Commons Sitting of 11 August 1885

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Educational Endowments (Ireland) [176].
Committee—Report—Housing of the Working Classes (England) [248].
Committee—Report—Considered as amended—Third Reading—Prevention of Crimes Amendment [93], and passed.
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Land Purchase (Ireland) [249], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—LURGAN UNION—DR. JOHN SCOTT, MEDICAL OFFICER.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Has Dr. John Scott been acting as dispensary doctor of Montagh's Dispensary

  1721
  of Lurgan Union, and has he received his salary by cheque, and does he at same time act as guardian of said union; and, if these facts are correct, will he draw the attention of the auditor to the irregularity?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): I should, perhaps, hare added to my previous answer that Dr. John Scott has occasionally acted temporarily for a medical officer, and has been paid for so doing, and that no provision of the Poor Relief or Medical Charities Acts has been thereby infringed.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— PURSUIT OF POACHERS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is he aware that a number of police from the Draperstown and Maghera Stations drove by cars to Glenshare Mountain on Sunday last, 2nd inst. in quest of poachers; is he aware that on the same day another lot of police from the Claudy and Park Stations were called off to Glenedera Mountain for the same purpose, the first named place being between Maghera and Dungiven, the last between Draperstown and Feeney, county Derry; he ware the police paid for this extra duty, and by whom; and, is he aware that a gentleman called at Draperstown Police Station the other day, and requested the sergeant to proceed with him to county Tyrone in pursuit of poachers; the sergeant explained that he could not go into Tyrone without a special order, when the gentleman said he was brother to Mr. Meldon, M.P., was a solicitor in Dublin, and would see that the matter would be looked after in the proper quarter?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): The police in question did not go in pursuit of poachers, but for the purpose of preserving the peace and protecting gamekeepers from acts of violence while engaged in the discharge of their duty. This is one of the ordinary duties of the police, and involves no cost to the locality. It appears that a gentleman named Meldon called at Draperstown Police Station a few days ago, and made a statement about poachers on Tyrone mountains; but he did not ask the sergeant to accompany him in pursuit, and
  1722
  merely inquired as to the duties of the Constabulary in such cases.

  FISHERY PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND) —GREYSTONES HARBOUR.
  MR. O'BRIEN (for Mr. W. J. CORBET)asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If Greystones Harbour is to be constructed on the monolithic system, as asked by the inhabitants of the town in a recent memorial to the Treasury?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): With every wish to meet all reasonable local views, the Government is unable to build the work at Greystones in the style advocated by the hon. Member, as this would involve an estimated increase of £4,000 beyond the cost approved of by the Fishery Piers and Harbours Commission, and an excess of £2,000 even if the design were materially reduced.

  COMMISSIONERS OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS—CASE OF MR. ANDREW DEVITT, PORRELSBOROUGH.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in 1875, Mr. Andrew Devitt, then teacher of the Porrelsborough National School, which he had taught for nearly 15 years, resigned on condition of being awarded the compensation or retiring allowance usually granted to old teachers before the passing of the Pension Act, namely, one year's salary for every ten years' service; whether the Commissioners of Education having, up to the end of 1877, failed to pay Mr. Devitt the retiring allowance, his case was brought to the notice of Sir Michael Hicks Beach, then Chief Secretary in 1878, with the result that an inquiry was held, and the former managers of the school, Very Rev. Canon O'Donoghue and Mr. Abraham Powell, on calling at the Education Office, were assured by the responsible officials that the money would be paid in the following week; whether the money remains still unpaid; whether the Department is aware that Mr. Devitt, now an old man of 70, is dependent on a few acres of reclaimed bog for the maintenance of his wife and

  1723
  six children; and, whether the Government will order the money withheld to be now paid to him?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): Mr. Devitt resigned on the 30th September, 1875. His manager subsequently applied for a gratuity for him; but as the teacher was under 60 years of age the answer was that a gratuity could only be given on a medical certificate that the teacher was permantly incapacitated. I understand that this certificate has not been furnished. It does not appear that the case was brought to the notice of the Chief Secretary in 1878. This allegation is not borne out either by the records of the Chief Secretary's Office or of the National Board. No grounds have been shown for reviewing the decision in this case.

  EDUCATION OFFICE (IRELAND)—THE INSPECTION STAFF.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any communication took place between the late Government and the Commissioners of National Education, Ireland, with the view of ceasing to fill vacancies in the post of Inspector, and appointing instead Assistant Inspectors at a salary of £120 a-year, being about one-half the minimum salary of an Inspector; and, if such correspondence did take place, what was the result of it; whether there is any intention to appoint, in future, either Inspectors or Assistant Inspectors by nomination, instead of as hitherto by competitive examination; and, whether, in view of the fact that a number of persons have devoted themselves for years to the course of study prescribed for the examination of those desirous to be appointed Inspectors, the Commissioners will now proceed to fill up the vacant Inspectorship in the regular way by the test of competition?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): The present Irish Government are in communication with the Treasury on the subject of the Inspection Staff of the Education Office, but no decision has yet been arrived at. It was never in contemplation either by the present Government, the late Government, or the Board of National Education, to make future appointments of Inspectors or Assistant Inspectors by
  1724
  nomination, instead of as hitherto by competitive examination.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that, by the rules of the Irish National Board of Education, no result fees are allowed for the fractional part of a month, while class salaries are paid while the school is open; and, whether he will draw the attention of the Commissioners to the different modes of compensation, and suggest the payment for result fees on the same principle as the class salaries?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY: The facts are as stated. The salary is a fixed annual sum, and there is no difficulty in calculating the amount per day. But in the case of the result fees, which necessarily vary in every school and after every examination, and the distribution of which is complicated by the differences in the position of the teachers and the number of the subjects and classes taught, there can be no fixed basis on which to compute the amount per day.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—MR. WIGGINS, MASTER OF THE CLONES UNION WORKHOUSE.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Wiggins, Master of Clones Workhouse, is not bound by the rule of the service to give his whole time to his duties in the workhouse; whether he acts as the rent agent of the Reverend Thomas Averill, a local landlord; and, can he, in accordance with the rules of the Local Government Board, continue to act as such rent agent?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): The Local Government Board are informed that Mr. Wiggins receives the rent of some houses in the town of Clones, and that his doing so does not interfere with the discharge of his official duties. There is no specific rule on the subject; but the Board will ask their local Inspector to look into the case.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—BELFAST UNION WORKHOUSE—CHARGE OF DRUNKENNESS AGAINST THE SCHOOLMASTERS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,

  1725
  What steps the Local Government Board for Ireland have taken regarding the report furnished them about two schoolmasters of the Belfast Workhouse named Madden and M'Guinness, who were seen in a helpless state of drunkenness on the streets of Belfast on the 14th July, 1885; is it true that, although Madden was assisted by some friends through a back entrance into the workhouse on this date, to the knowledge of the head schoolmaster and other officials of the workhouse, as well as several paupers, no report of Madden's condition was made to the Guardians; is it true that Madden offered a written explanation to the Guardians of his misconduct, and that the Chairman of the Board directed him to withdraw it, so that the document would not require to be entered on the minutes of their proceedings; is Madden the same person who was convicted at the Belfast Petty Sessions of drunkenness and using party expressions; and, is it desirable that schoolmasters of this class should be continued in office; and, if not, what steps will be taken in relation to these two teachers?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): I have already answered this Question, and have nothing to add.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—DETENTION OF INTOXICATED PERSONS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with regard to the recent death of a man whilst in custody in a police barrack, in Sligo, and the undertaking given on the part of the Government during the late Debate, What order has been issued, or will be issued, by the Inspector General of Constabulary, and the Commissioner of Dublin Metropolitan Police, with respect to the safe custody of intoxicated persons, the detention of females, the provision of some light for cells in which persons are kept at night, and the supervision of prisoners in police barracks by the orderly constable on duty; and, whether a copy of any such order or instruction will be communicated to the House?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): It has been decided that a Regulation shall be made by the Inspector General, declaring
  1726
  that, wherever practicable, two drunken prisoners shall not be confined together, and that even when only one drunken prisoner is in charge, he shall be visited constantly, not less than every quarter of an hour, so long as he remains not perfectly sober, and that for this purpose the head constable or sergeant in charge shall, if necessary, tell off an extra barrack orderly. As regards female prisoners, the order will be to the effect that, if drunk, the same rule of visiting as in the case of male prisoners must be observed, and that in all cases when a female is in custody the barrack orderly must not be left in sole charge. The precise terms of the Order have not yet been formulated; but I shall have no objection to communicating them to the hon. Member when they have been settled.
  MR. SEXTONthanked the Chief Secretary for his action in this matter.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE DEPRESSION OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY— CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMISSION.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Memorandum to be submitted to the Commissioners in the Royal Commission on Depression of Trade and Industry would be communicated to the House before the end of the Session?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: My noble Friend (the Earl of Iddesleigh) stated yesterday that he intended to lay the Memorandum on the Table of the House of Lords, and it will also be laid on the Table of this House.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD: It is in the House of Lords' Report to-day.
  MR. BROADHURSTinquired whether the right hon. Gentleman could now state the name of the second workman to be nominated on the Commission?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I understand that my noble Friend is at present in communication with more than one person upon this subject; but I am not able to state any name at present.
  MR. BROADHURST: Will any opportunity be given to the House for the discussion of the composition of this Commission?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am afraid, Sir, that I cannot make a promise.
  MR. BROADHURSTintimated that, in view of the importance of the subject, he should call attention to it on the Motion for the adjournment of the House.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON EDUCATION OF THE BLIND—CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMISSION.
  MR. DAWSONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is his intention to place an Irishman on the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Education of the Blind, so that the interests of the blind in that country may be the more efficiently considered and protected?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)(who replied) said, that the Commission was practically appointed by the late Government. He had since placed two Gentlemen on the Commission. If an application from Ireland or Scotland were pressed upon him, he should not object to it.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what steps will be taken in order to secure the appointment of one Member from Ireland?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE: If a serious application were made from Ireland or Scotland, I would gladly consider it.
  MR. SEXTON: We are quite serious about it.

  ADMINISTRATION OF OATHS (CANADA).
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he is aware of the introduction in the Quebec Legislature of a Bill respecting the Administration of Oaths, which requires that a Crucifix shall be placed in all Courts of Justice and Courthouses in the Province, and that all persons administering oaths to witnesses shall call upon them to lift their right hand in front of such Crucifix and to swear before the same; and, whether the Legislature is competent to pass such an Act without the approval of Her Majesty; and, if not, whether Her Majesty will be advised to withhold such approval?
  MR. HEALY: Before this very offensive Question is answered, I beg to ask whether it is not a fact that all through France this is the custom pursued in taking oaths; and that in Quebec, which is inhabited by a French Colony, they are simply carrying out the ancient French system?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Colonel STANLEY),in reply, said, he had ascertained that it was a fact, as stated in the Question of the hon. Member for Stoke, that a Bill was introduced into the Quebec Legislature on the 20th of last April; but he was unable to trace it beyond its first reading. The Canadian Legislature was competent to pass such a Bill as this without the approval of the Home Government, and, therefore, he need not answer the last part of the Question. In answer to the hon. and learned Member's (Mr. Healy's) Question, he believed that throughout a great part of France—if not in the whole of France—the custom was that which the hon. and learned Member had stated.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—SOUTH SHIELDS NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether he has made further inquiries into the case of the action of the Vicar of St. Mark's, South Shields, relating to the National Schools under his charge; and, if so, what is the result of these inquiries; and, what, if any, action has been taken by the Education Department?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The result of further inquiries has been to show that the Vicar's pecuniary difficulties were the cause of some unpunctuality in the discharge of school liabilities; and he has, therefore, been informed that the Education Department cannot for the time continue to recognize him as the correspondent and treasurer of the school in question.

  STREET TRAFFIC (METROPOLIS) — OBSTRUCTION IN THE STREETS.
  MR. PULESTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case before the Thames Police Court of obstruction in the public streets

  1729
  by a Parliamentary candidate, on which. Mr. Saunders, the magistrate, remarked that he—
  "Thought the defendant was preaching a very mischievous doctrine, and he was endeavouring to set class against class. He (Mr. Saunders) had no doubt that, if the Government liked to take notice of what was stated on the bills the defendant was distributing, he would be amenable to a public prosecution;"
  and, whether the Government will inquire into the matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS),in reply, said, that after the letter he had received from Mr. Saunders he did not see that there was any reason for taking any further notice of the matter.

  ADMIRALTY (FINANCE AND EXPENDITURE) —THE VOTE OF CREDIT—REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION.
  MR. PULESTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, What steps are to be taken on the important Report made by the Committee of Investigation into the financial errors of the late Board of Admiralty?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON),in reply, said, that it was intended to appoint a Committee, consisting of his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Ritchie), Sir Reginald Welby (Accountant General of the Navy), and Mr. Macgregor (Permanent Secretary to the Admiralty), to make a Report, with a view of suggesting such alterations as would remedy the defects brought to light.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE LONDON SCHOOL BOARD.
  MR. PULESTONasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether, in view of the serious statements in reference to the London School Board finances, and having regard to the present want of authority on the part of the Government to interfere, he will advise some legislation for the protection of the ratepayers?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The expenditure of the London School Board is only to be controlled in one of two ways. If any item of expenditure is illegal, it is liable to be surcharged by the auditor; and if, in the opinion of the ratepayers, the expenditure of the
  1730
  Board, or any particular item of it, is excessive or deficient in amount, it is in the power of the ratepayers to vote only for those candidates who will give effect to that opinion.

  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) ACT—ASSISTANT REVISING BARRISTERS.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is yet in a position to name the Assistant Revising Barristers about to be appointed under the new Registration Act in Ireland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): I understand that certain gentlemen have been communicated with; but I am not yet able to name them. The list will probably be published in a few days.
  MR. O'BRIEN: Will they be announced before the rising of Parliament?
  MR. HEALY: Is the right hon. Baronet aware that he promised me that an opportunity would be given for discussing these names before Parliament was over?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY: I will communicate the list of names as soon as possible.

  POST OFFICE—POSTAL DELAYS.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Postmaster General, If his attention has been drawn to the fact that it takes two days to forward a letter from Whitegate to Woodford, about eight miles distant; and if he would take some step to facilitate postal communication between Whitegate and the remainder of the county?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Lord JOHN MANNERS): I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for calling attention to this matter. I have directed inquiries to be made, with a view of remedying the inconvenience complained of.

  ARMY—THE ARMY RESERVE.
  MR. HARRISasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will inform the House as to the date at which he thinks the Reserve Forces may reasonably expect to be relieved from their duties; and, if steps could be taken, under any

  1731
  circumstances, for the married men to be allowed to return to their families?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I hope it will very shortly be in my power to relieve the men of the Reserve from their duties with the Colours for the present, taking such other steps as may be necessary to maintain the defensive Forces of this country in a condition of preparation and efficiency. Furlough has already been granted to men who have had situations kept open for them; and arrangements will be made at once to relieve the married men who may desire to return to their families.

  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (ENGLAND) — LIST OF VOTERS—WILLESDEN.
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELLasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is aware that, in the parish of Willesden, part of the Harrow Division of Middlesex, with a population of more than 30,000, the list of occupation voters, which ought to have been published on the 1st of August, was not obtainable on the 8th of August; that, as the last day for making claims and objections is this year the 20th of August, the time prescribed by Law for the examination and correction of the overseers list has thus been already curtailed by one-half; and, whether he can take any steps to remedy the inconvenience thus caused?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have made inquiry, and am told by the Vestry Clerk that the delay was caused partly by the greatly increased duties thrown on the officials of the parish in connection with obtaining the necessary information, but chiefly by the failure of the printer to furnish complete lists, owing to an injury to his plant. This explanation appears to me to be very unsatisfactory. The lists, I am informed, were obtainable at 1 o'clock to-day.

  NAVY—THE EVOLUTIONARY SQUADRON.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, To state what Report he has received of the late Evolutionary Fleet under the command of Sir Geoffrey Hornby; how many armour-clads, in addition to the Polyphemus, he has under
  1732
  his orders; their names, their state and condition at the end of the cruise; how many have been removed from the list of efficient ships; how many require repairs; how many require new boilers; and, how many armour-clad ships, complete for sea and fully armed, there are now at home ready to be commissioned?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The squadron of Sir Geoffrey Hornby consisted of the Minotaur, Sultan, Agincourt, Iron Duke, Devastation, Ajax, Rupert, Hotspur, Hercules, Shannon, Lord Warden, Repulse, and Penelope, and his Report does not deal in the way suggested by my right hon. and gallant Friend with the repairs or condition of these iron-clads. Two of them have been removed from the list of efficient ships, and two others, making in all four—namely, the Lord Warden, Repulse, Valiant, and Defence, have been replaced by the Ajax, Devastation, Rupert, and Hotspur. The squadron generally was reported to be none the worse for the cruise, and no special repairs or new boilers have been necessitated by the cruise. In addition to the iron-clads already in commission, the Inflexible, Northumberland, Colossus, Bellerophon, and Conqueror, besides the four turret ships, could be commissioned and ready for service in a very short time.

  METROPOLIS—LOCAL GOVERNMENT OUTSIDE THE CITY AREA.
  MR. FIRTHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the deputation which recently waited upon him from the Corporation of London, Whether he is at liberty and able to state whether any, and what, propositions or suggestions were made by them as to the Local Government of the Metropolis outside the City area?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS): No, Sir; I am unable to state what suggestions were made. I do not think, indeed, that any were made, and it seemed to me that they came to find out if I had any to make.
  MR. FIRTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to state whether he did make any?
  [No reply.]

  ARMY—MILITARY EXPEDITION TO THE SOUDAN—WIDOWS OF SOLDIERS.
  MR. GILESasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Government has made or intends to make any provision for the widows and children of soldiers who have been killed or who have died in the Soudan?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. S. NORTHCOTE)(who replied) said: Under the Royal Warrant of the 12th of June, 1884, the Commissioners of the Royal Patriotic Fund are empowered to grant pensions in the case of the widows and children of soldiers who lose their lives in war. Considerable sums were handed over to the Commissioners for that purpose.

  NAVAL COURTS MARTIAL—COLLISION BETWEEN THE "HECLA" AND THE "CHEERFUL."
  MR. GILESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Coroner's Jury which sat upon the bodies of those persons who were lost by the collision of Her Majesty's ship Hecla with the steamer Cheerful, was partly composed of the officers on board the Hecla at the time of said collision; and, whether the cause of the serious loss of life occasioned thereby will be investigated by an independent tribunal?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS),in reply, said, he was unable to obtain the names of the jurymen; but, as far as an independent inquiry went, he could state to his hon. Friend that the whole case was thoroughly investigated before a court martial, and that the officers of the Hecla were stated to have been free from all blame.

  CIVIL SERVICE—LOWER DIVISION CLERKS AND WRITERS.
  MR. PULESTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he has been able to consider the Memorials presented to the Treasury on behalf of the Lower Division clerks, and the Civil Service writers, and others, under the Playfair scheme, asking for a Parliamentary inquiry; and, if so, whether he will advise that a Committee of this House be granted early next Session?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Memorial of the Lower Division clerks, which has recently been received, will be considered by the Treasury; that of the Civil Service writers has been referred to the Civil Service Commissioners, by whom the Regulations affecting them are administered. I am sorry to say that I have not yet been able to give to this important subject the attention it deserves; and, therefore, I should not like to give a definite promise with reference to the appointment of a Committee next year to inquire into the working of the Play-fair scheme; but I am disposed to think that such an inquiry would be desirable. It is proposed to obtain Reports from the different Departments as to the working of the scheme, so that the replies received would form a basis for the investigation of such a Committee if appointed.
  MR. PULESTONasked, would the inquiry deal with the particular case of the Civil Service writers?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes, Sir; that is so.
  MR. TOMLINSONasked, would the case of the Inland Revenue officers with the Excise Department be included?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: So far as I am aware that matter has been settled.

  CATTLE IMPORTATION—CANADIAN AND AMERICAN CATTLE.
  MR. DUCKHAMasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether the following arrangement, as announced in the newspapers of last week, has received the sanction of the Privy Council, viz.:
  "Sir J. B. Lawes, bart, has accepted Mr. Moreton Frewen's offer of 50 head of lean stock from Wyoming to feed and fatten in England;"
  and, whether any, and, if so, what, precautionary measures will be enforced to guard against the introduction of contagious diseases by those animals, seeing that the Canadian Government deem it requisite to prohibit the transit of cattle from Wyoming through Canada as a precaution against the introduction of contagious and fatal diseases?
  MR. ALBERT GREYasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether it is the case that cattle from the United States are received without

  1735
  any quarantine into Canada at Sarnia, and are carried 400 miles through Canada to Montreal; whether cattle are constantly admitted into the North West of Canada from the United States without any quarantine; whether Montana Ranchemen are in the habit of driving their cattle to Maple Creek on the Canadian Pacific Railroad, and conveying them eastward by that road; whether, in reply to Lord Derby last year, Lord Lansdowne stated that, after inquiry, it appeared that the territories of Wyoming and Montana were found to be free from contagious disease; and, whether it is true, as stated by Land and Water, of 8th August, that—
  "Last year some very large consignments of United States cattle were made by the new outlet northward by trail to Maple Creek, on the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and thence eastward over the line, viâ Winnipeg, to St Paul and Chicago. It is now proposed to afford a better service between the Montana ranches and eastern American markets by building a line of railway from Medicine Hat, a thriving town in the Canadian North-West, on the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, southwards to Fort Benton, Montana, a distance of 155 miles, and thus make Medicine Hat the point of joining the rails, instead of Maple Creek. The export live cattle and sheep trade of Canada continues this season to grow."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY (Mr. CHAPLIN): It will be for the convenience of the House if I answer the two Questions separately; and in reply to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Duckham) I have to say that no arrangement of the kind mentioned has been sanctioned by the Privy Council, nor have they received any communication or information on the subject. The hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. A. Grey) asks me six Questions, which I shall be glad to answer to the best of my ability. But they have involved researches into papers, some of them extending as far back as 1880, and I confess I should have been glad of a somewhat longer Notice of the inquiries. In reply to the first, by an Order of the Canadian Privy Council, passed in 1880, the importation into Canada, excepting the North-Western States, of animals from the United States was prohibited. That order is still in force, the only exception being that animals are allowed under certain conditions to pass through Canada in bond from one part of the United States territory to another. In virtue of that exception, it is
  1736
  true that cattle are received into Canada at Sarnia, and are carried as far as Lynn, not Montreal, and from there they are taken on for shipment to United States ports. In reply to the second, cattle are not constantly admitted into Canada from the United States, excepting from extreme western points in Alberta and Assiniboia, near the Rocky Mountains, and then only subject to strict regulations as to their sanitary condition. As to the third, I have been unable to obtain information as to the practice of the Montana Ranchemen in driving their cattle to Maple Creek, and thence conveying them eastward. But if that is so, I apprehend it is only for the purpose of transit from one part of the State to another. In reply to the fourth, the only statement I can find from Lord Lansdowne is a negative statement, contained in a despatch to Lord Derby of September, 1884, in two paragraphs, to this effect—
  "The result of the investigations which have recently been instituted by the desire of the Minister of Agriculture has been to satisfy him that, although there is no evidence to show that infectious disease at present exists in Wyoming, Montana, and Colorado, pleuro-pneumonia has undoubtedly manifested itself in Illinois."
  And then he goes on to say—
  "In view of this state of things, the Dominion Government have come to the conclusion that the moment would be a very inopportune one for a relaxation of the precautions against the admission of disease."
  I have no information as to the truth of the newspaper paragraph referred to in the fifth Question; and in reply to the sixth, the exports of cattle and sheep from Canada in 1884 showed a falling off of some 25,000 animals since 1883. In regard to this year, I regret that I really have not had time to complete the comparison week by week, which would be necessary between this year and last year, since I saw the Notice of the hon. Member's Question.
  MR. BRODRICKasked the right hon. Gentleman whether Her Majesty's Government would use their influence with the Dominion Government to induce them to allow these cattle to be imported into Canada?
  MR. STAVELEY HILLasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would ascertain whether these cattle could be brought into this country at a remunerative price?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY: I apprehend, Sir, that the first duty of the Government is to ascertain whether cattle can be imported without risk of introducing disease; and, viewing the question in that light, I am unable to give an answer in the affirmative to the Question of the hon. and learned Gentleman. We have reason to believe that at the present time American store stock could not be imported into this country with a due regard to safety.
  COLONEL NOLANwished to know whether the Government had received any Report from veterinary surgeons to the effect that lean or store cattle would be less likely to introduce disease than fat cattle?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHYsaid, he was not aware that they had received any such information.

  ALLOTMENTS EXTENSION ACT, 1882— FOLKESTONE CHARITY LAND.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, If he is aware that the Trustees of the Folkestone Charity Land refuse to carry out the provisions of the Allotments Extension Act, 1882, and are demanding prohibitory rents for the land; if he has seen the following statement in The Folkestone News:—
  "The rent asked is too high, the object being, no doubt, to discourage applicants, and then to show that the land was not required;"
  and, whether the Charity Commissioners will compel the Trustees to offer the lands at such rents, and under such conditions, as the Act directs?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The Trustees do not refuse to carry out the provision of the Allotments Extension Act, so far as relates to giving the notices under Section 4, and those notices have been given. The rent asked is 1s. 2d. per rod, and, regarded simply as an agricultural rent, is, of course, very high; but I am not able to say whether the position of the land as regards Folkestone, or any other circumstances, make it a fair rent. If complaint is made that the Trustees have failed to comply with the provisions of the Act, the Charity Commission inform me that they will take the steps prescribed in that case by Section 10 of the Act.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINasked whether there was not a discussion going on between the Trustees and the owners of land a little further afield with a view to solve the difficulty, which entirely depended upon the fact that the land proposed to be used for these small holdings was really building land, which ought to be sold for the benefit of the particular charities?
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked whether the Trustees did not a few months ago offer land at 7d. per rod, or £4 13 s. 4d. an acre; and whether they did not raise the rent to 1s. 2d. per rod, or double the price, on finding that it was eagerly sought for; also whether the clerk to the Trustees had not let a portion of the land to his own relatives at a farm rental?
  THE VICE PRESIDENTsaid, that he had no information whatever before him tending to support the allegations contained in the Questions of the hon. Member for Ipswich. He thought it was extremely probable that what the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin) stated was the case.

  METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Her Majesty's Government will cause a statement to be prepared, for the information of the next Parliament, showing the capital, including loans and debentures, the gross income, working expanses, and net divisible profits of the Metropolitan Water Companies for the years 1880 to 1884 inclusive; and a comparative statement showing the amount the Companies would respectively have received, in the same years, under the provisional agreements of the late Mr. Edmund James Smith, as embodied in "The Metropolitan Waterworks Purchase Bill, 1880," and showing the capital, including loans and debentures, of each Company, as it stood at the date of the provisional agreements; and a statement of the amount of capital expended upon new works during the same period?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS),in reply, said, that a Return had been presented to Parliament giving the information required by the hon. and gallant Member.

  LAW AND POLICE—ELIZA ARMSTRONG, A CHILD UNDER 14 YEARS.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to an article in Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper of the 9th instant, headed "A Mother's Search for her Child," and referring to the alleged disappearance of Eliza Armstrong, a girl under fourteen years of age; and, whether he has directed any inquiry to be made with reference to this matter; and, if so, with what result?
  MR. HOPWOOD,before the right hon. Gentleman answered the Question, wished to ask him whether the offences of decoying a child under 14 and of receiving a child so decoyed were not felony under the existing law, under which the parties might be prosecuted?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS): Yes, Sir; they are. My attention has been called to this case, and I have instituted a number of inquiries. As the result I have thought it my duty to take the opinion of the Attorney General.

  RECREATION GROUNDS—WOODCOTE GREEN, BROMSGROVE.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he is aware that the Land Commissioners, by their award signed July 5th, 1855, gave a piece of land, being a part of Woodcote Green, and containing two acres, to the Earl of Shrewsbury, to be held by him and his heirs in trust as a place of recreation for the inhabitants of Bromsgrove; whether he is aware that the Earl of Shrewsbury is now letting the land and taking the rents for the same; and, whether the Land Commissioners will direct the Trustee to carry out the award, and restore the land to the people of Bromsgrove to be used as a recreation ground?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS),in reply, said, he believed it was quite true that in 1855 an award was made giving the land in question to the Earl of Shrewsbury, to be held by him and his heirs, in trust, as a place for the exercise and recreation of the inhabitants of Bromsgrove. That was done under the general Inclosure Act, 1845. What the Earl of Shrewsbury had done he did not know, as he
  1740
  knew nothing about the facts; but the Commissioners informed him that if the facts were as stated in the Question they had no power at all to direct the present owner of the land to act as suggested in the Question. He might inform the hon. Member that since the passing of the Act of 1876 no more land could be allotted as had been the case here.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked if he rightly understood that the Earl of Shrewsbury had deliberately put aside the award, and that the Land Commissioners refused to enforce their award?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE: The Commissioners say they have no jurisdiction to direct the present owner of the land as suggested in the Question.

  THE CHARITY COMMISSIONERS' SCHEMES—LABOURERS' ALLOTMENTS.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether the Charity Commissioners will issue and make public a list of the Schemes sanctioned by them, in which they have omitted to insert provisions for allotments, so that the agricultural labourers and others interested may have an opportunity of applying to the Commissioners to remedy their error by the insertion of such provisions in amended Schemes?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. E. STANHOPE): It is the practice of the Charity Commissioners to provide in their scheme that every person interested in the Charity may have access to the scheme, and in any case where he may be unable to do so the Commissioners are ready to afford every information. I will personally look into the list of schemes mentioned by the hon. Member, in order to see if there is any case where amendment appears to be necessary; but I cannot, as at present advised, publish the list.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—AFFRAY IN COUNTY MONAGHAN.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What are the facts with regard to the attack made by an armed Orange Expedition on some Catholics in county Monaghan on Thursday last; what is the condition of the wounded man whom they fired on; is it usual for bail to be I taken, as in this case, for persons ac-

  1741
  cused of attempted murder against the expressed wish of the police authorities; will the Government give instructions that armed bands cannot be allowed to proceed through the country in the way these Orangemen have done, letting off shots and using insulting expressions amongst a Catholic population; is it true, as stated in The Freeman's Journal of August 10th, that the leaders of the rioters were Dr. Hall, Medical Officer to the Monaghan Workhouse; Mr. John Johnson, Deputy Clerk of the Peace for Monaghan; and Mr. Jackson, J.P., Manager of the Bank of Ireland, Castleblayney; if so, will persons holding official positions be retained in the public service; and, will the Government consider the advisability of indicting the organisers of the movement on a charge of conspiracy to murder?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): As proceedings are at present pending against three men in connection with this affair, I am advised that it would not be right for me to make any statement in reference thereto, or to the conduct of any person connected with it. The legal questions involved will be dealt with by the Attorney General in due course when the depositions shall have been sent to him by the Crown Solicitor. I understand the wounded boy is progressing favourably.
  MR. HEALY: Would the right hon. Baronet have any objection to state whether these three men who are referred to—Dr. Hall, Medical Officer of the Monaghan Workhouse; Mr. John Johnson, Deputy Clerk of the Peace for Monaghan; and Mr. Jackson, J.P., Manager of the Bank of Ireland, Castleblayney—were the leaders of this armed band; and, whether persons occupying official positions would be allowed to parade through the country at the head of an organization of this kind with arms?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARYsaid, he could add nothing to what he had said.

  THE ELECTORAL ACTS— DISTRIBUTION.
  SIR HENRY JAMESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he would take steps to have the new Electoral Acts, the Franchise Act, the Redistribution Act, and the Registration Acts at once printed
  1742
  and distributed? Before the change of Government a promise was made that those Acts should be distributed at an early period, so as to be in the hands of all concerned before the General Election.
  MR. BRODRICKsuggested that the new Corrupt Practices Act should also be issued.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he should take care that was carried out as soon as possible. With regard to the further Question, the Corrupt Practices Act could be bought at the Queen's Printers.

MOTIONS.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE PROROGATION—MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: With reference to the Notice which stands in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to suspending the Standing Orders to-morrow, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman what Business he proposes to take then; and whether he will, as I believe has always been customary, give a pledge that the Government will move the adjournment of the House to-morrow as soon as the Government Business is disposed of?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: When the right hon. Gentleman rose I was about to make the Motion of which I had given Notice—namely, that the Standing Orders relating to Wednesday Sittings be suspended to-morrow. I propose this, of course, with the view of winding up the Business of the Session; and I think the right hon. Gentleman is quite within his rights in asking for such an undertaking as he has suggested, and which I am prepared to give. I have communicated with the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington), who has, as is the customary practice, undertaken to second the Vote of Thanks to Her Majesty's Forces for their services in the Soudan; and I have ascertained that it would be more convenient for many reasons that the Vote should be proposed to-morrow instead of Thursday. I therefore propose that the House should meet, if my Resolution is carried, at 3 o'clock to-morrow. The first Business will be the Vote of Thanks

  1743
  to Her Majesty's Forces for their services in the Soudan; and then we shall proceed with any Business on the Paper that may not be completed to-night, with the Report and remaining stages of the Irish Land Purchase Bill, and with the Report on the Housing of the Working Classes Bill, if the Committee should, as I anticipate, conclude to-night. Then there is another Bill which also stands on the Paper, to which I observe there is no opposition—the Educational Endowments (Ireland) Bill. That Bill has passed the House of Lords; and if it is read a second time to-night, I hope we shall be able to take the Committee and final stages to-morrow. That would leave no further Business for the House to consider. In that case we might possibly be able to adjourn over Thursday, and the Prorogation might take place on Friday or Saturday, at the latest. These arrangements, of course, depend upon the progress made to-night and to-morrow. I therefore make the formal Motion that the Standing Orders in regard to Wednesday Sittings be suspended.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Standing Orders relating to Wednesday Sittings be suspended Tomorrow."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. CHAMBERLAINthought the House would not object, to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. Such a Motion was quite reasonable, and according to precedent. He only wished it to be made perfectly clear that when the Business to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred, or such of it as was not concluded that night, had been dealt with, he would then, on behalf of the Government, move the adjournment of the House, and that no other Business would be taken.
  MR. COLERIDGE KENNARDhoped he might be permitted to put in a plea for the Police Enfranchisement Bill. Two years had been engaged in enfranchising people, and it would be hard, if they were to separate without bestowing some slight attention on this important subject. They might reject the Bill if they pleased; but he appealed to the Government to give the House an opportunity of discussing it.
  MR. BRYCEhoped that the right hon. Gentleman would also take into his consideration the Infants Bill, which had
  1744
  passed the House of Lords, and which had received the approval of the highest Legal Authorities in the other House.
  MR. SEXTONpointed out that the Lords had made considerable Amendments in the Labourers (Ireland) Bill; and he wished to know if those Amendments would be taken into consideration to-morrow?
  MR. BRODRICKendorsed the appeal of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Coleridge Kennard), with reference to the Police Enfranchisement Bill. He had lately addressed a number of meetings in different parts of the country, and was in a position to say that there was a very strong feeling in favour of taking the sense of the House upon the measure. If that was not done the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to it would be misinterpreted at the Election.
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, they must take their chance of being misinterpreted; but the remarks of the hon. Member explained the action of some of the supporters of this Bill, who were anxious that their views should not be misinterpreted. He hoped the House would not regard this as a Party question; but he wished to point out that in the present condition of the House it was impossible to obtain an adequate expression of opinion on this Bill.
  MR. SPEAKERinterposed, and said that on the Motion now before the House it was out of Order to discuss the provisions of particular Bills.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply to the main question, reminded the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) that the death sentence on his little Bill had been pronounced by the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain). It would be quite impossible for him to give special favours to the hon. Gentleman as against other hon. Members. For the same reason he was afraid that he could not do anything with regard to the Police Enfranchisement Bill. He sympathized largely with his hon. Friend (Mr. Coleridge Kennard) in the efforts which he had made to obtain the consideration of his Bill by the House. If he had been more fortunate in that respect he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) believed that the Bill would have been carried by a considerable ma-

  1745
  jority; but he would remind his hon. Friend that even if it came on to-morrow, it was hardly possible that it could become law in the very limited time that remained of the present Session. Of course, the Government Business tomorrow would include the consideration of the Lords' Amendments to the Labourers' (Ireland) Bill, and at the close of the Government Business he would move the adjournment of the House.
  MR. BRYCEexplained that the Infants Bill had already passed the House of Lords.
  Motion agreed to.

  PARLIAMENT—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE (RULE 2)—ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE—THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE DEPRESSION OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY—COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION.
  MR. BROADHURST: I beg, Mr. Speaker, to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance.
  MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Gentleman name the subject?
  MR. BROADHURST: The composition of the Royal Commission on Trade and Industry.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Stoke has asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite question of urgent public importance—namely, the composition of the Royal Commission on Trade. Is it your pleasure that leave be given? [Cries of "No, no!"]
  The pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and less than 40 Members having risen in their places the House proceeded to the Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (ENGLAND) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 248.]
  (Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (ENGLAND) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 248.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, he should gladly support the Bill, although he feared it would not do as much good as might be expected. Believing, as he did, that the need of the working classes in the matter of dwelling-houses was urgent, and would brook no further delay, he could not join with those who wished the matter postponed until such time as the local government question could be adequately dealt with. If this smaller measure were rejected it might, perhaps, be a very long time before a larger measure would be carried; whereas, if this Bill were passed, it would be easy to extend its provisions if they were found to work satisfactorily. It was, in his opinion, absolutely necessary that the dwellings for the working classes should be built upon plans that would afford reasonable remuneration to the builders, because it would be impossible to carry out the proposals of philanthropists if the dwellings were erected at a loss. Railways had been compelled by Act of Parliament to carry third-class passengers for a fixed sum in covered carriages; and the result had been that the revenue derived by Railway Companies from their third-class passengers was more than double that which they obtained from their first and second class traffic put together. The same principle would apply in building; and, therefore, he hoped that the sites of the prisons would be handed over to the Metropolitan Board of Works for the purpose of erecting dwellings for the working classes. The theory that had been put forward that the poorer classes had been displaced simply for Metropolitan purposes was an utterly erroneous one; because the construction of railways and the erection of the Royal Courts of Justice, by which thousands of poor people had been deprived of their homes, had been undertaken for the benefit of the community at large, and not merely for the benefit of the Metropolis, he wished, however, to point out that the chief obstacle to the erection of proper dwellings for the working classes in London was the House Tax, which prevented the construction of houses of more than two stories; and until they removed the House Duty they would not give Free Trade fair play in the matter of providing houses for the working classes. On the whole, he had great pleasure in

    1747
    supporting the Bill as a step in the right direction.
    MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, he gave the Bill his hearty support. There was no object better entitled to be assisted in every way by the State than the proper housing of the working classes. Parliament had already sanctioned the aid of the State being given for the construction of harbours of refuge, and for the purposes of education; and he could see nothing mischievous, or injudicious, or ill-timed in this proposal of the Government to throw the influence of its wealth and its credit in the direction of improving the dwellings of the working classes. The Government, it appeared, were willing to make loans at 3⅛ per cent. The clause carrying out this intention was, however, framed so as to give rise to a good deal of ambiguity and uncertainty, for it provided that 3⅛ per cent should be the minimum rate of interest, but that the Treasury should fix the rate at such a figure as to enable such loans to be made without loss to the Exchequer. He should strongly recommend the Government to strike these words out, which really meant nothing at all, but which would lead to much uncertainty. As to the Inhabited House Duty, he agreed with the hon. Alderman that it involved extreme hardships, and that there were great irregularities in the manner in which it was enforced. It was not chargeable on houses of less than £20 value. The law should be so altered that large blocks of houses let out in tenements at less than £20 a-year each should also be exempted from House Duty. This tax was really a very anomalous one. It amounted to 9d. in the pound, while the Income Tax was 8d. This was a duplication of taxation on property which he hoped would soon be removed when the whole system of taxation was reviewed. He hoped that the buildings erected under this Bill would be exempted from House Duty, for this would give some impetus to its provisions. He was of opinion that the provision with regard to the disused sites of Metropolitan prisons was an admirable one, as it would enable areas formerly used for housing criminals to be used for the erection of dwellings so arranged and constructed that they would tend to prevent people from becoming criminals. To the Bill generally he gave his heartiest support; for until
    1748
    this question of overcrowding was dealt with we should never get that social amelioration, domestic comfort, and decency without which that improvement in morals which they were all desirous to see was absolutely impossible.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he disagreed with the President of the Local Government Board, who denied that the question of leaseholds had anything to do with this question of the housing of the working classes. In Vienna the average number of persons in each house was 60. In Paris it was 29, whereas in London it was 8. The smallness of the number in London was due, in his humble opinion, in no small degree, to the leasehold system prevailing in the Metropolis. If it had not been for that system, the houses of the Metropolis would probably have resembled those of Paris and Vienna, where the different classes of society were brought more together than here, a circumstance which was very favourable indeed to the advance of civilization. It had been urged in support of the provision with regard to the prison sites that there had been a great displacement of labourers in London on account of the erection of public buildings; but this might be said in respect to all large towns. On the other hand, London artizans had derived an immense advantage from the Underground Railway, which provided them with a very cheap and rapid mode of conveyance to the scene of their work. He could not see that London had any special claim for this State subvention which the Bill proposed to grant. There was in Lancashire a great deal of land belonging to the Crown and to the Duchy of Lancaster, and the inhabitants of the large towns in Lancashire would have just as strong a claim to obtain some of that land upon similar terms to those which this Bill proposed in respect to the prison sites. He pointed out that the Prime Minister in this Bill was unconsciously adhering to the theory of ransom, but with this difference—that the Government of the noble Lord proposed to pay ransom with the property of the State, whereas the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) proposed to pay ransom with their own property. He was sorry that this notion should prevail; and he was glad to think that on the Motion of the hon. Member for

    1749
    South Northumberland (Mr. Albert Grey) they would have an opportunity of expressing their opinions definitely on this subject. The Home Secretary referred to Clause 13, in regard to which, in its original form, and still more in the form in which he proposed to amend it, there were very grave objections. Last year the Police and Sanitary Committee had dealt with the condition in which unfurnished houses were let; and in the present Session they had sanctioned, in the case of several Bills applying to important Corporations, the introduction of clauses which provided that there should be no letting of any house for the purpose of human habitation without an entry by the officers of the Corporation and a certificate of the Sanitary Authority. Suppose the clause of the right hon. Gentleman should be passed, what was to be its operation? Did he believe that it would be operative? He could scarcely think it possible. What would be its operation in those towns possessing the power of granting a certificate? Was the Imperial law to govern, or was the certificate of the sanitary officer? He was of opinion that this proposal would introduce great difficulty. He protested strongly against the opinion that there could be made on the part of the working classes of London any claim whatever for this proposed subvention which could not be equally advanced on the part of the working classes of any or all of the great cities of the United Kingdom.
    MR. WARTONsaid that, in his opinion, the effect of the provision dealing with the condition of unfurnished houses would be to injure the value of house property. He thought they were in danger with such a provision as this of being beset by sanitary experts, who would bring forward their peculiar crotchets and remedies with respect to sewers and drains. Within the last few days he had presented 127 Petitions from building societies protesting against the Bill. He called attention to the immense amount of capital invested by working men out of their hard-won earnings in building societies. The last Return dealing with these investments, which came down to December, 1883, stated that the assets of building societies amounted to more than £51,000,000. He was inclined to think, however,
    1750
    that in round numbers there were £70,000,000 invested in such under takings as those with which the Bil professed to deal, and the working men through the building societies were doing by voluntary efforts what this Bill sought to make compulsory. The working men said that they had invested their savings in these societies and that they were ratepayers, and they protested against the Bill on the ground that it interfered with local action. The point to which they wished to call especial attention was that referring to the selling of the prison sites under the market value; and they said that if this was done the fact of the land being so obtained would conflict with and would be in opposition to their efforts which had been carried on for so many years. Taking a broad and general view of the Bill, he looked upon it as evidence that the Tory Party showed the real concern they had for the welfare of the industrial classes. He regarded the Bill principally as a proof to the working classes of this country that the Tory Party was quite as much if not much more anxious than the Liberal Party to do everything which would tend to the welfare of the working classes. It was an effort to carry out the policy inaugurated by the late Lord Beaconsfield—sanitus sanitatum—and he thought it could not be placed in better hands than those of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross), who was instrumental in the passing of the Artizans' Dwellings Act, which had been so great a boon to the working classes.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, that the improvements which were needed in order to bring the dwellings of the working classes into a satisfactory state were so numerous and varied, and must be the result of so many converging influences and agencies, that it was practically impossible for any one measure to deal with the question. He was glad that the Government had brought forward this Bill, even at the end of the Session, and that they should be now pushing it forward in order to become law. It was not a Bill easy to criticize. It was far from being a comprehensive measure; it was a straggling, rambling kind of Bill; it touched a great variety of topics, making a little improvement here and making a little excision there; but it was difficult to frame a Bill of this kind

    1751
    otherwise. He hoped hon. Members who wished to introduce Amendments would now be chary of doing so, because they might overweight the Bill and raise new questions which the House was not in a position adequately to discuss. He did not think it was possible to go on much longer without a considerable amendment of the Buildings Acts. They had not sufficiently provided for the erection of proper sanitary dwellings in London, and especially with reference to the providing of open spaces and recreation grounds in every district covered with houses of the poor. In regard to the provision dealing with the prison sites, he urged the Government to withdraw it. He could assure the Government that nothing would so much facilitate the passing of the Bill and disarm all antagonism to it as a concession on this point. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that that Bill was only an instalment, and that it would probably have to be supplemented next year. Therefore, there was no urgency for dealing now with that part of the measure, which really required more consideration than it could receive at that period of the Session. With regard to the centralizing portion of the Bill, he thought that the Amendment which the Home Secretary proposed to introduce would, on the whole, sufficiently meet that difficulty. In London the Local Authorities were not adequate for the discharge of the duties east upon them, many districts being so poor that there were few persons with the leisure, education, and experience which fitted them to perform public duties. They also wanted that public spirit which existed in the provincial towns, and they were not controlled in the same way by public opinion and the Press as was the case in other large industrial centres. Therefore, he admitted that there were reasons why Local Authorities in London required a stimulus from the Central Authority. At the same time, the establishment of a proper system of Municipal Government for London ought to be pressed forward at the earliest possible moment. Turning to the subject of the subvention from the State which it was now proposed to give, he understood that the Home Secretary was not able to give them an estimate of the amount of the subsidy which was to be received from the State in respect to those prison
    1752
    sites in London. It was said that the amount would be small; but, even if that were so, the principle involved was a large one. They were about to embark in a system of State subventions for the provision of dwellings for the working classes. They were told, indeed, that the present case was not to be drawn into a precedent; but everything of that kind was almost certain to be drawn into a precedent, and was all the more likely to be so under a new Democratic Parliament. He treated that proposal, therefore, as the introduction of the principle of State intervention to find dwellings for the working classes below cost price. Supposing the land on which the prison stood was worth £10,000 an acre, and it was sold under the Bill to the Metropolitan Board of Works for £8,000 an acre, that would be a subsidy on the part of the State to the amount of £2,000 per acre. How was the Metropolitan Board of Works to deal with the dwellings to be built on these sites? Was it to let them at the ordinary market price? If it did it would make a profit corresponding to the difference between paying £8,000 and £10,000 per acre. Was it intended that the Metropolitan Board should become a landlord making a profit? That was a very undesirable function for it to assume.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)explained that he had never suggested that the dwellings erected on the prison sites should be let below the market value.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, then he did not see the advantage of selling the site below the market price unless they were to let the dwellings below the market price. On the other hand, if the dwellings were let below the proper market rate the influx of people into London would be encouraged, and the great evils arising from the undue pressure of population would be stimulated. In the next place, that would tend to lower the rate of wages, and, further, it would discourage and drive out of the market private enterprize. The owners of workmen's dwellings, and particularly the Companies which now provided them, would not be able to supply those dwellings at the price they had previously done, because they would find themselves undersold by the Metropolitan Board of

    1753
    Works, or by those to whom it gave the land. That disturbance of the market rate and that interference with private enterprize would tell most upon the best class of landlords. The bad class of landlords now made a large percentage upon their capital by admitting to their dwellings a far greater number of inmates than they ought to do. Companies such as that with which the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Sydney Waterlow) was connected refused to do so; and, therefore, they did not obtain so large a percentage on their capital as that other class of landlords. The competition of the Metropolitan Board of Works would tell most against the better class of landlords who built proper sanitary dwellings. Under present conditions, as was shown by evidence that had been taken, perfectly good and healthy dwellings, containing no more than the proper number of inmates, could be provided, and yet be made to pay 5 or 6 per cent on the capital invested in them. He knew a case of a Company formed for the purpose of providing dwellings for the poor, and that Company was able to do so, and at the same time to pay a dividend of 4½ to 5 per cent. If that Company went on, and others like it were formed, this great problem was practically solved, because, in return for a dividend of 4½ per cent, almost an unlimited amount of capital could be commanded. But if the competition of the State came in and disturbed private enterprize, and lowered the dividend to 3½ per cent, no capital would be obtainable from private sources. He submitted that all these facts furnished very grave reasons why the House should pause in this case. There was, he contended, an abundant spirit of philanthropy in the country, which only required to be guided and directed wisely; but by passing this measure into law Parliament would paralyze the efforts of the philanthropist, and, in fact, prevent his taking action at all. They ought not to be discouraged, or to rush into violent remedies in this matter. All improvements in the condition of the poorer classes of the community must be gradual, and must result from the growth of better habits among the working classes themselves; they must depend upon moral as well as material improvements. He had had considerable experience in these matters for
    1754
    some 15 years, and he could assert that there was a steady and real progress going on towards a better state of things—a progress which was brought about by the agency of education, the growth of temperance, the repression of crime, and by the coming of the rich among the poor. Let them have laws on the subject and strengthen them, and see that they were strictly enforced, and after that let them take all such steps as might properly be taken to attract voluntary efforts into this good work; but they must not come forward and supersede the agencies now at work by substituting the action of the State for that of private enterprize.
    MR. PELLsaid, he desired to call the attention of the House to the Bill as it affected rural districts, where there was, at any rate, as much attention, if not more, paid to sanitary matters than in towns. First of all he would point out that the Bill was going to apply all the provisions of the Lodging House Acts from 1851 to 1867 in the rural districts; and he thought the House should carefully consider whether such application would not do an injustice to the poor rather than confer a benefit, and whether these objectionable provisions would not have the effect of rendering the whole of the Bill inoperative so far as country districts were concerned. He did not consider that the Bill touched the evil which the agricultural community complained of. Bad houses were generally found in the open villages, into which the people were crowded from the close parishes in which they were employed. If their homes were improved, still the men would be left with three or four miles to walk to their work. Again, if the provisions of this Bill were adopted for any parish, Boards of Guardians would be performing the duty of owner and occupier at the expense of the Union, which he considered was a power that ought not to be exercised at the cost of the whole area of the Union, thus allowing a landlord to escape from the expense of putting his property in a proper sanitary condition. This was a departure from the principle of all previous legislation on the subject. He regretted that a Bill of so much importance was being hurried through Parliament in the manner it was in the last hours of the Session, and by so scantily attended a House. It would be much better that

    1755
    the subject should stand over altogether for the next Parliament.
    SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsaid, he thought those who took an interest in the question ought to be very grateful to the Government for having brought forward the Bill at this period, and attempting to do something to give effect to the valuable recommendations of the Royal Commission. Thinking that, he was of opinion that the sooner they got into Committee the better. He did not entirely approve of the provisions of the Bill; but he hoped that the Government would adopt Amendments which would have the effect of making the Bill a working and not a mere fancy measure. It seemed to him that there were two main principles in the Bill—one contained in Clause 3 and the other in Clause 13. With regard to Clause 3, he should like to know whether it was to be worked on the lines of the Artizans' Dwellings Act? When the Metropolitan Board of Works bought the sites of the prisons, were they to be compelled to sell them, ear-marked and set aside for working class dwellings? Whenever Corporations built they always built at an enormous expense, and to compel the Board to build would be putting them into a difficult position, for either their tenants would practically be the recipients of alms, or they would be charged the full maket value of the rents, and then they would receive no benefit. With respect to Clause 13, he thought that, subject to certain modifications to which he hoped Her Majesty's Government would not object, it might be made most valuable and beneficial.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, that the Bill had been brought in hurriedly, and by agreement, he believed, between the two Front Benches. He very much feared, however, that in the race for popularity the two Front Benches were disposed to sacrifice every economic principle in their desire to catch votes. It seemed to him that the Royal Commission, in presenting the Report they did, had been actuated by red-hot benevolent motives, and had not been so deliberate in their action as they might have been. He really thought it was too late in the Session to attempt to pass a Bill of this kind. It was next to impossible to transform every squalid dwelling into a comfortable one, and it was unwise to
    1756
    create expectations that could not be fulfilled. The failure of the existing legislation on this subject ought to teach them that. An immense amount of misery had been produced by the Artisans' Dwellings Acts. People had been cleared out of the houses without any place being provided for them; and he believed that similar results would follow from this well-meant legislation. When they set about benevolent legislation they might do the opposite of what was intended, and pass ill-conceived measures for the purpose of gaining popularity. In the administration of a really good Bill the municipal principle ought to prevail; but, on the present occasion, this appeared to be nearly altogether ignored. It was proposed that the Local Government Board or the Home Office should have the power of calling upon Local Authorities to pass bye-laws for the purpose of putting the Act into execution. But where were the people affected by these bye-laws to go during the demolition of their homes? Then many of the people who were to be called on to set in motion the machinery created by the Bill were themselves but very little better off than those for whom they were to be ordered to find dwellings. How could they compel ratepayers of that class to find money for the purposes of the measure? The 3rd clause provided that the prices of the prison sites at Coldbath Fields and Millbank should not be less than the sum paid by Her Majesty for them. But the difference between that and the market value now must be enormous. It would amount to a great State grant for Metropolitan improvement only. Then there was another question in relation to the Settled Land. Act. It appeared to be assumed that Parliament, by passing this Bill, might give a trustee power to spend the trust funds so as to gratify his own benevolence. No trustee, however, would do so without the sanction of the Court. It was opposed to the very conception of a trust; but that was the way this Bill proceeded. The Bill ought to have been referred to a Select Committee, instead of being forced through the House; and if it had been referred to such a Committee all those difficult points might be properly discussed.
    MR. BUCHANANwished to say a few words on the subject of the applica-

    1757
    tion of the Bill to Scotland. The provisions of the Bill, as he understood, were taken from the Report of the Royal Commission with regard to England, and he believed most of them were contained in the Report with regard to Ireland; but the Home Secretary knew very well that the separate Report with regard to Scotland did not contain any of those provisions. Therefore, it should be borne in mind, by whatever Government was in power after the General Election, that in no sense had the Report of the Commission with regard to Scotland been carried out by simply extending the Bill to that country. About 10 days ago the Home Secretary, in reply to a Question by an Irish Member, stated that, in the opinion of the Government, the Bill ought to apply to Ireland and Scotland; but from that time up to yesterday they had heard nothing more about the matter. It was only this morning that they ascertained what part of the Bill the Home Secretary intended should be applied to Scotland. There were only five Scottish Members now in the House, and those who could speak with authority on these questions were unfortunately absent; therefore they were under very great difficulties in carrying out the intention of the Government to apply a portion of the Bill to Scotland. He understood it was the intention of the Home Secretary to apply Clauses 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Bill to Scotland. He thought these were distinct improvements, and he should be sorry to see the Bill pass without these clauses being applied to Scotland. With regard to Clauses 1 and 2, he was in some doubt whether they could be made applicable to Scotland or not; but if the opinion of the House was that they were good provisions to be inserted in the Bill, then he thought it would be better if they were also applied to Scotland. He understood, however, there would be considerable difficulty in doing so.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS),interrupting, stated that since he had put the Amendments down on the Paper last night they had been carefully looked over by the Government draftsmen and the Lord Advocate, and he had put down a clause in place of Clause 17, which would simplify matters.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take care—for on the Government the exclusive responsibility would rest—that any further Amendments he might propose would be effectual to carry out the provisions of the Act in regard to Scotland, so that the Act might not be a dead letter, but a reality.
    MR. ALBERT GREYsaid, he must congratulate the Party opposite at having, at any rate in the last few days of an expiring Parliament with the November Elections in their minds, one stalwart and stout Member who was not afraid to criticize, denounce, and even divide against the Socialistic proposals of a so-called Conservative Government. The debate on this Bill had illustrated, in the most convincing manner, the great danger and mischief that might ensue in rushing such a measure through the House without proper consideration; because it contained proposals of great magnitude, embracing principles of enormous scope, and provisions which he would undertake to say had not been mastered and understood by any hon. Member who was not a Member of the Royal Commission. If the Bill had only been brought forward in the beginning of the Session, and the different stages had come on at proper intervals, so that the country might have given its mind to the proposals, it would have issued from the Committee of the House in a very different form and shape from that in which it was destined to pass. They had not had that valuable corrective in the shape of the criticisms of the daily Press. He regretted that the Government had asked the House to pass the Bill without more consideration; and he quite agreed with his hon. Friend opposite that if it could only be postponed to the next Parliament they would probably have a far better Bill, and one far more useful, and giving more permanent advantages to the country, than that which they were now about to pass. If his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) divided the House he should vote with him, as a protest against this hasty and mischievous procedure. He quite admitted that there were many clauses in the Bill which would be of great value; and he fully sympathized with the objects which it had in view. But he would point out that the 3rd clause of the Bill, which

    1759
    had been called the principal clause of the Bill, deliberately sanctioned the principle of the gift of the "unearned increment," not to the community at large, but to a small section of the community. Speaker after speaker had pointed out the dangers of an agitation which the Socialistic proposals of the Bill would open up. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) said that the 3rd clause was the best part of the Bill; and, no doubt, he would telegraph to Mr. Schnadhorst at Birmingham to arrange an agitation upon the the lines of its proposals. There would, no doubt, be meetings in all parts of the country in favour of the principle to be found in the Bill, which was not only to be applied to public lands, but also to private lands. He hoped hon. Gentlemen opposite would look closely to what they were doing in passing the 3rd clause as it stood. If they did pass it in its present state, it would sit like a nightmare on their souls for many and many a long day.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he regretted that the Government had determined to proceed with this Bill at so late a period of the Session; but, at the same time, he did not think it would be worth while to go to a division upon it. The Bill incorporated something like 11 general Acts of Parliament, which were very long and complicated; and without some further indication of the meaning of those Acts, and of the manner in which they were incorporated, he doubted whether the Bill could ever be worked by any rural Sanitary Authority. The House might, if it liked, pass the Bill; but it would be inoperative until it was amended. The power to charge upon the district of a Central Authority the cost of a local improvement would prejudice many owners of property who had done their duty by taxing them for those who had not. It seemed to him that what they required in the rural districts was a power of inspection over existing cottages and buildings, and of compelling the repair and proper maintenance of them, either by the owner directly or by the Sanitary Authority, who should have a fixed charge upon the property for the money which they laid out for the purpose.
    MR. THOMASSONsaid, that, although the Bill was a small one, it was too big, and involved too novel and
    1760
    important principles to be proceeded with during the last days of an expiring Parliament. He concurred in all that had been said as to the undesirability of doing anything to discourage private enterprize. If the question were referred to the country at the approaching Election, the opinion of the working men of the North would be that they could provide themselves with dwellings, and did not wish them to be provided out of the taxes or the rates. The tendency of such legislation would be in the long run to discourage prudent habits, because the frugal would find themselves taxed for the improvident. It would be better to reduce the Bill to clauses on which all hon. Members were agreed.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 6: Majority 53.—(Div. List, No. 282.)
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Labouring Classes Lodging Houses.
    Clause 1 (Adoption of Labouring Classes Lodging Houses Acts).
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS MR. JESSE COLLINGS moved, in page 2, the omission of the words—
    "And that there is no probability that such accommodation will be provided without the execution of the said Acts, and that having regard to the liability which will be incurred by the rates, it is under all the circumstances prudent for the said authority to undertake the provision of the said accommodation under the powers of the said Acts."
    The object of the Amendment was to provide that where a rural Sanitary Authority in any district desired to adopt the Labouring Classes Lodging Houses Acts 1851 to 1867 it should not be necessary for the Inspector of the Local Government Board to certify that there was no probability of the accommodation for the housing of the poor being provided without the execution of the Acts, and that it was prudent for the Local Government Board, having regard to the liability which would be incurred by the rates, to make the provision.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, to omit from the words "labouring classes," in line 1, to the word "Acts," in line 6.—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that his hon. Friend's opinions were well known, and it was also known that he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) personally agreed with him as to the working of the Earl of Shaftesbury's Act; but, looking at what had occurred last night, he entertained no hope that his hon. Friend would succeed in carrying the Amendment. His hon. Friend had informed him of the Amendments he intended to propose in this clause, and also that he intended to propose further Amendments in a subsequent clause, which he regarded as of more importance than the present Amendment. He would, under the circumstances, suggest to his hon. Friend that if he intended to take a division it should not be taken on the present clause. The proposal now before the Committee was one by which it was proposed to leave out certain limitations and restrictions which were in the nature of a compromise arrived at between persons of widely different opinions. If they were to strike out the limitations to the proposals contained in the Bill, he was satisfied that they would fail to obtain the assent of Parliament to the Bill in the present year. He would, therefore, appeal to his hon. Friend whether it was not wise, under the circumstances, to take what he could get rather than lose the Bill altogether?
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS MR. JESSE COLLINGS moved to omit Sub-section (a)—
    "Unless the Local Government Board state in publishing such certificate that an emergency renders it necessary to adopt the Acts immediately, such adoption in pursuance of the certificate shall not take place before the ordinary election of members of such authority which is held next after the date of the local inquiry."
    He said it would be apparent to anyone who had any knowledge of municipal action that this sub-section would be fatal to the working of the Bill. It suggested that after the Local Government Board had given its decision, unless there was something in the locality which made it urgent, or, in the words of the clause, "if any emergency renders it necessary," the adoption of the Acts should not take place until after the next Election. What would inevitably happen was that the proposed improvement would be made an election cry, and
    1762
    the Local Authority intrusted with the matter, being like Boards of Guardians elected on a property qualification, would come to the conclusion that the proposed improvement was unnecessary, and it would never be carried out on account of the agitation which the property holders would get up before the next Election. The result, therefore, would be that the certificate would be quashed.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, lines 10 to 15, to leave out Sub-section (a).—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
    Question proposed, "That Sub-section (a) stand part of the Clause."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would make the same appeal to his hon. Friend as he had made on the last Amendment, and which he had intended to cover the present proposition. His hon. Friend must remember that if he got rid of this limitation altogether, he would be going very much beyond the terms of the Earl of Shaftesbury's Act. For his own part, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would be quite willing to take that course; but what they were asking Parliament to do was to make the Earl of Shaftesbury's Act workable. If they struck out this sub-section, no doubt they would secure a greater probability of the general adoption of the Act; but it was quite possible that the Government would repudiate the adoption of these powers without giving an opportunity for public opinion to be asserted. He thought it would be wiser to proceed tentatively.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he would like the Home Secretary to express an opinion upon the Amendment. Was it proposed that every improvement should undergo the test of an election; and, if so, did he expect that any improvement would survive that test?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, he thought it was only right that the ratepayers, before they had this charge thrown upon them by the adoption of Acts more or less novel, should be asked whether or not they desired that the Acts should be enforced. He had, therefore, no hesitation in answering the question of the hon. Member by saying that the clause, as it now stood in the Bill, would have the effect of throwing the question before the electors, and would afford a safeguard

    1763
    against the rash adoption of the Earl of Shaftesbury's Act.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. PELLsaid, he proposed to move the omission from the clause, in page 2, of all the words from the beginning of Sub-section (3) down to the words in line 32, "may make an order to that effect." The words he proposed to leave out were these—
    "Where the rural sanitary authority think it just that the burden of the expenses of the execution of the said Acts should be borne by some contributory place or places only in their district, instead of by the whole of their district, the authority may in their application to the Local Government Board request permission to limit the burden of such expenses to such contributory place or places, and thereupon the justice of such limitation shall be inquired into at the local inquiry, and the Local Government Board, if satisfied after the local inquiry that the circumstances of the contributory place or places and of the rest of the district render such limitation expedient, may make an order to that effect."
    He would have gone further, but he found that he came to a passage printed in red ink.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, the words printed in red ink were so given in order to indicate that they were not in the Bill as originlly introduced.
    MR. PELLsaid, his intention was, if the Amendment were agreed to, to move afterwards to leave out the words "and thereupon," which would have the effect of providing that—
    "The expenses of the execution of the said Acts in the area mentioned in the order shall be borne by the contributory place or places named in the order instead of by the whole district."
    That was what he desired to carry out. In the debate which had just taken place on the Motion that the Speaker should leave the Chair he had stated that as the Bill was drawn the whole of the expenditure, including the purchase of land, the erection of buildings, the furniture, fittings, and appliances, would have to be borne by the whole district for the improvement of one portion of it. He did not think that the expense should be thrown upon the whole district upon unoffending persons. [Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS dissented.] He saw that the right hon. Gentleman shook his head; but he did not think there was a possibility of a mistake. The intention was to make it optional, where there was a
    1764
    mere local improvement, to charge the expense upon a large area, instead of it being charged upon the district which was benefited. The object of his Amendment was to introduce into the Bill the distinctions which were made in the Public Health Act of 1885, with respect to the incidence of the rate. Improvements would be made for the benefit of the owners of certain property and nobody else; and he did not see why local improvements should be effected by money raised from a much larger area. If the right hon. Gentleman would convince him or the Committee that this would not be the case he would be content. He contended that the clause invited those who had a temporary and transitory interest in the question to levy a permanent charge upon the locality, which would be paid hereafter by ratepayers who had had nothing to do with the state of things which led to the expenditure. The only security that would exist against waste and extravagance was that the cost should be levied on the area in which the work was required.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, by leaving out all the words in sub-section (3) down to the word "effect" in line 82."—(Mr. Pell.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE PRESIDENT (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, his hon. Friend complained that the clause as it was drawn up imposed an undue burden upon the ratepayers of the district; but he believed that in the drafting of the Bill special care had been taken to fence round the provision in such a manner that the burden would not fall upon those who ought not to bear it. He agreed that it was desirable to guard against any injustice being inflicted, and that the interests of the ratepayers generally ought to be safeguarded as far as possible, especially when they were in no way responsible for the expenditure, and in no way benefited from it. His hon. Friend would recollect that the authority which was to call this power into operation was the Rural Sanitary Authority, and the danger to be apprehended was that the Rural Sanitary Authority might put their power into force in such a way as to im-

    1765
    pose undue rates upon a small district of the Union for the benefit of the whole Union. Take the case of a Union covering many square miles. In his opinion it would be extremely unjust to allow the Union to call these powers into operation, and to tax a small district only for a work that was to benefit the whole Union. Therefore the clause had been drawn on the presumption that the expense would fall on the whole Union, and he thought the Government were justified in so drawing it. If any case of injustice occurred all that was necessary was to appeal to the Local Government Board, and the injustice would be remedied. His hon. Friend seemed to suppose that the ratepayers would tamely submit to pay the cost of improvements which in no way benefited them. It was certainly not consistent with the knowledge of the Government that they would. It was quite clear that if the ratepayers of the whole Union thought they ought not to pay this charge all they would have to do was to make an appeal to the Local Government Board, and the injustice, if one were found to exist, would be remedied.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he might point out, as an additional argument to those of his right hon. Friend, that the Amendment, if adopted, would not secure the object which the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) had in view.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, there was another and a more important reason—namely, that it would be quite possible for the landlord, by abstaining from erecting houses on his own property, to force those who worked upon the land, and who were necessary for its proper cultivation, to go into the neighbouring villages. He knew cases in which the labourers had to go four or five miles to their work, and the villages in which they lived were in an overcrowded state. He thought it very necessary that the landowner should not escape the rate. It was only right that he should contribute towards remedying an evil which he had been the main cause of creating. This was a most important question; but, at the same time, he thought that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Poll) need not trouble himself about the operation of the clause, for he ven-
    1766
    tured to predict that it would never be put in force in five Unions in England as it now stood, and for this reason—that under the Act of 1871 it required two-thirds of the votes before it could be put in force at all.
    MR. PELLwished to say a word in reply to the remarks of the President of the Local Government Board. The principle of the Bill was not to do good to particular Unions, but to get rid of an existing evil; not for the benefit of the owners of the adjoining property, but for the benefit of overcrowded localities which suffered in consequence of the overcrowding. All that he had in his mind, in moving the Amendment, was to prevent persons from using other people's money in improving property in which they themselves had alone an interest. Under the provisions of the Bill this clause almost invited persons not to do their fair share, but to leave the work to be done by the community, and to call upon the ratepayers generally to pay for it. Where the funds necessary for carrying out the work ranged over a large area a reckless expenditure might be entered into, and a reckless expenditure was generally accompanied by extremely bad work.
    SIR HARRY VERNEYwas understood to say that his experience went very much in the direction of that of the hon. Member. He very much regretted that, at the call of the ratepayers of a very small area, it was proposed to build cottages and pay for them out of the general rates. It was very dangerous indeed to give to Boards of Guardians any such power of raising money.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    On Motion of The SECRETARY of STATE (Sir R. Assheton Cross) the following Amendments made:—Page 2, line 32, leave out "expedient," and insert "just;" line 32, after "effect," add—
    "And thereupon the expenses of the execution of the said Acts in the area mentioned in the order shall be borne by the contributory place or places named in the order instead of by the whole district. The provisions of this enactment with respect to the burden of the expenses shall apply upon every application for a fresh certificate."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS) moved, in page 2, line 40, after "authority," insert "or

    1767
    by the Commissioners of Sewers of the City of London."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid Subsection 4 of the clause spoke about the Labouring Classes Lodging Houses Acts, 1851 to 1867, being adopted by the Metropolitan Board of Works and Sanitary Authorities. In what way was the power of taking land compulsorily created? As far as he could see, it was provided that no land should be taken except by agreement.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, the question would be dealt with later on.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    On Motion of The SECRETARY of STATE (Sir R. Assheton Cross) the following Amendments made:—Page 2, line 41, after "authority," insert "or Commissioners;" page 3, line 1, after "subject," insert "in the case of a rural sanitary authority;" and in line 6, after "1875," insert "or under the Acts conferring powers on such Commissioners of Sewers."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)proposed to add, after the word "respectively," in page 3, line 6—
    "(b.) All expenses incurred by such board or authority in the execution of the said Acts shall be defrayed—

    (i.) in the case of the Metropolitan Board of "Works, out of the Dwelling House Improvement Fund, under the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Improvement Act, 1876;

    (ii.) in the case of an urban sanitary authority, as part of the general expenses of their execution of the Public Health Act, 1875; and

    (iii.) in the case of a rural sanitary authority, as special expenses incurred in the execution of the Public Health Act, 1875, and, save where the burden of such expenses is by order of the Local Government Board to be borne by one contributory place only, shall be deemed to be incurred for the common benefit of all the contributory places liable to bear such expenses: Provided that if on the application of the rural sanitary authority it is so declared at the time of the publication of the certificate by the Local Government Board, then the said expenses of the rural sanitary authority shall be defrayed as general expenses of the said authority in the execution of the Public Health Act, 1875, and if
    1768
    such expenses are not to be borne by the whole of the district, shall be charged to the contributory places which are to bear the same as an addition to the general expenses otherwise chargeable thereto;

    (iv.) in the case of the City of London, out of the Dwelling House Improvement Fund under the Artizans and Labourers Dwellings Improvement Act, 1875;

    "(c.) all receipts under the said Acts shall be paid to the fund out of which such expenses are payable, and the accounts of such receipts and expenses shall be audited in like manner and with the like incidents and consequences respectively as the accounts of the general or special expenses above-mentioned; but separate accounts shall be kept of the receipts and expenditure for the purposes of the said Acts;
    "(d.) such Board and Commissioners may borrow for the purpose of the execution of the said Acts, in like manner and subject to the like conditions as they may borrow for the purposes of the Artizans and Labourers Dwellings Improvement Act, 1875, and every such authority may borrow for the purpose of the execution of the said Acts, in like manner and subject to the like conditions as for the purpose of defraying the above-mentioned general or special expenses;
    "(e.) in the application of the said Acts to the City of London, 'district' shall mean the City of London, and 'board' the Commissioners of Sewers of that city; and in the application of the said Acts to the Metropolis, 'district' shall mean the Metropolis exclusive of the City of London, and 'Board' the Metropolitan Board of Works; and in the application of the said Acts to a rural sanitary district, 'district' shall mean the said district, and 'board' the rural sanitary authority."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. PELLasked what was the meaning of the words—
    "Such Board and every such authority may borrow for the purpose of the execution of the said Acts, in like manner, and subject to the like conditions, as for the purpose of defraying the above-mentioned general or special expenses."
    Was it intended that a Local Authority might, under this Act, or the Lodging Houses Acts, borrow money for general necessities?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, the terms were technical; there were what were known as general expenses and special expenses.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. TOMLINSONproposed to add to the last Amendment—
    "In any case where an urban sanitary authority is empowered by a local Act or Acts to bor-

    1769
    row money and to levy a rate or rates throughout the whole of their district for purposes similar to those or to some of those for which a general district rate is leviable, it shall be lawful for such sanitary authority to defray the expenses incurred in the execution of the said Acts by means of money to be borrowed, and a rate or rates to be levied, under such local Act or Acts."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE SECRETAEY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)assented to the Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Definition of purposes of Labouring Classes Lodging Houses Acts) agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Provision respecting sites of certain metropolitan prisons).
    MR. J. R. HOLLONDregretted that the Amendment he had to move to this clause had not found its way in proper form to the Paper. What he desired to move was to leave out all the words after "Pentonville, Penitentiary," in line 30, to "and," in line 32. The next Amendment of his was to leave out all the words after "prison," in line 33, and insert—
    "No sale of the said sites shall take place except with the authority of Parliament."
    If those alterations were made the clause would read—
    "In the event of the removal from their present sites of Millbank penitentiary or Pentonville Penitentiary, and in the event of the removal from its present site of Coldbath Fields Prison, no sale of the said sites shall take place except with the authority of Parliament."
    His object in moving those Amendments was, on the one hand, that Parliament should retain control over the sites, so that they should not be disposed of without full discussion in the House, and that, on the other hand, they should not at that late period of the Session settle precisely in what manner those sites were to be disposed of. The difficulty of settling how to dispose of those sites was shown by the Amendments which stood on the Paper. There were various Amendments to the clause; some dealt with the erection of workmen's dwellings, some with the making of open spaces, some with the erection of schools upon the sites. If those
    1770
    Amendments were carried, would it, or would it not, be possible for the Metropolitan Board of Works to build a number of shops on the sites? If not, the ratepayers of London might be subjected to considerable loss.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, the primary object was the accommodation of the working classes. Everything that was auxiliary to that object would be allowed.
    MR. J. R. HOLLONDsaid, that further explanation was certainly required. They were dealing with about 40 acres of land, and they were asked to settle the destination of the sites in a somewhat hurried manner at the end of a Session, and it seemed to him without considering sufficiently whether it was wise, from a prison point of view, that the prisons should be removed. Sir Edmund Du Cane's evidence before the Committee went to show that, although the site of Millbank Penitentiary only cost £1,200, there had been spent on buildings something like £600,000. The Committee ought to know whether, in ease the site was disposed of as proposed, the Government were to be recouped in any way for the money they had spent. He sympathized with those who strongly objected on principle to the disposal of those sites in this way. It seemed to him that they might come to some sort of agreement whereby Parliament should retain control of the sites, and leave the settlement of the precise destination of the sites to another Session. It would be extremely easy to do that; it could be done by introducing next year a Bill dealing specially with those sites. The only thing that would happen would be that the destination of the sites would be left over for further, and he believed riper, determination.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 4, line 30, to leave out all the words after "Pentonville, Penitentiary," to "and," in line 32.—(Mr. Hollond.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. ALBERT GREYsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) would consider this Amendment favourably, because it seemed to him (Mr. A. Grey) a very fair compromise between the promoters of the Bill

    1771
    and those who objected to the 3rd clause on principle. The Amendment really postponed to another Parliament the settlement of the destination of the prison sites, which it was hoped would be cleared and devoted to some object which would bring about an amelioration in the condition of the working classes. There were many reasons why the clause should not be adopted. [Mr. JESSE COLLINGS: No!] The hon. Member for Ipswich said "No!" He could well understand why the hon. Gentleman supported the clause. He repeated that there were many reasons why they should reject the clause. If they adopted the clause as it now stood, they would be adopting a clause based upon a principle absolutely new to legislation, and they would give an opportunity to the ton. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) and his Friends to conduct an agitation which would not be very palatable to Gentlemen sitting on the Front Ministerial Bench. It seemed to him (Mr. A. Grey) that they had no right at the fag-end of a Session, when four-fifths of the Members were away, to invite the House of Commons to legislate in a way which he very much doubted it would legislate if there was a full House. But there was another reason why he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) to accept this Amendment. There were many Amendments to follow. Every one of those Amendments they meant to fight and to divide upon. If the right hon. Gentleman was going to insist upon this proposal simply because it had come down from the House of Lords—["The Royal Commission."] The Royal Commission! Members of the Royal Commission who had spoken upon the Bill had spoken most strongly against this proposal. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley), who was a Member of the Commission, made a most eloquent speech against this proposal; and he (Mr. A. Grey) believed that other Members of the Royal Commission who were in the House very much agreed with what the hon. Gentleman said. They would not quarrel, however, as to the source from which the proposal came. All he wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman was that, unless he could see his way to accept this very reasonable Amendment, he (Mr. A. Grey) and others meant to
    1772
    fight the clause inch by inch and line by line. They meant to divide upon every Amendment, and to make it as difficult as possible for the right hon. Gentleman to carry a clause containing a principle to which they objected so much. He had thought it right to make those remarks, though he did not wish it to be understood he used them in any menacing spirit. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give a favourable consideration to his remarks, and, if possible, promote the speedy passing of the Bill through the House by accepting the Amendment.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)thought the hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. Grey) had just given them full warning of obstruction to the clause. The clause, as now proposed, was recommended by the vast majority of the Members of the Royal Commission; it had come down from the House of Lords, and he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) desired to take the sense of the Committee upon it. He must remind hon. Gentlemen who proposed that the matter should stand over that what the promoters of the Bill wanted to do was to afford some speedy relief. If hon. Gentlemen would examine the Bill they would find that the advance of the money was confined to a certain date. The prisons in question were being emptied, and there was no reason why the land should remain idle any longer than could be helped. It was proposed not merely that the sites themselves should be devoted to working men's dwellings, but that it should be in the power of the Metropolitan Board of Works to exchange them for others. If hon. Members knew what was going on in London they would readily admit that time was really the essence of the matter. He was quite willing to abide by the decision of the Committee, and he hoped that decision would be arrived at without delay.
    MR. HOPWOODasked if anyone doubted that if the House were full there would be an instructive and animated discussion upon this clause, with possibly a result disastrous to it? Did the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary remember the debates which took place annually in regard to the contributions made out of the public funds for the special advantage of the community of London? Every item of

    1773
    increase with regard to the Parks and the building of additional Offices—in fact, every attempt to spend money for the special benefit of the people of London—always received the very strongest opposition in the House. He had not a doubt that a clause like this would, if introduced at another period of the Session, either be rejected in toto or referred to a Select Committee.
    MR. PICTONsaid, it was evident that this clause was opposed to the convictions of a considerable number of the Members of the House. A good deal been said that evening about Socialism being involved in this clause. He did not object to Socialism of a proper kind, for he thought there was such a thing as equitable Socialism. But this clause did not represent Socialism at all; it represented patronage, and patronage of a sort which tended to provide for the moderately well-off at the expense of the extremely destitute. That he believed to be the real tendency of the clause, and he desired to say why he thought so. If the clause was carried out, and the land was sold for less than its market value, a number of houses could be provided at less rent than that paid for houses in many parts of London. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. A. J. Balfour) interpolated a remark while the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) was speaking that evening, to the effect that the houses were not to be let below their market value. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to mean by that that the houses would not be let for less than would pay a fair percentage upon the outlay. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: No!] He was sorry if he misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. He would continue his remarks, and perhaps, if he was wrong, the right hon. Gentleman would correct him. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the houses would not be let at a less rental, considering that the land would be bought at a less price than it could be got for in the open market. At any rate, it stood to reason that if the land was bought for less than it could be bought for in the open market the houses could be let at less than their full and proper value. The number of houses was nothing; the principle was everything; but, supposing there were 500 houses to be let at a lower rent than that
    1774
    at which houses could be ordinarily secured, manifestly it would be a great advantage to get hold of one of the houses or tenements. There must be a considerable competition for them. On what principle were they to be allotted? Would it be first come first served? He doubted it. The general rule in such cases was to make a selection. There would be a certain number of people who had good recommendations, who were sober, diligent, and thrifty, and they would be considered suitable tenants for such advantageous houses. Then here was a case of patronage at once. It was a valuable gift to a man to get into a tenement of this kind. At whose expense was this patronage to be exercised? The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had spoken about the intervention of the State, and of the windfalls of the State, which the State might, he said, very reasonably make over to a certain number of tenants. But what was the State? The State was not the Government, the State was certainly the whole of the inhabitants of this country; and, directly or indirectly, all men—even children were taxpayers, for some of them got less food than they otherwise would owing to the direct or indirect pressure of taxation—every man, woman, and child—had to contribute towards the expenses of the State. When, therefore, they spoke of the State sacrificing a windfall they spoke of the whole of the inhabitants of the country sacrificing a windfall; they spoke of the destitute and suffering sacrificing so much property which, directly or indirectly, might be used for their benefit. Therefore, he contended that this patronage was exercised at the expense of those who were worse off than the people who would be put into those houses. He put it forth as a general principle that the burden of taxation and of all public expenses tended to gravitate to the very lowest depths, and he believed there would be a gravitation of such a kind in this case. If, at the expense of the rates or of taxation, they gave a certain number of people accommodation for a price at which they could not obtain it in the open market, they would do it at the expense of someone. If there was a loss of money someone must bear it; and he thought, when they considered the operation of rates and taxes, they would find

    1775
    that just outside that area of well-constructed and healthy dwellings, dwellings that were let at a low rent to thrifty and respectable working people, there were destitute and suffering people who had to contribute through the extra rates and taxation for the better condition of those who were better able to provide for themselves than they were. He thought that that was the operation of the clause, and he, therefore, must earnestly contend against it. He appealed to Her Majesty's Government to consider the point seriously. They must have felt that there were deep convictions on this subject; they must see that many hon. Members regarded the clause as an exceedingly dangerous one. It had been a very painful thing for some of them to have to vote against a particular stage of the Bill; although they were anxious that better dwellings should be secured for the working classes, they had had to vote against a stage of the Bill because of this vicious principle embodied in it.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, that time was valuable, yet time ought not to count when there was an important principle involved. He would make a suggestion to see whether they could not come to a fair and equitable arrangement. The great difficulty seemed to arise from the fact that a price was put in the Bill; and, therefore, he would suggest that the clause should stop at line 36, leaving out—
    "At such price, to be fixed by agreement or arbitration, as will enable the Board to appropriate the sites or parts so conveyed for the purposes of the Labouring Classes Lodging Houses Acts, 1851 to 1867, as amended by this Act: Provided that the price shall not be less than the price paid for the land when it was purchased on behalf of Her Majesty or of the county of Middlesex respectively,"
    and then, in order to show what really was the meaning of the clause, adopt the Amendment which stood in his name—
    "For the purpose of the erection thereon by the Board or other parties, for the use of the working classes, buildings disposed in streets, squares, or otherwise, with or without open spaces, with power for such Board, as to all or any part of such sites, to lease the same to other persons, to be used for the purposes aforesaid, of to exchange the same for other land to be applied for like purposes, or to convert by sale the same into money, to be invested in land to be applied for like purposes, so that the land
    1776
    taken by exchange or sale be situate within the Metropolis."
    They would thus get rid of the difficulty of putting the price in the Bill. He only threw that out as a suggestion; if it was not accepted, he was quite prepared to stand by the Bill as it stood, and, if necessary, to go on until they passed it.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by that that it shall not be lawful for the Treasury to sell the land at less than its market value?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, the clause would then run in this way—
    "In the event of the removal from their present sites of Millbank Penitentiary, or Pentonville Penitentiary, it shall be lawful for Her Majesty, on the recommendation of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, and in the event of the removal from its present site of Coldbath Fields Prison, it shall be lawful for the justices of the peace for the county of Middlesex, if the justices think fit so to do, to sell and convey those respective sites or any part or parts thereof to the Metropolitan Board of Works, for the purpose of the erection thereon by the Board or other parties for the use of the working classes," and so on.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, it did not appear to him that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) met in any way the opposition that was raised to this clause; and he wished in the most serious manner possible to remind Her Majesty's Government of the distinct pledge that was given to the House some weeks ago by the Leader of the House, to the effect that no contentious Business should be proceeded with during the remainder of the Session. He wished to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they considered this contentious Business or not? If they were to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary it would have this consequence—that he would deal with this matter probably at one bite; and those who intended to make this contentious matter, and very contentious matter, would be easily disposed of. That would be very disadvantageous, and would not lead to the enforcement of the pledge of Her Majesty's Government, a pledge which was being distinctly violated on this occasion.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS): I protest against

    1777
    such words, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw them.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he would say that the pledge of Her Majesty's Government had not been observed, and to that he must strictly adhere; but he wanted to say something more with regard to this proposal. This was a proposal giving a distinct advantage to London and to the ratepayers of London. [Mr. JESSE COLLINGS: No; London has created it.] The hon. Member for Ipswich said that London had created it; but he (Mr. Arnold) did not see that at all. Manchester and Liverpool and other places had contributed directly to the increase of value of these prison sites; and he stood there as a Representative of one of those constituencies, in order to claim on behalf of his constituents their share of that increment of value. How was it to be given to them? Was it to be given to them through prison sites or in some other direction? At all events, he distinctly objected, and he should be very glad to support his hon. Friend the Member for South Northumberland (Mr. A. Grey) in objecting, as long as he pleased, to the confiscation by Her Majesty's Government of his constituents' share of the increment of value. There was nothing in the present rates that were levied on the people of London which entitled them to that share. The people of many of the manufacturing towns were paying higher rates than those paid by the people of London. He had previously called attention to the peculiar advantages possessed by the working classes of London in regard to their moving from one part of the Metropolis to another. Now, the right hon. Gentleman had spoken with all the authority belonging to a Member of the Royal Commission as to what happened on that Commission. The right hon. Gentleman knew better than he did what happened on that Commission; but he believed that the right hon. Gentleman's statement, that the proposal to give this land at cost price was carried by a vast majority of the Members of the Commission, was one that was not strictly correct. At all events, this was the fact—that in the Report of the Royal Commission the only arguments in favour of this proposal were those of the noble Marquess the Prime Minister (the Marquess of Salis-
    1778
    bury). There was not an argument of any sort or kind in the general Report of the Commission which sustained the proposition—the extraordinary and reckless proposition—which was now before the Committee. He did hope that the interest of other places besides London would be regarded by hon. Members that night. It was only recently that he divided the Committee in respect of the subsidies given to London for their Parks and various institutions. People who lived outside London were tired of these subventions which were given to the Metropolis, and which were not defended by the late Government. Her Majesty's late Government had given them up, and he said that the time had arrived when this custom of giving advantage to London ought not to be continued. He had often before protested against it; he did so again on that occasion, and he called on Her Majesty's Government not to go forward with this contentious Bill.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he thought that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was one which might be fairly accepted by his hon. Friend; but, for his own part, he wished to hear more about that proposal, which he thought was surrounded by a certain amount of obscurity. The right hon. Gentleman knew that if the land were sold under the Acts which bore his name, and in order that workmen's dwellings should be erected on it, the land could not be sold at its full value. Therefore, he said that the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman—"Sell for the purpose of erection, &e."—would have the same effect, and would operate with the arbitrator in determining what the price should be. He and his hon. Friends thought that a fair market price ought to be given; and if the right hon. Gentleman would consent to the insertion of words which would state that a fair market price should be given for the land, and say, at the same time, that he would consent to that portion of the Amendment which provided that the matter should afterwards come before Parliament for its decision and confirmation, he thought they might accept the clause. He thought the Committee would in that way provide for future difficulties that might arise from

    1779
    the adoption of a proposal which carried on the face of it a certain amount of obscurity, and with regard to whose results they knew nothing.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he could not follow his hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) in the views he had expressed on this proposal of Her Majesty's Government. His hon. Friend was opposed to subventions to the Metropolis which came out of the Consolidated Fund; but he would point out that this proposal came under a different category. With the permission of the Committee he would prove that point. Who was it that had made the increased value of sites in the Metropolis; was it Salford or Manchester? [Mr. ARTHUR ARNOLD: Yes; both.] But suppose those sites cost £10,000, and were now worth £30,000, what, he asked, had produced the increase of the value of the land? Why, the enterprize, the trade, and increased population of London. Well, then, what was proposed here was to give that increment of value by certain means back to the people of London. He was prepared to go so far as to say that it was not, perhaps, the best way of doing it; but he contended that, on the grounds he had shown, the proposal of Her Majesty's Government was altogether removed from the category of mere subventions. He should vote for the clause because he wanted to extend the principle; he wanted to say to the great landowners of Westminster—"You gave £10,000 for the property that is now worth ten times the amount; that increase of value has been created by the trade and population of London; and, therefore, we believe you should in some way contribute to the well-being of those who brought about that result." He could quote the Marquess of Salisbury in this matter. The noble Marquess said before the Commission on the subject of housing the working classes, on whose recommendation this proposal was based, that—
    "It more closely resembled a provision for compensation than the offer of a gift;"
    and, therefore, he (Mr. Jesse Collings) entreated his Radical Friends especially to vote with both hands for this clause. He had voted against subventions for keeping up Parks for London; but that was quite another matter. They were dealing now with an increased value
    1780
    created by the people of London, which it was proposed to give back to them—a process which he said they must continue to apply to other land that had increased in value through the same agency, and with respect to which, either by taxation or some plan a little more convenient than the present, they hoped to arrive at the same end. This was altogether a different matter from a subvention, even supposing that Salford and Manchester had anything to do with creating this increment of value. For these reasons he should vote for the clause, defending it altogether from the subvention theory. He would ask his hon. Friend the Member for South Northumberland (Mr. A. Grey) whether, under these circumstances, he was consistent in obstructing the Bill? His hon. Friend objected to the word "obstruction;" then he would say "opposing the Bill in a very lively manner." Finally, he again appealed to his hon. Friends to support the clause.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he would make another suggestion which he hoped would enable the Committee to come to an agreement on the clause. He proposed to insert at the end words which would make the clause run thus—
    "The price of such site shall be a fair market price fixed by agreement or arbitration."
    MR. PELLsaid, if the right hon. Gentleman intended to move that as an Amendment, he would point out that its effect would be to make the Metropolitan Board of Works hold the land until they realized a very much higher price than they gave for it—not its marketable value. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to say if he was correct in that view of the case.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, that he proposed to introduce an Amendment which would guard against the contingency suggested by his hon. Friend. He hoped the hon. Member would consent to withdraw the Amendment now before the Committee.
    MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was not satisfactory to himself, nor did he think it would be to some of his hon. Friends. This was one of those clauses which were very

    1781
    often introduced in that House, which might mean one thing to one side and another thing to the other. What would be the effect given to this clause in the Law Courts of the country? In the first place, he should like to know whether the clause was really necessary or not? If not, its effect would be merely to give a permissive power enabling the Treasury and the Justices of Middlesex to sell to the Metropolitan Board of Works their prisons for a particular purpose; but, of course, the purpose for which a person bought property had nothing to do with the vendor. He should like to know whether, under the existing law, the Justices of the county of Middlesex or the Treasury, when these sites ceased to be required for prison purposes, were not entitled, and had not the power to sell them, either to the Metropolitan Board of Works or anyone else in the Kingdom at the market price. The second criticism he wished to make on the clause was this—and here he might say that he entirely agreed with the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell)—that it expressly proposed to convert the Metropolitan Board of Works into builders. He objected to the rates paid by the people of London being employed in speculative building. Either it was to be done at a profit without a fair return for the money or it was not. If at a profit, then he objected to the Metropolitan Board of Works making the people of London participators in these speculative transactions; if it was to be done at a loss, as he supposed was the real intention, then he objected to the ratepayers of the Metropolis being burdened with the obligation, or its being placed in the power of the Metropolitan Board of Works to impose that obligation of providing dwellings for the working classes at the expense of the rates. He hoped the Government would appreciate the argument of his hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings), who was extremely candid as to the view which he took of this clause, and as to the ground on which he and his Radical Friends meant to vote for it. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would appreciate the contention that they could not deal with State property or public property in this manner—by giving it away or by selling it at less than the real
    1782
    value for the purpose of benefiting certain classes of the community, without setting an example and creating a precedent for similar dealing with the unearned increment, or an increment added to the estates of private persons by the increasing wealth of the Metropolis. He felt strongly on this subject; and although he was not altogether in accord with the views of the hon. Member for Ipswich with regard to it, he did hope the Government would appreciate what it was they were really doing by this clause. The next criticism he desired to make on the clause was this—the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary proposed to add words to provide that the price given for the sites should be the fair market price. Yes: a fair market price, but on what conditions? If the land was to be sold to the Metropolitan Board of Works for a particular purpose it was idle and illusory to say that the price was to be the fair market price, because on the conditions laid down in the Bill it was impossible to get a fair market price for it. As he had said, he objected strongly to the clause, not only on behalf of the ratepayers of the Metropolis, but on behalf of the public generally. He regarded those sites as part of the public property of the country, and he said that the Government had no right to make a present to the people of London—for it really was a present—of that property, any more than they had the right to make to the people a present of public property in other parts of the Kingdom. He remembered that when it was a question of selling the foreshore at Southport they were told by the Government then in power that it was the duty of the Government to safeguard public property, and to take care if it was sold that it was sold at the highest price that could be obtained for it. Well, then, he said the same principle should be applied to London as to the other parts of the country. For those reasons he objected to the clause as it stood, and he also objected to it in the form in which it was proposed to be amended by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, because he believed it would have the effect of achieving the same end in a different way; and, moreover, it had the additional inconvenience about it—he should say this additional vice—that the right hon. Gentleman's proposed

    1783
    addition to the clause was capable of being interpreted in two different ways. It was just one of those clauses which, he was sorry to say, were often put into Bills in Committee of that House by way of compromise, when one party meant one thing and the other meant another, and which were among the most fertile sources of litigation. If the right hon. Gentleman would allow him to do so, he would like to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he had forgotten that most impressive speech which he made at an earlier period of this Parliament, when he complained that the spirit of economy had deserted those Benches? But he did not want to make this a personal argument; he did not think that the present Government were to be blamed for this class of legislation, which had become far too common before they took Office, and his object in making these observations on the clause was by way of protest against legislation of the kind.
    THE PRESIDENT (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, he did not intend to continue a discussion upon an abstract doctrine; but he must say a word or two with regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) and the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey). The Government had been taunted with having introduced in this clause a provision for the appropriation of what one school of economists called the unearned increment; but he wished to say that whatever faults might be imputed against the clause, that fault it did not possess. The object of the clause was to enable the State to make a certain use of its own property. Those who desired to see the appropriation of unearned increment wished the State to make use of somebody else's property. The two methods of procedure were divided by the whole difference which separated charity from spoliation.
    SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsaid, he would not trouble the Committee with any remarks on the unearned increment farther than to say that he presumed that the unearned increment in the case of these prison sites belonged to the State; and he believed that the State might appropriate that increment for the benefit of the classes which they thought ought to have it, if in so doing
    1784
    they did the best for the community at large. He thought they would all agree to the proposition that the better the working classes were housed, the better it would be for the nation as a whole. But he wished to call attention to the practical working of the clause. They had heard a great deal about the unearned increment. He wished to remark that the moment it was known that the sites were to be utilized for the purpose of the Bill, the market value of the land would be brought down by one-fourth or one-third. He did not wish to say anything about that. If it was the intention to do away with the prisons, he did not think they could do better with the sites on which they stood than erect upon them dwellings for the working classes with good wide spaces between them. But he objected when the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said that the dwellings, when erected, were to make a fair return. ["Hear, hear!"] Well, he would pass from that point. If the persons to be benefited were to pay a fair market price for the dwellings, surely the vendors of the land ought to sell it for a fair market price, because it was to be utilized for a particular purpose, and that very fact would bring the price down. Again, he objected to the proposal that the land should be dealt with by agreement or arbitration. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross), who would, perhaps, remember that evidence was given by the surveyor to the Peabody Trustees—namely, that the ground let to the Trustees was let at 50 per cent less than it would have been worth under ordinary circumstances. If the right hon. Gentleman would put into this clause words that would leave the land open to public competition, so that the dealing might be fair, he should not object to it; but if it was to be left to be settled by agreement or arbitration, he was bound to say that he could not approve of that course at all; because, in that case, the people intended to be benefited would get no benefit to the same extent; whereas, if the matter were left to public competition, no one could find fault with the price realized. Supposing that the Metropolitan Board of Works bought in the manner contemplated in the Bill

    1785
    supposing it was at a very low price, they would have to spend money in pulling down and road making before they could let the premises; and he ventured to say that the highest price got for the dwellings would not do more than pay for the money laid out in this way. Then with regard to the argument that the Metropolitan Board of Works were to become speculative builders; no one knew better than the right hon. Gentleman that the Metropolitan Board of Works were very indisposed to become builders, and have the responsibility of letting the buildings erected; he knew also that the members of the Board were gentlemen of great influence, who knew what sort of influence would be brought to bear upon them. He said there was no safety in the clause, unless the Government proceeded by way of public competition, which would prevent any fault being found with what was done, and would enable the working classes to get what they wanted at a fair price. The time had gone by when they could shut their eyes to the fact that they must continue to provide dwellings for the working classes. Those classes were increasing year by year; and the Committee should remember that one of the witnesses examined before the Royal Commission had stated that although a great deal had been done in that direction there was still much overcrowding. In suggesting the addition of words which would leave the price to be paid to public competition, he felt sure that the right hon. Gentleman would give him credit for speaking in the public interest; and he trusted that his suggestion would be adopted, because then they would get rid of the idea that the fair market price would not be paid.
    MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTsaid, that the further they went with this discussion the more clearly it must appear to those who watched their proceedings that the best thing the Government could do would be to withdraw the clause altogether. That, he thought, was the ground which ought to be taken up by hon. Gentlemen on those Benches. He must say that the right hon. Gentleman had dealt rather easily with the argument put forward in the course of the discussion by his hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold), who said there had been an undertaking on the part of Her Majesty's Government not
    1786
    to proceed with any contentious Business. If these matters were not contentious he was at a loss to understand how the right hon. Gentleman would characterize the recent proceedings. He would like to call attention to a matter in which many Members from Scotland were interested—that was to say, the Bill dealing with the Scotch Universities. That Bill had been given up altogether because there was some opposition to one or two of its clauses, and the Government, in consequence, said it was clearly a contentious matter. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to apply in one case the rule he had applied in the other; he asked him to carry out the pledge that no contentious Business should be taken; and he thought that what had taken place that evening was quite enough to prove that this Bill was of a highly contentious character. Several hon. Members who were interested in this question had left town. Of course, they could not be blamed for going away at that time of the Session; if they were away it could not be helped, and it was absurd to expect that the Committee could have any fair and open discussion on matters of this kind on the 11th of August. If the right hon. Gentleman would amend the clause by putting in words to the effect that the land should be sold for the best price obtainable in the open market, the clause might be agreed to; but he thought it was useless to go on with it otherwise. He thought that the hon. Gentleman beside him was a little hard upon hon. Members on those Benches in saying that the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. A. Grey) was obstructing the clause. Why, any hon. Member would know who had watched their proceedings during the last three weeks that anything like obstruction was not only foreign to their intentions, but absolutely repugnant to their general notions of procedure. They had taken the Bill fairly, clause by clause; and he would like to ask right hon. Gentlemen opposite whether, if the Treasury Bench had been occupied by Liberals instead of Conservatives, it was probable that the Bill would have the slightest chance of being carried? Right hon. Gentlemen opposite had many advantages over their Predecessors; they had not to deal with obstruction in that House, and they could do what they pleased in

    1787
    "another place." He felt sure that having pointed out to right hon. Gentlemen opposite that their action that night had been almost contradictory of the solemn pledges given, they would agree with him in saying that they ought not to go any further with this contentious Bill.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he must support this clause. He had ventured to criticize some of its features; but he heartily supported it for the reason that it established the very sound doctrine that the increased value of the land in cases of this kind belonged to the people whose industry had made it more valuable, and on that account he and his hon. Friends could not consent for a moment to a modification of the clause in any form whatever. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill to conform to the recommendation of the Royal Commission by retaining the clause as it stood at present. He thought there might have been a better way out of this difficulty had the suggestion which he had had the honour of making been thoroughly adhered to and carried out. He said that, instead of selling these sites for the purpose of erecting on them dwellings for the working classes, it would be far better if they were at once made over for open spaces for the benefit of all the community. They could not possibly touch a spot in London where 10 or 20 acres of open space could not do an enormous amount of good to the whole of the inhabitants of London, by giving, as it were, large air holes for the circulation of purer atmosphere; and he thought that if steps were taken in that direction a great advantage to the people would result. He did not care for the change which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make in the clause; on the contrary, he very much feared that it would detract considerably from the value of the intended gift; and if the right hon. Gentleman had a moment to spare he should be exceedingly glad to know the reason for the proposed change. There were one or two distinguished young Members on that side of the House who wished to maintain certain old-fashioned principles which they had adopted owing to their association with hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial Benches. He sincerely hoped that Members of the Liberal Party would hold fast to their proposals in this matter.
    1788
    He was very glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House in his place. That right hon. Gentleman had made a speech at Bristol on Saturday night which was in the nature of a very strong attack on the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) for his Socialistic tendencies; and he (Mr. Broadhurst) had been surprised to find on reading his speech that the right hon. Gentleman had not even read the Bill which was coming before the House, as the first Order of the Day on Monday, and which contained Socialism in a purer form than anything he remembered to have been recommended by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham. When the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House returned and learnt in the House of Commons on Monday afternoon that the Party which he led were the real initiators of this class of legislation he naturally became considerably alarmed, and he (Mr. Broadhurst) had no doubt that it was due to his well-known caution in matters of legislation, that this modification was proposed. He sincerely hoped that the Government would remain firm to its proposal; and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that in adhering to the clause as it stood in the Bill he would have no firmer supporter, nor any more laborious assistant, in carrying the clause than himself.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he understood the object of the Government was to give the Metropolitan Board of Works the right of pre-emption of these lands for certain purposes—that was to say, the erection of workmen's dwellings when the disused prisons now standing upon them were removed—they contemplated that the Board should have this preference over all other purchasers provided they paid a fair market price. If that were the correct view of the intention of the Government, he thought it would be better to deal with the matter on Report.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, after the discussion which had taken place, he thought the Government should agree to postpone this question. He had certainly understood that the Government and the Opposition had agreed that no contentious measure should be taken during the remainder of the Session; but this Bill was of a highly contentious character, and had been under-

    1789
    stood to be so for some days past. But there was a further objection to proceeding, and it was that they were asked to go forward with this clause in entire ignorance of the real value of the land in question. He had heard that in the opinion of some persons one of the sites of 23 acres was worth £60,000 or £80,000; but that, in the opinion of another person, it was worth from £120,000 to £160,000; but the fact was the Committee knew nothing at all about the value of the land. If the actual value of the land was to be obtained, he said that the question before the Committee would be one of limited importance; but the point they were concerned about was whether they were to get the real value for the land, or that which the State might place upon it, or accept. He had been conversing with a gentleman very competent to speak on this matter, who said he was authorized by the prison authorities to say that the value of the site was of less value than was supposed. If, therefore, the clause, as he recommended that it should be, were postponed, there would be time to find out the value of the land, which, as he had said, might possibly be found to be less than was generally thought. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had offered to the Committee what he called a compromise—that was to say, to adopt the words "at a fair market price;" but it was to be accompanied with conditions which really raised the question in another form. If the sale of the land was to be subject to the condition alluded to, the whole question arose whether the land would be sold at a high or a low price. As he had said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would agree to the postponement of the clause; first, because the matter was really contentious; and, secondly, because there was no knowledge or general agreement as to the real value of the land.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he wished to say one or two words on this very important question. He had never disguised from his right hon. Friend that he particularly disliked the clause, which, he thought, was one that might better have been left out of the Bill. He ventured now to appeal to him, seeing that there were many other important provisions in the Bill, to consider whether he might not fairly follow the advice of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and either to
    1790
    postpone the clause or leave it out of the Bill altogether. He was one of those who thought that they had no right to dispose of public property in this way—at any rate, without knowing what the I value of that property was. This was the property more or less of the nation, and he said that, if it was the intention of the Government to make it a present to the people of London, they ought to know exactly what the value of the present was to be. He admitted the difficulty which London had to contend with in respect of dwellings for the working classes; he admitted, as had been pointed out by the hon. Baronet the Member for Gravesend (Sir Sydney Waterlow), that although much had been done, much remained to be done there, to contend with, and, if possible, remove, the condition of over-crowding in which many sections of the working classes lived; but he could not go the length of saying that they ought to sacrifice valuable sites, and so set a precedent which he should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have considered many times before introducing into the Bill. He felt strongly on this point; but if Her Majesty's Government would accept the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Gravesend, he thought that, at any rate, the clause would be greatly improved. But the better course would be, in his opinion, to take time to consider whether the clause should remain in the Bill.
    MR. FIRTHsaid, he had a few short observations to make on this subject; and, in the first place, he would express the hope that Her Majesty's Government would not withdraw the clause. Having some knowledge of the people of London, he had a right to express his opinions on the question before the Committee. He could understand that there were differences of opinion among the people as to the use made of the property in question. It seemed to him that the position was very shortly stated. It was that the Government had, up to the present time, the control of the prisons in London; they now proposed to take the prisons out of London, to take the question of housing the working classes over, and to put it under the control of Parliament. If that were so he thought it ought to be clearly stated in the Bill that the matter was not to be left to the Metropolitan Board of Works, which he said no one acquainted with the

    1791
    character of the workmen of the country would wish to see constituted an authority in the matter. It seemed, however, to him that the Government, having exercised hitherto control over the London prisons, desired in future to exercise control over the dwellings of the working classes. He could not understand why, if the ground were suitable for the purpose of erecting warehouses or other places of business, the people of London should be compelled to pay a greater price for it. He hoped the Government would adhere to the clause, which he said was sound in principle.
    SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYappealed to the Committee to pass the clause as it stood, without stopping a useful Bill to consider the price the land ought to be sold for. This measure was another effort and attempt to raise the moral condition of the people. In the case of the National Gallery and other kindred Institutions, the Committee was aware that large sums were spent out of the Consolidated Fund. Everyone was agreed on the principle of the measure; and he asked whether, for the paltry sum of £100,000, they were prepared to have this site let to the highest bidder, the consequence of which would be that warehouses would be erected on it, and it would be lost to the locality for all purposes of social and moral benefit for ever? The Royal Commission had considered this question very fully in framing their Report as to sites for Workmen's Dwellings, and the principle of the Bill had been decided upon; and now the small thought had arisen in the minds of some hon. Members that they ought to endeavour to get the highest possible price for the land, to increase the Consolidated Fund even at the risk of letting the poor go unhoused. He said that the supporters of a Government which had been engaged on this question for two years, and had, during the last three Sessions, been engaged in passing Acts of Parliament with the object of bettering the condition of the working classes, and who had spent millions and millions on education, ought to unite in pushing forward the Bill. But instead of that they came down with questions as to what these prison sites were worth in the locality. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had given estimates of value, which varied from each other, although one of
    1792
    them appeared to rest more or less upon official judgment; but he (Sir Gabriel Goldney) replied that this was not a question to be adjusted according to the strict principles of State economy; and he contended that the proposal of Her Majesty's Government ought graciously to be accepted by the Committee as the best means of settling a considerable portion of a question which had troubled the people of London for many years.
    MR. CHEETHAMsaid, he had placed on the Paper an Amendment which was against the principle of subvention in this matter. The hon. and learned Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth) had contended that the people of London were entitled to this subvention, and he had been supported in that contention by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chippenham (Sir Gabriel Goldney). All he could say was that, if this view was held generally, he was afraid that it afforded very little security for the National Trusts. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman had framed words which would cover the object he intended to secure; and if that point were made perfectly clear he would not think it necessary to move his Amendment. But he was obliged to say that he joined hon. Members on those Benches in their appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to postpone the clause.
    MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, there seemed to be a sort of general feeling that London was going to take something by this clause, and that, therefore, it must be met with the most decided opposition. It was said that the prisons occupied land purchased by the State for that purpose, and that now there was an opportunity of using it for the benefit of the working classes of London. The Government proposed by this Bill that the sites should be used for the erection thereon of lodgings for those classes. Hon. Members would know how difficult it was to obtain sites in London suitable for such a purpose; and he appealed to hon. Gentlemen who had raised the present question to agree to the arrangement set forth in the clause. He was sure this was looked forward to by the inhabitants of London, and was considered one of the important features of the Bill. When the Law Courts were built, they were built not for the Metropolis, but for the whole of the country. They stood on land that

    1793
    was purchased compulsorily by Act of Parliament for the whole of the country—on land which had been covered with numerous courts and alleys of houses in which had been crowded a largo population of the poorest and most needy character, nearly every room having been occupied by a separate family. Those poor people were turned out on a simple notice to quit, without the slightest care, attention, compensation, or provision for their future lodging. He contended that at that moment Parliament had an opportunity of causing the land of the prisons to be occupied by the working classes, as some compensation for those who were driven out of their homes when the Law Courts were built. Why should hon. Members come forward now and say—"Let us have the utmost farthing that these sites will sell for in the market. We say you ought to pay the amount into the Exchequer; and even though under the scheme you propose the charge which would be put upon our several towns would not be more than one-eighth of a penny, we make our demand on principle, and say you ought not to use these sites for the benefit of the working classes of the Metropolis?" He contended that they were discussing a trifle and endeavouring to make it a politico-economic debating ground, and that hon. Members were opposing the clause, not because they did not agree with what it would effect, but because it was against the principle of increased increment of property belonging to those who earned it. When they saw how readily large sums of money were voted for war expenses in all parts of the world, he was convinced the industrial classes would believe that the Committee neglected their interests, or did not entertain them in a proper manner, if, from a petty feeling as to the disposal of these sites, it refused to pass the clause. He had been very much struck by the cheers with which the statement that the sites should be used for the purposes of open spaces and recreation grounds was received. If that were done, nothing would be paid into the National Exchequer. Hon. Members did not ask that the full value should be paid for the land if it were given up to the purposes of recreation. He really did hope that the clause would pass without fur-
    1794
    ther discussion, and that hon. Members would not put themselves in opposition to the wishes of the mass of the people of this great Metropolis.
    MR. HOPWOODthought hon. Members were entitled to an answer to the question whether this was or was not contentious Business? If the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave them an answer, he was sure he would give them a candid one, even if it were against himself. He (Mr. Hopwood) himself could not help thinking that there could be no doubt at all in the matter, and that it was most assuredly contentious Business. Yet the Ministry had promised that nothing with even the flavour of contentious Business should be brought on during the rest of the Session. As he understood it, a compromise had been offered—that the sites should be sold "for a fair market price, to be settled by agreement or arbitration," or words to that effect. If the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would put these words at the end of the clause, leaving out all the words after the word "Works," in line 37, so that the clause would read—
    "To sell and convey those respective sites or any part or parts thereof to the Metropolitan Board of Works at a price to be fixed by agreement or arbitration,"
    he could then frame a separate clause describing the Trust on which the Board of Works would hold the sites, and that, no doubt, would be accepted as a fair termination of the dispute. In this way the question of the sale of the land would be separated from the purpose to which it was to be applied. The question of fair market price would be loft untrammelled, and the sites could be allocated to the purpose intended by the noble Proposer of the clause (the Marquess of Salisbury)—that was to say, to the setting up on them of some form of working men's dwellings. He (Mr. Hopwood) could very well understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary felt bound to defend the clause. There was no doubt it had been a matter of warm contention between the Prime Minister and Lord Bramwell in "another place," and it was very natural that the Home Secretary should feel that in loyalty to his Chief he was bound to stand by the Bill; but, on the other hand, he (Mr. Hopwood) felt con-

    1795
    vinced that if the right hon. Gentleman's Chief were here, and had heard this discussion, he would at once relieve the right hon. Gentleman of any supposed obligation, and allow them to go on with the Bill, treating this as contentious Business, and expunging it from the Bill, or adopting the suggestion which he (Mr. Hopwood) had just made.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Hopwood) has made a direct appeal to me, and, of course, I am very glad to answer the question he has asked. He has asked me whether or not in my opinion this is contentious matter? If the epithet of contentious could be properly applied to ordinary matter of debate, on which the House is not seriously divided, although some hon. Gentlemen may not hold the views of the great majority, then, I admit, all our proceedings of the last three weeks ought not to have taken place; but if, on the other hand, contentious Business means matter on which the House is fairly divided, and which a large section of the House is unwilling to consider, there is nothing to prevent our proceeding further with the clause. I would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the discussion on this subject hag really governed to a great extent the debate on this Bill, and that we have already had a division which has shown us that there are nearly 60 Members on one side, and only six on the other. I do not think that under these circumstances we have had sufficient proof that there is any real contention in the House in regard to that which is the subject of the debate. What I would suggest is this—that hon. Members who feel strongly on this matter cannot do better than put their opinions to the test of a division as soon as may be, in order that we may see what is the view of the Committee. My right hon. Friend has made a proposal to amend the clause which, as I understand, has been accepted as a reasonable settlement by more than one of those who, in previous discussions, spoke very strongly against the clause itself. If that is so, it certainly seems that the real opposition to the clause is very much less than was suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr.
    1796
    Hopwood). In any case, let us try what it is. Her Majesty's Government would not care to press this clause on what may fairly be described as an unwilling House; but, on the other hand, if a great majority are in favour of passing it, I cannot see anything to prevent its adoption.
    MR. J. R. HOLLONDsaid, he was not insensible of the effort the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had made to meet hon. Members in this matter; but he thought it must be clear to the right hon. Gentleman from what had taken place that that effort had not been entirely successful. There were a number of Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House who held such strong objection to the clause that he did not think he should be justified in withdrawing it.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 69; Noes 20: Majority 49.—(Div. List, No. 283.)
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he had a small Amendment to move, in line 32, to add, after the word "Treasury," the words "and subject to such conditions as they may think reasonable."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 4, line 32, after the word "Treasury," to insert the words "and subject to such conditions as they may think reasonable."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he wished to move to omit from lines 34 and 35 the words "if the Justices think fit so to do." He made this proposal for the reason that the Treasury in these matters would, of course, be the Executive Government. If the Executive Government should "think fit so to do," the Treasury would "think fit so to do;" and the Committee was, therefore, giving directions to the Government what was to be done. Well, the Government was amenable to Parliament, but the Justices of the county of Middlesex were not. He did not see why, if they took this step, they should leave the veto in the hands of the Justices. If the Act was to be complied with by the Treasury, he thought it should also be complied with by the Justices of Middlesex, so that the will of Parliament should be carried out,

    1797
    It should not be left to those irresponsible persons to say whether the Act should be carried out or not.
    Amendment proposed, in page 4, lines 34 and 35, leave out the words "if the Justices think fit so to do."—(Mr. Bryce.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he could not consent to the omission of those words, because only in 1877 Parliament had given the Justices a direct Parliamentary title to deal with those prisons.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he could not see any reason for refusing the Amendment; but, of course, if there was a strong feeling in the Committee against it, he would not press it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. CHEETHAMsaid, he had proposed to move, in line 35, after "convey," to insert "at a fair market price." So much had been said on that subject that he would not enter further on the question; and if he understood rightly the offer of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross), he proposed to include in the clause words to the same effect?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS): Yes; I would move the Amendment I have put upon the Paper, with the addition of the words "as approved by the Secretary of State," after "Metropolis," in the last line, so that the Amendment will read—
    "For the purpose of the erection thereon by the Board or other parties, for the use of the working classes, buildings disposed in streets, squares, or otherwise, with or without open spaces, with power for such Board, as to all or any part of such sites, to lease the same to other persons, to be used for the purposes aforesaid, or to exchange the same for other land to be applied for like purposes, or to convert by sale the same into money, to be invested in land to be applied for like purposes, so that the land taken by exchange or sale be situate within the Metropolis as approved by the Secretary of State. The price for such sites shall be."
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to add the words "fair market price?"
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS): Yes; at the end.
    Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 37, to leave out the word "at," and insert the words proposed.—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'at' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The words—
    "Or to exchange the same for other land to be applied for like purposes, or to convert by sale the same into money, to be invested in land to be applied for like purposes, so that the land taken by exchange or sale be situate within the Metropolis as approved by the Secretary of State,"
    are surely unnecessary. If a fair market value is to be taken, I do not see what object there can be in giving the Metropolitan Board this power of exchange or of converting into money.
    SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsaid, he wished to propose an Amendment to the Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member wish to add words?
    SIR SYDNEY WATERLOW: I wish to propose an Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMAN: But does the hon. Member propose to add to the original Amendment? If he does, we must get the words of the original Amendment in the Bill first.
    SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsaid, he wished to propose an alteration to the first part of the Amendment, so that it would read "for the purpose of the erection thereon by the Board by public competition." He had already fully explained his reasons for urging the acceptance of these words. He was surprised the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had not said one word as to the statement he (Sir Sydney Waterlow) had made about the Board by agreement letting large plots of land in the Metropolis at a price that had been distinctly, on the highest authority, stated to be far below what it would fetch if put up to public competiton. He wished to avoid that in the case of these prison sites. When the price was fixed by public competition no one could find fault.
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, after the word "Board," to insert the words "by public competition."—(Sir Sydney Waterlow.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. FIRTHsaid, he should like to put a question to the Home Secretary with regard to his proposal that the price should be the fair market value.
    THE CHAIRMAN: We are now on another Amendment.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he wished to call attention to a point which arose under an earlier portion of the Amendment. The Amendment contained the words "with or without open spaces."
    MR. WARTON: That will come later on.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment before the Committee is to insert, after the word "Board," the words "by public competition."
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he hoped the Government would not accept this Amendment, or that the hon. Baronet would withdraw it. It would tend to narrow the purposes to which the land could be put. They must consider the interests of the working classes for whose benefit this land was to be acquired.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEdid not think this Amendment, even if agreed to, could have much effect owing to the words which went before. The Board could take the land for other purposes if they pleased.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he desired to move to omit from the second line of the Amendment the words "for the use of," in order to insert the words "suitable for." He moved the Amendment, because he feared that the retention of the words "for the use of" might lead to trouble.
    Amendment proposed, to amend the said proposed Amendment, in line 2, by leaving out the words "for the use of," in order to insert the words "suitable for."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, it was evident the hon. Member had not read the Report of the Committee.
    MR. TOMLINSONdid not see what that had to do with his point at all. His point was that these words would con-
    1800
    stitute a trust with the precise letter of which it might not always be possible to comply. The words "suitable for" might obviate a great deal of difficulty.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was satisfied with the words of the clause as they now stood, he (Mr. Bryce) would not trouble the Committee with an Amendment; but he certainly thought that the words "with open spaces to a suitable extent" would be better than "with or without open spaces."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS): I am satisfied with the words as they are.
    MR. BRYCE: They are not sufficient. We should make ample provision for the keeping of open spaces.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS): I would propose to leave out the words "or without," in order to insert the word "suitable."
    MR. BRYCE: Agreed.
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, in line 3, to omit the words "or without," in order to insert the word "suitable."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he wished to move something before that, in line 4, after the word "Board," to insert the words "or other parties."
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, that in line 7 of the Amendment there was an extraordinary statement, which showed that the Queen's English was not always plain English. The Amendment said, "or to convert by sale the same into money." He proposed to leave out the words "by sale."
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, that in order to make the clause clear, he should move, after "Metropolis," to add the words "having regard to the object for which they have to be used."
    MR. FIRTHwished to know whether the "fair market value" would be restricted to the purchase of sites for the purpose of erecting labourers' dwellings,

    1801
    or whether it was to be a fair market value for any purpose?
    MR. JESSE COLLINGStook it that there was no doubt as to the purpose.
    MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, this illustrated the observation which he ventured to make some time ago. He had the greatest doubt in his mind as to what it meant; but he had not the slightest doubt that the Courts would hold that it meant the market value irrespective of the purpose.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS): Strike out the words altogether.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he did not move his Amendment in consequence of the Amendment which had been carried.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he did not understand. Had the right hon. Gentleman struck out these words or not?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, yes; he had struck them out.
    MR. BRYCErose to Order. The Chairman had called upon him to move his Amendment, and he supposed that this matter was past and gone.
    MR. FIRTHbegged to move the words.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he would be glad to put back the words.
    MR. BRYCEasked, as a point of Order, whether the Chairman had not called upon him for his subsequent Amendment, and he (Mr. Bryce) said he should not move it? He begged to ask also, if that were so, whether it was not conclusive that the point was passed?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he did not think the Rule applied in this case. There was some confusion at that point, and he thought the words might be put back.
    MR. STAVELEY HILL: May I ask where we are?
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is proposed to amend the Amendment—after the word "Metropolis," to insert the words "having regard to the object for which they have to be used."
    MR. ALBERT GREY,on the point of Order, desired to know if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had not risen in his place to move an Amendment in line 43, clearly showing that this point had been settled?
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS,on the point of Order, said, he had risen to put another point before line 43; but he was told that they had not come to that, and, therefore, he had not put it. These words had been put in to make the clause clear, and, therefore, he trusted that his hon. Friend would not endeavour by a side wind to interfere with it.
    MR. PICTONwished to make an appeal to the Home Secretary. He thought that they were all agreed that there was a strong feeling as to this clause, and as to the evil principle involved in selling land at its market value. At all events, what they understood that the right hon. Gentleman had conceded was that the land was not to be sold below its value. Now, the right hon. Gentleman had moved the addition of words which made it entirely different from what was understood, and which would have the effect of reducing the value of the land. It was a complete abandonment of the concession made, and he did ask that the clause should be restored to its original shape.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)remarked, that he had offered a compromise which was first accepted and then rejected, and, on a division, those who refused it were beaten. The words he now proposed to add would only make clear the principle he had held all through—that it was to be a fair market price for land for the erection of labourers' dwellings.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREreminded the right hon. Gentleman that at the time he seemed to think it was a very important Amendment he was making; but with the words which he was now adding it was really no concession at all.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    On the Motion of the SECRETARY of STATE (Sir R. Assheton Cross), the following Amendment made:—Page 4, line 43, after "respectively," insert—
    "And that the sale may be made on condition of the cesser or transfer of any liability in respect of the maintenance of any road or embankment."
    MR. CHEETHAM,on behalf of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley), begged to move the Amend-

    1803
    ment standing in his hon. Friend's name, which was as follows:—Page 3, line 43, at end, add—
    "Provided also, That, in the event of the above sites or any part of them being applied to the purposes of the Labouring Classes' Lodging Houses Act, such portions as, in the opinion of the Education Department, may be necessary for the purpose of erecting schools for the population so brought on to the above sites shall be reserved for the School Board for London, and the said School Board shall be empowered to buy such portions from the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury at a price not exceeding their fair market value."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. TOMLINSON,as an Amendment to the Amendment, wished to introduce, after the word "London," the words "or any public elementary school."
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 32: Majority 34.—(Div. List, No. 284.)
    Question proposed, "That the words, as amended, be added to the Clause."
    MR. JESSE COLLLNGSbegged leave to move that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. The Government, under the guise of a Bill for Housing the Poor, had supported a proposal which would virtually have the effect of subsidizing denominational schools.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, the hon. Member would see that was not so. If he had thought about the schools at all, he should have objected to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley). Having put in the School Board of London, he saw no reason why they should not put in the other public schools. The site for such a school would not be in any sense a gift, because the land would have to be purchased at the fair market value, and he saw no reason for making any difference.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he quite understood operating for the
    1804
    benefit of the ratepayers, or of a body supported by the rates; but it was quite another matter to assist private institutions.
    MR. ONSLOW: I rise to Order. The Question before the Committee is that you, Sir, do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he disliked the Amendment very much; but he would not advise the hon. Member (Mr. Jesse Collings) to persist in his Motion for reporting Progress.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich had moved to report Progress on the ground that the London School Board was a Public Body, but that the other schools who would be admitted to the advantages of the clause were not. [Cries of "Question!" and "Order!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that the Question before the Committee is that I do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
    MR. BROADHUEST: I am aware of that fact, Sir; but I understand it is always in Order to give reasons why we should report Progress. Of course, if you rule that no reasons are be given, I will sit down.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not discuss the merits or demerits of any previous proposal.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he would not do so. The reason for moving to report Progress was that the Bill had entirely changed its character by the Amendment which had just been supported by the Government. Though the Government Tellers had not acted in the division, yet nearly every Member of the Government had supported the Amendment, and the Bill had entirely changed its character and no longer had any claim to the title which had been given it. He thought the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich should divide the Committee.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would make an appeal to the hon. Gentleman not to divide. He had found that the words of the Amendment would not make sense, and on that ground more than on any other he opposed the proposal. If hon. Gentlemen would come up to the Table and look at the words of the Amendment they would see that they would not read. They would give

    1805
    power to the London School Board to take land for denominational schools, so far as he could see—a thing which the London School Board could not do.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 82: Majority 60.—(Div. List, No. 285.)
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I would suggest that the difficulty should be met by abandoning the whole Amendment. These words would be mere nonsense.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS): I agree. Nothing is further from my intention than to introduce any religious element in this Bill, or to raise a question as between the school board and voluntary schools. I would propose to leave out the whole Amendment.
    Question, "That the words, as amended, be added to the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. ALBERT GREYsaid, he wished to propose that the clause be struck out of the Bill. [A laugh.] The right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) laughed; but they must remember that they had been discussing the Bill for three hours under an entire misconception as to what were the principles of the Government with regard to it. The measure raised some important principles, and the House was bound not to pass it without understanding what it meant. Unless the Government withdrew the whole clause, as they had withdrawn the Amendment dealing with school boards and denominational schools, the effect of the provision there was no doubt would be to transfer the property of the State at a sum far below its market value to a small section of the community. There was no doubt about that whatsoever. What loss the State would sustain was uncertain, but it had been estimated at a large sum—amounting to £400,000 or £500,000. Now he, as the Representative of the electors of a large constituency in the North of England, objected to the loss that they as members of the State would sustain in consenting to the State parting with their property at a sum so much below its real value. There was
    1806
    one argument which he would especially present to the attention of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The effect of this Bill was to give Parliamentary sanction to the giving away of the unearned increment in the case of State property to a small section of the community. ["Oh, oh!"] An hon. Friend below grumbled at the phrase, "small section of the community;" but the clause would not affect the whole of the people of England. They were going to sell the prison at Millbank at a sum below its value. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. A. J. Balfour) yesterday afternoon made use of the argument that the people of London had suffered injury through losses sustained under various Act of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the Acts which had legalized the construction of the Midland Railway Terminus and a similar group of works. But, after all, what argument was that? Because the people of St. Pancras had suffered, the people living in the neighbourhood of Millbank Prison were to get housing below its market value! Such an argument as that would not hold water. If a certain section of the community were entitled to receive unearned increment because the Government could put its finger upon certain Acts of Parliament which had done injury to the people of London where were they to stop? It would be just as good an argument to say that because a certain number of people in the country had largely suffered owing to the policy of Protection being done away with 40 years ago, therefore unearned increment attaching to the State property should go to them. It would not be a difficult thing to prove that most people had suffered in consequence of most Acts of Parliament; but the fact of their having so suffered was no reason why Parliament should now come forward and make them a present of property which belonged to the whole State. The principle on which he based his objection to the clause was that it was practically by Act of Parliament giving over the unearned increment to a portion of the community. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said that that was not the case; but he was a Member of great dialectical subtlety—he could cavil on the ninth part of a hair with great in-

    1807
    genuity, but the electorate had not the same ingenuity as the right hon. Gentleman. All they could see was that by this Bill, brought in by the Marquess of Salisbury, and introduced into this House by a Conservative Government, the unearned increment was taken and devoted to a certain portion of the community because it was contended that that increment bad resulted from that community. That was a principle that his hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Ceilings) intended to push. The hon. Member was, he believed, about to agitate the country on that principle, and to point to the example of the Marquess of Salisbury and the House of Lords, and say—?"What the Marquess of Salisbury declares is right, we also declare is right, and we ask you to push the principle a little further." Whether hon. Members liked it or not, they would have to face an agitation on that principle if they passed this Bill—they would have an Act of Parliament at which the finger of the agitator—it might be an ignorant agitator—would be pointed, and pointed with effect. Those agitators would point to this Act of Parliament, and would call upon the electors to support similar proposals. If the Committee wished to prevent that agitation the best thing it could do would be to drop this clause out of the Bill altogether. If the Government did that, he was sure that the effect would be to sustain and speed the passage of the Bill through the House.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he had much pleasure in seconding the proposal of the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. A. Grey) to strike this clause out of the Bill, and he did so especially on the first ground that the hon. Member had put forward. The question seemed to stand thus. Take Pentonville and Coldbath Fields; they had been bought with the money of the whole country—of Londoners, of the inhabitants of Northumberland, of Staffordshire, Warwickshire, and all other parts of England—tho property was the property of the whole country. What was it that was proposed to be done with it? A certain course of things had brought into the neighbourhood of the land upon which those prisons stood a great number of inhabitants. Those inhabitants had been living there, benefiting the whole of the property of Lon-
    1808
    don; therefore, anything done for their benefit ought to be paid for out of the rates by the ratepayers of London. Those people had increased the value of the property of those very ratepayers. The persons who ought to support those poor people were those who had had their property increased in value by those poor people coming amongst them. What was it the Committee were going to do? Why, they were going to take, by this clause, the property of the people of England, and dispose of it for the purpose of easing the rates of the ratepayers of London. That was manifestly unfair and unjust. As to the other statements of the hon. Member, he (Mr. Staveley Hill) contended that on every principle of justice this clause had no right to be in the Bill. They had no right to take the property of the people of England and sell it for the purpose of easing the rates of the ratepayers of London, who ought to pay any extraordinary charge for the maintenance of those people who had enhanced the value of their property.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had already alluded to this clause in what he had said with regard to this Bill yesterday; but it must be remembered that the State was unable to make an equitable use of its property. ["No, no!"] Yes; unless they gave statutory powers, the State would not be able to make an equitable use of this property. They would be obliged to exact the utmost farthing. Under the 12th clause of the Bill, it would be seen that they were giving private owners the same power which it was proposed by this clause to give to the State. These provisions said that, having regard to the circumstances of particular localities—such as the crowded parts of Finsbury, the like of which was not to be seen anywhere else in the United Kingdom—the State should be able to do—so said the 3rd clause—what they were enabling private owners to do by other parts of the Bill. They had had it in evidence on the Commission that the Duke of Westminster was altering his settlements—that in making new ones he had put into them terms similar to those which had been introduced into Section 12 of this Bill. Unless such a power was given to the State, the State would be unable to do anything of the kind, and would be obliged to exact the utmost

    1809
    farthing of its right. That was a case for the clause which had not yet been made in this discussion.
    MR. STOREYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) must have been very hard pushed for an argument when he resorted to the one which he had just addressed to the Committee. Under the 12th clause, he said, they allowed the owners of settled estates to do this very thing; but the owners of settled estates only dealt with their own property. They did not deal with his (Mr. Storey's) property; and he maintained that what they were now doing under the 3rd clause was to take public property—that was, his property, for one, for he had an interest in it as well as the rest of the public—and give it to the people of London. He wished the Committee exactly to understand, just once for all, what his views on this matter were, and he desired to state them now, so that it might not be necessary for him to trouble the Committee with them again. He did not object to these sites being acquired for building houses for the working classes of the country—on the contrary, he should very much desire that these sites should be so applied—and he did not object to the people of London obtaining the benefit of them, if they were purchased through their constituted authorities out of the rates. If the Bill authorized the State to sell to the Municipality of London, or allowed a competition in which the Metropolitan Board of Works, as representing the ratepayers of London, might take a part in acquiring these sites at a fair value, he should not have objected to its being allowed to do so. This was a matter that concerned London, and was one for the ratepayers of London to consider; but what were they now proposing to do? They were proposing to take the property which belonged to the people in the North quite as much as to the people in the South, and to appropriate it for the erection of dwellings for the benefit of the South. He was not going to give the Government the somewhat Jesuitical advice that some of his Radical Friends had given, for some of them had advised the Government to proceed in this course, believing it to be the first step on a steep and slippery declivity down which, when they had once commenced the descent, they would roll very quickly.
    1810
    He wanted to deal honestly with them, and he did not wish them to take that course, for he wished to tell them that, if they did, he knew very well what would follow. In his own town of Sunderland, they were as badly off in this respect as the people in London. They had spent £90,000 out of their own pockets to obtain decent dwellings for working men and artizans. They had no public property in Sunderland; but if Parliament took the property of the State and applied it to the benefit of the people of London, depend upon it they would come with trumpet-tongue from Sunderland and say—"We have no public property in the North; you have public property in the South, by means of which you have benefited the people of the South; devote some of your public property to our benefit also." He was not very much surprised to see some Members of the Government adopting that course; but he saw on the Front Bench opposite some hon. Members who had in past times both written and spoken much more sensible and reasonable things on this subject than the Committee was hearing from them now. They used to take a much wiser and more Conservative view of matters; and he now counselled them not to take this step, which they seemed bent upon taking that night, because it was not merely Socialistic—that he could forgive—but it was unjust; and they had no right to apply a principle of injustice in dealing with public property.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had used an argument which was not quite correct, because this clause contained a provision stating that this property might be bought at cost price, and he was not aware of any settlement either of the Duke of Westminster or anyone else which contained, or was likely to contain, any such provision. The clause contained at the end the following Proviso:—
    "Provided that the price shall not be less than the price paid for the land when it was purchased on behalf of Her Majesty or of the county of Middlesex respectively."
    That meant that the land was to be purchased at cost price. Some hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House were inclined to think that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had made a compromise that even-

    1811
    ing; but he (Mr. Arnold) called it a delusion. It was no concession whatever, and the clause would contain in the Proviso now in it all the objectionable features which had been mentioned on the second reading and on the Motion for going into Committee. He wished to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the remarks of the Leader of the House (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) himself, when at an earlier hour of the evening he had defined what contentious matter was. The right hon. Baronet had stated that if they regarded as contentious matter that which was subject of debate none of their proceedings of the past three months would have taken place. But the last three months were not in question. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Three weeks, I said.] He begged the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. He also had been alluding to a question of weeks. The right hon. Baronet had proceeded to define contentious matter as matter upon which the House was fairly divided. He would ask the right hon. Baronet whether, after the last division but one, which showed that the opponents of the clause numbered more than half its supporters, he did not regard the Committee as fairly divided in opinion? Without going into the question of division he (Mr. Arnold) would call the attention of the right hon. Baronet to the speeches which had been made in regard to this clause from both sides of the House. From that side of the House the majority of speeches—like those of the hon. Members for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), and West Staffordshire (Mr. Staveley Hill), had all been against the clause; whilst on the other side of the House, with the exception of the two Metropolitan Members—the right hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) and the hon. Alderman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence)—all the speeches had been against the clause, except those of his hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) and the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst), who had avowedly supported the clause because they thought that in the future they might be able to claim the increment of value not only upon the property of the State, but also upon the property of the Marquess of Salisbury
    1812
    in London. He warned his hon. Friends that that was a delusion. It was like the Amendment which came from the Benches opposite. There was no question whatever that the principle adopted in this clause did strengthen the contention of his hon. Friend as to the public having a right to share in the increment of value but the error his hon. Friend made was this. They supported the clause because they believed that through the whole increment of value being given to the population of London, therefore in the case of private owners they could equitably claim the whole of the increment of value. They were right in the contention that the clause did strengthen their expectation—it did confirm the public right to a share in the increment of value in the Metropolis and throughout the Kingdom. Take another case. A year or two ago Her Majesty's Government proposed to take a small strip of land in St. James's Park for the purpose of erecting on it the new War and Admiralty Offices. There was a very strong claim indeed on the part of the people of London to the possession of the land. The last penny, however, was demanded by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to be paid down for the few yards of ground taken from the St. James's Park for the site of that building. From the point of view of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, this was a fair transaction; but, in his opinion, it was one which it was impossible to defend. The proceedings of the Committee on the clause now under discussion surely proved that Her Majesty's Government had not observed the pledge they had given the House not to proceed with any contentious Business. The opinion of the Committee was certainly fairly divided upon the clause, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that when that was the case upon any question, after the Government had given a pledge not to proceed with contentious matter, that question ought to be allowed to drop. If the Government were well-advised in this matter, they would certainly not proceed further with the clause; for unless they consented to abandon it a very small amount of confidence would be felt in their promises upon either side of the House in the future.
    MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, that earlier in the evening he had expressed

    1813
    the strong objection he felt to the clause, and he had no desire to repeat anything he had already said. He wished, however, to express his astonishment at the theory which had been started by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the nature and character of contentious Business. He should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have been satisfied by that time that the clause evidently amounted to contentious Business. The right hon. Gentleman said—"Let us have a division to test it;" but the right hon. Gentleman forgot that many right hon. and hon. Members had left the House for the country on the faith of what was understood to be a promise by the Government that no contentious Business would be taken. Had not the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer been so understood, he felt sure that many hon. Members who took an interest in the question would have made arrangements to be present during the discussion upon the clause. He would point out to the Government that less than one-fifth of the Members of the House were now present. Of course, under such circumstances, at the end of a Session, the Government had great advantages, because it had the votes of the Members of the Government itself, as well as those of hon. Gentlemen who supported it, on this matter. He had not heard any observations in reply to the remarks of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) and other hon. Gentlemen as to the strong opinions which were entertained against the clause. It had by no means been shown that the clause would operate for the benefit of the working classes, as it was intended to do. It proposed to give power to the Justices of Middlesex to sell land to the Metropolitan Board of Works at a reduced price, and the Metropolitan Board would be enabled either to build houses themselves or to grant land to other people for that purpose. Suppose they built houses themselves—and he should decidedly object to their doing so—what on earth was there in the clause to show what rents they should charge for them? The Metropolitan Board was left absolutely free to charge any rent they pleased, so that they would be able to impose competitive or rack-rents upon the working classes. Suppose, on the other hand, they granted leases. Such
    1814
    leases would, he presumed, be granted to builders who would undertake to build houses for the working classes; and the builders—although, no doubt, they would be benevolent persons—would not be actuated in the matter entirely by philanthropic motives. They would invest their money in the houses they put up with a view to profit; and what was to prevent them letting the houses, when erected, to the artizans of the Metropolis at any rents they pleased? There might be something in the clause which would prevent them, but he had certainly not been able to discover any provision of that character. Perhaps, if such a safeguard existed, the Home Secretary would tell the Committee where to find it? As far as he could discover, there was really nothing in the clause which, in the least degree, restricted the Metropolitan Board, or the builders, from letting the houses, when they were erected, at competitive rents. Under these circumstances, the great boon and advantage which the clause proposed to confer on the working classes would not reach their hands, or tend to reduce the rents they would have to pay; but would operate either to the benefit of the ratepayers of the Metropolis, or, if the Metropolitan Board granted leases, as would probably be the case, to men who built with a view of making a profit, it would result in enabling them to obtain the leases at lower rates, and to charge competitive rents to those who became the inhabitants of the houses. The effect would, therefore, probably be that the builders, and not the working classes, would obtain the benefits which were sought to be conferred upon the latter.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, that although he had in the division which had already taken place voted with the hon. Members who had initiated the discussion, he had not yet addressed the Committee, and he wished now to state why he was strongly opposed to this clause. As to the question of what was and what was not contentious Business, he thought that contentious matter might be regarded as matter which involved a disputed principle; and certainly the clause involved a principle of a highly contentious character. The question of principle now at issue was whether Parliament ought, or ought not, to make a large grant in aid, out of the public

    1815
    funds, to the ratepayers of the Metropolis. It was proposed to make such a grant at the most dangerous moment that could have been selected—that was to say, on the eve of a General Election which would involve a large increase—in the representation of the Metropolis. Considering that there were some 60 seats in the Metropolis, under the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill, and that all of them were to be contested, it was impossible to shut one's eyes to the consequences which must ensue from the adoption of such a clause as that under discussion. The Committee had seen the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Alderman Lawrence) acting together on this question in a way in which he did not think they had ever acted together on a Metropolitan question before. The clause involved a question of public morality, and the Government were settting a bad precedent, which might result in grave danger to the nation at large.
    MR. CAUSTONremarked, that he had taken no part in the discussion of the various Amendments which had been brought forward; but he could not allow the debate upon this clause to close without joining in the appeal which had been made to the Government in regard to it. He could quite understand that, from the point of view of the London ratepayers, it would be highly desirable that they should have national property handed over to one of their Governing Bodies without any expense whatever. But the property under discussion belonged as much to his constituents as it did to those who lived in London or in other towns, and he could not see his way to support a clause which did an act of injustice to those whose interests in this property were equal with those of the ratepayers of London. In fact, he protested against his constituents being taxed for the benefit of the Metropolitan ratepayers.
    MR. TOMLINSONthought the Committee ought not to be allowed to go to a division upon the clause under any misapprehension. As he understood the section, as modified in Committee, it did not really give to the working classes of London what had been called a great boon. The proposal, as it now stood, was that the land
    1816
    might be acquired by the Metropolitan Board at a fair market value, having regard to the fact that it was to be used for building houses. He did not know the relative values of land intended as a site for houses and land meant to be used as a site for factories in the Metropolis; but in the manufacturing districts land was usually sold at a lower price for factories than for houses. When, therefore, hon. Members talked about giving an unearned increment to the people of London, they ought to be careful that they were not exaggerating what the clause was intended to do. The reason on which the propriety of restricting the purpose to which the land was to be applied was based was that in past times Parliament had authorized the appropriation of large portions of land occupied by the houses of the working classes to public objects, and that, consequently, it owed something to those classes. If, therefore, the clause had the limited effect which he believed it had, it would not, he thought, go beyond what was fair. At the same time, he could not but feel that the clause did seem to involve some contentious matter.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he had no desire to continue the discussion respecting the merits or demerits of the clause, but wished to make one more appeal to the Government upon the subject. He really did put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the course of the debate upon the clause did not conclusively show that the matter it involved was contentious Business, such as the right hon. Gentleman stated six weeks ago would not be proceeded with? There was evidently a great deal of disagreement in the Committee, and a large number of Members entertained the most serious objections to the proposals which the section contained. Surely the Government must remember that those hon. Members who had gone into the country had done so on the faith of the promise which had been made that no sort of contentious Business would be brought forward, and in the belief that the pledge the Government had given would be loyally adhered to. Were not Ministers taking an unfair advantage of the absence of those hon. Members to press a clause of this kind? He was sure the Government did not wish to violate the pledge they had given;

    1817
    but, in point of fact, they would violate that pledge if they continued to press the clause. Let them not rely upon the fact that they had obtained a large majority in the division upon the Motion to go into Committee on the Bill. The arguments of the opponents of the clause had been addressed to empty Benches, and when the division was called the supporters of the Government flocked into the House and voted as directed by their Whips. That was not the kind of majority that was contemplated by the Constitution in a matter of this kind. There ought to be a substantial majority of the Members of the House upon a question which, like this, involved a far-reaching principle, and not a majority consisting of Members who did not enter the House until the division bells were rung. He appealed to the Government to consider what would be their moral position in the appreciation of those hon. Members who had gone into the country, and what such Members would think of a Ministry which passed a clause of this kind under such circumstances and in such a thin House. If the Government gave way on this point, he could assure them that the rest of the Bill would pass with little or no trouble, because this was the only clause to which any serious objection was entertained.
    MR. PELLsaid, that before the debate concluded he desired to draw attention to the differences in the proposals made by the Government. Ministers were content to sell Government property at a price below its real value in the interests of the poor. They said the question was one of such paramount importance to the poor that they were willing to sacrifice a great principle and to sell State property under its proper value. But when those who had charge of the Bill came to deal with similar property belonging to the county, they set aside the principle which guided them in regard to State property, and they protected the ratepayers of Middlesex by saying that the land should not be devoted to the purpose intended unless the Justices of the Peace of the county of Middlesex should think fit. They threw overboard the paramount interest of the poor—that interest which, he believed, had guided them in a wrong direotion—they cast it aside when they came to deal with county property. They
    1818
    said—"We will not do what we have some suspicion is not quite right unless the Justices of the Peace agree with us in doing it." It was evident that whoever counselled the drafting of the Bill had in their minds a very grave doubt whether they were doing right. They thought that public opinion would carry them through in dealing with State property; but they were afraid to face the Justices of Middlesex, who, no doubt, would be harassed by the ratepayers of the county if they agreed to part with their property on any other than the best possible terms. If the clause were passed, what would be its effect in other cases? In the very centre of the principal town of the county which he represented (South Leicestershire) was a large portion of property owned by the county. The Castle of Leicester, which had great historical associations, and a very large tract of ground, including that covered by the Militia buildings, belonged to the county. At some not very distant time he knew it was contemplated to part with this land. If the present clause were passed, in what position would the magistrates of the county of Leicester be if the borough of Leicester, quoting this 3rd clause as a precedent, interfered with the sale of county property in the interests of the labouring classes of Leicester, and insisted that a valuation should be put upon it in order that every opportunity might be given for the erection of artizans' dwellings? If the Committee passed this clause, it would, as a consequence, reduce the selling value of every acre of land in the Kingdom belonging to counties. If, under these circumstances, the clause did not involve contentious matter, he did not know what would, and he could not see why the Government should not cut the proposal out of the Bill. It was not universal philanthropy, but London philanthropy, that animated the supporters of the clause. Why confine all this goodness to London? The reason was that the Government had got hold of State property in London, and they thought they could deal with it in a manner to render themselves acceptable to the electors of the Metropolis. The arguments which had been used in the course of the debate were, he thought, sufficiently strong to show that there was great doubt whether, on the whole, such a use of

    1819
    this land as was proposed would be the most beneficial to the poor. An hon. Member had said that it would be better to leave the prison sites as open spaces, He (Mr. Pell) did not understand that the hon. Gentleman meant they should be given by the Treasury for such a purpose; but that a price might be paid for them. Depend upon it, a great open space would be one of the most desirable things to have in the midst of a crowded population, and he did not know that the authorities would be doing the best they could for the people in building over the prison sites. Those being his views on the question, he hoped the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Albert Grey) would divide the Committee, and that the Government would hesitate still more before they consented to facilitate the progress of this clause.
    MR. DILLWYNtrusted that the Government would yield to the appeal which had been made to them in regard to this clause, although he did not agree with every word which had been said against it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had given a very decided pledge that no contentious Business should be taken at the end of the Session, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to say whether he could now doubt that this was a contentious clause. He knew the right bon. Gentleman had listened to the debate with great attention, and that he must have heard many speakers condemning it on one ground or another, especially on the very strong ground that many Members who had left town would have opposed the clause if they had not thought it would have been regarded as contentious, and, therefore, would not have been pressed.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that when he last spoke on the subject he had ventured to point out what appeared to him to be the difference between non-contentious and contentious Business, and he bad appealed to the result of the division in which six voted on one side against something like 60 on the other. Since that time there bad been another division, in which he was bound to admit that the minority of six had increased to 20.
    An hon. MEMBER: No; 30.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No; that was on another point.
    An hon. MEMBER: It was the same principle.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the division to which he referred showed that 20 Members opposed the clause. Well, he did not think that quite bore out the contention of the hon. M ember for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), that there was a large number of Members who were opposed to the clause. Twenty was not a large number. What he would suggest to the Committee was this—that they might now fairly come to a division upon the clause, and if the result of that division was to show an increasing number against the clause the Government would not proceed with it.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 29: Majority 46.—(Div. List, No. 286.)
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDbegged to move that the Chairman do now report Progress, in order to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity for stating what course he proposed to take, as there bad been an increased vote on the Opposition side of the House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Arthur Arnold.)
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not think it would be right to discuss the subject now. He quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman that the minority was increasing, and, therefore, what he proposed to do was to leave the clause as it stood for the present, and to amend the words relating to the value on Report.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment of Artisans' Dwellings Acts, 1868 to 1882.
    Clause 4 (Amendment of 31 & 32 Vic. c. 130, and 42 & 43 Vic. c. 64. 45 & 46 Vic. c 54.)
    MR. J. R. HOLLOND MR. J. R. HOLLOND moved to omit "Sub-section (2.)" When the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was speaking on this sub-section yesterday, he spoke of it as if it applied only to Vestries in the Metropolis. He (Mr. Hollond) could not help thinking that when this sub-section

    1821
    was drawn the draftsman had in his mind the difficulty experienced in inducing Vestries to carry out Torrens's Acts. If that was so, there was nothing whatever in the sub-section which limited it to the Metropolis.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out Sub-section (2.)—(Mr. Hollond.)
    Question proposed, "That the subsection stand part of the Clause."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)assented to the Amendment.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he did not think he could offer any objection to this sub-section being omitted.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Amendment of Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Improvement Acts.
    Clause 5 (Amendment of 38 & 39 Vic. c. 36, s. 8, and schedule; 42 & 43 Vic. c. 63; 45 & 46 Vic. c. 54, schedule).
    On Motion of The SECRETARY of STATE (Sir R. Assheton Cross), the following Amendment made:—Page 5, line 25, leave out "in England," and insert "in the United Kingdom."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)proposed to insert, as separate paragraphs, after line 25—
    "(2.) In either of the following cases:

    (a.) Where an officer of health has reported to any local authority in the metropolis, exclusive of the City of London, either in pursuance of 'The Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act, 1868,' that any premises are in a condition or state dangerous to health, so as to be unfit for human habitation, or in pursuance of section eight of 'The Artizans' Dwellings Act, 1832,' that the pulling down of any obstructive buildings would be expedient, and such authority resolve that the case of such premises or buildings is of such general importance to the Metropolis that it should be dealt with by a scheme under the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Improvement Acts, 1875 to 1882; or

    (b.) Where any such official representation as mentioned in section three of 'The Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Improvement Act, 1875,' has been made to the Metropolitan Board of Works in relation to any houses, courts, or alleys within a certain area, and the Metropolitan Board of Works resolve that the case of such houses, courts, or alleys, is not of general importance to the Metropolis, and should be dealt with under the Artisans' Dwellings Acts 1868 to 1882:
    1822
    such local authority or board may submit such resolution to one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, and thereupon the Secretary of State may appoint an arbitrator, and direct him to hold a local inquiry, and such arbitrator shall hold such inquiry, and report to the Secretary of State as to whether, having regard to the size of the area, to the number of houses to be dealt with, to the position, structure, and sanitary condition of such houses, and of the neighbourhood thereof, and to the provisions of section three of 'The Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Improvement Act, 1875,' the case is either wholly or partially of any and what importance to the Metropolis at large, with power to such arbitrator to report that in the event of the case being dealt with under the Artizans' Dwellings Acts, 1868 to 1882, the Metropolitan Board of Works ought to make a contribution in respect of the expense of dealing with the case. The Secretary of State, after considering the report of the arbitrator, may, according as to him seems just, decide that the case shall be dealt with either under the Artizans' Dwellings Acts, 1868 to 1882, or under the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Improvement Acts, 1875 to 1882, and the officer of health or other proper officer shall forth with make the report or official representation necessary for proceedings in accordance with such decision."

    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREentirely approved of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, but desired to ask a question with reference to it. According to his speech on the second reading, the right hon. Gentleman thought that the Metropolitan Board should be subject to the High Court of Justice—that was to say, that the High Court of Justice should have power by mandamus to carry out the schemes of the Artizans' Dwellings Act. What he wished to know was whether the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman now proposed would have that effect—whether it would be competent for the Home Secretary or any individual to apply to the High Court of Justice to call upon the Metropolitan Board or other Local Authority to carry out the schemes under the Artizans' Dwellings Act?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, that when he spoke the other night, he had in his mind another Amendment to the clause, in which there was to be a special application to the High Court.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, the practice in such cases was, as the right hon. Gentleman knew, for the Secretary of State to send down an Inspector to report upon the matter. Let him mention the sort of case which might arise. Sup-

    1823
    pose that in a parish or district certain houses were a discredit to the neighbourhood in which they were, and should be pulled down. If the parish authorities made a scheme, it was brought before the confirming authority, and the Metropolitan Board of Works were expected to do the work. If the Metropolitan Board of Works refused to do it, the parish complaining applied to the Secretary of State, who sent down an Inspector to report. The Report might possibly be to the effect that the work was so small that it ought to be done by the Local Authority. He presumed the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was moving this Amendment so that he might compel the one or the other to do the work?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, that supposing a scheme was sent up to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and they said it ought to be carried out by the Vestry, then the Secretary of State had power to send down a gentleman to report as to what was best to be done. Upon that Report the Secretary of State would decide who ought to undertake the work. An Order would be issued in the ordinary way, and the Metropolitan Board of Works would not then be able to say it was too small, and ought to be done by the Vestry.
    MR. J. R. HOLLONDpresumed the Secretary of State might suggest to the Metropolitan Board of Works that they might make a contribution?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS): Yes.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS) moved to leave out the 2nd sub-section (2), in line 26.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Amendment at to Interest on Public Works Loans.
    Clause 6 (Rates of loan by Public Works Loan Commissioners) agreed to.
    Amendment of General Sanitary Law, &c.
    Clause 7 (General duty of Local Authority to enforce the law) agreed to.
    Clause 8 (Amendment of 38 & 39 Vic. c. 55, s. 90) agreed to.
    Clause 9 (Bye-laws for hop and fruit pickers) struck out.
    Clause 10 (Tents and vans used for human habitation.
    On Motion of The SECRETARY of STATE (Sir R. Assheton Cross), the following Amendments made:—Page 7, line 24, after "vans," insert "sheds."
    Page 7, line 28, at end of line, insert as fresh paragraphs—
    "(3.) Where any person duly authorised by a sanitary authority or by a justice of the peace has reasonable cause to suppose either that there is any contravention of the provisions of this Act or any bye-law made under this Act in any tent, van, shed, or similar structure used for human habitation, or that there is in any such tent, van, shed, or structure any person suffering from a dangerous infectious disorder, he may on producing (if demanded) either a copy of his authorisation purporting to be certified by the clerk or a member of the sanitary authority or some other sufficient evidence of his being authorised as aforesaid, enter by day such tent, van, shed, or structure, and examine the same and every part thereof in order to ascertain whether in such tent, van, shed, or structure there is any contravention of any such bye-law or a person suffering from a dangerous infectious disorder.
    (4.) For the purposes of this section 'day' means the period between six o'clock in the morning and the succeeding nine o'clock in the evening.
    (5.) If such person is obstructed in the performance of his duty under this section, the person so obstructing shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding forty shillings.
    (6.) This section shall apply to the Metropolis, with the substitution of section nineteen of 'The Sanitary Act, 1866,' for section ninety-one of 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' and of nuisance authority, under the Nuisance Removal Acts, for sanitary authority."
    Line 29, after "van," insert "shed."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 11 (Application of certain provisions as to bye-laws and local inquiries) agreed to.
    Clause 12 (Amendment of 45 & 46 Vic. c. 38, as regards the erection of buildings for working classes) agreed to.
    Clause 13 (Condition to be implied on letting unfurnished house).
    MR. HORACE DAVEYproposed to leave out the Preamble of the clause. He did not see the necessity of the Preamble; besides, in his opinion, it amounted to an erroneous statement of the law, and he did not like to cryatalize

    1825
    on the Statute Book so doubtful a statement of law. In proposing his Amendment he did not mean to differ from the principle which he understood was intended to be embodied in the clause— namely, that when a house was let for habitation it was implied by law that the house was fit for the purpose for which it was let. He did not dispute that principle; and he was quite ready to agree to the passing of a clause to that effect. He did not know whether the Home Secretary had done him the honour to look at the clause be had put on the Paper; but if he had, he would find that that clause carried out the principle in view directly, instead of indirectly, as this clause did. He thought it would be better to leave out the clause altogether, and frame a new one which directly asserted the principle, and made unfitness, as this clause did not, a ground for rescinding the contract, rather than for recovering of damages.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 8, line 30, to leave out from the word "Whereas," to the word "that," in line 31.— (Mr. Horace Davey.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Horace Davey) had made some very pertinent remarks upon this clause; and he thought the Home Secretary would do well to agree to the Amendment. The Preamble added no strength at all to the clause. He presumed the intention of Parliament was that a house must be structurally defective before this clause could be put in force. It was not intended that the clause should apply because a house was small, or had a slate off; but that it was in such a condition as to be likely to breed disease amongst those who occupied it, especially from unseen and unknown causes. Would it not be well that the clause should read something in this way—
    "Wherever the Sanitary Authority or inmates discovered there was something structurally wrong they should have the right of action, if necessary, against the landlord in order to remedy it."
    If that was the idea of the right hon. Gentleman it could be shown in very simple terms, and without disturbing the law of the land.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, he was not responsible for the drafting of this clause, and he had no objection to the Preamble being struck out; but he could not consent to the whole of the clause being struck out. The Bill had been before the House for some time, and he thanked the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) for having been the only Member who had ventured to improve the Bill by drawing up a new clause in substitution of one he proposed to omit. If other hon. Members had done the same, greater progress might have been made with the measure. He himself had thought there were certain modifications of this clause necessary. He did not himself object to applying the principle of the clause to all houses; but he thought that in this particular Bill it was better to confine themselves to small houses. Then the clause might be so modified as to provide that in any contract made after the passing of the Act, for the letting for habitation by the working classes of any house, there should be an implied condition that the house, at such time of letting, was in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation. The clause would then run—
    "In any contract made after the passing of this Act for letting for habitation by persons of the working classes a house or part of a house, there shall be implied a condition that at the time of letting the house is an all respects reasonably fit for such human habitation."
    He had no objection to accept the clause as he had modified it, striking out, as proposed, the Preamble.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the words from "that," in line 31, to "that," in line 33, be left out of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)proposed to insert, after "contract," in page 8, line 34, "made after the passing of this Act."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. HORACE DAVEYsuggested it would be better to say "in any lease or contract for letting."
    MR. STAVELEY HILLthought it would be sufficient to say "in any

    1827
    demise of a furnished or unfurnished house."
    Amendment agreed to.
    On Motion of The SECRETARY of STATE (Sir E. Assheton Cross) the following Amendments made:—Page 8, line 34, after "habitation," insert "by persons of the working classes; "line 34, leave out "an unfurnished," insert "a;" line 35, leave out "an unfurnished," insert "a."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)suggested that after "is," in line 36, the words "at the date of the contract "be inserted.
    SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWthought it would be better to say "at the time of the letting."
    SIR HENRY JAMESwas of opinion that the words used should be "at the commencement of the holding."
    Question, "That the words 'at the commencement of the holding 'be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. STOREYthought it would be as well to strike out the rest of the clause. He did not know what "reasonably" meant.
    SIR HENRY JAMESwished to point out what was merely a clerical error. The word "is" ought to be "shall be."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, that "reasonably fit for human habitation" seemed to him to be the proper words.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Amendment now before the Committee was to leave out the word "such."
    Question, "That the word 'such 'stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the word 'human' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, that after the word "habitation" he would like to put the following Amendment:—
    "Provided the term 'reasonably fit for human habitation' shall be held to include a sufficient and convenient supply of water to the house in respect of which the water rates have to be paid by the landlord."
    He moved that because the condition of drains would have to be considered in the matter of whether it was fit for habita-
    1828
    tion, and without a supply of water it could not be. They knew that if there was one thing they found more often than another, in regard to labourers' dwellings, it was the absence of a supply of water; and he thought that a clause such as this to compel owners of property to give a good supply of water would tend more than anything else towards healthy habitations.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEconsidered that the object which the hon. Member had in view was fully carried out by the clause as it stood at present.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, that if it was the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that the words of the clause did cover this point, then he was satisfied.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, that, having got down so far, he thought they might leave out the rest of the clause for the purpose of putting in these words, which were on the Notice Paper—
    "In this section the expression 'letting for habitation by members of the working classes' means the letting for habitation of a house or part of a house at a rent not exceeding in England the sum named as the limit for the composition of rates by section three of 'The Poor Rate Assessment or Collection Act, 1869,' and in Ireland four pounds."
    Therefore, he moved to leave out to the end of the clause.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    SIR ROBERT FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)said, he had undertaken to move an Amendment for the hon. Member for Mid Surrey (Sir Whittaker Ellis); but as those words were to be struck out there was no necessity for him to move it.
    MR. ONSLOWremarked that the Home Secretary had said that this was a Bill for the purely working classes. If that were so, there could be no harm whatever in letting these words remain in the clause.
    MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, the reason for leaving them out was because they did not determine the remedy. They did not say that the tenant should terminate the demise, or do anything else.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLdid not think it mattered very much, because he thought that any tenant who found himself in that position would very soon terminate the demise.
    Amendment agreed to.
    SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsaid, he would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell them why he had not put in the words "twenty pounds." They had put in "four pounds" in the case of Ireland, but they had not put in the exact amount in regard to England. Unless the right hon. Gentleman had some good reason for not doing so, he thought they should put in "twenty pounds." There was no reason why they should be compelled to go to another Act of Parliament to see what the amount was.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)said, that he wished to show where the proposal came from; and, therefore, he had inserted the words as they were in the Amendment.
    MR. INCEdid not see why they could not put in the actual amount. There was nothing so needlessly inconvenient to practitioners as the practice of sending them from statute to statute in order to ascertain the real effect of an enactment.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)thought that after the words "Act, 1869," they might insert the words "namely, twenty pounds."
    Amendment proposed, to insert after "1869" the words "namely, twenty pounds."
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    LORD BURGHLEYdid not think that his Amendment was wanted now.
    Supplemental.
    Clause 14 (Definitions).
    On Motion of The SECRETARY of STATE (Sir R. Assheton Cross) the following Amendment made:—Page 9, line 8, after "authority," insert "and contributory place."
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he had an Amendment in line 14. He begged to move to leave out the words "half an" and insert "one." The object of the Amendment was to provide that the
    1830
    expression "cottage" might include a garden of "one "acre instead of "half an" acre. He laid great stress upon that, because it would make all the difference to those people whom it was intended to benefit, and who might do much better if they had an additional half acre. They might do better with one acre; but as the clause now stood they would not be able to have more than half an acre.
    Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 14, to leave out the words "half an," and insert the word "one,"— (Mr. Jesse Collings,) instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEthought there was something to say in favour of the views of his hon. Friend upon the strength of the evidence that was taken before the Royal Commission; but still, under the circumstances under which the half acre was arrived at by the Commission as a compromise, he felt precluded from supporting the Amendment.
    MR. BROADHURSThoped the Committee would not listen to the compromise, and would accept the Amendment. What they wanted to do was to keep the people in the rural districts rather than let them gradually flock into the small towns, and that would be best done by allowing them to have industrial dwellings on these small plots of land. The Amendment struck at the root of the evil, because it proposed to keep a great number of people out of the towns; and, therefore, they would not be obliged to provide for them in the cities by legislation hereafter.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDconsidered that, as a matter of economic cultivation, a cottager would be better able to pursue husbandry if he had one acre than if he had half-an-acre; and, therefore, he thought the Amendment should be accepted.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, that no man could support himself on one acre.
    MR. BROADHURSTremarked that it would go a long way.
    THE PRESIDENT (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, that evidence showed that oven five acres could not support a man

    1831
    who had no other work. It ought to be borne in mind also that what they were asked to give was to be paid for out of the rates; and for those reasons he thought the compromise, which had not been arrived at without very careful consideration, should be accepted.
    MR. BROADHURSTstated that within a short time he had been on a plot of land of less than two acres, the rent of which was £12 a-year, although it was situated next to land which was only fetching £1 5s. an acre. Although it had no pig-sties attached, on this small plot of land—without pigs—a man was earning a very good living, with the assistance of a little filling up in the winter months.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLthought that half-an-acre was the proper figure. He had a great deal of experience, and he knew that a man could not cultivate more than half-an-acre.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTdid not believe that a man could cultivate one acre sufficiently to keep himself, if he had other work, unless he had the assistance of sons or other relatives. He was willing to give those people everything that they could give them; but he was certain that they could not work more than half-an-acre.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, it was very amusing to hear hon. Members opposite say what they would be very glad to give these people; but that was not the question at all. It was not the question whether they should be compelled to have an acre, but whether they should have the option of having it. There were many cases in which the possession of one acre would be worth twice or three times as much as half-an-acre, because the man had labour to work it. The President of the Local Government Board had talked about this land being given out of the rates; but he did not understand that they were going to give this to the man. The man would have to pay for what he had. The only question was whether the principle of compulsory acquisition which this Bill contained should be extended from half-an-acre to an acre. He attached great value to the alteration, and should divide the Committee on it.
    MR. STOREYsaid, his sympathies were with his hon. Friend below him, but his judgment was against him. This was not a Bill for providing allotments.
    MR. BROADHURST: It is.
    MR. STOREY: It is not.
    MR. BROADHURST: It is.
    MR. STOREYsaid, it was a Bill for providing decent habitations for working people, and to it there had been added this proposal that the labouring men should also have half-an-acre of land. He did not object to that at all; but he would ask hon. Gentlemen just to remember this—that they must take some account of the means of these poor men. The cottages which were to be built out of the rates would not be built more cheaply than other cottages; these people would have to pay rent for them, and if they had more land given they would have more rent to pay. He thought the Committee ought to be content with the original proposal of the Bill.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he did not wish to have an unintentional, no doubt, though a very false interpretation given to his statement by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot). What he had stated was that for a plot of land of less than two acres the labourers were paying £12 a-year ground rent, whilst farmers in adjoining fields were paying 25 s. per acre or less, and that even under these circumstances the labourers did very well, being able to employ themselves profitably during bad times of the year. He had not said that these labourers were making large profits and keeping their families comfortably. He knew an experienced labourer who had stated to him that although his rent was extremely high, if he were permitted to build a pig-sty and erect a stable for a pony the rent would be reasonable, and he would be able to make a good living without additional employment. This man lived three miles from any city or town. With regard to the statement of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) that this was not a Bill for providing allotments, he wished to point out that the measure certainly had that object. Allotments were at the root of the question of the housing of the working classes in the rural districts, as it had been proved before the Royal Commission over and over again, by most competent witnesses—from the Earl of Shaftesbury downwards. It was proved that where good allotments were attached to cottages, the labourers could much getter afford to pay a large rent than

    1833
    they could afford to pay a small one where there were no allotments attached. Therefore, he contended that his hon. Friend was quite within the four corners of the Bill—indeed, that he was improving the Bill in the direction in which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had admitted it could be made of much value. There was no doubt whatever that this Committee would be doing the wisest possible thing in accepting the Amendment of his hon. Friend, inasmuch as the provision would not be compulsory.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he would point out to hon. Members who had not read the evidence that nearly the whole—at any rate, he might say for safety, two-thirds—of the rural evidence was taken up with the proofs of the advantages of these allotments not only on the part of the labourers, but also on the part of such men as the Rev. Mr. Stubbs and other clergymen, who had stated that allotments alone would solve the question of rent—that though it was practically impossible for these labourers to pay anything like a large rent for their cottages, yet it was easy for them to pay a higher rent for a cottage with an allotment attached to it. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) had read the evidence, he would have avoided falling into two blunders—namely, one in supposing that this Bill was not a Bill for allotments, and the other in believing that labourers would think themselves well-off with half-an-acre of land. He (Mr. Jesse Collings) thought the labourers would be very much disappointed if they got no more than half-an-acre. As to the compromise which his hon. Friend said had been arrived at, the division had been taken at a time when it was not expected to come on. There had been a misunderstanding in the matter, and some Gentlemen had not been present. Some who were not present would undoubtedly have objected to the compromise if they had been present. He mentioned that to show that the compromise was, at all events, not universal. He would recommend that they should not say in the clause that a labourer should be obliged to have half-an-acre, but that he might be allowed to take "not more than an acre."
    SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsaid, he agreed with the proposed Amendment. Where a man was in constant work he could not cultivate more than one-eighth of an acre; but there were large numbers of working men, such as plumbers and painters, who had not constant employment all the year round, or who had to job about the country and did not get continuous work. To such men these allotments would be invaluable in enabling them to make use of time which would otherwise be lost. He thought they ought to meet the wishes of these people. He had had 44 men at a time each holding an eighth of an acre. When a man was in constant work he would take an eighth. Some would take a quarter; but when a man had really precarious work he wanted a larger plot of land to enable him to cultivate it with advantage. The men who worked upon plots of land in this way were amongst the most deserving men in the country.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, the hon. Baronet who had just sat down seemed to have forgotten that each of these men of whom he spoke believed each year that he was going to have constant work; and, no doubt, the hon. Baronet's experience would bear out his— that when work was least slack workmen took gardens most readily. It was when they had plenty of work that they entered upon gardening with the most zeal.
    SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsaid, that he could not agree with his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Staveley Hill).
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 1G: Majority 35.—(Div. List, No. 287.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary why he kept in the Proviso at the end of the clause—
    "Provided that the estimated annual value of such garden shall not exceed one pound?"
    They had just heard from an hon. Member that a labourer might have to pay £6 for an acre, or £12 for two acres. It

    1835
    seemed to him that it would be only reasonable to take that Proviso out of the clause.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, the point suggested by the hon. and gallant Baronet was a very important one. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would go downinto——
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. and gallant Baronet move anything?
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: Yes; I move to strike out the word "one."
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Baronet cannot amend the clause. The Question is, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he thought the hon. and gallant Baronet was in Order.
    THE CHAIRMAN: No; the Question has been put that Clause 14 stand part of the Bill. The hon. and gallant Baronet can move the Amendment on Report.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    THE SECRETARY THE STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS): We now come to the Amendments to Clause G which were postponed.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, he begged to move the first Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray), the object of which was to make the rates of interest charged in this Bill retrospective. There were a great many people in Ireland to whom this clause ought to apply who had borrowed money, but had not yet drawn the whole of it, and who had drawn money, but had not yet returned it. If this Amendment were not adopted many Artizans' Dwellings Companies would be placed at a great disadvantage, for they might have borrowed money at 3½ or 4 per cent. No reference in the clause was made to the Acts of 1879 and 1881 which affected Ireland, and under which money had been borrowed at 3½ and 4 per cent. The favourable clauses for borrowing money in the present Bill should be extended to these Acts, and to money borrowed and not yet returned, and money granted and not yet taken. The
    1836
    right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would see that this was a fair demand to make, particularly when they bore in mind what a hard struggle it was for many existing Artizans' Dwellings Companies to continue their laudable work.
    Amendment proposed,
    In Clause 6, page 5, line 32, after the word "advanced," to insert the words "or to be advanced."—(Mr. Dawson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not agree to the Amendment. It appeared to be an attempt to upset bargains already entered into in order that a lower interest might be paid for borrowed money. That was a retrospective principle that he could not accept. When he had been asked whether or not it was intended to make this clause retrospective, he had replied that it was not so intended. He hoped the hon. Member would not press the proposal.
    Amendment negatived.
    Remaining Clauses agreed to.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS): I now move my new clause with reference to the application of the Act to Ireland—
    "In the application of this Act to Ireland, the following provisions shall take effect:—

    "(1.) 'The Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878,' shall be substituted for 'The Public Health. Act, 1875,' and in particular the references in this Act to sections ten, ninety, ninety-one, and one hundred and seventy-five to one hundred and seventy-eight, both inclusive, of 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' shall be respectively taken to be references to sections eight, one hundred, one hundred and seven, and two hundred and two to two hundred and four, both inclusive, of 'The Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878,' and the reference to sections two hundred and ninety-three to two hundred and ninety-six, both inclusive, of "The Public Health Act, 1875,' shall be taken to be a reference to sections two hundred and nine, two hundred and ten, two hundred and twelve, and two hundred and thirteen of 'The Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878;'

    "(2.) The provisions of this Act which relate exclusively to the adoption by rural sanitary authorities of the Labouring Classes Lodging Houses Acts, 1851 to 1867, shall not apply to Ireland;

    "(3.) The Local (Government Board for Ireland shall be substituted for the Local Government Board;

    1837

    "(4.) The Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland shall be substituted for the Public Works Loan Commissioners;

    "(5.) This Act, so far as it amends 'The Labouring Classes Lodging Houses and Dwellings (Ireland) Act, 1866,' shall be construed with that Act, and that Act shall be included amongst the Labouring Classes Lodging Houses Acts, 1851 to 1867, as they are referred to under that description in this Act. So much of subsection four of section twenty-one of the said Act of 1866 as provides that no bye-laws made under that Act shall be of any legal force until the same shall have received the approval of the Chief Secretary or Under Secretary for Ireland, shall be amended by substituting therein the Local Government Board for Ireland in lieu of the Chief or Under Secretary;

    "(6.) Nothing contained in this Act shall prevent the adoption by any town commissioners, not being an urban sanitary authority, or by any such company, society, association, or private persons as are therein referred to, of 'The Labouring Classes Lodging Houses and Dwellings (Ireland) Act, 1866, by whom that Act might have been adopted if this Act had not been passed."

    New Clause (Application of Act to Ireland,)—(Sir R. Assheton Cross,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, that, in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray), he begged to move the following new Clauses:—
    "It shall not be lawful for any private dwelling house constructed for the use of a single family, and so occupied or last occupied at the time of the passing of this Act, to be occupied by more than one family, without a certificate from the sanitary authority of the district that due provision has been made in such house for the separation of the sexes, for suitable sanitary accommodation, and for sufficient light and air; and such certificate shall state the number of rooms in every such house permitted to be occupied, the number of cubic feet in each room, and the number of persons who may occupy each room.
    "It shall not be lawful for any building constructed as a coach-house, out-house, or stable, and occupied or last occupied as such at the time of the passing of this Act, to be occupied by any family, unless under the regulations laid down in the foregoing section.
    He wished to explain that in some towns in Ireland there were large houses which had been turned into tenement houses, having, years ago, been occupied by the better classes. This was especially the case in Dublin, Limerick, and Cork. He maintained that these clauses were necessary, under the circumstances, in order to see that the people did not go into houses which were inadequate for com-
    1838
    fort and decency and sanitary purposes He wished to prevent tenement houses of the kind he had mentioned being relet without its being shown that they possessed proper sanitary conditions as to cubic space, light, ventilation, air, &c. A great deal of money had been lost in building new houses when available houses were at hand—houses which, with a little expense, could be made extremely valuable for artizans' dwellings. The clause would operate in such cases. He did not mean it to be retrospective; but he desired that in the future no houses of this character should be let as tenement houses without a certificate from the Sanitary Authority that they had been made habitable. With regard to the second part of the proposal, it was common in Ireland to let coach-houses and stables as dwelling-houses, and they were very often let in a very unsanitary condition. He thought none of those places should be so let until a certificate had been obtained.
    New Clause (Occupation of tenement houses,)—(Mr. Dawson,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be road a second time."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEthought that everything the hon. Gentleman wished to be done could be done by the present law. There were tenement regulations under the present law which provided for what the hon. Gentleman wished. In regard to towns where there were no tenement regulations, all that was necessary was that the Local Authorities should adopt the regulations. The Commission did not receive any evidence in Ireland in respect to the point raised by the last four lines of the hon. Gentleman's clause.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, that what his hon. Friend (Mr. Gray) wanted to secure was that a house should not be occupied by more than one family until it had been certified as having complied with certain and proper regulations.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)thought the last four lines of the clause should come in a public Health Bill.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. MONCKTONsaid, the Amendment which stood in his name provided

    1839
    that the appointment and removal of the Sanitary Inspector should be subject to the approval of the Local Government Board. It was very desirable, considering the important functions this officer would have to exercise under this Bill, that there should be some guarantee of his fitness for the post he was to occupy. If the appointment was subject to the approval of the Local Government Board, they would have, at least, an additional guarantee that the officer was qualified to discharge the duties required of him. He thought it was also very desirable, as he stated yesterday on the second reading of the Bill, that this officer should be altogether independent of the Local Authority, and free from the consequences of interfering with any property belonging to the Local Authority. He should be extremely glad if the Government could see their way to accept his clause.
    New Clause—
    (Appointment of Inspector.)
    "The appointment and removal of the Sanitary Inspector charged with the execution of any of the provisions of this Act shall be subject to the approval of the Local Government Board,"— (Mr. Monckton,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, that at present in districts outside the Metropolis, where the Government paid part of the salaries of Inspectors, there was control over the appointments. In the Metropolis, however, no such control existed; but then there was no subvention from the public funds. Without such subvention it would be manifestly wrong to insist upon control. He thought, however, that the object his hon. Friend had in view could be met by the Consolidated Bill for London.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Schedule.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)proposed to leave out from "repealed," in page 10, line 2, to end of line.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Other Amendments made.
    Schedules, as amended, agreed to.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) BILL. [Lords.]— [BILL 249.]
  (Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) BILL. [Lords.]— [BILL 249.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    COLONEL NOLANproposed the following new Clause:—
    "Any owner may enter into an agreement with one or more of his tenants to let to him or them a portion or the whole of any grass or mountain farm conditionally on the Land Commissioners approving of the sale of such land to such tenant or tenants; and, should the Commissioners approve of this agreement, the tenant or tenants will be considered the occupying tenants of such land for the purposes of this Act: Provided, That such portion does not exceed thirty acres of grass or fifty acres of mountain land for any one tenant.
    "The Commissioners may make rules to enable tenants to be treated as the occupying tenants of a grass or mountain farm which the landlord may wish to sell to them."
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman said, he had modified the Amendment since last night by restricting its operation, and he hoped that in its present shape the Government would be able to accept it. The operation of the clause could not be considered injurious to any proprietor, because it simply amounted to this—that when land was being sold the tenants on it could buy a small bit of land which was not in their own occupation. The want of a few acres of grass land was very keenly felt by the people of Gal-way and Mayo, and it was on their behalf he proposed this clause.
    New Clause (Purchase of grass farms)—[Colonel Nolan,)—brought up, and read the first and second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be added to the Bill."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, by this Bill it was proposed to make advances to tenants to enable them to purchase their holdings. By this clause, however, it was suggested that persons should receive money for the purpose of purchasing grass land which they did not occupy. Such a suggestion was entirely outside the scope of the Bill, and therefore could not be accepted.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, it appeared to him that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was, to say the least of it, straining the matter very severely when he argued that the suggestion was outside the purview of the Bill. He (Colonel King-Harman) maintained that it was not. He would, however, very much prefer the Amendment which he had put on the Paper to that of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan). He was quite persuaded that a landlord might be quite ready to sell a small portion of good land adjoining the tenant's holding, or it might be a portion of bog land from which the tenant could obtain a supply of fuel, a commodity which was not very valuable to the landlord, but of great value to the tenant; besides, in course of time the tenant might make the bog land itself valuable. He really could not see any objection to the clause. He knew that when his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Nolan) brought the clause up on a previous occasion there was an idea that it meant the breaking up of grass land. His impression was that, so far from that being the case, the operation of the clause would very much improve grass lands. He knew, and everybody must know, that a few acres of grass land would make everything to a tenant whose holding now was scarcely big enough for him to live upon.
    MR. SEXTONthought that this was strictly a matter which could be dealt with by the Bill. If they stuck strictly by legal ideas in carrying out this Bill, what would happen? The tenants would only get agricultural holdings; and without the grazing rights they had hitherto had their holdings would be of very little use to them. He thought his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Nolan) would do well to withdraw his Amendment in favour of that of the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman), which appeared to be very terse and clear, and to meet the necessities of the case; because if a landlord and tenant combined together in this matter, no doubt it would have an effect on the Land Commission, who would be more inclined thereby to take the question into consideration.
    MR. O'SHEAappealed to the Government to accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member
    1842
    for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman). There was no doubt that unless this Amendment, or an Amendment in the same sense was accepted, a great deal of land that ought to be sold, and would otherwise be sold, would be absolutely unsaleable. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) had spoken about Mayo and Galway. He (Mr. O'Shea) could also speak about Mayo. He knew many properties in that county on which it would be very difficult indeed to make arrangements with tenants unless they could arrange with regard to grass land. In County Clare there were a great many properties on which it would be even more difficult than on those in Mayo to make sales unless some such Amendment as that under consideration was accepted. He had got some land in County Clare which it would be impossible to sell unless he could cut up the mountain grazing and bog amongst his tenants. With the exception of two or three, it would not be worth the while of the tenants unless they could buy mountain land for grazing purposes in the portions they required. He did not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes) had placed himself in a position to speak as strongly as he had done on this subject. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had had time to take the opinion of many of those he represented he would have found them as strong in favour of an Amendment like that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel King-Harman) as the hon. and gallant Gentleman was himself. Unless the Government accepted the Amendment they would find that in a great many instances—in more instances than they imagined—the Bill would be absolutely inoperative.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTthought this question was one that came well within the scope of the Bill, and one which the Government ought to accept if they wanted the Bill to be workable.
    MR. HEALYtook a similar view. He would make an appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether it was really worth while keeping up this discussion? When there was so much agreement on all sides of the House on this point, it was a shame that they should

    1843
    be put off with, a mere technical objection by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes). They were meeting the Government in an exceedingly fair manner, because there were many points that the Irish Members would like to discuss if it were not for the late period of the Session. The Government must confess that they bad given them very much indulgence in order to enable them to go on with the Bill; and he hoped, therefore, that they would gracefully accept this Amendment.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET)said, his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, who could not speak again, bad asked him to express on his behalf his very great regret that he could not accept this Amendment. It had been very carefully considered not only by his right hon. and learned Friend, but also by Lord Ashbourne, who had originally considered this Bill. His right hon. and learned Friend would have been very glad if he could have accepted it. What he felt, and the ground upon which his objection rested, was this—that the Amendment would be a departure from the principle of the Bill, which was to advance money to the actual tenant of a holding. This was a proposal to advance money to a person who was not the actual tenant of the holding. If the landlord wanted to see to these people he could easily do so. It was not through unwillingness that they could not accept the Amendment, but because they bad very carefully considered it, and found that they could not approve of the scheme it involved.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, he did not consider that a single reason bad been advanced for not accepting the Amendment. Lord Ashbourne might have considered the matter; but then all the Irish Members in that House without dissent agreed that it was not only a useful, but a necessary clause. Let him take the case of his district. The refusal to accept this Amendment would take nine-tenths of the land of King's County out of the operation of the Bill. It was nearly all bog, which was not included in this Bill, and the tenants could not take advantage of the Bill, because if they did they would have to give up their right to cut bog. While the Go-
    1844
    vernment declared that this Bill was brought in on behalf of the landlord and tenant equally—although they might have different opinions on that subject—they absolutely refused to pass a clause which would enable them to agree. The result of this would be that this Bill would be of no use to the tenants in his county. They would not give up the right to cut bog, and, therefore, the Government were depriving the people they said they desired to improve of the whole benefits of the Bill. Let them look back for a minute to former legislation on this and kindred subjects. The Irish Members had pressed them over and over again in regard to matters of this sort, but had been persistently refused. What was the result? Why, the result was this—that they were there again after five years to remedy the obvious mistakes that they had made up to this time. Still they refused this Amendment, although nobody could find any reason for refusing. Could they find a single Irish Member in that House who would support them in their refusal? They said that the matter had been considered by Lord Ashbourne and the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (the Attorney General for Ireland); but he would ask them if they would put the opinions of those two Gentlemen against the opinions of all the Irish Members? While the Irish Members were doing their best to help them they were still obstinate in their refusal; and all be could say was that, as far as his county was concerned, they were simply cutting the tenants in that county out of all the benefits contained in the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the said Clause be added to the Bill."
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN(speaking seated, with head covered): May I ask the Government whether, if they reject this Amendment, they will accept mine which follows?
    MR. SPEAKER: The bon. and gallant Member is only entitled to speak at this point upon a point of Order.
    The House divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 40: Majority 21.—(Div. List, No. 288.)
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, that after the determined opposition of the

    1845
    Government he would not move his Amendment.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES),in moving, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 22, after "1881," to leave out to the end of the sub-section, said, the object of it was this—the sum of £2,000 was inserted in the Bill in Committee, subject to the consideration of the Government, who were to look into the matter. They found that, in the last Act, the sum fixed was £3,000, with power to the Commissioners to raise it to £5,000, if they thought fit. Her Majesty's Government now thought it would be better to alter the sum to what it was in the old Act.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 22, to leave out from "1881," to end of Sub-section (a).— (Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said sub-section."
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he wished to point out that the sum of £3,000 would enable the Commissioners to advance money for the purchase of holdings, the rents of which were £150; but if they put it at £5,000 they would make it possible to advance money for the purchase of holdings at rents of £250 per annum. He hardly thought that the Bill was intended for such largo tenants as that, and he thought that even the Land Commissioners ought hardly to have the power of advancing money in such cases. He would not press his suggestion to a division; but he recommended it to the consideration of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, he was willing to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton).
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, lines 23 and 24, to leave out the words "two thousand pounds."— (Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the words 'three thousand pounds' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. HEALY MR. HEALY moved, in page 1, line 24, at the end of the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words—
    "And provided that if the landlord agrees to sell to any person "who has been evicted on his estate the word 'tenants 'in this section shall include any such person."
    There was no greater eyesore in the country at the present time than the number of tenants who had been evicted, and they were the cause of all the mischief which took place, and for that reason he moved his Amendment. If the Government would consent to accept it, they would do away with a great deal of the trouble which existed. It would put an end to a great deal of the distress of the people, to the shooting of caretakers, to the houghing of cattle, and to all those evils which had been a running sore throughout the country for years.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)regretted that this was an Amendment to which he must object. The principle of the Bill was to deal with existing tenants, and an evicted tenant was not a tenant. It was already possible for the landlord to reinstate a tenant in the possession of his farm, in order to deal with him under this Bill; and, therefore, this Amendment was unnecessary.
    MR. O'SHEApointed out that the reinstatement of the tenant by the landlord would be a very roundabout way of dealing with, the matter. Suppose, moreover, the landlord reinstated an evicted tenant, and the sale was not effected, he would still be a tenant, and could appeal to the Court for the purchase.
    MR. SEXTONrecognized that the Government had made a good start by attempting to govern Ireland with the ordinary law, and they would see what would happen during the coming winter. He should have thought, however, that they would have done well by accepting this Amendment, which would have removed one of the most perilous elements in the country during the winter. Seeing that they had replaced coercion with the ordinary law they would have done a wise thing to have made this concession.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANwas bound to say that he should oppose this Amendment. It seemed to him to be an absurd thing to say that the State should trust a man whose only claim to be trusted was that he had not paid his rent, and had been very properly evicted in consequence. It would raise a very bad feeling indeed amongst the honest tenants if they saw these people put in as State tenants on as good, terms as they themselves obtained.
    MR. DAWSONthought the Government should put in this Amendment as an intimation to the landlords, who had so much to do with the government of Ireland, that they had commenced a new era in the administration of that country. If they desired the success of their Bill they certainly would insert it, and he had no doubt they would eventually have to thank the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) for having suggested it. The hon. and learned Member had put his mark on another Act, and if his suggestions had been more fully carried out they would not be in the position they were in now. If they put a "Healy Clause" in this Bill they would probably make it a success.
    MR. P. J. POWERmerely rose to corroborate what had fallen from his hon. Friends. He thought that if a good many of these people had the power of appealing to the Courts they would be able to prove that they were evicted for the non-payment of impossible rents. They ought to accept the Amendment. There were many difficulties in the way of carrying out the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, because if once reinstated the tenant might double on the landlord, and place him in a very false position. As another hon. Member had pointed out also, it was in the interest of peace during the coming winter that they asked for this proposal to be accepted.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAreally thought the Government ought to accept this Amendment. If the landlord had to replace the evicted tenant in the position of an existing tenant before he could deal with him he would be placing himself in a very false position, because the Land Court might not, after all, allow the purchase money. It would be a very hard thing, under those circum-
    1848
    stances, that they should saddle the landlord with a tenant whom he had previously had to evict.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped that hon. Members would not prolong this discussion. It was now 3 o'clock in the morning—
    MR. HEALY: We did not begin until 2. We were waiting all that time.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that if hon. Members wished to persevere with the proposal he would be perfectly willing to adjourn the debate; but in that case the Bill would have to take its chance. All these points had been raised in Committee——
    MR. HEALY: Never before; never mentioned before.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that at all events a great many things had been discussed in Committee, and had been then decided. His right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland had prepared Amendments to meet all the points that were then raised, and was ready to move them; but if new Amendments were to be raised it appeared to him that they would never finish the discussion of the Bill. He would make an appeal to hon. Members in the most friendly spirit to conclude this debate, which he thought had been very inconveniently prolonged for all of them.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were not quite fair to Irish Members. They had waited through the night until the Bill was reached, and when the right hon. Gentleman complained of new Amendments he should remember that they now heard the Government Amendments for the first time, and had at once to weigh and seriously consider them. These Amendments were half promised by the Attorney General for Ireland when the Bill was in Committee; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman had minimized the demands Irish Members made, and the fulfilment of the promises he gave. Certainly on this particular point he agreed they should take a division for their own sakes, to have it on record that they made this offer and it was refused.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he was exceedingly sorry the Government had

    1849
    taken up this position. They had the opportunity, in a very simple way, to do a great good and avoid a great evil. What harm could come of the Amendment? Landlords need not treat with their evicted tenants unless they chose; there was no compulsion; it was only giving them the chance of doing so. The hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman) said if this were done it would be putting on a level men who had paid their honest debts and those who had not. That amounted to a statement that all the evicted tenants were dishonest men who refused to pay their just debts; but that was a statement he altogether denied. Collectively those tenants were as honest as any in the land; but they failed to pay exorbitant rack-rents—dishonest claims, though legally exacted—and so they were evicted from their holdings. In this lay an evil and danger to society in Ireland, and he was surprised that the Government had not grasped this mode of dealing with it harmlessly, without injury to any class in the country. He hoped it was not too late to appeal to the Government to reconsider their determination. No class could reasonably object if the Government seized this opportunity to settle a great difficulty. The more he thought of it, the better and simpler the proposal seemed. Upon the Government must rest the responsibility of needlessly refusing a simple proposition which, if accepted, would produce excellent effects in Ireland from every possible point of view.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 45: Majority 34.—(Div. List, No. 289.)
    Clause 3 (Deposit of money as guarantee fund).
    On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND the following Amendments made:—In page 2, line 16, leave out from "until," to "and," and insert—
    "They ascertain by order declaring that the person applying for the advance has paid to the Commissioners a sum equal to the guarantee deposit."
    Line 24, after "yet," insert—
    "Such order shall not be made unless the Land Commission have exercised any power for the sale of the holding which they may legally exercise, and have failed to realise by such sale such sums due to them, or unless it ap-
    1850
    pears that they attempted to exercise such powers of sale and were unable to do so."
    Line 25, after "Commission," insert" thereupon."
    Clause 5 (Purchase of estates and holdings).
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 37, after "thereof," insert—" Provided such purchase of estate shall only be made if the Land Commission are reasonably satisfied that four-fifths of the value of the holdings will be purchased. This provision may be relaxed on special grounds with the consent of the Treasury, but only when the Land Commission are reasonably satisfied that holdings of not less than three-fourths in value will be purchased."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the argument of the previous night was that a small number of tenants might coerce the majority of tenants, who, from one cause or another, were unwilling to enter into negotiations for purchase; and if the Land Commission could induce four-fifths in value of the tenants to buy them, the remainder would have to submit to the transfer of the power over them from one landlord to another. The advent of a new landlord was a thing Irish tenants did not regard with any confidence. Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggest any qualifying words?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, he would agree to making the proportion four-fifths in value and number.
    Amendment proposed, to the said proposed Amendment, after "value," insert "and number."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, after "value," in last line but one, insert "and number."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed,
    At end of line 37, to add—" And in every such transaction of the purchase of an estate or holding that the Land Commission shall retain not less than one-fifth of the purchase to satisfy the purposes of the guarantee deposit as defined by section 3 of this Act."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, if the

    1851
    hon. Member would strike out the words "or holding "he had no objection to the remainder.
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to omit the words "or holding."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 7 (Sales of residues).
    Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 24, to leave out the words "do not," and insert "cannot."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 8 (Vesting order in lieu of conveyance).
    MR. SEXTONsaid, it was of importance that the Commission should not sell to other than tenants above a certain portion of the estate. Could a Proviso in that direction be inserted?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, it was impossible to do that. It had been already settled in the 5th clause under what conditions the Land Commission could purchase. They could only purchase when satisfied that four-fifths of the tenants were willing to buy, and it was obvious the remaining fifth must be sold in some way.
    On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND the following Amendments made:—Page 5, line 2, after "purchaser," insert "free from all charges if the vesting order so declare; "line 2, to leave out" rights and easements; "line 4, leave out "rights and easements."
    Clause 9 (Charges and rights subject to which the sale may be made).
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, he proposed to strike out the words "with the assent of the purchaser." The words were inserted by the late Attorney General, and in themselves were unobjectionable; but looking at the matter carefully a lawyer might hold that they might have the effect of injuring the title of the purchaser. That was the only reason; and his attention had been called to it by the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy).
    Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 24, after the word "fit," to leave out
    1852
    the words "with the assent of the purchaser."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he was sorry the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Derry (Mr. Walker) was not present, because he attached importance to the words, which he held to be a protection for the purchaser against the insertion of certain conditions attaching to the holding.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 13 (Sales to be for a gross sum. Stamp duty.)
    On Motion of Colonel KING-HARMAN the following Amendment made:—Page 8, line 15, after "Act" insert—
    "And shall transmit copies thereupon to the Clerk of the Peace of the county in which the holding is situated for the purpose of local registration."
    Clause 15 (Injunction to put purchaser in possession).
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the clause provided that the Land Commission, having exercised their power as mortgagees over the sale of the holding, should proceed to exercise the functions of a tribunal to the extent of issuing an order to the Sheriff for the purpose of putting the purchaser in possession. Surely that was an excessive concentration of power.
    Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 3, to leave out the words "or the Land Commission."— (Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he hoped the Government would not agree to this Amendment in a hurried manner. He did not see why the Land Commission should not exercise these functions. That the Bill had been drawn with great care was the reason put forward against important and useful Amendments on the previous night.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, it was impossible that the draftsman could observe the consequences of every point. It certainly would be an anomaly that the plaintiff in an action should issue the

    1853
    order, and the clause provided the alternatives of the High Court of Justice and the County Court.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 16 (Additional members and officers of the Land Commission).
    On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND the following Amendment made:—Page 9, line 19, leave out "Lord Lieutenant may from time to time by order direct that;" line 21, after "Act," leave out "or such Member or Members of the Land Commission as he thinks fit."
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 23, to insert:—" Provided, That the Lord Lieutenant may from time to time orde that such additional Members of the Land Commission shall perform such other duties as they would have performed if named in the Statute ' Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881,' as Members of the Land Commission other than Judicial Commissioners."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. SEXTONsaid, this appeared to carry out, so far as it went, the understanding arrived at in Committee that the new Commissioners should help in the work of the old Commissioners; but a litigant should have the power of claiming the assistance of the Judicial Commissioner.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, this was provided later on.
    Amendment agreed to.
    On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND the following Amendments made:—Page 9, line 24, leave out from the beginning of the line to "may," and insert "additional Commissioners or either of them; "and in line 26, after "by," leave out "him," and insert "them or either of them."
    Line 27, after "Land Commission," insert—
    "Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained any person interested shall be entitled to require that any question of law arising under this Act shall be heard and determined by a Judicial Commissioner sitting with the said additional Commissioners."
    Clause 17 (Officers of Landed Estates Court may be transferred to or serve as officers of the Land Commission).
    On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND the following Amendments made:—Page 10, line 4, after "Act" insert "to the Land Judges of the Chancery Division of the High Court or;" page 9, line 41, after "the" insert "said," and leave out from "Land Judges" to "may," in line 42.
    Clause 18 (Receivership jurisdiction of the Land Judges).
    On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND the following Amendment made:—Page 10, line 15, after "justice," insert "or any Judge or Judges of the Court of Bankruptcy."
    Clause 20 (Rules).
    At end, insert—
    "The forms and tables shall be settled and the orders adapted by the Land Commission for the purposes of this Act."
    Clause 21 (Repeal of provisions inconsistent with this Act).
    On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND the following Amendment made:—Page 10, line 28, leave out from "so" to "so" in line 34, and insert—
    "Notwithstanding anything contained in the 48th section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, to the contrary, any person aggrieved by a decision may, on a question of law or procedure under this Act, appeal to the Court of Appeal in Ireland, and."
    Clause 25 (Saving for the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881. 44 and 45 Vict. c. 49.)
    On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND the following Amendment made:—Page 12, line 37, leave out the second paragraph.
    Clause 26 (Interpretation).
    On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND the following Amendment made:—Page 13, line 13, at end, add—
    "The expression 'tenant' shall include tenants holding under fee farm grant."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    Motion agreed to. (Queen's consent signified).
    Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (IRELAND) BILL [Lords]— [BILL 176.]
  (Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (IRELAND) BILL [Lords]— [BILL 176.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    MR. SEXTONsaid, under Clause 4 of this Bill the Lord Lieutenant would have power to appoint three Commissioners for the purposes of the Act; but he thought that would be too small a Board to efficiently discharge the duties to be entrusted to it. The number, he thought, should be increased to five. Power was proposed to the Commissioners under Clause 5 to transfer endowments for elementary education to the management of the Commissioners of National Education, and he took the opportunity of saying he should oppose any such transfer of power. The Commissioners of National Education used the powers they had badly, and no funds available under this Bill should be applied by them. If necessary, let the Board of National Education have an inspecting power; but he believed its existence would be a short one, and soon determined. He should certainly make his objection to this part of the clause in Committee.
    MR. LEAsaid, it was very late, and scarcely worth while to proceed with the second reading of an important Bill. Some of his Friends from the North of Ireland had strong objection to the Bill. Would not the Government defer consideration of the Bill to a time when there would be a better attendance of Members than could be expected at half-past 3?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)said, he was very much surprised at the statement of the hon. Member, that some of his Friends entertained strong objection to the Bill, because he had been assured that the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) and other Members from the North of Ireland were strongly in favour of the Bill and anxious to bring it forward. As to what had been said by the hon. Member for Sligo, he had to say that he had placed an Amendment on the Paper for Committee, by which
    1856
    the number of Commissioners would be increased to five, and also an Amendment to the 5th clause omitting the power of transfer to the National Boards.
    MR. HEALYsaid, while offering no opposition to this stage of the Bill, it was right he should express the opinion that the Bill could by no means be accepted as a settlement of the question with which it dealt. Though they might allow the Bill to pass this year, Irish Members thought it right to guard themselves from allowing it to be supposed that they accepted it as a settlement of grievances such as that in connection with the Swords School. It was necessary something should be done to stop such scandals; and in allowing the Bill to pass now he guarded himself against any admission that this was the closing chapter of the controversy. It was not surprising that the position of the Bill should be unknown to the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Lea) and his Friends, seeing the way in which they discharged their Parliamentary duties. The Bill had been twice passed by the House of Lords, last Session and this Session, at the instance of the late Government; and of course, had they now been in power, the hon. Member for Donegal would not have ventured an objection to the Bill.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  INFANTS BILL [Lords.]— [BILL 157.]
  (Mr. Bryce.)
  INFANTS BILL [Lords.]— [BILL 157.]

    COMMITTEE.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he did not know who had charge of this Bill, or if any instructions had been given in respect to it?
    MR. SPEAKER: To be deferred to to-morrow.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, that they had been told by the Leader of the House that only Government Bills would be taken on the Wednesday; and as the Bill contained matter for grave discussion he begged to move that it be taken on Friday.
    MR. SPEAKER: It is a most unusual course to take in the absence of the Member in charge of the Bill.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he would beg leave to point out that a most unusual

    1857
    course was proposed in putting the Bill down for Wednesday after the Leader of the House had said the adjournment would be moved after Government Business was disposed of. This unusual course justified him in taking a course which, though unusual, was in accordance with the Rules of the House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee be deferred till Friday."—(Mr. Onslow.)
    Motion agreed to.

  PREVENTION OF CRIMES AMENDMENT BILL— [Lords.]— [BILL 93.]
  (Mr. Tomlinson.)
  PREVENTION OF CRIMES AMENDMENT BILL— [Lords.]— [BILL 93.]

    COMMITTEE. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [27th July], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair "(for Committee on the Prevention of Crimes Amendment Bill) [Lords].
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Construction and short title).
    MR. HEALY MR. HEALY moved that Progress be reported.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Healy.)
    THE UNDER SECERTARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)said, there was no opposition to the Bill, and he appealed to the hon. and learned Member to allow it to go through. It merely dealt with summary jurisdiction over minor offences, and the obstruction of the police in the execution of their duty.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, there ought to be some little more explanation. Police officers in Ireland executed their duty in such a way that it was rather meritorious than otherwise to obstruct them. Did the Bill include Ireland? If it were limited to England he had no objection.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, as an Amendment to the Act, the Bill did, to some
    1858
    extent, apply to Ireland; but he had no objection to exempt Ireland.
    MR. HEALYsaid, then he had no objection to the Bill, and would withdraw his Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Extension of 34 and 35 Vict, o. 112, s. 12).
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 13, to leave out after "duty," to end of Clause.— (Mr. Tomlinson.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 14, at end, to add:—" Provided, That in eases to which the said recited Act is extended by this Act, the person convicted shall not be liable to a greater penalty than five pounds, or, in default of payment, to be imprisoned with or without hard labour for a longer term than two months."—[Mr. Tomlinson.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Remaining Clauses agreed to.
    New Clause (This Act shall not apply to Ireland,)—(Mr. Tomlinson,)—read the first and second time, and added to the Bill.
    Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  RIVER THAMES (No. 2.) BILL.— [BILL 90.]
  (Mr. Story-Maskelyne, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Mr. Elton, Mr. Walter James, Mr. Sellar, Mr. Molloy.)
  RIVER THAMES (No. 2.) BILL.— [BILL 90.]

    LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
    Lords' Amendments considered.
    Amendment proposed,
    After "steam launch," insert "and for the prevention of the pollution of the river by the sewage of any house boat or steam launch."— (Mr. W. S. Smith.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed,
    To add to the Lords Amendment—"Or to give any riparian owner any right as against the public which he did not possess before the passing of this Act to exclude any person from navigating any backwater, channel creek, bay, or water way, whether deemed part of the River Thames, as defined by this Act, or not."—(Mr. W. M. Smith.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Lords Amendments, as amended, agreed to.
    House adjourned at twelve minutes before Four o'clock in the morning.