleman to the Act of 1878. It was very easy, of course, to get rid of an objectionable Resolution by smothering it with the suggestion that it was only part of a larger question. The point was, however, whether an admitted grievance, which had been loudly complained of in years past, and which the Act of 1878 had intensified, though it had not created it, should or should not be removed. If they were to wait, not until the Highways Act was amended, but until the whole question of county government was dealt with, until the relations existing between the Imperial and local Exchequers were settled, Gentlemen who recollected what had gone on in that House during the last four or five years would believe that the question would lie unsolved for many years to come. He had read in one of the papers that morning the extraordinary statement that by the Highways Act of 1878 turnpikes were done away. He believed that was an opinion which prevailed in many parts of the country; but the process had been going on for the last 20 years, and the Acts had been allowed to lapse year after year, the Government of the time having little to do with the matter. It was in 1878, under his humble agency, that the late Government endeavoured to find a remedy for the very serious hardship that the occupier of agricultural land found himself labouring under when large disturnpiking operations took place behind his back, and he was saddled with an increase of rates, for which no provision was made when he entered into his agreement with his landlord. The Act of 1878, he contended, had not been a failure, the important provision as to casting a portion of the maintenance of the main roads on the county rate being the necessary preliminary of any future legislation. They had thus obtained the nucleus of a classification of roads. What the agriculturist said was that a small, unimportant, ill-repaired road would suit his purpose sufficiently well, and that he objected to pay for a road which was four or five times the size he wanted. Those roads had been constructed for the public convenience out of borrowed money; turnpike tolls had been allowed to be charged

  69
  to meet the interest on that outlay; and Parliament had permitted those turnpike Acts to expire, and the tolls had come to an end. But the question was, why was the occupier of land to have those charges thrown on him, and not the general public, which had been accustomed, heretofore, at all events, to pay a certain proportion of them, but which had now been relieved both from the inconvenience and the burden of turnpike tolls? His hon. Friend behind him said that that was a question which could not wait for settlement—it could not wait till his right hon. Friend (Mr. Dodson) had not only introduced, but had passed, a County Government Bill and an Amendment of the Highway Act. The task of carrying such a measure through the House would be heavy, and what chance was there of its being speedily accomplished? If his right hon. Friend had a plan of operations in his mind, and knew the mode in which he was to assist the highway rate—if he had his scheme and an opportunity of bringing it forward, that would be something for them to go upon. But his right hon. Friend said nothing of that sort; he had given them his objections to the system of subventions, which they were all aware of, and also his objections to the proposal of handing over certain taxes. The late Government had been found fault with for having embarked in the system of subventions; and he certainly was not greatly enamoured of that system for local purposes. But there was a very bitter cry on this question; and he did not think there would be any great harm if the Government said that until they could put the matter on a permanent and solid foundation they would place a Vote of £200,000, or some amount of that sort, before Parliament, and distribute the money in aid of that local charge, not because they were not perfectly conscious of the objection to subventions, but because they perceived that the country generally had been relieved from a large expenditure and a great inconvenience in regard to the roads which they constantly used for purposes of business and pleasure. Now that they had got a county authority which grudged to spend much money on the main roads, and which was obliged to have surveyors to verify the condition of those roads, they had all the machinery re-
  70
  quisite, and a contribution in aid of the county rate might be given for the benefit of the districts and parishes in which the roads might be considered insufficiently aided. If the Government were minded to take that step, they might make a further contribution in aid of local expenditure, intrusting that contribution to the county authority, to be given in addition to their own. The county authority would thus be merely the instrument in carrying the aid to the districts and parishes. The subvention in aid of lunatics had, in his opinion, worked extremely well; but he would admit that the subvention in aid of the police had not operated in the direction of public economy, nor would he wish to see it extended. But the sole cause of that he believed to be that the Home Office, through their Inspectors, laid so much stress upon smartness of dress, drill, and efficiency, and had a criterion of military efficiency which they were able to apply, notwithstanding the dead weight of county resistance. The tendency of the county was economical; that of the Inspectors, as regarded the police, was otherwise. He did not wish to be bound by any particular scheme of subvention; but he had shown how it might be done, and he would willingly support the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSmaintained that the burden of keeping up the roads ought in justice to fall upon the land, the taxation upon which, compared with landed property in Germany and other countries, was ridiculously light, and which, but for the existence of the roads, would be comparatively valueless. It was the interest, and therefore the duty, of the owner of real estate to maintain the means by which he could bring his goods to market, and carry his produce over land. The burden thrown upon the occupier was already too heavy, and if the maintenance of the roads were charged upon the Imperial Exchequer it would be the unfortunate occupier who would bear the brunt of it. The soi-disant farmers' friends who supported the Motion were, therefore, in reality, the greatest enemies the farmer could have.
  SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYcontended that no reason had ever been shown why the maintenance of turnpike roads should be thrown upon the rates of localities at

  71
  all. He understood the complaint of his hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire to be that that which ought to be a public burden was cast unfairly upon special localities. Turnpike roads, since their commencement in the reign of Charles II., had never, under any circumstances, been chargeable on the highway rate until the year 1841. In and subsequently to the year 1841 Acts had been passed entailing the burden of their repair on the localities. For his part he believed that the expense of maintaining roads, which were made, as expressed in the very words of their Acts, for the national benefit—for the passage of troops, for example, in time of need—ought to be borne, not by the localities, but by the general public.
  MR. RATHBONEthought that unless Parliament dealt with the question as a whole they would only be drifting more and more into inequalities. The question ought to be met by a different mode of levying local taxation, which would make the rich colliery owners and manufacturers who used the roads pay for their maintenance, instead of the cost falling upon the ratepayers. He had always considered that there was a strong claim upon the owners of personal property to contribute towards local burdens; but he objected very strongly to giving these small sops to local burdens without dealing with the whole question of local management and taxation. The inequalities existing in relation to the roads also existed in regard to the water supply and other matters. The whole system ought to be dealt with at the earliest possible moment. It had been urged on Government after Government, but somehow it had not been done. It was not wise to go on legislating piecemeal on this question; it only created difficulties which would have to be overcome in the future. He would suggest that a Royal Commission, consisting of the strongest men of the House, should be appointed, with instructions to have their Report prepared before next February. This would be a most valuable aid to the Government in carrying any measure of reform on the subject. He was certain it was possible to make a system of wise taxation more equal and just than it was at present, and to make its administration more economical and efficient; but he did not believe it could be without the appointment of a Com-
  72
  mission, as the Government had not sufficient information in their possession. He hoped all the Motions on the Paper would be withdrawn, and that the Government would assent to his proposition, so that they might at last see a system of local taxation of principle and method in place of haphazard legislation.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I understand that the hon. Member for Oxforshire (Mr. Harcourt) means to divide the House upon this subject. In answer to the appeal which has just been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone), who desires that a Royal Commission should be appointed for the purpose of considering this very large and diversified matter, and asks that it should not be dealt with in a piece-meal fashion, but completely as a whole. On that subject I may say that I do not wish to bind Her Majesty's Government, nor have I been asked to do so. It would require a preliminary consideration of the functions and province of the Commission before Her Majesty's Government could undertake to decide whether the labours of such a body could be made useful. As to the entire question, when it comes to be dealt with in a satisfactory manner, I am convinced that it must be dealt with mainly on the responsibility of the Government. Still, I will not express an opinion adverse to that of my hon. Friend—namely, that the question should be inquired into by a Royal Commission. My right hon. Friend near me (Mr. Dodson) has made statements on the part of the Government in regard to two matters. He has declared two things. In the first place, he said that he gives his support cheerfully to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease); and, secondly, that Her Majesty's Government are very anxious to deal with the question. We are anxious to deal with it; and my right hon. Friend went a point beyond that statement, and frankly informed the House that Her Majesty's Government would have been anxious to place upon the Table of the House a measure dealing with a large portion of the subject, and an essential portion of it, and to have passed it during the present Session, had it not been for the circumstance that the time available for the purposes of Imperial legislation

  73
  had been effaced by the local necessities of Ireland, partly in reference to the preservation of peace and order in that country, and partly in reference to the conditions of the Land Question, and that the demands which have been made upon our time have left a residue available for other purposes so small as to be quite insignificant. It appears to me that the real strength of the pleas urged by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, and by all those who have spoken in a similar strain for a long period of years—that the real strength of those pleas is founded on one consideration, and on one consideration only—that the personal property of the district upon which the local rates were originally leviable was undoubtedly held in the letter and spirit of the law to be liable to contribution for local purposes. I must, at the same time, point out to the House that it is a most unsatisfactory substitute for the liability of that personal property to pursue the method which has been so much in vogue during the last 30 years, and was increasingly in vogue during the existence of the last Parliament, of making large transfers, one by one, from the local rates to the Consolidated Fund. For as far as the effect of this transfer from the local rates is concerned in the rural districts, do not conceal it from yourselves, and do not conceal it from the country, that however you may, in the first instance, in some measure, be granting relief to the agriculturists and the farmers of the country, every shilling of the relief finds its way, by a certain process, on each change of tenancy, into the pockets of the landlords, and it is that transfer and that pocket which is to be ultimately relieved. And what is the fund on which you lay the charge? Is it a fund supplied by real property alone? No; and you say, and say truly, that it ought not to be a fund supplied solely by real property, or by personal property. No, Sir; the Consolidated Fund represents a vast amount contributed from year to year, of which vast amount I, at least, for one, am convinced that at least one-half of it is supplied by the labours of the country. And, therefore, in the long run, and in the main, when you make these transfers, you are making them largely, by placing them on the labour of the country, not in the first moment, but after a short period, and by a certain process, by placing on the
  74
  labour of the country taxes hitherto borne by the land. Now, I say that that is a very serious matter; and, in my opinion, the lesson to be drawn from it is this—that this is a process which ought not to be carried on piecemeal; but it ought be dealt with in view of the whole facts of the case, and upon a large scale. Let Parliament examine, and examine upon a large scale, what is the best mode of giving to real property that aid which it was once accustomed to receive from personal property, and let it make an adjustment of taxes, employing Imperial agency for their collection, but making a portion of the proceeds available for local purposes in proportion to what it thinks would be a just arrangement on the subject. If so, it can, in the very nature of the tax, avoid the difficulty I have described. It can avoid the difficulty of placing on labour burdens which never, in the history of the country, was intended in the spirit of the Constitution to place on labour. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to show that it is a right or just principle of legislation that a large portion of the local burdens of the country should be placed on the labour of the country as an inevitable consequence of these wholesale transfers carried on without any view of their ultimate bearing on the subject of local rates. Now, let us see what is asked of us. The hon. Member makes a Motion, one of the most innocent I have ever known submitted to Parliament in its terms; and I must say, from long experience, that my suspicion is excited in regard to all Motions which take the form of truisms or assertions in identical terms. The hon. Member for Oxfordshire moves—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient so to amend 'The Highway Act, 1878,' that part of the maintenance of main roads may be defrayed from other sources than county rates."
  They are paid for out of other sources than county rates now. The Motion, therefore, in its terms is absolutely unmeaning; at least, it is no more in its terms than the affirmation of a truism. Why are we to be called upon to vote for a Motion of this kind, if it is only in the nature of a truism? I decline to be bound to do something or other quite indefinite, except according to the declaration of the hon. Gentleman opposite, and which is not expressed by the vote

  75
  before the House. If the hon. Member has a plan, he should state his plan in his Motion; but while he says—
  "It is expedient so to amend 'The Highway Act, 1878,' that part of the maintenance of main roads may be defrayed from other sources than county rates,"
  he gives his own construction to that Motion. I want to know, suppose his Motion was accepted by the House, can it be imagined that the House or the Government are to be bound to do something under it? How are they to interpret it, and to know what it is that is wanted? Is not the House bound, in prudence, for its own dignity, and for the public utility, to speak in intelligible language when it expresses its opinion that the law ought to be changed in this way or in that. I am not, I think, taking an unreasonable objection. I have heard four different interpretations given to the Motion by Gentlemen who have supported it, and one of the speeches suggested to me a fifth interpretation which, I must confess, I thought quite as good as any of the other four. The first interpretation is that part of the expense of maintaining highways should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. That is the interpretation, I think, of the Mover. A second interpretation is that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents a portion of the county of Devon (Colonel Walrond). He says that the whole cost ought to be placed upon the Consolidated Fund. The hon. Baronet the Member for South Shropshire (Sir Baldwyn Leighton) stated in a speech which I must say was, I thought, pervaded by a spirit of justice more enlightened than that which was conspicuous in the speeches of other hon. Members—that the placing of the charge on the Consolidated Fund is a very rude method, and ought only to be temporarily adopted. Then came the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth), who said he did not recommend before the Committee of the House of Lords, where he was examined as a witness, anything like a subvention from the Consolidated Fund. But the right hon. Gentleman has now discovered something totally different from what he recommended to the House of Lords, notwithstanding the long experience he had had when he went before that Committee. He now comes
  76
  down and makes a proposition totally different. He says that he is prepared to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire; but he says that it ought not to be thrown in as a mere quota, and that it ought not to go in relief of the county rates, but in relief of that portion of the charge paid by the district. That is an essential check. But there is an evident flaw in this view. His main argument was that the county rate would be administered by those who would endeavour to exercise an efficient check over expenditure. Yes; but there are two objections to that. First of all, that by the present law the county authorities have not the power to exercise that check; and, secondly, that under the present system, and while the county authorities represent the principle of nomination and in no degree the principle of representation, it is impossible for them to serve the purposes of an efficient control over the local authorities. These are the four plans which have been submitted to the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hampshire said it was a very hard case for the occupier, as perhaps it is, that he should be burdened with the cost of maintaining roads which he could not have anticipated when he made his bargain with his landlord. Then that suggests to me a fifth remedy quite as good as any of the other four—namely, that those of us who are landlords should take upon ourselves one-half of this burden. But whether four or five or 50 plans may be suggested, I must say that I think the adoption of these blind Motions, which express nothing, which in their terms have no meaning, or which are meant to be covers under which, by slow degrees, hon. Gentlemen may put forward their particular views, ought not to be accepted by this House. When my right hon. Friend near me speaks of dealing with county government as a whole, the answer is—"We cannot wait." It is admitted that the system of subvention is full of defects. Just let me remind the House how full of defects it is. In the first place, this is a system of subvention for England alone, and the proposal is to place half the cost of the maintenance of the main roads of England upon a fund to which Scotland and Ireland contribute in the same manner, and substantially to the same extent. I think that is a very serious

  77
  and strong argument in favour of the doctrine that we ought to deal with this matter as a whole. In the second place, it is admitted that these methods are most unfavourable to economy. The real power in this case is in the parish, or in the district boards or authorities; and the parish or the district authority, as I believe, draws upon the county rate, with the county rate very nearly as helpless as the Consolidated Fund is. But when I say that I complain of the control of the local authorities over the Consolidated Fund do not let me be misunderstood. I do not mean that they control it in the sense of undue power over the public purse in augmenting the Public Expenditure. But we deserve it for the manner in which we have proceeded, for the manner in which we have brought in centralizing processes in connection with this system of local grants, and for the manner in which we have given them a turn and a tendency which is most injurious to that system of local government and economy which we all profess to reverence, and which we really believed to be one of our greatest treasures when it commenced some ten years ago. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had been in the House when his right hon. Friend near him (Mr. Sclater-Booth) spoke on the subject of the Police Fund. There is one of the finest examples of the system we have been lately pursuing. When we have continued to tax the Consolidated Fund and the general taxpayer two or three or four times, we are told the trifling and trumpery benefits the local ratepayers obtain from the maintenance of the police ought not to be an inducement for us to wait for county government, but that we should redress the grievance. But how long has this been said? When this system of grants in aid was begun, as long as ten years ago, there were very great difficulties to be overcome in altering and re-casting the system of local authorities in the country, so as to place them in due relation to one another, to the public for whom they act, and to the Central Government. But we had an enormous leverage in our hands, by which we could overcome prejudice and opposition, and which was grounded upon other motives, because we held a purse, out of
  78
  which we were prepared, on proper principles, to give largely in aid of the rates. That was found difficult—and so, what have we done? For the last six years we have gone on shovelling out large sums of money to no result, and upon no system, except to quell, for a moment, the appetite which grew with what it fed upon. £2,000,000 out of the public taxes were given away by the late Parliament; and the consequence is that our difficulty is greater now, because there is not the same power and the same inducements which you formerly had to bring local influences into conformity with the will and desire of Parliament. I think it is time to refuse to go on with this haphazard and piecemeal system, and that, at the first moment, when circumstances will permit, we should look at this question as a whole. It was not a satisfactory result, that was obtained from the labours of the last Parliament. I have pointed out what was done with regard to local grants, and that certainly effected a very important change in the balance of taxation as between land and labour; but the same Parliament, while relieving land, laid a heavy additional tax upon personal property by increasing the probate duties. In the expiring days of the last Parliament, £750,000 was laid by way of taxation upon personal property. Is it right that we should go on, time after time, always postponing the real process by which justice may be done among the various classes of the community, and that on the present occasion, in deference to a Motion, with regard to which I think I have shown expresses nothing, and which has for its main characteristic this—that it allows every hon. Gentleman in the House to apply it as he pleases. Under these circumstances, I think the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised that we cannot accede to his Motion. I do not wish to use the term offensively; but it is a hood-winking Motion. Let him raise the issue by some intelligible declaration if it is to be raised at all. But I put it to him, and to the House generally, that we are bound to consider the greatness of these questions, and to make some effort at the adjustment of the balance between real and personal property. We are here travelling away from this further and further, and it is time, I

  79
  think, that we should declare that we will not advance in that direction. Let the hon. Gentleman urge upon us as rapidly as the state of Public Business will permit the despatch of the matter in hand; but do not let us take a course which is really unworthy of the dignity of the House in the discharge of legislative functions, and which certainly cannot have any comprehensive or accurate application to the principles of justice in reference to the various classes of the community.
  SIR MASSEY LOPESsaid, all who were interested in land were much indebted to the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, (Mr. E. W. Harcourt) for having initiated so interesting a discussion, and having ventilated a grievance of which the owners and occupiers of land so bitterly and yet so justly complained. The very serious depression which so generally affected the agricultural interest intensified the grievance. The charge for highways was one of the two most crying evils of which the agricultural community had to complain—the other was the education rate. These were new charges exceptionally imposed upon real property within the last ten years; they were not hereditary burdens. They were not taken into account or considered by him when he brought forward his Motion on local taxation in 1872. When he introduced that Resolution he was, to some extent, responsible for advocating the course which had been condemned by the Prime Minister, of making, a subvention from the Consolidated Fund. He had, undoubtedly, recommended a subvention on that occasion; but if he had to suggest a course in the present case, although he might quite concur with his hon. Friend that a subvention from the Consolidated Fund might be the first step, yet he should not advise it in the present instance. He should infinitely prefer a local licence. With reference to these subventions, he wished to point out that, although since 1874 £2,000,000 a-year had been given by way of subvention to the local rates, the whole amount had been swamped and swallowed up by these new charges for highways and education. It was a fact, that the additional rate for education amounted to about £1,300,000 a-year, while the highway rate amounted to £500,000; and then there was the sanitary rate to be taken into account.
  80
  These three imposts had absorbed the whole of the money given by way of subvention. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had always opposed these subventions; but he had never suggested any other adequate relief; and he must remind him that subventions in aid of the local rates for Imperial purposes in the country were first proposed by Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell. They publicly stated in that House that if the House adopted Free Trade it was absolutely necessary, as a matter of justice, that certain subventions should be given towards the exceptional taxes which were then being paid by the landed interest. What had been done since that time? Parliament had accumulated fresh charges on the landed interest; and notwithstanding the subvention of 1874, which, as he had shown already, had been swallowed up, nothing whatever had been done to relieve it. They complained, also, of the abolition of the turnpike trusts. What was the result of the abolition of tolls during the last 10 years? In 1870 there were, in round numbers, 1,000 trusts with 20,000 miles of road. In 1880 there were only 180 trusts with 5,000 miles of road, and in six more years all trusts would have run out. The repair of 15,000 miles of road at £30 per mile would add £450,000 to the burdens of the ratepayers, and the 5,000 miles yet to be disturnpiked £150,000 a-year besides; so that the abolition of turnpikes alone would have added £600,000 to the local burdens. Some remedies had been proposed that evening, which might very well be applied to the case. The carriage tax yielded £500,000 a-year; the dog tax £380,000, and the gun and game licences together yielded £230,000. In his view there could be no more proper tax than the carriage tax to be handed over to the localities. This, he said, might be handed over to the counties, put into hotch-potch, and then disposed of according to the proportion of mileage of main road in each highway district. That arrangement would be a fair one. But if the Government did not like to give so large a sum as that of the carriage tax, why should not the dog tax be applied to the purpose, and the amount collected by the county authorities by means of the police? It had been very truly said by his hon. Friend that Parliament admitted the grievance

  81
  of the main roads being charged on the local rates when it passed the Act of 1878. But it was well known that that Act was never regarded as final, nor had it been altogether a satisfactory measure, although it was at the time considered as indispensably necessary to deal with the grievance. The hon. Member for South Durham admitted that the present law with regard to highways was not satisfactory, and that a comprehensive measure was required. He (Sir Massey Lopes) was sure the House would agree that it was absolutely necessary to consolidate the many Highway Acts in existence and replace them by an Act intelligible to all. Again, he thought, everyone would agree that there was a great want of uniformity in the bye-laws of the various counties, each of which possessed a different set, and these had constituted a continual source of heart-burning and annoyance. An attempt ought, therefore, to be made to introduce uniformity in the bye-laws prevailing in the various counties. The same want of uniformity was also true with regard to highway districts. Ten counties had adopted highway districts; 10 had declared they would have nothing to do with them, and the rest adopted a system of half-highway districts and half-parishes. He thought the Government should have the boldness to come forward with a compulsory and not a permissive measure upon this subject. Many hon. Members professed to sympathize with the landed interest in the present depression; but if there was any real desire to mitigate that depression, some of the legislative oppression, which was felt so heavily by the landed interest, must be removed.
  MR. E. W. HARCOURTsaid, he would reply very briefly to the observations which had been made in opposition to the Motion he had submitted to the House. In the first place, he would refer to the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. J. W. Pease). He regretted that he had been obliged to be absent from the House at the commencement of the hon. Member's speech. On his return, however, the hon. Member was just explaining to the House that the payment of rates by tenant farmers was a matter to be treated philosophically. He could not agree that this would convey any consolatory idea to the farmers in question.
  82
  Then, with regard to his objection on the ground of the expense of inspection, which he pointed out would swallow up a great deal of the amount of the grant, it must be remembered that there was already in existence a number of Inspectors who could be made use of for this purpose. The whole of the speech of the hon. Member was in favour of the Amendment of the Act of 1878; but he must be well aware that this could not be done during the present Session. So that, in fact, his advice to the farmers was—"Wait." The hon. Member for South Durham was followed by the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice), who remarked that it was extremely clever on his (Mr. Harcourt's) part to ask for immediate relief. In reply to that, he was unable to perceive the talent; it was a want so obvious to all practical men that ignorance in this matter would indicate a great dunderhead indeed. All he had intended to do was to make a recommendation. He was, however, perfectly willing, as were his Friends also, to take anything they could get. The noble Lord went on to say that the difficulty was owing to the bad administration in the counties. He (Mr. Harcourt) thought in matters of that kind hon. Members should speak of their own counties alone. It was possible that the county in which the noble Lord was interested was badly administered; but even if that were the case, it was no reason why he should accuse other counties of being in the same plight. Lastly, they were told that the only thing possible to be done by way of remedying the evil would be to establish County Boards. The contention, then, of the noble Lord was the same—"Wait." Then came the President of the Local Government Board, who said that the expense of the roads was less. But he had not told the House that the condition of the roads was much worse than it was. He stated that the main roads were now less used by the public than they were. But the fact that some brewers were paying £500 or £1,000 a-year for the use of the roads did not look as if that were the case. The right hon. Gentleman said—"Hands off from the Exchequer," and referred to the increased cost of police management, since the Government had contributed to their maintenance, as a proof of the great demand which would be made upon the

  83
  Exchequer. But it had been wisely remarked that the increased expenditure on the police was not due to local mismanagement by county authorities, but that it had been forced upon them by the expensive habits of the Government. He could not but regard the illustration of the hon. Gentleman, with reference to the green lanes being turned into highways, as having been used in a playful mood. He was well acquainted with country districts, and was aware what store we set by the violets and primroses of our village lanes, which no amount of subvention would tempt us to turn into useless main roads. Then he went on to say, before they added to the grants, they ought to consider whether any corresponding good would come out of them, and whether they would stimulate reckless expenditure. There, again, was an attack upon the local authorities, and doubt was cast upon their management. He next spoke of the road laws being in a transition state, and alluded to the Committee of the House of Lords then sitting, and stated that County Boards would shortly be established. This was exactly the official answer shadowed forth by his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Somerset (Mr. R. H. Paget) in the observations he had used in support of this Motion, and this was another repetition of the Government refrain—"Wait." He (Mr. Harcourt) felt certain that if the Government gave an offer of some kind in the present, they would not find the farmers hard to please; but they would be unwilling to be put off with promises as to the future. He would be quite content to accept either of the alternatives proposed by the right hon. Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth) and the hon. Baronet the Member for south Devon (Sir Massey Lopes). But the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers), who was a gentleman of very large beliefs, assumed that the taxpayer was patient, and was not eager for assistance. This showed that the Professor was not much up in the subject. He mixed up main roads and bye roads, and spoke of certain properties in Oxfordshire with which he professed to be acquainted. The hon. Member spoke of a road which, he said, led to his (Mr. Harcourt's) property. As a matter of fact, it did not lead to his property, but was very largely used by the hon. Professor himself when he was
  84
  taking exercise to sharpen his appetite for dinner. At the close of his speech he said the land was much too lightly taxed; no wonder that he also should say—"Wait." The hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone) objected to give small sops to local burdens without entering into the general question of local taxation. However, he (Mr. Harcourt) contended that it was much easier to deal with one stick out of a bundle than to try to deal with the whole bundle at once. The hon. Member suggested the appointment of a Royal Commission; and he, too, was one who counsels us to "wait." The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said he could not deny that, in the first instance, personal property was liable to these things. But he further said that a subvention to the tenant would find its way into the pocket of the landowner, and would come out of the pocket of the labourer. He (Mr. Harcourt), as a practical man in a country district, could not and would not submit to such a definition. The three interests, landlords, tenants, and labourers, could not be separated, because what was for the good of the one must be for the good of the other. Furthermore, the right hon. Gentleman said that his (Mr. Harcourt's) thesis could not be controverted. Why, then, did he not vote for it? If the Government agreed to this they would be bound to do something at once, and, of course, they would be able, in their wisdom, to devise methods for carrying out the wishes of the farmer; and he (Mr. Harcourt) would answer for it the smallest assistance would be gratefully received. The only alternative, however, offered by the right hon. Gentleman was to wait until there was some grand scheme of county government prepared. This he took to be the crowning advice of the Government—"Wait." On this he would divide. They were not prepared to wait; and he would consider that those who went with him into the Lobby on this occasion would be representing the views of every farmer in England. The farmers wished for something at the present moment, and if the right hon. Gentleman would only give them that he would earn their lasting gratitude. This being so, he did not despair of seeing the right hon. Gentleman in the same Lobby as himself.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 145; Noes 159: Majority 14.—(Div. List, No. 170.)
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient to amend "The Highway Act, 1878," and especially those portions of the said Act which relate to main roads.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  LEASES BILL.— [BILL 108.]
  (Mr. Davey, Mr. Gregory, Mr. M'Cullagh Torrens, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Chitty.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Commitee.)
  Clause 3 (Relief against forfeiture in leases).
  MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper; but, having communicated with those who had charge of the measure, he proposed to withdraw it, and to move another in page 2, line 2, after "assignment." He wished to add words to sub-section 2 of Clause 3, to provide that the person making the assignments mentioned should pay to the lessor such fee as he should require, not exceeding £1 1s. for each assignment. Under the circumstances, it appeared to him to be only fair that some acknowledgment should be made for the work done, and that the lesser should not have the work thrown on him without payment. During the whole of the term the leases had to run—and some of them were long, 99 years being a very common period—he had not the slightest control over the assignments, although it was necessary that a record should be kept of them. Members on both sides of the House with whom he had discussed his proposal seemed to think it was very fair; and he therefore trusted that the Attorney General would accept it.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 2, after "assignment," to add the words "shall pay to the lessor such fee as he shall require not exceeding one guinea for each assignment."—(Mr. Grantham.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the hon. and learned Member had appealed to him; but he
  86
  had not charge of the Bill. No doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman had in his mind, when he made the proposal, the case of the large Companies who issued circulars, and who would, no doubt, suggest such an arrangement. It would suit large Companies; but in country places, where the leases were not so important and valuable, the case would be different, and the proposal would be a tax to the extent of £1 1s. He was aware it would only apply to cases where it was stipulated that the assignment should be prepared by a solicitor; but, in many cases, solicitors would be able to charge £1 1s. for doing nothing. The fee was supposed to cover the work of preparing a lease; but the solicitor would not prepare one, because this part of the Bill was to meet the very case where he had not prepared it. While the proposal would be beneficial in the case of London Companies, in other cases it would not be beneficial, but would mean the imposition of a tax of £1 1s. for the benefit of solicitors, who would receive it for doing nothing at all.
  MR. LEWISsaid, that although the Amendment was in the interest of a Profession to which he used to belong he could not support it. He could not help thinking that it would be an unsatisfactory addition to the clause. Why should the tax be paid in this instance, whilst it was not in many other instances? Take a policy of insurance; the office had to receive a notice with regard to insurance with a fee of only 5s.—that was the case of a Company which had to investigate the title of a person to whom it had something to pay. If the Amendment were accepted a tax would be inflicted upon the community, for which there was no reason at all. It was wrong in principle, and therefore he objected to it—it would be an encumbrance upon property which Parliament ought not to allow. He agreed with the Attorney General that they ought to get rid of this proposal as an obnoxious impediment in the way of the assignment of leasehold property.
  MR. H. DAVEYsaid, the object of the Amendment was to provide some means by which the lessor might be told whom his tenants were; the fact would be conveyed to him by the notice of assignment. It was suggested by the hon. and learned Member for East Surrey (Mr. Grantham) that the lessor's solicitor

  87
  could not be expected to take note of these things, and keep a register, unless he received a fee. He confessed, however, that he had thought the charge ought to fall on the lessor; but, under the circumstances, he had been willing to concede the amended Amendment which his hon. and learned Friend had placed on the Paper. The fact was the lessor had the lessee more or less in his power in matters of this sort. He hoped the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) would not think it necessary to divide the Committee. On the whole, the Amendment was reasonable and proper, and one which he, having charge of the Bill, could agree to.
  MR. GREGORYwas anxious to see people relieved from the liabilities they were under at present as to these objectionable covenants; and he took it that the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Grantham) was a sort of compromise. He was willing to accept it as such.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Suppose a lessor's solicitor says—"I will not prepare a lease, although I am entitled to a fee." He would be able to do that, and yet could charge for doing nothing at all.
  MR. GREGORY: This provision applies only to the assignment.
  MR. GORSTsaid, this discussion, so far as it had gone, showed the extreme inconvenience in matters of this kind of not having the Amendment on the Paper. An Amendment had been placed on the Paper by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Surrey, and that hon. Members had come down prepared to discuss; but, instead of their being asked to consider it when the Bill went into Committee, it was withdrawn, and a new one was presented in its place. The Attorney General had given strong reasons why the Amendment should not be accepted; and he would, therefore, suggest that it should be withdrawn. It could be placed upon the Paper and fully considered on Report.
  MR. DODDSpointed out that unless an Amendment were introduced in Committee there would be no Report; and, therefore, it would not be possible to raise another discussion on this matter. The Amendment was not an unreasonable one, and it would give great relief to the lessee; therefore he trusted the Committee would adopt it.
  MR. LEWISsaid, he should be sorry to stand in the way of an amicable settlement of this question. Unlike the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), he did not think it would be well to have a formal discussion on Report. He would withdraw his opposition to the Amendment, seeing that the latter was a compromise between the opponents of the clause and the promoters of the Bill. The whole matter was not very important; therefore, he hoped the Committee would not be detained on it any longer.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. WARTON: I have an Amendment to Clause 3, on page 2, line 39.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That will be on Clause 4.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he had made a mistake, and it was in line 29. The Amendment was very short, being merely to omit the words "before or" in line 29. The new provision ought not to apply to leases made "before," because, of course, there were now vested interests in those leases.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. and learned Member that as we have now put the Question, "That this Clause stand part of the Bill," his Amendment cannot be considered.
  MR. WARTON: Yes; but you did not give me time to move it.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The clause having been put, no Amendment can now be discussed.
  MR. WARTON: I thought I was in time.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member can move his Amendment on Report. The Question is, "That this Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. STAVELEY HILL, Bill to amend "The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1875," ordered to be brought in by Mr. STAVELEY HILL and Mr. MONCKTON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 127.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.