Commons Sitting of 16 March 1886

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolution [March 15] reported.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—£544,772, Consolidated Fund.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Second Reading—London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway; London, Chatham, and Dover Railway.*
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Brill Grounds* [143].
Second Reading—Rivers Purification [101], put off.
Select Committee—Employers' Liability Act (1880) Amendment* [60], nominated.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL (by Order).

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I rise for the purpose of moving the Instruction which stands upon the Paper in my name.
    SIR CHARLES FORSTER: The Motion of the hon. Member will come in more properly after the Bill has been read a second time.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I rise for the purpose of moving—
    "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill, to insert a Clause providing that the Company shall, at the expiration of their present agreements with the contractors for, or tenants of, the bookstalls upon the premises of the Company, put such bookstalls up to public competition among the newsvendors and others

    949
    being bonâ fide residents in the borough, or, if outside a borough, in the county in which such stalls are situate, and that the Company shall be bound to enter into no agreement for the letting of any bookstall for any period longer than three years."
    The object of the Motion I have placed on the Paper is to put an end to the present virtual monopoly of railway bookstalls, which acts not only in restraint of trade, but also establishes a practical and irresponsible censorship of the Press. Hon. Members have probably received, like myself, a paper which purports to come from the Brighton Railway Company, as also one from the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company, with regard to the terms of my Motion; but it is perfectly evident, from internal evidence, that the paper in question emanates, not from these Companies, but from the monopolists, against whose privilege I ask the House to record its opinion. It is complained in one of the papers that the subject matter of the Motion has nothing to do with anything contained in the Bill. But the monopolists themselves, in their representation, admit that the Bill is an Omnibus Bill, and the objects at which it aims are of a miscellaneous character. Under those circumstances, I know no Bill which I could better have pitched upon for my Motion. At the same time, I am free to confess that it is not because the Bill relates to the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company that I have placed the Motion on the Paper; but, as I conceive it affects one Company as much as another, I have taken the first Bill which presented an opportunity for bringing it forward. Now, Sir, the monopoly which I complain of is one of a very gigantic character. It throws into the hands of one single Company such an advantage in matters of trade, that individual vendors and proprietors have no chance at all of competing against them; and, therefore, I trust that I shall obtain the support not only of the Free Traders who sit on the other side of the House, but also of the Fair Traders who sit upon this side. To give the House an idea of the extent of this monopoly, I crave permission to state a few figures, in order to show the amount of advantage this particular Company of monopolists are allowed to enjoy. I am informed that hundreds of newspapers have been
    950
    practically ruined, because they are unable to submit to the exactions to which the monopolists have attempted to subject them. In order to illustrate the nature of the monopoly, I will take, say, 65,000 copies as the issue of any daily penny paper. They are issued by the proprietors in quires of 26 copies apiece, which represents 2,500 quires of 26 each. To the trade they are sold at 1s. 6d. per quire, which comes to £187 10 s. net. They bring in retail £250 net; not counting the extra two in each quire; but, allowing for them, the total profit on the one single penny paper is £83 6s. 8d. There are 26 days in the average month, and the profit per month is £2,126 on each penny paper, which represents a total of £29,645 per annum. The monopolists, though they do not themselves allow any discount when they are paid bills, which they are able to collect from their debtors themselves, always deduct 5 per cent from the newspapers when they pay their own bills. Now, as there are besides The Times and The Morning Advertiser, and the evening papers, five penny papers in London, out of the penny papers alone this particular firm makes a profit of no less than £148,225 a-year. If you take the weekly papers at 6d., Messrs. W. H. Smith and Company order, say, 100 quires of 26 copies at 8s. a quire; that comes to £40; and allowing, say, 40 for returns, the amount due from the monopolists to the newspaper proprietors is £24 each week. They pay only once a month; deducting returns, the total sum paid per month should be £134; but they deduct there, again, 5 per cent. But besides this deduction from the payment for the newspapers, they charge for the placards, which appear in the stations, at the rate of 2s. per month, so that out of every payment of £98 16 s. comes first of all a deduction of £10, which brings it down to £88 16 s., and the proprietors of the newspapers are obliged to advertise in at least 100 stations at £2 2s. per advertisement, for which I take off £25 more, which reduces the amount received by the newspaper proprietors to the moderate sum of £63 16 s. Well, Sir, as a matter of fact the Railway Company, whose business under the law is to provide for transport only, do indirectly go beyond their legal powers by thus engaging—by means of com-

    951
    mission—in the sale of newspapers. They are paid, not by rent, but by a commission, which is, at any rate in some cases, 10 per cent on the takings or profits of the London bookstalls, and 5 per cent of those in the country. I expect that, if this fact were brought under the notice of the Board of Trade and of the Railway Commissioners, they might have something to say to this particular aspect of it. Besides infringing the law in that particular respect, they also, it seems to me, distinctly infringe the law in respect of letters and parcels; because, with regard to the monopolists, they have a system under which there is a different charge made from that which is made to individual tradesmen. With all the Railway Companies the monopolists have special arrangements by which parcels are carried. Large and small parcels, and even single papers in wrappers, are all weighed together, and the bulk weight charged at one rate for any distance. Of course, by this arrangement, the actual charge for any particular parcel is reduced to a minimum. All other persons pay the actual charge upon every particular parcel; but in this case thousands of parcels, papers, and letters, causing the indirect infringement of the Act relating to the Post Office, are carried by many trains without any charge at all, and without going through the Company's parcel office. Anybody will see that that is so, if they will take the trouble to stand upon any railway platform in London, where, by almost every train, it will be seen that parcels are handed in and carried without charge, and in a large number of cases letters also. Well, Sir, we are accustomed to hear year after year speeches of a philanthropic character addressed to benevolent people, who are interested in the newsvendors; and one right hon. Gentleman in this House has, I think, on many occasions presided and taken an active part in those gatherings. One would suppose from the utterances at those gatherings that the monopolists in question were particularly anxious to treat those in their employment kindly and considerately. But that is by no means the case. Nothing is more frequent than for men who have been employed at those railway platform bookstalls to receive a dismissal, after a considerable number of years' service,
    952
    without anything in the way of solatium or compensation. The last case of the kind I have heard of is one which occurred in Dublin only this year, where a worthy man named Kenny, who had been for more than 16 years employed by Messrs. W. H. Smith and Co.'s people at the Broadstone Station and platform as agent for the sale of books, suddenly received his dismissal a few months ago. His case was considered a hard one, and some benevolent and kind-hearted people in Dublin, including Mr. Conolly, got together sufficient means to enable him to start as a news-vendor outside the station. Well, what was the result? The people frequenting the station, considering that the case was a hard one, went to Kenny for their newspapers instead of buying them at the railway bookstall, and Kenny's place was put up near Mr. Conolly's timber yard close to the station, whereupon the monopolists sent him this letter—
    "We have been thinking very seriously over your getting papers from us, and have decided that we cannot continue to supply you. We will let you have your order for next week to give you time to make other arrangements; but after next week we will not supply you with any newspapers."
    As a matter of fact, this firm has a monopoly not only on the railways, but also a monopoly of the Dublin wholesale trade; and in consequence of their refusal to supply this poor man Kenny with newspapers he is obliged to go round to the office of each particular newspaper every day in order to collect the papers he requires for his business, and all because independent customers choose to go to him rather than to the railway bookstall. There is one other aspect of this monopoly, which, I think, is perhaps a more important matter from a public point of view; and it is that the monopolists have established a practical censorship of the Press in accordance with which they "Boycott" any newspaper or other publication which does not happen to suit their fancy. Now, the railways themselves are precluded from any preferential treatment of that kind; and I do not see what justification can be advanced for the establishment of such a system with respect to the sale of newspapers or books upon railway premises. With these observations, I beg to move the

    953
    Instruction which stands on the Paper in my name.
    MR. E. HARRINGTONseconded the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill, to insert a Clause providing that the Company shall, at the expiration of their present agreements with the contractors for, or tenants of, the bookstalls upon the premises of the Company, put such bookstalls up to public competition among the newsvendors and others being bonâ fide residents in the borough, or, if outside a borough, in the county in which such stalls are situate, and that the Company shall be bound to enter into no agreement for the letting of any bookstall for any period longer than three years."—(Mr. Arthur O' Connor.)
    MR. MARRIOTT: On behalf of the Railway Company I hope that this House will not assent to the Motion. It is very difficult to know why an Instruction should be given to a Railway Company to impose any restraint upon them with regard to the contracts they may deem it desirable to enter into with reference to the bookstalls on their line. If so, why not impose similar restraints upon them in regard to the refreshments and the locomotives they supply? The imposition of such a restraint would render it impossible for the Company to manage their traffic properly; and considering that a Bill has been introduced only the other day, giving great powers to the Railway Companies and enabling them to prevent anything like an abuse of the powers conferred upon Railway Companies, it does seem something like a large interference with the trading powers of a Railway Company to give such an Instruction to a Committee, who will simply have to sit upon an Omnibus Bill. With regard to the hon. Member who has moved this Instruction, he has not adduced a single reason why an exception should be made in this case. The fact is that the Brighton Company have a regular practice of putting their stalls up for competition. It is true that there are not many competitors; I believe there are only two—Messrs. Smith and Messrs. Willing—but that is because nobody without a large amount of capital and thorough business capacity would be capable of working such an undertaking to the benefit of the public at large. The essence of the Motion is this—that if it be carried it
    954
    will inflict intolerable discomfort on all who live near a railway, and the public will be the chief sufferers. As far as I understand, the Instruction is to provide that the whole of the bookstalls of a railway are not to be contracted for by one person, but that they shall be allowed to fall into different hands; so that the people of Brighton would go to one contractor, the people of Hayward's Heath to another, the people of Croydon to a third, while the people of London would still have to go to Messrs. W. H. Smith and Co. The result of that would be that nobody would be induced to take up the smaller stations. Under the present system, Messrs. W. H. Smith and Co. take the good with the bad; and anybody who knows anything about the business knows that there are many stations in regard to which the contractors lose by supplying libraries of books and newspapers. Therefore, as I have already stated, the public will be the great sufferers if this Instruction is passed; and many hundreds of people will miss their morning paper at breakfast, will lose a lending library in their own neighbourhood, and will be placed in a position of the greatest discomfort, if the House assents to the Motion the hon. Gentleman has proposed—I do not know in whose interest, but it is certainly not in the interest of the public. We know very well how the public gain by letting private enterprize have full play. I quite admit that Railway Companies are under statutory powers and Governmental control, and that they will be under more control when the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade is passed; but this Instruction involves an unheard-of interference with the rights of private trade. I will not trouble the House more, because I think it preposterous to suppose that such a Resolution as this will be approved of by the House; and I ask the House, in the interests of the public, and in no way in the interests either of the Railway Company or of Messrs. W. H. Smith and Co., to reject this Motion. I do not know how Messrs. W. H. Smith and Co. conduct their business; but I do know that they pay the Railway Company best, and I have every reason to believe that they conduct their business to the general satisfaction of the public. As to the censorship of the

    955
    Press exercised by Messrs. W. H. Smith and Co., I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means. So far as my experience goes, all classes of newspapers and books, whatever opinions they contain, are to be found on the bookstalls. [Cries of "No!"] I have certainly seen the most Radical newspapers and the most Radical leaflets of every description; and I will simply ask the House now, on behalf of the public, not to interfere with the rights which this Railway Company ought to possess.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: My hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) spoke of Messrs. W. H. Smith and Co. as monopolists; but they are in no sort of way monopolists. No doubt they tender for the whole system of stations on a railway; but I presume that if anybody else sent in a tender, and offered a larger amount of money, that person would get the contract. My hon. Friend objects that a tender should necessarily be submitted for all the stations upon a railway, and he says that tenders should be permitted to be sent in from local persons for all the local stations. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just addressed the House spoke from a railway point of view. Now, I speak from a newspaper proprietor's point of view, and I say that the present system is far better for the newspaper proprietors, and necessarily for the public, than the system suggested by my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend is probably not aware of the vast number of newspapers which have to be sent down from London to the country. These newspapers are delivered to Messrs. W. H. Smith and Co. at their offices in bulk, and Messrs. W. H. Smith and Co. deliver them to the chief stations in London in bulk; they are then placed in vans, and while in transition they are sorted and got ready for distribution. If the Instruction of my hon. Friend were forced on the Railway Companies, the result would be that the newspapers could not reach the country as early as they do at present; and, therefore, the public would really be the losers. My hon. Friend said that Messrs. W. H. Smith and Co. make a great deal of money; but he has taken the gross receipts instead of the net. Now, I do not know what Messrs. W. H. Smith
    956
    and Co. make; but when my hon. Friend points out what money this Company make out of the newspaper proprietors, all I have to say is that the newspaper proprietors in no way complain. In point of fact, they know perfectly well that it would cost them a great deal more under what is called the system of "returns" to send the different newspapers to the various local stations. Moreover, the newspaper proprietors are perfectly certain, with regard to Messrs. W. H. Smith and Co., that they will get their money at the end of the week, or of the month, or whatever may be the time fixed; whereas, if they were to deal with all these excellent, local, and worthy persons, it is possible they might find, that, although the newspapers were sold, they did not get the money. My hon. Friend says that Messrs. W. H. Smith and Co. exercise a censorship over the Press. Now, I really do not think that that is the case. I do not think that any hon. Member can cite any particular newspaper or book which Messrs. W. H. Smith and Co. have "Boycotted." No doubt, however, there are newspapers which they do not put on their stalls; but it is for the simple reason that there is no demand for them. The clerk at a particular station is told to send for anything that is asked for; and if he does not send for a particular book or paper, there is a proof that the particular article, whether a book or a newspaper, is not required. I may say further that, as I believe every clerk receives a percentage on his sale, he would naturally, with perfect indifference to politics, look to his own interests, and ask Messrs. W. H. Smith and Co. to send everything which he thought he was likely to sell. My hon. Friend has quoted the case of a man named Kenny at Dublin; but I do not quite understand the contention of my hon. Friend; because, if Mr. Kenny has established a shop for the sale of newspapers, Messrs. W. H. Smith and Co. cannot hinder him from getting those newspapers. He has simply to send direct to the newspaper offices, and to show that he is a respectable and responsible man, when he will get all the newspapers he requires. In all parts of the country there are newsvendors now, and they are supplied on just the same principle as Messrs. W. H. Smith and

    957
    Co. I really do not think that my hon. Friend will benefit the newspaper proprietors, and he certainly will not benefit the readers of newspapers, if the Instruction he has moved is passed. I therefore hope he will withdraw it.
    MAJOR DICKSON: The Bill of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company is not at this moment the subject of discussion; but in the statement made by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) he referred to that Company; and as the allegations he has brought forward are not accurate, so far as that Company are concerned, I should like to say one or two words on the subject. When I first saw this Instruction, I really thought that the hon. Member was indulging in a sort of Hibernian joke at the expense of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand (Mr. W. H. Smith). I have been for some years in the House of Commons, and I have heard a great many strange Motions submitted to the consideration of this House; but I do not think that I ever heard a more monstrous, and, I may say, a more ridiculous, proposition submitted for our consideration than the Motion now before us. I would like to ask the House what either the hon. Gentleman or Parliament can have to do with the railway bookstalls? We have the right of letting them to whoever we think proper. We are not bound by statute to supply bookstalls at all. If we were bound by statute to do so, and failed in our duty, then the hon. Gentleman would have some semblance of justification for making this Motion. If the Motion were carried, what is there to prevent another hon. Gentleman from Ireland coming forward and saying—"You shall only sell Irish whisky at your refreshment rooms." The hon. Gentleman has made two statements which are absolutely false. In the first place, he stated that the Circular giving reasons for opposing his Motion which has been issued by the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company was not issued by that Company at all, but was prepared by Messrs. W. H. Smith and Co. Now, I may inform the hon. Gentleman that the Paper he referred to was drawn up by Messrs. Martin and Leslie, the Parliamentary Agents, in accordance with the instructions they received from the Railway Company, and that Messrs. W.
    958
    H. Smith and Co. had nothing whatever to do with it. [Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I referred to the Brighton Company.] I am not speaking of the Brighton Company, but of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company, and it will be in the recollection of the House that the hon. Gentleman mentioned that Company, as well as the Brighton Company; therefore, I am perfectly in Order in what I am stating. The hon. Member also said that we received a compensation on the sale of newspapers as well as from the rent of bookstalls. That is also perfectly untrue. We are paid a fixed rent by Messrs. W. H. Smith and Co., and when the contract expires we let our bookstalls to the most respectable firm we can find, on the best terms we can obtain.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I rise to Order. The hon. and gallant Member states that I have said what is perfectly untrue. I do not take any notice of the adjective; but, as a matter of fact, I did not say anything of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company.
    MAJOR DICKSON: I am merely submitting to the House that the statement of the hon. Member, so far as the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company are concerned, is not correct, and I may add that the Company have reserved to themselves the power of putting a veto upon the sale of any particular publications at any of their railway stations; and they intend to retain it, because they do not think that Railway Directors should allow their stations to become mediums for the publication of literature of a questionable character.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY): I will not detain the House for more than a few minutes; but it is necessary that I should reply to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down (Major Dickson). After the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), it certainly does not appear to me that the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) has established his proposition that the bookstall proprietors have an injurious commercial monopoly in the sale of the newspapers. It is perfectly clear, however, from the concluding sentences of the hon. and gallant Member for Dover (Major Dick-

    959
    son), who represents the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company, that Railway Directors exercise, or claim to exercise, a kind of censorship over the publications sold at the bookstalls on their lines. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that they never allow their bookstalls to be a medium for the sale of improper publications. It may be quite right that they should not be the medium for the sale of improper publications; but it may become a very serious question for the House to consider whether Railway Directors ought to be the tribunal to decide upon such matters. There might be widely different opinions as to whether a particular publication was improper, or immoral, or not; and, personally, I am altogether against an unlicensed power of revision, whether it is exercised by a Company or individuals, and whether it be in respect of sale or purchase. I object to a trader having the power to say that he will not sell a particular thing, or will not trade with a particular person. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh; but perhaps they will go with me as far as this—that a trader, engaged in the sale of a particular article, is not to be the unlimited judge as to whether he will sell that article to persons who are obnoxious to him. If he did so, I believe the law might be called in, or it might be strengthened, so that he might be summoned to show that he had a reasonable cause for refusing. If the principle put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Dover were adopted, newspapers and books might be prohibited which a large number of persons might consider to be beneficial.
    MAJOR DICKSON: I never said anything of the sort. My remarks applied to treasonable, seditious, and indecent publications.
    MR. COURTNEY: No doubt that is so; but the hon. and gallant Member is to exercise his opinion as to what he thinks seditious; and what the hon. and gallant Member might deem to be seditious might not be so regarded by another; and what he thinks immoral other persons might deem moral. I think, if the managers of the railway stalls are judicious, they would not drive this matter so far as to compel the law to be altered. I confess, for my own part, that I do not see why the law
    960
    in respect to the sale of publications should not be somewhat altered if the case requires it. I would not allow a book, or a newspaper, or a man to be "Boycotted" at the discretion of any individual, or of any Railway Company. In fact, where a person has the privilege of supplying the public with a particular class of goods, and he refuses to supply particular persons with those goods, or refuses to supply particular goods which form a branch of his trade, he might be made liable to be summoned in order to show that he has reasonable grounds for refusing to make a supply. There must be some kind of tribunal besides Railway Directors and lessees to say what are and what are not to be sold at a bookstall. That proposition may appear to be revolutionary; but it is based upon a principle which underlies our law. The particular Motion, however, of the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) appears to me to be wholly inapplicable to the existing state of things, and it would not effect his purpose. The supply may be very bad; but what guarantee has he got that local traders would not have the same tender consciences in this matter as a Company? This Instruction would afford no safeguard against similar claims being made by these people in detail, as are now made by Messrs. W. H. Smith and Co. On that ground, and on that ground alone, I object to the Instruction; but I cannot help thinking that it is a case which in future may grow to large dimensions, and may, at some future time, warrant the interference of Parliament, in order to defend the public against a discretion which, although exercised in a perfectly honest manner, may be prejudicial to the public interests
    MR. STAVELEY HILL: The sentiments put forward by the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means seem to some of us on this side of the House so monstrous that I feel called upon to say a word in reply. It amounts to this—that if Messrs. Graves, or Colnaghi, or any other print-seller are to be allowed to carry on their business, they must be required to sell any print which, forsooth, the hon. Gentleman happens to think is not indecent. That is what his statement amounts to.
    MR. COURTNEY: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to explain. All I ventured to suggest was that there ought to be some tribunal before whom you can cite the individual who refuses to sell particular publications; but that you ought not to give an unlimited and unconditional power of censorship either to any Board of Railway Directors or to any individual.
    MR. STAVELEY HILL: It comes to this—that the hon. Gentleman or somebody else is to be the tribunal to decide. Why on earth, if persons are to be allowed to carry on a trade, should they not have the privilege of carrying it on in the way they think right? I trust that it will always be in the power of the Directors of Railway Companies to say who shall carry on a trade on their platforms, and what shall or shall not be sold upon their bookstalls. No doubt the case is different in regard to public-houses; they are allowed to be open for the purpose of entertaining the whole of the public, and so long as a man conducts himself decently he should be able to insist upon being served. But that is the only instance in which such compulsion is justifiable, and there is no analogy between the case of hotel-keepers and bookstalls. It cannot be denied that the persons responsible to the Directors of a Railway Company are in a position to form a proper estimate as to what books and periodicals ought to be sold at their stations. Surely, then, they should have a right to say whether filth like The Pall Mall Gazette should be allowed to be sold. They should have complete liberty in the matter, and a right to decide what shall not be sold on their premises. I presume the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade is about to tell us that he himself would be a sufficient judge in such matters, and that the question ought to be left to the Board of Trade; but allow me to say on behalf of those who travel, not by the Brighton Railway particularly, but by railways generally, that we prefer that the Railway Directors should have the power of saying what should and what should not be sold, rather than that the decision should rest with the Board of Trade, or any other tribunal of that kind.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA): My hon. and learned Friend who has just sat down has made a speech for me which I certainly should not have made for myself. The Board of Trade have no desire whatever to perform the duty he desires to throw upon them, and my only object in rising is to invite the House not to widen the area of this discussion. In my opinion, we have gone a little beyond the subject of the Instruction moved by the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). Now, what is the question before us? The hon. Member for East Donegal asks the House to put a clause in an omnibus Railway Bill, restricting the right of contract on the part of Railway Companies with the persons with whom they may contract for the sale of newspapers and books. Now, if the House once undertakes this kind of intermeddling, I do not see where it would stop. There is really much more reason to interfere with regard to refreshments. A penny newspaper will always be sold for a penny; but refreshments are not always equally good or equally cheap. Moreover, the public are exceedingly well served under the present system. I have myself seen instances where the demand for a certain newspaper has been considerable on account of the peculiarity of some of its contents; but hon. Members may rely upon it that that is a matter which will cure itself. The public are quite able to take care of themselves; and, on the whole, I would ask the House not to waste its time in discussing the insertion of an Instruction of this nature, which I certainly think my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal has not acted wisely in endeavouring to introduce. I hope that he will now withdraw his Motion, and allow the House to go on with its ordinary Business.
    MR. ISAACS: I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Mundella) ought not to be surprised if the discussion has travelled out of the strict line of the Question put down on the Paper, and I have only to thank the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) for having afforded the House an opportunity of discussing the matter. In rising to address the House for the first time, I wish to take this opportunity of saying, as a Railway Director, that a more monstrous proposition than that submitted by the hon.

    963
    Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, I never heard put forward. I maintain, on the part of those charged with the conduct of the railways of this Kingdom, that they have every right to look after the character of the publications sold at their stations, and that they would be guilty of a gross dereliction of their duty if they did not exercise some sort of supervision over what is sold. I think it must be seen by the House that it would be an unwarrantable interference with the ordinary conduct of trade, if this Instruction were adopted, and, therefore, I hope that the House will refuse to sanction it.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Practically, the object I had in view has been attained; and I therefore ask the House to allow me to withdraw the Motion. [Cries of "No!"] I wish to add, as The Pall Mall Gazette has been alluded to, that that newspaper never for one moment entered into my thoughts.
    MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Motion be withdrawn? [Cries of "No!"]
    Question again proposed.
    MR. DILLON: I wish to point out to hon. Members who object to go to a division that probably the Motion of my hon. Friend may be carried if they insist upon dividing. At all events, I wish to say a few words in order to point out that if it is not carried, it may be possible for some Members who do not sympathize with the exact form of the Motion, but who do sympathize with the object my hon. Friend has in view, to amend the Instruction in such a way as to secure general support for it. Speaking as an Irish Nationalist Member, I have no personal complaint to make against the right hon. Member for the Strand (Mr. W. H. Smith) and his monopoly. I cannot say that it has been used against us to any serious extent; but, at the same time, it is a monopoly, and is used as a means of carrying on a censorship of the Press. No man in his senses, who knows anything about England, can maintain what the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has stated—that a penny newspaper is always sold for a penny at the bookstalls. I altogether deny that. There is a newspaper which, like The Pall Mall Gazette, is a news-
    964
    paper enormously read by the working classes of this country. I cannot say that I admire the newspaper to which I refer—namely,Reynolds's Newspaper; but it is very much admired by a large number of the working classes. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: That newspaper is sold on a Sunday.] Yes; but it may be bought also on a Monday. No doubt, it may contain articles which are considered by some persons to be strongly objectionable; but the working man has quite as much right to buy his newspaper as the rich man. From the statement made by the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, it would appear likely that this question may be raised again; and if it is not raised now in a shape which fairly recommends itself to a majority of the House, it may be put in shape presently which I dare say would meet with much greater support. We must recollect that a statement has already been made by a Railway Director that the Directors of Railway Companies do exercise a censorship over the publications sold at their stations, and that they intend to continue that censorship. [Major DICKSON: Only in regard to their own property.] Upon their own property, of course; but they have already had a monopoly given to them by the State, under restrictions that it shall be used for the public benefit, and in accordance with the public opinion of the country. Nevertheless, the hon. Member makes this monstrous proposition—that the Directors of the English Railways ought to be permitted to exercise a censorship of the Press all over England. That is exactly what his proposition amounts to; and he adds that he knows of no Body throughout the country which is better fitted to exercise that censorship. [Major DICKSON: No; I said nothing of the kind.] That proposition has very much widened the issue before the House; and although, personally, I have no grievance against the right hon. Member for the Strand (Mr. W. H. Smith) and his monopoly, I must admit that the working classes may have a grievance which requires to be carefully considered by this House.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: I should like to say one word before the debate closes, and it is this—that if we accept this proposition we may be asked to accept a number of other similar ones. Many persons object to

    965
    the unwholesome food which the travelling public are supplied with at the railway stations quite as much as to the unwholesome literature. I am quite able to confirm that view, because, in my opinion, much of the food provided at the railway stations is perfectly uneatable. Does the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) propose to lay down rules for the regulation of the rooms at railway stations now used for refreshment purposes? I only make this remark in order to point out that the proposition of the hon. Member, if accepted, would open up a large area of questions. We may not like a particular decision of any particular Railway Board of Directors; but, nevertheless, I would rather have the varying decisions of Railway Boards, than the establishment of a public censorship; and the observations of the hon. Gentleman certainly amount to this—that a public censor should be established to say whether any newspaper is good moral reading or not. Now, I would rather leave the determination of that question to the good sense and good judgment of the reading public. Let them decide that question by the ordinary system, and the ordinary system is that a trader will supply any particular goods if he finds there is a demand for them, his object being to obtain a profit by the sale. Therefore, I think the simplest course is to leave each particular trader to look after his own business, and to manage it in his own way, so long as he does no harm to the public, rather than establish the system of interference which the passing of this Instruction would involve.
    SIR HENRY TYLER: This debate appears to have proceeded mainly on the assumptions partly put forward by the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) that Messrs. W. H. Smith & Co. possess a monopoly in regard to the bookstalls of the Railway Companies, and that the Railway Companies themselves exercise a censorship over the Press. Now I maintain, in the first place, that there is really no monopoly in the case of the firm of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand (Mr. W. H. Smith); and, in the second place, that there is practically no censorship of the Press exercised by Railway
    966
    Directors. I object to both of these assumptions on the ground that they are untrue. The same course is taken with regard to these contracts as is taken in regard to the supply of refreshments referred to by the last speaker, the hon. Member for St. Pancras. In the latter case, the Railway Companies have been in the habit of letting out the refreshment rooms to contractors, just in the same way as they let the bookstalls; but of late several of the Railway Companies have taken the supply of refreshments into their own hands; and it is generally admitted as the result of experience that they have conducted the business of supplying refreshments with great success. So far as the Railway Companies are concerned, they have found it to their advantage, as well as to that of the public, to adopt this course; and so far as I am acquainted with the matter, as a Railway Director, no censorship whatever is exercised by Railway Directors over the Press.
    MR. SEXTON: I think, Sir, considering the course of the debate, and the request made to my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, that he should withdraw his Motion, my hon. Friend had a right to expect that in proposing to withdraw it he would have met with different treatment from that which he has received at the hands of certain Gentlemen who have refused to allow the Motion to be withdrawn. I do not think that it has been considered that, if hon. Members persist in taking a division, it may be necessary for those who agree with the hon. Member for East Donegal to enter into the merits of this system with greater fulness. I, therefore, think that perhaps the most sensible and most convenient course would be to let the discussion stop here; and, with the view of procuring that result, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. SPEAKER: Does any hon. Member second the Motion?
    MR. H. CAMPBELLseconded the Motion.
    Motion made and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Sexton,)—put, and negatived.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.

QUESTIONS.

  MEDICAL ACT, 1858.
  DR. FOSTERasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, If the Government propose to introduce this Session of Parliament a Bill to amend the Medical Act of 1858; and, in case of the answer being in the affirmative, whether such Bill will propose to give the medical profession direct representation on the General Council of Medical Education and Registration?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir LYON PLAYFAIR): A Bill is being drafted, and I hope will shortly be introduced, to amend the Medical Act of 1858. It will contain provisions to give direct representation to the Medical Profession on the General Medical Council.

  THE INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS).
  MR. ROUNDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can inform the House what number of claims for abatement of Income Tax, under Schedule B, have been made during the current year; in how many cases tenants have established their claim to exemption; and, what has been the total amount of exemptions or abatement under this Schedule for the past three years?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT): The total number of properties assessed under Schedule B in 1883–4 was 1,600,000. In respect of 1,200,000 of these either exemption or abatement was granted in consequence of the incomes produced by them being less than £150 or than £400 per annum. I cannot give the total number of exemption claims. The total amount of the exemptions during the last three years has been—in 1882–3, £31,000,000; in 1883–4, £32,050,000; and in 1884–5, £32,692,000.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)—THE REV. MATTHEW ARMOUR.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is true that the Justiciary Appeal Court has unanimously quashed the sentence of imprisonment recently passed in the
  968
  Orkney Sheriff Court on the Reverend Matthew Armour for his conduct at an election meeting; whether it is true, as reported, that Lord Young, in passing judgment, referred to the prosecution of Mr. Armour as follows:—
  "If I were to express the opinion which I have of this prosecution, I am afraid I should have to use somewhat strong language. I never saw a more nimious prosecution;"
  and, whether he can state the amount of expense incurred in the prosecution referred to?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (, &c.): It is true that the High Court of Justiciary has unanimously quashed the sentence in question, and the newspaper report of Lord Young's opinion—the accuracy of which I have no reason to doubt—bears that his Lordship expressed himself in the terms quoted in the Question. I understand that there were no separate expenses of material amount incurred in the prosecution, the Procurator Fiscal being a salaried official, and the witnesses who were examined having been already in Kirkwall in connection with the trial of the Sanday rioters, the cost of detaining the witnesses, and probably some small Court fees, would apparently be the only separate expenses.

  ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)—THE HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS.
  DR. R. M'DONALDasked the Secretary for Scotland, If he is assured as to whether the reports in The Scotsman and other newspapers are true — namely, that the Queen's writ does not run in parts of the Highlands and Islands; if so, has such a state of matters come to pass through neglect of the ordinary duties of Government; and, will he urge upon Her Majesty's Government, with the view of providing a remedy for such a state of matters, to institute an inquiry into the circumstances which have led to such a condition of affairs?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. TREVELYAN) (, &c.): The state of things is undoubtedly serious in the Isle of Skye, and a spirit of lawlessness prevails there the dealing with which is engaging the attention of the Government.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND)—SMALLPOX AT WOODSIDE.
  MR. HUNTERasked the Secretary for Scotland, Whether his attention has been called to the following statement in The Aberdeen Free Press:—
  "A somewhat serious outbreak of small-pox has occurred at Woodside. In the course of a week three women have been attacked with the disease, and are now in the Woodside Epidemic Hospital. The patients were employed in the rag department of Woodside Works, and it is believed that the outbreak is attributable to the infection contained in a particular bale of rags….. It is about two years since there was an outbreak of small-pox at Woodside;"
  whether two more cases have occurred since; and, what steps he proposes to take to protect the people of Woodside from the dangers of infection from imported rags?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. TREVELYAN) (, &c.): Three cases of small-pox have been reported to the Board of Supervision as having occurred at Woodside. The Messrs. Pirie, who employ 2,000 workpeople, report to the Chief Inspector of Factories that they have had three cases in their works. These patients have been working on various qualities of rags drawn from different sources. A previous attack of small-pox in April, 1885, is not shown to have originated in Messrs. Pirie's works. The medical officer of the Board of Supervision reports that the suspected rags came from England and Scotland, and not from the Continent. I have recently approved of an Order issued by the Board of Supervision prohibiting the importation of rags from Spain for some months, and have received various recommendations as to the necessity of further legislation, which will have my careful consideration.

  HARBOURS (SCOTLAND)—THE HARBOUR AT GIRVAN.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to the condition of the harbour of Girvan, in Ayrshire, and to the complaints of fishermen that heavy dues are exacted from them under the Provisional Order granted for the construction of the harbour; the original condition being that a depth of four feet would be maintained
  970
  at low water, whereas the depth at low water does not now exceed two feet, that portions of the quay have fallen in, and that the harbour is in an unsafe condition; and, if he would take immediate steps to inquire into the case, and have the defects complained of remedied?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. MUNDELLA): I have referred the complaint to which the hon. Member alludes to the Harbour Commissioners of Girvan for their observations, and I can express no opinion upon it until I get their Report. I must, therefore, ask the hon. Member to repeat his Question in a few days.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES) — IMPRISONMENT OF ROBERT HOWE ASHTON.
  MR. HOULDSWORTHasked Mr. Attorney General, If he is aware that there is a prisoner in Strangeways Gaol at Manchester, named Robert Howe Ashton, not convicted of a criminal offence, but who is confined at the instance of the Inland Revenue Board, under a sentence of imprisonment for life, unless he can pay seven hundred pounds for penalties incurred as an Income Tax Collector; and, if, considering that the prisoner has no means or prospect of paying the amount, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to keep him in confinement for the whole term of his natural life, or when he will be released?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL), in reply, said, that he was informed by the Board of Inland Revenue that Robert Howe Ashton was confined in Strangeways Gaol in default of payment of penalties incurred by him in respect of serious charges of fraud both against the Board and against private individuals. But for the terms of an Act applicable to him as an Inland Revenue Collector, Ashton would have been proceeded against in a Criminal Court. A Memorial from Ashton praying for his release was now before the Board. The Board offered to furnish the hon. Member with all shorthand writer's notes of the trial and a copy of the correspondence.

  THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE—BRITISH LEGATION AT CHINA.
  MR. OCTAVIUS MORGANasked the Under Secretary of State

  971
  for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in the selection of a new Minister to China, a knowledge of the far East will be considered one of the principal qualifications necessary?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): Sir John Walsham was appointed in November last by Lord Salisbury to be Her Majesty's Minister and Envoy at Pekin. He has had long and varied diplomatic experience, but has not hitherto been employed in China.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)—THE SHERIFF CLERK OF CROMARTY.
  DR. R. M'DONALDasked the Lord Advocate, Whether John Taylor, Sheriff Clerk of Cromarty and bank agent there, is also factor and legal adviser for John Shaw M'Kenzie, esquire, of Newhall (a gentleman now over ninety years of age); whether the said John Taylor, in his capacity of Sheriff Clerk and servant of the Crown, is now or has lately been issuing and recording the warrants of ejection, and for the sale of the effects of the tenants of the said estate of Newhall; and, if so, whether Mr. Taylor can legally hold these offices together; and, whether he will ask him to resign the office of Sheriff Clerk of Cromarty?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (, &c.): I am informed that Mr. Taylor is factor for and private legal adviser of Mr. M'Kenzie, of Newhall. It would, no doubt, be his duty as Sheriff Clerk to perform the Ministerial act of issuing and recording such warrants as are described. The emoluments of the office of Sheriff Clerk of Cromarty are £78 a-year, and it would, of course, be impossible to require that an officer with so small a salary should be debarred from taking factory or general business. I assume, however, that he does not practice in the Court of which he is Clerk; but I shall inquire as to this.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)—THE PROCURATOR FISCAL FOR ROSS AND CROMARTY.
  DR. R. M'DONALDasked the Lord Advocate, Whether, in the re-arrangement of the office of Procurator Fiscal for Ross and Cromarty, he will see to it that the gentleman appointed be restricted entirely to
  972
  his duties of Fiscal, and that the maximum salary for the post be £500 a-year?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (, &c.): The salary of the Procurator Fiscal is only £50 a-year, and if it remains at that amount it would, of course, be impossible to get anyone to accept the office who would agree to confine himself exclusively to its duties. The Sheriff of the county has been carefully considering whether the Fiscalship of Tain could not be amalgamated with one of the others in the county; but he does not consider that this could be done without causing material inconvenience to the public.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)—THE STATE OF KERRY.
  CAPTAIN M'CALMONTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to Mr. Baron Dowse's address to the Grand Jury of the county of Kerry, in which he states—
  "That this county is in a much worse state than it has he been in for years; that there are no less than three hundred offences specially reported to the constabulary since the Assizes of 1885; that these offences are of a very serious nature, consisting of two cases of murder, eighteen cases of letters threatening to murder, thirty-nine cases of cattle, horse, and sheep stealing, eleven cases of arson and other wilful burnings, eighteen cases of killing and maiming cattle, fifty-two cases of seizing arms and levying contributions for money and goods, seventy-four cases of printing, writing, posting, sending threatening letters and notices, and twenty-four cases of intimidation, besides other offences minor in point of importance but serious in nature;"
  and, whether the Irish Executive have any reason to doubt the correctness of Mr. Baron Dowse's statement?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of this quotation from Mr. Baron Dowse's charge, which must, of course, be taken as an expression of the views of the Judge himself on the information laid before him. There was, no doubt, an increase between July and January of crime in Kerry, and the county is in parts very demoralized. But by the latest reports which have reached me I am glad to say there are indications of an improvement in the more disturbed

  973
  districts; and while the Returns for the past four months show a considerable growth of agrarian outrages over the same months of last year and the year before, I find that the number is only 10 more than in the same period of 1883; and, going back to the more disturbed years of 1882 and 1881, the number in the former year doubled and in the latter year quadrupled that of the present year in the same period. The numbers are—64 in four months of 1885–6; 54 in four months of 1882–3; 131 in four months of 1881–2; and 266 in four months of 1880–1. Therefore, I confess I do not quite understand the significance of Baron Dowse's remarks.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to doubt the accuracy of the charges in 15 of the 20 other Irish counties, with regard to which the Judges stated that the state of the calendars was of a satisfactory character.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked whether it was true or not that 300 serious offences had been reported by the Constabulary in the county of Kerry, as stated by Baron Dowse?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Yes, Sir; I accept those figures; but I must remind the hon. Gentleman that those 300 crimes were not all agrarian outrages. They cover all the general crimes that came before the Judges of Assize.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRY: They were specially reported offences.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that a number of evictions exactly equivalent to the number of outrages have occurred in Kerry at the instance of one single landlord?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—THE BALLINASLOE POLICE AND FREE GAS.
  MR. HARRISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it be true that the Town Commissioners of Ballinasloe do not charge the constabulary of that town for the gas which is consumed in their barracks; whether a large number of the Commissioners are licensed publicans, and is it a fact that
  974
  a former member of that body, William Ivors, had his licence taken from him some short time after he had opposed the giving of gas free of charge to the police; and, whether the Town Commissioners have a right to exempt certain persons from paying in such cases; and, if not, was the public auditor (Captain O'Harra) acting within the Law when he passed the accounts of the Ballinasloe Town Board without taking notice of this practice?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I am informed that the facts are as stated with regard to the question of gas. A large number of the Town Commissioners are licensed publicans. William Ivors, when a member, moved a resolution charging the police for gas; but the resolution fell through for want of a seconder. He ceased to be a Commissioner shortly afterwards, and 12 months after that he lost his licence in consequence of intemperance, which led to a shocking piece of misconduct on his part. I am in communication with the Local Government Board in reference to the queries in the last paragraph of the Question, and I am not at this moment in a position to give more definite information; but I may observe that any person who may be aggrieved by an allowance or disallowance made by the auditor may appeal to the Board, and that no appeal has yet been made in this case.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL CONVENTION.
  MR. KIMBERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether by the peculiar wording of the Favoured Nation Clause in the Transvaal Convention of February 1884, the Colony of Natal is excluded from the benefit of that Clause, although the most interested of Her Majesty's dominions; whether such peculiar wording and such exclusion was by oversight, or by deliberation; and, if the latter, for what reasons; whether the import of tobacco and other produce from the Transvaal into Natal, free of the Duty imposed on all other importers, is a consequence of the above named fact; whether a loss to the revenue of Natal has been thereby occasioned, and is still continuing; whether he has been informed that a further consequence is

  975
  that the tobacco industry of Natal has been seriously damaged; whether he will take any steps to get the Convention amended, and the consequences averted; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have received from the Transvaal Republic, Copy of any Treaty or engagement with any other State or Nation or Native Tribe, requiring approval of Her Majesty under Article 4 of the Convention?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN): The Colony of Natal is not excluded from the benefit of the Most Favoured Nation Clause (13) of the London Convention of 1884. Most-favoured-nation treatment is secured to Natal in common with all other parts of Her Majesty's Dominions by the earlier portion of the first half of that clause. The free importation of tobacco and other goods from the South African Republic into Natal does not result from the wording of Clause 13 of that Convention. It results from the Government and Legislature of Natal, with whom the matter rests, not thinking it expedient to establish Custom Houses on the inland Border. If goods otherwise subject to duty are imported into Natal free of duty there is, undoubtedly, a loss of Revenue to the Colony; but whether there is a loss of profit is another thing. The Natal inland Borders extend for over 600 miles; the cost of the service would be heavy, and the collection would be small. Reports have recently been received from the late Governor and the Chambers of Commerce on the depression of trade in Natal; but no mention is made in these Reports of injury to the tobacco industry from the importation of Transvaal tobacco. According to the latest Returns, the number of tobacco manufacturers in the Colony is only two. Her Majesty's Government have no intention of negotiating for an amendment of the 13th clause of the Convention, which appears to be properly framed, and which has no bearing on the present question, as it neither enjoins nor forbids the levying by the Natal Government of any duties on the Transvaal Border which the Natal Legislature may authorize. Her Majesty's Government have received copies of, and have assented to, Treaties between Germany and the South African Republic, and Portugal and the South African
  976
  Republic. An old Treaty concluded between Belgium and the South African Republic in 1876 has been put in force since the conclusion of the London Convention, with the consent of Her Majesty's Government. A Treaty between the South African Republic and the French Republic is under the consideration of the French Legislature, and Her Majesty's Government have received a copy of the text. A Treaty has been concluded with Switzerland, but the text has not yet been received. Negotiations for a Treaty have been going on with Holland; but Her Majesty's Government are not officially informed of the result.

  CENTRAL ASIA—THE ZHOB VALLEY EXPEDITION.
  COLONEL HUGHES - HALLETTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended to grant a medal to the officers and men, about three thousand in all, who were engaged in the Zhob Valley Expedition, seeing that they were officially informed that the said Expedition would be reckoned as "War Service," equally with the other Expeditions undertaken in other parts of the Frontiers of Afghanistan, for which medals were awarded?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir UGHTRED KAYSHUTTLEWORTH)said, it was stated in the House on the 4th of May, 1885, by the then Under Secretary of State for India, that the Government of India had expressed to the Commander-in-Chief their approbation of the manner in which the Zhob Valley operations were conducted, and that the Secretary of State in Council concurred; but that the circumstances of the case did not appear to warrant any special distinction, such as the grant of a medal. The Secretary of State now remained of that opinion, and no recommendation had been received from the Government of India.

  THE NATIONAL GALLERY — CONSTABLE'S "HAY WAIN."
  MR. RUSTONasked the honourable Member for North West Staffordshire, Whether it is a fact that the picture by John Constable, R.A., called the "Hay Wain," recently exhibited at Burlington House, has been presented by its owner to the Nation?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): I am glad to be able to inform the hon. Member that Mr. Henry Vaughan has presented this picture to the nation, and that it has been hung in the National Gallery this morning.

  ENFIELD SMALL ARMS FACTORY—"STANDING OUT" EMPLOYES.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEasked the Secretary of State for War, How many men are "standing out" in all departments of the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield; and, how long he anticipates it will be before they are again taken on to work full time?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN) (, &c.): One hundred and seventy-nine men ordinarily employed on piece-work at Enfield are standing out because their particular work is too advanced, as explained last Thursday, but 120 of them will again be at work next week.

  POST OFFICE—RURAL POSTAL DELIVERIES.
  SIR EDWARD BIRKBECKasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the present system of delivering letters and papers in rural districts, with the view of granting a more extended delivery to labourers' cottages and others, who at the present time frequently have to pay one penny for each letter or paper on delivery?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): The hon. Baronet's Question is very similar to one which was answered on the 1st instant, and in reply I may repeat what I then stated?—namely, that the Post Office is constantly engaged in extending the official delivery of letters in the rural districts irrespective of distance, and in no case is the accommodation withheld where it is shown to be warranted by the correspondence. If the hon. Baronet will inform me of the locality to which he specially refers the Postmaster General will cause inquiries to be made, with the view, if possible, of extending the postal delivery.

  NAVY—DEVONPORT DOCKYARD.
  MR. PULESTONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether
  978
  he can now relieve the anxiety prevailing in Devonport by stating what course has been determined upon in reference to the 350 men in the Dockyard who have been served with notices of discharge; whether he is aware that these notices take effect this week, and that, if carried out, the distress already existing there will be greatly increased; and, whether it is a fact that all hands at present in the Dockyards cannot be usefully employed?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. R. W. DUFF): I can only refer my hon. Friend to my answer of yesterday. The Admiralty are fully entitled to discharge these men on the 20th instant, in accordance with their agreement on entry; but in view of the present depression in the labour market efforts will be made to find work for as many men as can be economically and usefully employed, and the Controller of the Navy is in communication with Devonport with a view to effect this object.
  MR. PULESTONasked whether the hon. Gentleman was aware that the notices expired this week?
  MR. R. W. DUFF: I am perfectly aware of that.

  INLAND REVENUE, — ASSESSMENT OF THE INCOME TAX.
  MR. AGG-GARDNERasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the practice of the Department to encourage an increase of assessments by giving to the district supervisors of Income Tax a percentage on the amount by which they are raised?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT): Of course, Sir, the assessors are paid by a percentage on the amount raised; but they are specially cautioned against raising assessments unless for good cause. The surveyors are paid by salary only.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)—STATE OF KERRY.
  MR. DE COBAINasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been called to the charge of Baron Dowse to the Grand Jury of Kerry; and, in view of the enormous increase of crime in that county evidenced by the number of cases of crime reported as having risen from 166 at the summer

  979
  assizes of 1885 to 300 at the present assizes, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to apply for additional powers to deal with this alarming growth of crime in that and also in other parts of the Country?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): My right hon. Friend has already answered a Question in reference to the statement of the learned Judge, Baron Dowse. Of course, I have not merely to consider the condition of Kerry, but the condition of Ireland at largo, and we do not think that the condition of Ireland at large would warrant legislation such as that at which the hon. Member glances at the present juncture. I might also remind the hon. Member, if he has not already learned, that the month of February Beturn—the most recent Return—is a decidedly favourable one as compared with the previous months.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is a fact, as stated in this Question, that there is "an alarming growth of crime in that and also in order parts of the country;" and, whether, as a matter of fact, there has been a growth of crime in any county in Ireland except Kerry?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Certainly the improvement in the month of February was a very favourable improvement compared with the preceding months.

  IRELAND—"THE HOUSE LEAGUE."
  MR. DE COBAINasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been drawn to a new form of conspiracy developing in Ireland called "The House League," which was exercising arbitrary powers as between landlord and tenant, in towns to the serious detriment of property in those towns, in which said league had obtained a foothold; and, whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take steps with regard to the branches of this league established at Listowel, Tralee, and elsewhere?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE), in reply, said, that the House League was being carefully watched by Her Majesty's Government; but he did not understand that it was at present creating great or general alarm, or that any case had arisen to make it desirable to take any special measures.

  COAL MINES BILL.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what was the course Her Majesty's Government proposed to pursue with regard to the Coal Mines Bill which stood on the Paper for to-day?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): I have to apologize for not being in the House last night when the discussion took place in regard to the Bill; but I was absent through indisposition. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I may perhaps inform the House precisely how we stand as to this Bill. We agreed to its being read a second time on the understanding which I stated, that it should be placed in the same position as the Bill of the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) on the same subject, which had been read a second time a few minutes before. To this, it is true, the right hon. Gentleman opposite would not agree, and set down the Committee, in spite of my protest, for an earlier day. The Committee stage was reached on Wednesday, the 10th, after a quarter to 6, and the right hon. Gentleman sucseeded in moving the Speaker out of the Chair. I objected immediately afterwards, and Progress was reported, yesterday being named by the right hon. Gentleman for the continuance of the debate in Committee. Shortly afterwards I saw the right hon. Gentleman on another subject, and he explained to me why, in his opinion, legislation was urgent. But I said in reply that I could make no change in the date when I thought that the Committee should be resumed—that is to say, the date for the Committee on the Bill of the hon. Member for Donegal—until I had read and considered the Report of the Mines Commission, which I daily expected to receive. I said that after reading and considering that Report I might have to make a statement to the House and to communicate with the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Donegal about their Bills. I received yesterday the Report; but I have not yet had time to study it completely, and at this moment I am not able to advise the House as to these two Bills. I have also received important suggestions from the Miners' Conference. My impression is that I shall be able to

  981
  introduce a Bill immediately founded on the Report, and that it will cover the whole ground and render any other Bill unnecessary. Under these circumstances, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will postpone the Committee on the Bill for a few days.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSintimated that he would postpone the Committee stage for 10 days.

MOTIONS.
  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS, 1866–1869.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. STANSFELD, in rising to call attention to the subject, and to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, the Contagious Diseases Acts, 1866–1869, ought to be repealed," said, he did so with a confident hope that his Motion would be successful. The Acts were passed without discussion, in silence, and he might say by stealth. ["No, no!"] If there was any doubt on the matter he would prove it. The present Prime Minister, on the 7th of May, 1883, used these words—
    "Most unfortunately, though from the best of motives—from the desire to prevent public discussion on a subject not fit for proper discussion—these Acts were passed almost without the knowledge of anyone. He was a Member of the Government at the time they were passed; but he did not know how they passed, or by whom they were carried through the House."—(3 Hansard, [279] 65.)
    And, again, in reply to an hon. Member, the right hon. Gentleman observed—
    "I said that these Acts were passed in general obscurity, and that they were never brought before the Cabinet of which I was a Member."
    Those statements were conclusive of the circumstances and conditions under which this legislation took place. It was his (Mr. Stansfeld's) conviction, shared by a great part of the country, that had it not been for that silence and the rapid way in which the Acts were smuggled through Parliament, they never would have been enacted, so strong would have been the public indignation at their provisions. Since then 17 weary years had passed, in which many hundreds of persons, both men and women, had spent their time, some their lives, and some had broken their hearts, in the endeavour to get these Acts repealed; and he thought, after that lapse of time, the moment had
    982
    arrived when he was entitled to claim from that new Parliament a decisive and final verdict. Further delay would be inconceivable and impossible. The subject had been exhausted by a succession of inquiries, and had been judged by the late Parliament, and by the country at large. In 1870, they had a Royal Commission which reported on the whole question. Next, they had a Committee of that House in 1879, which sat in two Parliaments. He laboured on that Committee, and he never went through a heavier or more repulsive piece of work; but it was work undertaken from a sense of duty. The Commission presented two Reports—the Report of the majority and the Report of the minority, the latter being his. The Reports were antagonistic in every paragraph. He appealed to the late House of Commons, and on the 20th of April, 1883, he succeeded in carrying, by a majority of 70, a Resolution by which the House disapproved of these Acts upon moral grounds. Inconsequence of that Resolution, which was accepted by the Government of the day under the present Prime Minister, the system of compulsory examination had practically ceased to be in operation in this country. That suspension of the operation of the Acts was, however, only regarded as a temporary expedient, and the late Government of his right hon. Friend felt and acknowledged the obligation to do something more. They introduced first one, and then another Bill, each absolutely repealing the Acts, but also containing clauses to which a great many who had devoted the greatest amount of time to the subject felt very strong and conscientious objections. Partly because of those objections to those clauses, but mainly from the pressure of Public Business, the Bills were not pressed through the House. But, at the close of the last Session, a discussion took place, and the view was expressed, both from the Treasury and the Front Opposition Benches, that the question was ripe for some solution; but it was thought fitting that it should be left to the new Parliament; and now he brought it before the new Parliament, and asked for some definite legislation on the subject. He objected to these Acts in a threefold manner—upon moral, constitutional, and hygienic grounds. For many years past he had

    983
    undertaken in that House, and elsewhere, the painful burden of bringing forward the statistical argument to prove that which he believed was the hygienic failure of the Acts. On that occasion he would not go into the statistical question how far the Acts had or had not fulfilled the objects for which they were passed, for he believed that on the two former grounds public opinion was overwhelmingly on his side. Neither did he intend to enter upon the hygienic argument, for he did not think the House would stoop to consider that part of the question, because hon. Members had come to their own conclusion upon the matter on different and higher grounds. He thought that the public were of opinion that if the Military and Naval Authorities of this country were desirous, as they ought to be, of diminishing the amount and severity of disease in the Army and Navy, it behoved them to find other means for this purpose than those which had been adopted under these Acts. Means must be found which would not sin against the principle of liberty and law, and which would not have any of the objections which most of them had found against the policy and principle of legislation on the subject. There were only two principles between which Parliament must take its choice—the principle of freedom, and the principle of the Acts, which was that of compulsion. Parliament must choose between those two principles, for there was no half-way house. It was a false doctrine to suppose that the principle of compulsion in this matter could be accepted without producing some effect upon this particular vice. That effect would be to stimulate and increase its amount. He knew something of the progress of opinion with regard to this subject in the Services. A sense of discipline kept officers and men silent; but he was certain that there had been a growth of opinion in favour of the principle which he advocated—the principle of freedom, instead of that of compulsion. He asked the House to determine in favour of the principle of liberty, and, above and beyond all, to do so because the principle of compulsion in its action upon the public mind and upon the minds of those who were most concerned in the matter tended to give a sanction, and therefore a stimulus, to that vice which was the cause of disease which all were
    984
    desirous of diminishing. He thought that the House would arrive at a conclusion upon this matter upon constitutional and moral and religious grounds. In the campaign against these Acts he had never sought to obtain a mere tactical advantage, for the objects which he and his Friends had in view were far higher than the mere repeal of the Acts. That object was to rouse the public mind to the degradation and the crime which resulted from the growth of this particular vice. That crime had been successfully dealt with by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, which was the outcome of their 17 years' agitation. It was they who tracked the Belgian traffic, which led to the appointment of the Lords' Committee; and nobody could say that the Criminal Law Amendment Act was not acting effectually in exposing, as well as repressing, crime. More than that, they wished to raise the moral tone of the country; and in that they had succeeded. Associations for promoting social purity had sprung up all over the country, and in all the churches of the land men's minds had been awakened on the subject. That was in consequence of their agitation, and part of its justification. He had a firm conviction that when the House had repealed the Contagious Diseases Acts, when they had turned their minds to the better and true belief that vice was capable of diminution, and that law and government ought to be on the side of virtue, and not on the side of vice, they would all be conscious of a great relief, and of a sustaining and well-grounded hope; and he believed that a general raising of the moral health of the community and of a spirit of true manliness would abide with them, and be their justification and reward. He begged to move the Motion which stood in his name.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, in the opinion of this House, the Contagious Diseases Acts, 1866–1869, ought to be repealed."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. OAMPBELL-BANNERMAN) (, &c.)said, he was sure that the House would agree with him in recognizing the clearness with which his right hon. Friend had, as was usual with him, put before the House the case for this Motion, and the temperate tone with

    985
    which he had dealt with the subject. Fortunately, it was not necessary for the House to re-argue the point upon which the late House of Commons pronounced its judgment on April 20, 1883. He said this was fortunate, not only on account of the inherent unpleasantness of the subject, but because it was a subject which, so far as it depended upon medical details and hygienic theory, the House of Commons as an Assembly was little fitted to discuss. At that time, three years ago, the House was in full possession of the facts. A strong Select Committee had sat for several years, and had collected a great mass of evidence. The arguments for and against the practice of compulsory examination were urged with an unusual degree of zeal and fervour, because it was a peculiarity of this subject that, to the astonishment of plain people like himself, it seemed to supply both to the upholders and to the assailants of these Acts a sort of new religion. At any rate, the House had the benefit of a full exposition of all the facts and arguments on either side, and it pronounced a decided judment upon them. He believed that the great majority of those who contributed to that decision were not actuated by any high-pitched theory in the matter; but they asked themselves this question—Granted that some benefit has been proved to the health of our soldiers and sailors, and to the condition of the towns to which the Acts apply, is the advantage so gained worth the cost? And when he spoke of cost, he did not mean the expenditure in money, but the grievous hurt to the sentiment and instinct and conscience of a great part of the nation. Thereupon the practice of compulsory examination was abandoned; and he ventured to say that it was impossible that any Government or any House of Commons should revive it. And his right hon. Friend now asked why they should retain on the Statute Book provisions which were in disuse, and which were disused, not because it was temporarily inexpedient to put them in operation, but because a majority of the House of Commons, and, probably, in his (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman's) opinion, a still larger majority in the country, condemned and repudiated them. So far as the Government was concerned, it was a matter of course that
    986
    they should support the Motion of his right hon. Friend, because, in 1883, I shortly after the decision of the House to which he had referred, the former I Liberal Government brought in a Bill providing for the absolute repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts, so that this was no new opinion of theirs. That Bill was not proceeded with, having met with strong opposition, owing to a new proposal it contained, that although there should be no compulsory examination, yet if a person voluntarily entered one of the hospitals, there should be power of detention until thoroughly cured. It was not the intention of the present Government now to renew a proposal to that effect. It would be regarded, on the one hand, with great jealously, on the ground that the powers given might be abused; and, on the other hand, there was no very high estimate formed of the effect on the health of the Army and Navy of such a system, if standing by itself. But then it would be asked of the Government—and the question would be addressed with personl directness to himself, who had an immediate responsbility to that House for the efficiency of the Army—"Are you content to leave things as they are? Are you so satisfied with the information supplied to you that you will take no steps to secure the health, both moral and physical, of our soldiers?" His answer was "No," he was not. He was not content to see them left exposed to the evils which now surrounded them; but he feared that they would remain so exposed until these Acts were repealed. The figures supplied to him undoubtedly showed, as they might expect, that there had been a considerable increase of disease following the suspension of compulsory police action in the protected districts. He found that the admission to hospitals, which averaged 496 per 1,000 during the years 1873–82. rose to 110·0 in 1883, and had been 138·0 in 1884, and (estimated) 142·6 in 1885. Similarly the proportion of men constantly sick was 3·87 from 1873 to 1882; 8·66 in 1883; 12·41 in 1884; and 11·79 in 1885. The House would thus observe that there was a great leap up in 1883, but that since then the rate of increase had not been sustained. And it was a singular fact that, in stations not under the Acts, the progress of disease appeared to have

    987
    followed, though not in the same degree, the same course. In those stations, the ratios per 1,000 had been for the 10 years before 1883, for 1883, for 1884, and for 1885, of admissions, 121·0, 188·8, 160·0, and 184·4; and of constantly sick, 8·97, 15·81, 14·01, and 13·75 respectively. He thought it right to state these figures to the House; but, knowing the keenness of the controversy, he left it to hon. Members to draw their own deductions from them. The main fact before them was this—that the country had pronounced against State interference in this matter. Some hon. Members might not like or approve of that decision; but they must deal with it as a fact. Another fact was, that one of the effects of any intervention of the State always was that it strangled local and individual effort; and they might be sure that so long as the direct action of the State was merely suspended, and the chance remained of its being again put in motion, the localities would fail fully to undertake this duty. It was to the localities that he looked for a remedy for this great evil; and he was sure that their public spirit and capacity of looking after their own affairs were quite equal to the task; and, to put it plainly, it was only according to one's knowledge of human nature that they should see them maintain a passive attitude so long as it was possible that the work might be done by the exertions and paid out of the pocket of the State. It might be said that it was unfair to place this duty upon the inhabitants of the garrison towns, because the Government created in them an abnormal condition of society by bringing to them a great number of young men, and, therefore, the Government were responsible for the results. But would the garrison towns be pleased if the garrisons were removed? Did not they derive their importance and a great part of their commercial prosperity from the great naval and military establishments; and was it too much for the Government to say that they must take the rough with the smooth, and as they had the benefits so they must deal with the evils arising from the presence of large bodies of soldiers and sailors among them? There were two separate branches of this question. There was, first of all, the question of order and decency in the streets and houses of a town. Since 1883, in
    988
    such towns as Portsmouth and Plymouth, the state of things in this respect had been deplorable. But this had been not owing to the suspension of the Acts, but owing to the withdrawal of the Metropolitan Police engaged under the Acts. They had done ordinary police work; and why should Portsmouth, or Devonport, or Dover have their streets kept in decent order at the expense of the general taxpayer, when the large towns of the North of England and Scotland had completely fulfilled this duty for themselves, and at the expense of their own ratepayers? If these Southern towns lacked powers under the law as it at present stood to deal with this great evil, Parliament would no doubt be willing to help them. In the second place, there was the humanitarian side of the question. It would be most lamentable if the local hospitals which had been maintained under these Acts, and in which, whatever evils might be associated with them, thousands of poor women had had some alleviation, were to be closed. He felt sure that the localities would be ready to support these humane institutions, and they might have some assistance continued to them from public funds under reasonable conditions. So long, however, as the Acts remained, neither would women resort to the hospitals, dreading as they did the consequences, nor would the municipalities and local communities be ready to exert themselves in the maintenance of decent order or in the support of hospitals. Hence it was that, in the interests of decency and health and humanity, as well as of political consistency, seeing what had been done in 1883, he should support the Motion.
    SIR JOHN KENNAWAY, in rising to move, as an Amendment, to add to the Motion the words—
    "Due provision at the same time being made for the continued maintenance of hospital accommodation, with adequate treatment of women voluntarily seeking admission and medical care,"
    said, he hesitated to accept the doctrine that an improved state of morality had resulted from the operations of the organization of which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Stansfeld) had spoken; but he fully recognized and acknowledged the earnestness and consistency

    989
    with which the repeal of the Acts had been advocated by the right hon. Gentleman; and he hoped he would accept the Amendment, which would bring the controversy on this very painful subject to an end. He doubted, however, if hon. Members had considered the far-reaching consequences of that repeal to generations yet unborn. It must be borne in mind that the Acts were passed to meet terrible evils that could not be allowed to exist in a civilized country without a legislative attempt at remedy. The present Lord Aberdare, when Home Secretary as Mr. Bruce, received a Memorial in favour of the Acts, signed by 2,500 physicians and surgeons, including the chief practitioners of the day, many ministers of religion, matrons of hospitals, and many other persons of experience had borne testimony to the beneficial working of the Acts; but he agreed that there was a feeling in the country that these benefits had been obtained at too high a moral cost, that there had been an appearance of making vice easy for men, and he was not surprised at the support the right hon. Gentleman had received. But, if the Acts were removed, should we fold our arms and do nothing for those unfortunate women in garrison towns, reduced to their wretched state, to some extent, by the action of the State itself? With the compulsory clauses eliminated, there were other provisions under which women could be admitted and retained in hospitals until they were cured; and there were military and naval hospitals for the purpose supported by £16,488 voted in the Estimates. The State provided for the relief of diseases such as small-pox and cholera; and these poor women had a special claim, in that they fell victims to the consequences of the State keeping together large bodies of men in a state of enforced celibacy at a time of life when their animal passions were strongest, and they were least able to resist temptation. Voluntary local effort would not meet the case. If the work was to be done at all, it should be well done; and he maintained there was as much reason for keeping women in the hospital against their will until they were cured, as for the similar treatment of patients afflicted with any infectious disease; and he exhorted the Government to have the courage of their opinions. He put his Amendment on the Paper, recognizing
    990
    the prejudice against the Acts, because the country had a responsibility of which it could not divest itself by talking of the gain to a town from having a garrison. No shallow pretence would excuse the State shirking its duty and shutting the hospital doors against the poor, suffering women who came for help, leaving them to die like dogs in the street. He believed that even in this country, when the real facts of the case were put before them, they would recognize their responsibility, and refuse to sanction such repulsive and inhuman conduct. He believed also that the women of this country would recognize their responsibility to provide for the relief of their poor fallen sisters by some means more certain and continuous than voluntary effort. In that belief he moved his Amendment to the Motion, and he trusted that the Secretary of State for War and the Mover of the original Motion would accede to that very reasonable proposition. If the right hon. Gentleman would consent to accept the addition, he and many others, he was sure, would support the Motion as thus amended.
    SIR JOSEPH PEASE, in rising to second the Motion, said, that he desired to speak to the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for the Honiton Division of Devonshire (Sir John Kennaway). They could not, he thought, rid themselves of the responsibility that would still remain upon them when these Acts were repealed. We should still he left then with these unfortunate creatures not only in the streets of our garrison towns, but of other towns as well. It was desirable, then, as a matter of humanity, that something should be done to relieve their sufferings; but it must, however, be recollected that this question did not merely affect these unfortunate women, but that we had to deal with a disease which spread itself to unborn and innocent generations. Therefore, it was our duty to do what we could to put a stop to the progress of disease. Assuming that we adopted the voluntary system in the treatment of these women as to the vice from which it arose, there was, perhaps, no better way of checking it than the one which had been indicated by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. The officers of the Army had of late

    991
    been doing a great deal with respect to the soldiers in regard to providing them with more amusement and more occupation for their time; and, probably, we must look to these means, and to the recruiting of a better class of men, and to keeping the soldiers out of the haunts of vice to a greater extent than had hitherto been the case. Then he believed the treatment they received, and the influence brought to bear upon these women in the hospital to which they resorted voluntarily, would have a good effect in inducing many of these poor creatures to lead better lives. The State, he could not conceal from himself, had a great responsibility in this matter from the fact of its creating an unnatural state of things by bringing together a large number of young men in garrison towns and keeping them there in a state of celibacy. He would, however, leave the matter of the future control of those hospitals for future discussion. It was sufficient for his present purpose to say that a great deal of good could be done in the voluntary hospitals contemplated by the Amendment. Then poor women would come voluntarily into these hospitals, where they would not only be medically treated, but they would be placed under kind supervision, and would, it was to be hoped, be led by the influences there exerted upon them to lead better lives; and they might even, in many cases, be restored to their friends. Those who had looked into the state of our garrison towns knew that the state of the streets would be very different from what they were if the authorities did their duty. Unfortunately, they did not. He concluded, however, that the Municipal Authorities of those towns were bound to act for the improvement of the state of the streets. With regard to the establishment of hospitals for voluntary resort, he would not limit them to garrison towns. He thought that in every town hospital accommodation should be provided by Boards of Guardians or other authorities for the reception of these un-unfortunate women. Those hospitals ought to be kept up, and, if placed under the charge of a godly matron, might do much moral as well as physical good. But he looked to an improvement in the moral tone of the Army and Navy to effect that change for the better which was so earnestly to be desired.
    992
    He would conclude by seconding the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the Question, to add the words "due provision at the same time being made for the continued maintenance of hospital accommodation with adequate treatment of women voluntarily seeking admission and medical care."—(Sir John Kennaway.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. PULESTONsaid, he did not propose to occupy much of their time in what would virtually be thrashing a dead horse; but he could not consistently allow the present opportunity to pass without touching upon one or two points in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Stansfeld). The right hon. Gentleman said that the Prime Minister had said that these Acts were passed sub silentio 17 years ago; but at that time Mr. Gladstone was himself Chancellor of the Exchequer, and would, as such, have to pass the Estimates for carrying them out. Since then they had had many opportunities of discussing the Contagious Diseases Acts, the merits or demerits of which were well threshed out in the Committee to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. That Committee sat three years, and resulted in a majority and a minority Report, the former signed by 10 and the latter by 6 Members. The right hon. Gentleman preferred the latter Report; but he (Mr. Puleston) did not see why it should be entitled to greater authority than the Report of the majority. In that Committee, and subsequently in that House, these Acts were manfully supported by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the present Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Osborne Morgan) and the present Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Acland), and he was glad to see both those Gentlemen in their places that night. He could only describe the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War as startling. The publication of such figures rendered it unncessary for him to quote the statistics showing the condition of Devonport during the last three years as compared with the condition of the town during the three years immediately preceding the action of the

    993
    House in 1883. The Acts ought not to be allowed to lapse, because their tendency was in the direction of suppressing juvenile vice, and because they contributed to the preservation of order and decency. The Select Committee that had inquired into the subject had reported that the objects of the Acts were good, and that they had, according to the tenour of Memorials from Portsmouth, Plymouth, and Devonport, been the means of relieving great suffering, and had afforded many young girls, who were just falling into crime, the opportunity of returning to a proper life. Statistics had shown the great damage that the withdrawal of the operation of the Acts had brought about; but their opponents had said that their statistics were cooked and unreliable. He (Mr. Puleston) wished to give those who differed from him on the subject credit for conscientious motives; but they declined to extend the same tolerance to those who differed from them. They claimed for themselves a monopoly of good intention. He admitted that public opinion, as represented in that House, was now opposed to the Acts; but the public little knew how effective they had been in promoting morality. Before the Acts were passed they had endeavoured in Plymouth and Devonport to improve the moral aspect of the towns. Some persons said it was their duty to do so; and he could say that the people in his district had done all that they could to discharge their duty in this respect. But they failed, because local effort, as proved by former experience, unassisted by the strong arm of the Government, could not cope with the evil. If the wishes of the inhabitants of the garrison towns were to be completely disregarded—if even the modest Amendment of the hon. Member for the Honiton Division of Devonshire was to be refused—a chaotic state of things would ensue, fraught with much absolute cruelty. He had lately received a letter from the Town Clerk of Devonport, who wrote—
    "None of the supporters of the Acts in this town have altered their opinion as regards their beneficial operation; on the contrary, their opinion has been confirmed in every particular."
    He (Mr. Puleston) was alarmed at the prospect before them, if they were to rest seriously upon the statement made by the Secretary of State for War; for
    994
    the worst form of the disease had increased not only in cases, but in virulence. He believed that was the experience of not only the Plymouth and Devonport people, but that of the inhabitants of Portsmouth as well. He hoped still that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would induce the Government to join him in accepting the Amendment before the House. It would, in some degree, compensate for the repeal of the existing Acts.
    SIR WILLIAM GROSSMANsaid, as the Representative of a garrison town, he also hoped that the House would accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Honiton Division of Devonshire, although he knew that the entire repeal of the Acts was favoured by the House and the country. He (Sir William Crossman) could himself speak from a personal knowledge of Portsmouth, for many years before the Acts were thought of, and he could only say that before the Acts were passed the streets of Portsmouth and Portsea were a disgrace to any civilized land. While the Acts were in full operation those streets were respectable again; but since the Acts had been suspended they were as bad as ever. This was not due, as had been stated, to the action of the Metropolitan Police, but largely to the operation of these Acts. It was not now the time to go into hygienic matters connected with these Acts, and therefore he would only say this—that if the years 1880–2, when the Acts were in full operation, were compared with the years 1883–4, when they were suspended, it would be found that disease had increased by at least 50 per cent. He did hope and trust that some indulgence would still be afforded to the hospitals in the garrison towns in the shape of a sum of money, and that the House would accept the Amendment. He was surprised that the Government should be consenting parties to the repeal of the Acts, and he must oppose the Resolution.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he assumed that the Government were prepared to accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Sir John Kennaway). [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] Well, he had assumed it, because it entirely tallied with the speech of the Secretary of State for War. The

    995
    right hon. Gentleman had clearly, and in the most distinct manner, informed the House that it would be, in his opinion, a most lamentable thing if the hospitals were closed. What he (Lord George Hamilton) wanted the Government to undertake was that these hospitals should not be closed; and he had hoped that the Amendment of his hon. Friend would meet with unanimous approval. Until the Local Authorities had been approached, with a view to maintaining and supporting these hospitals, it clearly was the duty of the Government to be responsible for their maintenance, although he did not understand that any such promise was given by Parliament; and he thought he could show that it was the bounden duty of the right hon. Gentleman and all who thought with him to support the Amendment. Probably not half the Members of the present House were present at the debate in 1883, when the compulsory powers under the Acts were suspended. The Acts contained two powers—namely, compulsory examination, and a provision for the maintenance of hospitals. On the occasion of the debate of 1883, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) pointed out that he did not propose to interfere with the maintenance of hospitals. That statement, of course, had a great influence in the House, and enabled the right hon. Gentleman to carry his proposal to suspend the compulsory powers of examination under the Acts. The then Secretary of State for War made use of words to the same effect; and therefore these two right hon. Members had pledged themselves, as far as he could see, to support the proposal contained in the Amendment of his hon. Friend. As to the hygienic effect of the suspension of the Acts, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld), in his speech, always assumed that these Acts had not tended to prevent disease. Many persons accepted that statement, and it was on the strength of that statement that the compulsory powers were suspended. But what was the real result? When he (Lord George Hamilton) was at the Admiralty, he was supplied with information which showed that there had been a great increase in disease of the most virulent kind. His experience during the six months had convinced him that the suspension of
    996
    these Acts had been a great evil. Under these circumstances, he trusted the House would insist upon having security that the work now being done by the hospitals would be continued.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE)said, the provision in the Acts was one which, in the first place, did nothing to insure the treatment of these diseases in hospitals supported by the public. It was a permissive power that the Secretary of State might provide, and then it was specified what should follow if he did provide. The contention of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War was that the matter was best dealt with by the discretion of the Government and the House; that the provision in the Acts, as it now stood, did not carry with it any operative effect; that the Amendment proposed, for the first time by Act, to establish this principle in a manner fettering the freedom of the House; and that they should rather continue as they had done, without change, the subventions which had been hitherto granted, than to hamper themselves by introducing into an Act of Parliament provisions of a positive character in a matter which, in their opinion, it was better to leave open. Their proposal practically was that they should resist the Amendment, because they thought the footing on which the matter now stood was a wiser and a better one.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid, he was sure it was not the intention or the wish of his hon. Friend (Sir John Kennaway) to establish any new principle into this matter. All he desired was that provision should be made for the maintenance of those existing hospitals which were now paid for out of money provided by Parliament. His hon. Friend did not understand from the Secretary of State that any such pledge was given. They understood him to point out that, in his opinion, and in that of the Government, this work should be undertaken by the Local Authorities. What reason had Her Majesty's Government for thinking that any of the Local Authorities would undertake it? If they would not do so, were Her Majesty's Government prepared to bring in a Bill to compel them? If it was to be understood from the speech of the Prime Minister that Her

    997
    Majesty's Government would maintain the hospitals if Local Authorities did not undertake to do so, his hon. Friend would be satisfied; but if they could obtain no such pledge, he hoped his hon. Friend would take the sense of the House.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANregretted that anything he had said had given rise to misunderstanding. The view of the Government entirely accorded as to the general principle they sought to lay down with his hon. Friend opposite. They were of opinion that every reasonable and proper assistance should be given towards the maintenance of these hospitals, and he believed that the whole House was of that opinion. He must, however, say that he thought that the duty primarily fell on the Local Authorities, and that the requirements of the case would be entirely satisfied if they reverted to the practice which prevailed before the Acts were introduced, and if a subsidy were voted by the House and handed over to the Local Authorities under certain reasonable conditions. The main principle was that the hospitals should be maintained by the localities, and the Government would assist them; but as long as these Acts remained on the Statute Book the Local Authorities would not accept the responsibility of maintaining them. He did not wish that the freedom of the House should be weighted; that any provisions of the sort proposed should be laid down in an Act of Parliament; or that a Resolution should be passed pledging the House of Commons. But, as he had said, they were willing to express an opinion that a subsidy of some sort should be given, and that the whole of the burden should not be thrown on the localities.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the Amendment did not require the Government to impose a charge upon the House by Act of Parliament. What it said was that it was the duty of the Government, which had maintained those hospitals in the past, to make adequate provision for them as regarded the future. The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that as soon as these Statutes were removed from the Statute Book it would not be incumbent on him, or on the First Lord of the Admiralty, to make any provision
    998
    for these hospitals. There would be no engagement on his part; and if the House did not accept the Amendment it would be open to him to say that he was not bound. In all probability the hospitals would not be maintained by the Local Authorities, who would say that it was the duty of the Government to maintain them.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he wished to make a practical suggestion, and that was that the Government should assure the House that until the Army Estimates of next year were introduced they would continue the maintenance of those hospitals. ["No!" and cries of "Divide!"] The hon. Members who called so loudly for a division had no knowledge of previous debates, and very few of them had any practical experience of these hospitals; but, considering the serious nature of the issues involved in the question, he appealed to the Government to allow the hospitals to be continued.
    MR. JOICEYsaid, there was one view of this question which did not seem to have been considered; and it was that in the event of the Acts being repealed, and on the Government consenting to adopt the Motion, it must be expected that there would be applications from many parts of the country where large numbers of soldiers were gathered together, and where there were hospitals supported entirely by voluntary contributions, for donations. In Newcastle, which adjoined the division of the county of Durham which he had the honour to represent, there were something like 2,000 soldiers; but there had been no contribution from the Government towards the support of the hospital there. If the House adopted the Motion, and the Acts were repealed, he begged to give Notice that he should make an application to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of the hospitals in Newcastle.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 131; Noes 245: Majority 114.—(Div. List, No. 35.)
    Main Question put.
    Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, the Contagious Diseases Acts, 1S66–1869, ought to be repealed.

  GROUND RENTS.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. SAUNDERS, in rising to move—
  "That no system of taxation can be equitable unless a direct assessment be imposed on the owners of Ground Rents, and on the owners of increased values imparted to land by building operations, or other improvements, as recommended by the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes,"
  said: Mr. Speaker, since I gave Notice of this Motion it has come to my knowledge that a large number of hon. Members are interested in the subject, and I sincerely wish that it had devolved upon some hon. Member of more experience and ability than I possess to bring it under the attention of the House. Relying, however, upon the kind indulgence of hon. Members, I will do my best to make my observations as clear and as concise as possible. I think it will be admitted that the time is opportune for the discussion of this subject. Local Government is a subject which is about to be considered—with regard to the Metropolis the Coal Duties are about to expire, and it will be necessary to determine whether they should be renewed, or some less oppressive mode of taxation be introduced. With regard to the National Exchequer, we are informed that the Expenditure having been very large it will be necessary to devise some means for supplementing the present taxation. A Royal Commission, which has recently made a Report upon the Housing of the Poor, says—
  "Your Majesty's Commissioners are of opinion that until some reform is introduced which shall secure contribution to local expenditure from other sources of income received by residents in the locality, in addition to the present rateable property, no great progress can be made in local improvements."
  There cannot be a doubt that the present mode of assessment for local improvement leads, in a large degree, to a paralysis of industry. That has been referred to in the extract from the Report of the Royal Commissioners which I have read; and I may illustrate the fact more precisely by a reference to the case of Dublin. In that city, as in many other places, a large scheme of drainage is necessary in order to preserve the health of the locality. At present a large amount of disease and death results from the absence of that system of
  1000
  drainage. It is estimated that £400,000 would be required to put the system into good order. The expenditure of such a sum of money would add to the value of property in Dublin to a much greater extent than the amount of the expenditure. Abundance of capital awaits employment; numbers of labourers are desirous of work; and why, therefore, should a difficulty arise in carrying out so desirable an object? The difficulty comes in this way—that one class of people would have to pay the cost, while another class of people would benefit by the expenditure. The ground landlords of the City of Dublin will not be called upon to make any contributions to the improvement; and, therefore, the cost of doing it falls upon the working classes and the tradesmen, who have merely a temporary interest in the houses they occupy, and the whole advantage comes to those who contribute nothing to the rates. In one instance, a landlord in Dublin receives from land something like £20,000 per annum, in the shape of ground rents, and yet he will not be called upon to contribute a single farthing to the expense of this main drainage, if it is decided to carry it out. I have been surprised, in the investigation I have made, to find to what an immense extent the cost of houses in London has been increased by the enormous sums which are paid for ground rents. Ground rent generally begins, as we know, in the suburbs, by the builder desiring to erect houses upon a field, which the landlord graciously permits him to occupy, if he consents to pay something like five, or, perhaps, 10 times the amount of the previous rent; in such cases I believe it will be found that, on the average, the ground rent is about 15 per cent of the total house rent. As we approach the centre of London the proportion increases with very great rapidity; and I find within the City itself the ground rents are, in some cases, three or four times as much as the house rent. In one instance which has lately come under my notice, a ground rent paid for a small plot of land, within a stone's throw of the Royal Exchange, is £1,300 per annum. The total expenditure which could be made on that plot of land with advantage did not exceed £7,500. The position, therefore, is this—that the expenditure of £7,500 is charged with a ground rent of

  1001
  £1,300 a-year; in addition, the rates amount to £450; thus there is an artificial burden of £1,750 per annum. I think it would be difficult to find a corresponding instance of such an enormous burden being placed upon industry; and it is no wonder that the Royal Commissioners inform us that improvements cannot be carried on unless this system be altered. A lease which will fall in in the course of a few days in the West End will, I am told, increase the income of the present landlord from £40 per annum to £8,000 per annum. The evil, therefore, is practically increasing, because the ground rents are coming into fewer and fewer hands as the leases fall in; and consequently the arrangement becomes more and more burdensome, and more and more disturbing of that condition of society which we should like to see prevail. It increases the depression of the poor and adds to the wealth of the rich. I will not trouble the House with any details, and unfortunately there are no statistics — official statistics — available which will enable me to state the amounts of ground rents throughout the Metropolis as compared with the total rents. The rating of the Metropolis amounts to £32,000,000 per annum, and I have taken some pains to ascertain what proportion of ground rent is paid in various localities. The result of the investigation convinces me that something like one-half of this £32,000,000 represents ground rent—£16,000,000 per annum represent, I believe, the value of ground rents in the Metropolitan area. That amounts to £16 per annum per family as a burden of taxation for the benefit of a small number of landowners. I know it may be said that the working classes pay but a small proportion of this taxation. But such is not a correct representation of the case. The fact is that the working classes bear an undue proportion of this burden. We must not measure it by what is taken from the working classes. We must measure it by what the working classes are prevented from obtaining; the enormously repressive influence upon industry which this system entails subjects the working classes to a severe competition, which altogether prevents them from realizing those earnings and those wages which they might obtain if industry were not so bur-
  1002
  dened and restricted. It is, as I said, what they are deprived of we have to consider more than what they have actually to pay. Now, Sir, various measures are proposed for lessening these evils, which have long since been recognized. We have a Leasehold Enfranchisement Bill and also a Town Holdings Bill, both excellent measures in their way, and both necessary, I believe, for the due adjustment of the difficulties we are considering. But unless these measures are accompanied by a readjustment of taxation the evils of which we complain cannot be removed. Even if you make the occupier of the house the freeholder of the ground rent the difficulty still remains, because the burden of the cost of the land under the present system goes with it. I think these points are always better illustrated by reference to facts, and I would mention what has happened in a case in East Hull, where the opening of the Hull and Barnsley Railway and Dock has added very much to the value of the land, and made it necessary to build working-class dwellings in the neighbourhood of the dock. This land, which a short time ago was worth only £100 per acre, has now been sold for building purposes at the rate of £3,000 per acre; and, of course, the builder has to add that cost to the rent which he extracts and must obtain from the working classes. The working man, therefore, pays that amount; and it is almost as burdensome in the shape of the freehold as in the shape of ground rent, although by having a freehold he may be able to prevent some future evil. We have recently had brought before us the case where the construction of a harbour has increased the value of rent from £10 per acre to £1,000 per acre, and it seems reasonable that these values, which are so rapidly increased by the exercise of industry on the part of others, should be made to contribute to taxation. Fortunately I am not dependent on any opinion I might express or any argument which I might use, for this case has been dealt with most ably by a Royal Commission, who have expressed their views as follows. They say—
  "Land available for building in the neighbourhood of our populous centres, though its capital value is very great, is probably producing only a small yearly return until it is let for building. The owners of this land are rated, not in relation to the real value, but to the

  1003
  actual annual income. They can thus afford to keep their land out of the market, and to part with only small quantities, so as to raise the price beyond the natural monopoly price which the land would command by its advantages of position. Meantime, the general expenditure of the town on improvements is increasing the value of their property. If this land were rated at, say, 4 per cent on its selling value, the owners would have a more direct incentive to part with it to those who are desirous of building, and a twofold advantage would result to the community. First, all the valuable property would contribute to the rates, and thus the burden on the occupier would be diminished by the increase in the rateable property. Secondly, the owners of the building land would be forced to offer their land for sale, and thus their competition with one another would bring down the price of building land, and so diminish the tax in the shape of ground rent, or price paid for land, which is now levied on urban enter-prize by the adjacent landowners; a tax, be it remembered, which is no recompense for any industry or expenditure on their part, but is the natural result of the industry and activity of the townspeople themselves. Your Majesty's Commissioners would recommend that these matters should be included in legislation when the law of rating comes to be dealt with by Parliament."
  It is a very common contention in reference to ground rents that a bargain has been made between the landowner and the builder by which the builder on taking the land is to pay all the rates; and it is said that the landowner lets his laud cheaper than he would otherwise do in consequence of that condition. Exactly the reverse is the fact, as the Commissioners clearly point out. Being altogether relieved from the burden of taxation on the enormous values which arise from the exercise of the industry of other people, the landowners are enabled to demand the extreme prices they obtain. If a man were called upon to contribute to the local taxation as the value of the property rose—and I would say also to Imperial taxation—instead of getting a higher price he would be content to obtain a much lower price. It is because the landowners can hold their land without taxation under the present unjust conditions that they are enabled to impose on the community these tremendous burdens in the shape of ground rents. Now, it may be very fairly asked, What is the proposal that underlies my Motion? If I correctly understand the disposition of this House, they are not very much inclined to be influenced by abstract principles; and legislation is governed, and, perhaps, properly governed, rather by average
  1004
  opinion than by abstract ideas. At the same time, it is a fair question what principle underlies my Motion, and it is clearly and distinctly this—that the value of property imparted by the community should be taxed in preference to taxing the value created by the industry of individuals. I am quite aware that in reference to land extravagant propositions are made, and, no doubt, extravagant propositions will continue to be made; but I think no proposition could be so extravagant as that we should allow things to remain as they are. I know perfectly well that in making the proposed change difficulties and hardships will arise. It sometimes happens that it is easier for the moment to continue upon a wrong course than it is to correct it. When the Irishman fell down the ladder, he said it was not the fall that had hurt him, but the stop which he got; and so it frequently happens that a continuance in a wrong course is much easier for a time than to put a stop to the evils it brings about. There must be occasional instances of injustice; but does no injustice arise from the present system? Is there no hardship to the working man? No hardship to the tradesman? Only this morning I had a case brought under my notice, in which a gentleman, being obliged to extend his business premises, and to add very much to the building, was called upon to pay, on the expiration of his lease, instead of £350 per annum, a rent of £950 per annum; and it is not always within the option of a man as to whether he makes additions to his building or not. Necessity often compels him either to relinquish his business or to make additions for which he has no legal claim on his landlord, and in that way landlords obtain enormous sums, altogether beyond those which we discover in any Returns. Then, again, they are continually receiving fines for renewal of leases; and it is not an uncommon thing for a landlord to take over a large sum on account of repairs, and then to leave the repairs to be done by the incoming tenant; so that, as a matter of fact, the landlords actually receive a very much larger amount than appears in any shape or form upon the record. I should like to mention an instance in reference to these improving values to which the Royal Commissioners have referred. The point is one of very great

  1005
  importance in connection with this question. Within four miles of this building, at Herne Hill Station, there is an estate of 100 acres, which, I find, has improved in value during the last 25 years at least £75,000. It is worth now twice as much as it was then, because a railway has been opened alongside of it, and the neighbourhood has been developed. The owner has done nothing whatever, nor has he any intention of doing anything. He excludes everybody from these lawns, or fields, and even the rate-collector is not allowed to enter his gates unless he has a written order. I have passed that field nearly every day during the last 12 years, and I have never seen a single soul upon it. The pale children peer through the railings when the grass is green, and gaze wistfully upon it; no tiny hands ever gathered buttercups from those fields; the cowslips which grow there perish where they grow. Under what circumstances is that man allowed to make a desert in the midst of the Metropolis? Why, Sir, he has a profit of £3,000 a-year in doing so. That property has increased in value, as I have said, at the rate of £3,000 a-year. I applied to the rate-collector to find out what contribution he makes towards the rates, and I find that the proprietor pays £76 per annum out of his £3,000 profit towards the rates. Now, why is he allowed to make that profit? Why is he allowed to exclude the whole world, and to do so on terms entirely different from those imposed upon other people? Supposing that ground were occupied by labourers' cottages or tradesmen's houses, the tiny gardens and small courts they would occupy would be charged upon the rates £2,500 a-year instead of £76. Why should that differ-once arise? In politics patience is not a virtue, and I hold that we have no right to submit to this state of things, nor is it likely that as the public become more enlightened and intelligent—as education is extended—it will be submitted to with that degree of patience with which it has been borne hitherto. The Prime Minister has spoken of this patience as ignorant patience, and it is a correct description of it. With enlightenment that patience will no longer continue. We have therefore to discover some method by which we can correct these evils, and we find very great difficulty in
  1006
  all the suggestions which are arranged or intended for their cure—the cure of these evils of poverty and want which stare us in the face on every hand. Let us see if something cannot be done to prevent them. I believe that if that £16,000,000 which is now taken from the industrious classes and given to the idle classes were properly subjected to taxation we should find a recovery of industry and an improvement in the condition of the people far beyond our most sanguine expectations. My proposition is simply this—that we should make a separate valuation and assessment of land and buildings. The two things exist, and the value of each arises under totally different circumstances. The value of the land arises from the enter-prize of the community, by the industry of the community and the progress of the population. The value of the house arises from the labour which may be exercised upon it, by adding brick to brick and plank to plank; and it is my opinion that we should tax chiefly that value which arises independently of the industry of the owner. Instead of that we tax exclusively the value which the builder imparts, and to the creation of which the owner, who gets the ground rent, usually contributes nothing whatever. I know it is asserted that that value bears rates and taxes; but the owner does not pay rates or taxes, with the exception of the Income Tax. If an illustration were wanted, it would be found in the fact that if a house is destroyed—if a house is burnt down—the rates and taxes cease, and yet the ground rent goes on. The ground landlord gets his payment under all circumstances, and yet the taxation depends entirely on the building. That is a state of things which I think ought to be altered. The remedy I propose is one which cannot be called a violent remedy, and it would remain with practical politicians to consider how it should be introduced. It would be unreasonable for me to weary the House with suggestions in the shape of details. We must first of all recognize the necessity of applying the principle. The introduction of this principle would, I believe, very speedily bring about that amelioration in the condition of the people which we all so much desire. I am quite sure it is not necessary for me to appeal to the feelings of the House by narrating the

  1007
  sufferings of the working classes in the Metropolis and elsewhere, because we are all more or less acquainted with those sufferings, and have all of us a sincere desire to remove them. We are desirous, if possible, to discover some method by which they may be removed without the dislocation and disturbance of society. I believe the method which I have suggested may be as gentle as the sunrise and as beneficent in its results. I beg to move the Resolution of which I have given Notice.
  MR. MOULTON, in rising to second the Motion, said, it was much more far-reaching in its object than anything contemplated by the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes. The principle he wished to press upon the House was one that went to the root of the incidence of local taxation, and must, he thought, commend itself to the sense of fairness and love of justice of all who considered the condition of our town population. He traced the growth of the evil to the tendency of population to leave the country districts and become congested in the towns. No one could study the statistics on the subject without coming to the conclusion that the rise in value caused by the congestion of population was many times as great as the increased expenses necessitated by that population. In other words, the owners of the land in towns reaped advantages far greater than any expenses to which they were put in order to render tolerable the life of the community in those towns. The conclusion followed that that rise of value which was solely due to the presence of the population on such land should bear a fair share and a large share of the necessary expenses of the community in respect of their towns. He submitted that the present state of bur large towns was only paralleled by the condition of a farm in Ireland under the worst possible tenure, where the landlord refused to do one single atom of the improvements, where the tenant had to do them all, and had no fixity of tenure. What they proposed was a very simple and, he thought, practicable remedy. They maintained that the value of any property in a town was due to two sources—it was due partly to increased local value given to the land on which the houses were built, and partly to the value of the houses. He contended
  1008
  that it was fair that a percentage of the increased value given to the land by the population itself should be taken by the locality in order to pay the expenses of the community necessary to make the town habitable and comfortable. The enormous streets made through London at the cost of many millions that had been paid for by the loans that still pressed upon the City; the cost of artizans' dwellings rendered necessary by the very fact that the rents were so high that the artizans could not purchase the land to build their houses upon—aye, and even such expenses as lighting and water supply, and others which tended to make it possible to live in the town—he maintained that all those might fairly be taken out of the increased value given to the land by the presence of the town itself. It was necessary that there should be some simple method of collecting these taxes, and the system of separate assessment of land and houses afforded the means. The rate on the land would be paid by the occupier and deducted by him from his rent. There were several objections which would probably be put forward as to this proposal. In the first place, it might be objected that it was not justice. He maintained that not only was it perfectly just, but that it was the only just method of dealing with the question. Then there was the question of existing contracts. It was true that the proposal involved an interference with freedom of contract. Up to this time it had not been illegal to make a covenant that all rates and taxes should be paid by the occupier, except with regard to the landlord's property tax for Imperial taxation. He maintained that it was necessary to apply the same principle to these land taxes as was adopted in the case of this last-named tax. It was of no use passing an Act of Parliament which could be rendered futile by a clause in a deed, and the power of compelling a landlord to pay the taxation should be made absolutely inalienable. Although such a covenant between the landlord and the tenant in the future would be invalid, they could not render it invalid in the past; but there was no reason why any land in the future should be settled on any other principle; the only difference would be that in any tenancy settled after the passing of the Act the tenant would be able to deduct the tax

  1009
  from his rent. In that way the landlord would be made to pay the tax out of the rent which he would receive for the land. He was aware that even this proposition had been disputed, and it had been said that even supposing that the principle were enforced the landlord would recoup himself by overcharging the tenant, and that, therefore, the thing would come to the same as at present. That was not so; there might be a readjustment of the present rents; but if the landlord were thus to be made to pay directly, it was impossible that any increase of taxation could be got out of the pockets of his tenants. Another objection was upon the opposite line—namely, that the present state of things worked very well, and that the landlord ultimately paid the taxation. He had thought over this point very carefully, and it seemed to him to derive its origin from that happy sort of confidence that many people had that things shaped themselves all right in this world, and that ultimately the person who ought to pay did pay. But that was only a pleasant delusion. They should consider the case of the great ground landlords of London, who, during all the time that such vast improvements had been made in London, had been receiving undiminished the ground rents for which they had stipulated in the beginning. It might be said that these improvements were of benefit to the occupiers of houses themselves; but when their leases fell in they would not in any way be recouped for the expenditure. The money which was being paid for the permanent improvement of London had come out of the pockets of the present occupiers, and in no way out of the pockets of the present ground landlords. The argument was sometimes brought forward that, on the whole, under the present incidence of local taxation, the rich paid their share and the poor paid theirs, inasmuch as the amount of a man's rent afforded a rough but practical criterion of his wealth. There was no more cruel fallacy than this with regard to tradesmen. The position of a shop was part of a tradesman's trade-plant; it was necessary for him to have his shop in a place which customers would be likely to frequent; and it was, therefore, grossly unfair to take the rent of his shop as a measure of his wealth. But this present system
  1010
  of taxation also had the effect of stopping expenditure of a useful nature. This had been shown in the late School Board election. No money was bettor spent than that spent upon education; but one could not help feeling a deep sympathy with those who had said that London was crushed with rates, and that however good education was they were unable to pay the rate required for it, because they, as occupiers, were bearing on their shoulders the whole weight of taxation. The present system, again, tended to leave the land of towns in the hands of selfish non-resident landowners, who had nothing to do with the locality and no immediate interest in its improvement, and who only looked forward to a future when they would get swollen rent-rolls for which they had done nothing. Surely land in the towns ought to be held by people in real touch with the wants of the community. He was quite willing to give those ground landlords full representation in the expenditure of the rates; and he thought that as soon as they had got out of their present unwholesome frame of mind and their habit of thinking that others were to work and expend for their benefit they would be quite willing to make their fair contributions and thus assist in improving their properties. There was a strong feeling in the country that the present system was most unjust. It had lately been shown, from the Returns of Imperial Taxation, that the Irish people were unduly taxed; but that was not because they were Irish, but because they were poor, and poor in England were also overtaxed in precisely the same way. But this inequality was a matter only to be proved by the careful study of statistics. It was otherwise in the case of ground rents. Working men might find it difficult to understand the exact effects of direct as compared with indirect taxation; but they could see that millions were annually going out of London untaxed, and that those who were reaping the greatest benefits from the improvements in London were just those who paid nothing towards them.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That no system of taxation can be equitable unless a direct assessment be imposed on the owners of Ground Rents, and on the owners of increased values imparted to land by building operations, or other improvements, as recom-

  1011
  mended by the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes."—(Mr. Saunders.)
  MR. ADDISONsaid, he could not discover from the speeches of the hon. Members for Hull (Mr. Saunders) and for Clapham (Mr. Moulton) the real meaning of what they actually wanted — whether they complained of the enormous value of land in the great towns as a grievance, or of the system of apportionment of taxation between owners and occupiers, or whether they desired to relieve the occupier altogether at the expense of the owner. He (Mr. Addison) thought they could not mean the last of these, because the revenue to be derived under the changes they proposed were to be enormously increased. There was only one way in which the revenue from local taxation could be increased, and that was by the taxation of vacant land which was kept in hand by the owner in order to increase its value; and in that he thought they might all agree. The Motion, however, dealt with the land and the houses combined, and he maintained that every penny received as ground rent paid its full share of local taxation, and it came to a mere matter of convenience of collection or apportionment. But there would be an enormous difficulty in assessing these values. To attempt to apportion all the values between the different owners would be to work out as difficult a sum as could possibly be found. It was the same thing as to collection. One of the greatest advantages in taxation was that the rates should be collected easily and simply. Then there was some extraordinary grievance of the working man referred to. It was really irritating to hon. Members on his side of the House, who were really the friends of the working man, to listen to the assumption of hon. Members opposite that they were doing any good to the working man by this wild, unjust, and impracticable scheme. Not only had the working man been brought into this question, but the hon. Members who proposed and seconded this Resolution actually appealed to hon. Members from Ireland, that in some mysterious way this question of the apportionment of ground rents affected them. The remarks of the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Saunders) with regard to apportionment of
  1012
  taxation were merely an oratorical device to support a proposition which was practically unsound. He was quite sure that if in any mysterious way hon. Members from Ireland were affected they were very well able to take care of themselves; but not one of them had yet brought forward a Motion for the taxation of ground rents in the City of Dublin and its suburbs. The fact was that the entire Motion seemed based upon a misconception—namely, that the full taxes were not paid upon the product of the land which was covered with houses. He thought they were fairly and properly arranged under the present system.
  MR. M'CULLOCHsaid, the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Addison) spoke as if the subject resolved itself into a question of the incidence of taxation. They had heard a good deal about the incidence of taxation from the landlords on the other side, whose champion the hon. and learned Member had made himself. What hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House wanted was an exchange, not from industry to land, but from land to industry. There he differed very materially from the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he was bound to say the intelligent working men of Scotland knew well the incidence of taxation; they knew that as long as the owner of feu-duties escaped taxation their industries within the cities would necessarily be more heavily taxed. He was surprised to hear economists say that the law of supply and demand could thoroughly rule rent and taxation of land, because, first of all, they had a narrow and fixed area in the land, and while a further monopoly had been created by handing it over to a few, they found the remaining population every day expanding, and feeling every day more and more the pressure of that land monopoly. They need not tell him that it did not affect the people of London or the people of Glasgow. He could give them the instance of one hon. Member who sat on the other side of the House who drew £50,000 a-year in feu-duties from the City of Glasgow, and who did not contribute one penny to the rates. Did they mean to say the working men of Glasgow did not know enough of political economy to decide that the less this feu-owner paid the more they had to pay? Was not that

  1013
  a proposition which the simplest workman could understand? He asked what was the true feature for taxation? It was not the works of man's hands, nor the necessaries, nor even the luxuries of life; but land itself was, to his mind, a far more feasible feature for taxation, because it was not due to man's efforts, but to the Creator's. He believed it was urged that this was a matter of free contract, and he admitted that the over-lord and the owner or occupier who bought might make a contract; but they could not anticipate the taxation which the Legislature could impose upon any class or description of property. Consequently any such contract must of necessity be one that would not hold, because it did not take into consideration the legislation which imposed all taxation, and thus that freedom of contract could at any time be attacked. He could give one instance when it was so dealt with by that House. That was when the school rate came into operation in Scotland. Many holders of land were in the middle of their leases, and they asked how this tax could affect them. The Legislature said—"We tax you or your holding, independent of any contract you may have had in the past." Hon. Members asked why people congregated in the towns? They come to towns to take advantage of the division of labour, the co-operation of capital, and the application of the invention and discovery with which the 19th century teemed. And what was their reward? They were more heavily taxed. Their little bits of land on which their houses stood were burdened by taxation, until the population became congested in the centre of the towns. Those who held land outside took advantage of the pressure within, and held on by the land outside, because it would become more valuable. Thus the pressure was intensified; thus they required a Royal Commission to inquire into the housing of the poor. In his opinion there was not the slightest logical objection to the taxation of these grounds rents, and he could assure hon. Members that the working men had their eye upon this as one of the sources whereby not only Imperial but the local Exchequer could be relieved. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Addison), who last spoke, stated that the true friends of the working men were on the Conservative
  1014
  side of the House; but he would ask, if that were so, how was it that the 12 Members who had been returned to represent the interests of labour sat on the Ministerial side, and why was he (Mr. M'Culloch) himself there representing an industrial division of Glasgow? It was because he knew something of the Land Question, how it pressed on the working men, and because he was not afraid to attack these feu-duties and other injustices under which the industrial classes of the City of Glasgow were at the present moment borne down. In this, as in many other aspects of the Land Question, they had to begin, and they could begin, at no better place than the ground rents; and when they had thoroughly studied the Land Question, and brought their wisdom to bear upon taxation, then he believed, and not till then, would industry and labour have their true reward.
  MR. PICKERSGILLsaid, that he supported the Motion, not on the ground that the Local Authority lost anything, but because the rates were most unjustly divided between the owners and occupiers. It had been suggested that the ground landlord and the occupier were able to make an arrangement among themselves. What was meant, he supposed, was that the exemption of the ground rent from rates was taken into account in fixing the ground rent. But the net result of the evidence taken by the Committee of 1870 was that the rates actually existing when the lease began were taken into account in fixing the ground rent, but that there was no margin left for any increase of rent. The great hardship of the case, and that which had occasioned the present outcry in a large degree, was the enormous increase of rates which had taken place within a comparatively recent period. But here it was important to distinguish between rates which passed under the denomination of "non-remunerative"—that was, rates which went towards relieving the poor and supporting the police—and rates of a remunerative character, such as drainage rates and general improvement rates. It was only in this remunerative expenditure that the ground landlord was directly interested. If they compared the year 1841 with the year 1868 they had this result—that in 1841 the rate in the pound was 2s. 7d.,

  1015
  and in 1868 it was 2s. 6¼d., showing a difference in favour of 1868. That meant that, with regard to the relief of the poor and other expenditure of a non-remunerative kind, the burden on the ratepayers was practically the same in 1868 as it was in 1841. But if they took into account the remunerative expenditure, and compared the two years he had mentioned, it would be found that there was a difference as against 1868 of 9d., which meant that the ratepayer in 1868 paid 9d. more in the pound for local taxation than the ratepayer in 1841. The point to which he wished to draw attention was that this difference of 9d. in the pound was mainly devoted to remunerative expenditure, which was to be met by the increasing value in property. That remunerative expenditure had gone on increasing since the year 1868 even to a larger extent than it did between 1841 and 1868. Having regard to the arrangements made between a ground landlord and his lessee, the latter bound himself to pay all taxation. But the rate for remunerative purposes was not really a tax at all. If, therefore, the remunerative rate was not in equity, whatever it might be in law, in the nature of a tax, then it did not fall within the covenant by which the lessee bound himself to pay all taxes. The principle that the ground landlord should pay at least a portion of the improvement rate had been admitted by our laws as being just; but the law did not, unfortunately, prevent him from contracting himself out of his liability in this respect. He contended that a fair share of the local taxation should be borne by the ground landlord. Under the existing arrangements a considerable portion of the burden fell upon the shoulders of the working classes. He should like to illustrate this by referring to the state of things in his own constituency. In Bethnal Green there were enormous blocks of model dwellings, reaching almost as high as Babel in the futile effort to escape from the rapacity of the ground landlord. Sir Sydney Waterlow had taken 819 cases of tenants who lived in these model dwellings, and had found that their average earnings were 28 s. 8d. per week. The average rent of these tenants, he found, amounted to 5s. 8½d. per week, of which no less a sum than 8¾d. was local taxation. He wanted to impress upon the conscience
  1016
  of the House that there were thousands of his constituents, bread-winners, earning wages in many cases not more than 20 s. per week, who were contributing 2½ per cent of their entire livelihood to local taxation. He submitted that there was no section of the community better able to bear the shifting of taxation than owners of ground rents such as the territorial magnates of London, who, in the language of Mr. Mill, had grown rich in their sleep. He quite agreed that it was not desirable that ground rents should accumulate in a few hands; and he wished to direct the attention of the House to the fact that the great Insurance Companies had of late years been buying up London ground rents at a very rapid rate, one to the great extent of £1,100,000. These Corporations had neither a soul to be saved nor a body to be kicked, and it was very undesirable that ground rents should accumulate in their possession, and that they should become the owners of the land we live in. He did not think it was consistent with public policy that owners of land should be able to contract themselves out of liability for local taxation for a period of 99 years or any other period, while they continued to draw an annual revenue in the shape of ground rents. He should vote for the Motion, because he believed it would strike a blow at the leasehold system of building. It seemed to him that, by exempting ground rents from direct taxation, the law did as much as it could to encourage the system of building leases, which he believed to be a most mischievous system. He urged all those who wished to secure the enfranchisement of leaseholds to support the Motion.
  MR. PETER M'DONALDsaid, that he believed it would be well that some expression of opinion should be given upon this Motion from the Irish side of the House. In Ireland they felt even more keenly than did the hon. Member (Mr. Saunders) and his Friends the grievance which existed in regard to this matter. In introducing the Motion, the hon. Member (Mr. Saunders) had referred to the necessity which existed in Dublin for an extended system of main drainage. The difficulty which stood in the way of its being carried out was the very large sum necessary, which, it was stated, would be

  1017
  £400,000. Now, he (Mr. P. McDonald) was of opinion that the sum necessary would be nearer £500,000. It was also stated that though this main drainage was necessary, the Dublin Corporation were not in a position to carry it out, as it was only the so-called ratepayers—in other words, the occupiers—who were liable to pay the rates, while the landlords would have got off scot free. As a member of the Dublin Corporation, he might be permitted to explain to the House that this was only one of the difficulties. The area of taxation was limited to within the narrow ring of the canal which surrounded Dublin; and the outer districts, which would be still more benefited by the extended system of main drainage than even Dublin, would not have to pay one penny contribution to this much desired work. On the outside of Dublin, and immediately adjoining it, was a very large and important urban district called Rathmines. Those who resided there, although participating in all the benefits of Dublin, paid nothing whatever towards the rates of the city, and would pay nothing whatever towards the drainage of the city. There was another district, also, adjoining to which he wished to draw attention—the Pembroke Township. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to the justice of the ground landlords paying their share towards any improvement that might be made within their district or upon the estates they held. Now, he was personally aware that in that township very large drainage works had been directed to be carried out; but who would have to pay for them? Not the lord of the soil—the Earl of Pembroke—but actually the very persons who were building houses and residences on the land. He considered—and he was sure that many hon. Members opposite (the Radical Members) would agree with him—that this was a state of things which should be altered. This could not be denied, more especially when it was considered that the lord of the soil took all the advantages of the improvements at his disposal by enforcing exorbitant terms upon those building upon his property. The agent of the lord of the soil, Mr. Vernon, who was also one of the Land Commissioners, was Chairman of the Pembroke Local Township Board. In that capacity, as Chairman, he had a powerful voice in directing the im-
  1018
  provements to the township, all of which, as a matter of course, resulted in increased value being given to the land, increased rents being charged, and Mr. Vernon, of course, obtaining a largely increased amount from the percentage accorded him by the Earl of Pembroke for collecting the rents on the estate. He would like to tell the House how the predecessors of the Earl of Pembroke obtained this property, which brought in to the Earl of Pembroke £30,000 per annum, and for which he only paid the Corporation of Dublin £10 a-year. It was obtained under a lease granted by the old rotten Corporation, now, he was happy to say, replaced by a Corporation which was not purchasable. The lord of the soil invited the lessors, the members of the old Corporation, to go and dine with him. A draft of the lease was then read to them, and immediately after the reading dinner was announced, and all other business was stayed for the time being. After dinner, when of course it was not expected that the diners would be in a very clear state of mind for the transaction of business, another and a different lease was submitted to them, which they signed in ignorance of its real character. He did not state these facts simply on hearsay, as any hon. Member would find the whole matter embodied in the official Report submitted to the Corporation by their late law adviser, Mr. Morgan. This was the manner in which the citizens of Dublin had been defrauded of their property by the substitution of a spurious lease. There was another suburban district near Dublin known as Kingstown. He had been a member of the Kingstown Township Local Board. He might say that while a member of this Board he had done his best to oppose the consideration of certain main drainage works, but unsuccessfully. They might ask why he obstructed these works? The reason was that he saw the improvement would benefit the owners of property; but it would have to be paid for by those who built upon the lands. This he considered exceedingly unjust. If the owners of ground rents or lords of the soil had their property improved by the construction of such works, why should they not pay a certain due proportion in the shape of rates for the improvement of their

  1019
  estates? There was no reason why the entire amount of the taxes should be borne by the leaseholders and occupiers. He, therefore, quite agreed with the Mover of this Motion that the lords of the soil should be, in justice and equity, obliged by law to contribute a certain portion of the rates. Lord De Vesci and Lord Longford held property in Kingstown, where a large number of buildings had been erected on comparatively short leases. These leases were now expiring, and within 10 or 15 years they would fall in to the landlords, and all that had been expended would be confiscated. He denied the right of these ground landlords to rob the people in this way. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member who moved the Motion (Mr. Saunders) that such a thing had no justice or equity in it, and should be reversed by law. He believed that in London the same interest was felt in this question as was taken in it in Dublin. Great ground landlords, like the Duke of Westminster, the Duke of Norfolk, and others, were doing in London what Lord De Vesci and Lord Longford were doing in Kingstown. The law, therefore, in his opinion, should be changed, and the lords of the soil compelled to contribute a certain proportion to the local expenditure, and take their share in the payment of municipal rates.
  MR. LAWSONsaid, he was of opinion that the Resolution was closely bound up with the question which he had taken up in place of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Broadhurst). It was also connected with the whole question of town dwellings; and he considered that it ought to be referred to the Committee which was to investigate the terms of occupation and the compensation for improvements in town holdings. His hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. Saunders) had only asked for a juster distribution of fiscal burdens, and he had not shrunk from attacking the whole system, which was fraught with grave danger to the moral and material condition of the great urban populations of this country. In most of our industrial centres the system of leasing houses was mere legalized spoliation. It was known in no other country. From inquiries which had been made he was led to think that Sir John Wal-
  1020
  sham's opinion was open to doubt, and that even in France the system had no existence. In this country, at the expiration of a lease, the whole of the improvements and every penny spent by the tenant in adding to the comfort and the convenience of his holding went necessarily into the pockets of the ground landlords. Again, in London, it was the practice to mulct the tenant of the goodwill of his business. He knew of a tradesman in Bond Street who sunk the whole of his capital in a prosperous business which it was impossible for him to remove to another place, and the landlord, on the renewal of the lease, obliged him to rebuild, fined him £ 1,000, and doubled his rent. In effect, the landlord said—"I will blackmail you to the extent of your goodwill." In Regent Street a tradesman of older standing was lucky enough to own the house adjoining his place of business, and consequently he was able to resist successfully the attempt of his landlord to share his trade profits. Neither the landlord nor the ground landlord paid a single penny for the improvement of the neighbourhood in which their property lay. It was said that the lessee willingly took upon himself all the burdens which might in time be imposed; but hon. Members who used that argument forgot that of late years the rates had sprung "by leaps and bounds" beyond all possibility of forecast. The main drainage rate, the School Board rate, and the Fire Brigade rate had all been imposed without it being possible for the tenant in many cases to have foreseen, on entering into his contract, that he would have to meet those demands; and it should be borne in mind that the whole incidence of the rates had been on the occupier only. The evidence given before the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Poor pointed to the iniquities committed by the jerry builder and the middle-man; but he thought it was to be regretted that the vials of the wrath of the Commissioners should have been poured on those classes alone. They were only the outcome of a bad system. The men who ultimately benefited by the extortion of the middle-man, and who put into his pocket all the money spent by the ratepayer, was the ground landlord. He regretted that the Resolution of the hon. Member for Hull was not confined to the fact that ground rents were alto-

  1021
  gether exempted from local taxation. He thought that the two matters mentioned in his hon. Friend's Resolution were more or less distinct from each other. The London Vestries, which were not, as a rule, very go-ahead Bodies, had been forced to face the actual facts of things. In St. Pancras they had an instance of a borough which was entirely mapped out into great estates, and on one or two of those estates the rights of the landlord were exercised harshly and cruelly. One man was in possession of property in that parish, the annual rateable value of which amounted to £200,000. A century ago St. Pancras was a mere tract of fields, and hon. Members could realize the enormous difference when these fields were covered by 25,000 houses, and remembered that the whole of the improvements in the roads, drainage, and public works had been effected by the labour and the money of the occupying inhabitants. Yet the whole of this unearned increment was shortly to go into the pockets of the ground landlords, who probably went into the borough but once in their lives. The question would also be found to be a burning one in most of the great provincial towns. It was said that they wished to violate freedom of contract. He was willing to admit that, literally and formally, these people took upon themselves the obligation. By the terms of an ordinary covenant a tenant agreed to pay all charges existing or hereafter to be imposed, except landlords' Property Tax. He should like to know whether freedom of contract was anything better than a phrase when the whole land of a place was in the hands of one man? The would-be occupier had often no option, because the conditions of his life compelled him to live in one place; and, therefore, he had to take land on the terms which the ground landlord chose to exact. Leaseholders were grateful to the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) for his speech which he made on the second reading of a Bill in 1884, when the noble Lord declaimed against the bloated estates of the Whig Dukes, and said that the concentration of land in a few hands was a great cause of Communism and discontent. It was said that ground rents had become a frequent form of investment. Matters of taxation were settled by the balance of convenience;
  1022
  but it was impossible not to see that the balance of convenience had been all through on the side of the owner of ground rents. Those who said that tenants would in the end pay all rates forgot that the great increase of local rates had occurred within the last 30 years, and that no remissions of rents by ground landlords had been recorded. No ground landlord had paid his share of the School Board rates that had come into existence in 1870. It had been said that there ought to be an entire re-assessment; but the ground landlord might be called upon to make a return similar to that required from the tenant under the Valuation Act. There was nothing revolutionary or abnormal in saying that they ought to contribute, in proportion to the interest they had in the soil, towards local charges and local improvements by which their property was benefited. Trade and industry suffered from the present system, and it would continue to suffer so long as they continued to allow men to reap where they had not sown of the fruit of other men's labour. In the hope that the House might come to an unanimous conclusion, he submitted an Amendment that the question of imposing direct assessment upon ground rents be referred to the Select Committee on Town Holdings.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the first word "on," in line 2, in order to insert the words "the question of imposing a direct assessment,"—(Mr. Lawson,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT)said, that they had had a most interesting debate upon an important subject. He did not think that he ever heard a question of equal difficulty more aptly and satisfactorily discussed. The speeches of the the Mover and the Seconder of the original Resolution were full of knowledge and of argument; and the House had heard with great satisfaction the contribution just made to the debate by one of its youngest Members (Mr. Lawson) in a speech of great ability and knowledge. He was not going to discuss the general subject at any length; but he rose for the purpose of support-

  1023
  ing the Amendment, which he knew would not be unacceptable to the Mover and Seconder of the original Resolution, They had established a strong primâ facie case for inquiry into the rating of ground rents, as distinct from what they had called house rents. They had contended that those who derived large benefits from great and populous communities should themselves contribute to the cost of promoting the well-being of those communities. No man of common sense or justice could deny that proposition. Some might assert that the ground landlord did contribute to the payments made by the tenants; but if it were true that the landlord did contribute—of which he had a doubt—it would be very much better that everybody should know it, and especially the tenants themselves; and it would be extremely advisable that the rate should be separated, so that they should have a separate rate upon the ground and another upon the house rent, and so the distinct liability might be clearly known. He could not see how people could contend that if a rate was settled upon a long lease of 60, 80, or 99 years, and that after that ground rent was settled, and during a greater part of the period—perhaps during half-a-century of it—the rates were immensely increased, that that increased rate did not fall upon the tenant, and was shared in any degree by the ground owner. Having said that much, however, he did not desire to pronounce a definite opinion upon the general question or the method of dealing with it. In truth, the matter really fell within the province of his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain), because it did, and must, form part of any plan which would have to be dealt with in a Bill on the subject of local government. The hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Saunders) did not want to commit himself to any plan of dealing with the question; he was more concerned to lay a foundation of general principle than to undertake the responsibility of recommending any particular scheme. That in itself was an argument in favour of the general question going into Committee. He hoped it would be a strong Committee, on which would be men competent to deal with questions of this character. They would then be able to discuss the whole question, and
  1024
  consider and take evidence upon the various schemes for meeting and dealing with it. Though he had heard that night very vehement and strong condemnation of ground rents, he thought the House should remember that there were some circumstances of convenience attached to the system. In parts of the North of England people did not like ground rents, and would not be satisfied without the freehold, or something like it; but in the South of England people had been willing to accept the responsibility of building houses on long leases. In the House the provision of house accommodation had been favoured by the possibility of builders—he spoke not of jerry builders, but of men who built reasonably good houses—only acquiring land upon terms which would enable them to build houses. There were many builders who would not be able to find the capital to buy land as well as to erect houses; and thus populations were accommodated by the ground-rent plan upon terms which were convenient to the commercial conditions of the builders. Therefore the argument was not entirely one way upon that subject. But all these were matters which he thought might be very fairly considered before a Committee. He could not, and should not, advise the House to arrive at the conclusion that the system of ground rents was one which ought to be absolutely and unconditionally abolished. He hoped that the House would be disposed to adopt the view of the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson), and agree to refer this matter to the Committee already appointed to deal with a cognate subject.
  MR. GREGORY: I cannot help regarding this proposal as an indirect attack upon landed property. If the whole subject of the burdens upon real property were to be gone into, there would be no indisposition to meet the question on this side of the House; and if both personal and landed property are to be subjected to a fair treatment of taxation, I do not think that the landed interest will fare the worst of the two. With reference to the Motion immediately before the House, perhaps the House will allow me to point out what ground rents are and how they arise. They form the subject of an ordinary bargain—one man possesses

  1025
  landed property, and another man desires to build upon it; they enter into an agreement, and the one man parts with the possession and control of his property for the purpose of enabling another man to build upon it, who assumes absolute control and dominion over it, subject to the payment of a rent distributed over a certain number of years; he may be said, indeed, to pay a certain sum of money down, but for his convenience it is discounted into annual payments. Now that is what a ground rent is, and a ground rent is not subject to any contingencies. It is an exacted payment for absolute dominion over property extending over a term of years, on the condition that after the lapse of that number of years the whole of the property is to revert to the landowner. On entering into an agreement, the man who makes it contemplates all the conditions of it, and the man who contracts with the landowner for the building of a house and the payment of a ground rent knows perfectly well the number of years during which he will be required to pay that ground rent, pure and simple, and that he will also be liable to pay the rates and taxes during the period he has possession of the property. The man who builds also provides for similar contingencies if he sub-lets the house, and he contracts equally with the subtenant to reimburse him for the responsibilities he has incurred. This arrangement is a great convenience to a person building, because it saves him from having to pay down at once the full value of the land. The sum to be paid in the way of ground rent is to be paid free of all rates and taxes; and if any tax is to be levied in the future upon the ground rent agreed to be paid, the House may be sure that the landowner will take it into account in fixing the amount of the ground rent, and that eventually such tax will have to be paid by the tenant of the house. Nor is there any injustice in this. If a new drain be laid down, or water supplied, or cheaper gas, it is to the benefit of the immediate occupier of the house much more than to the benefit of the lessee, or of the ground landlord; and every ground landlord, or lessee under him, is perfectly aware that improvements of that kind, although they will benefit his property, will benefit to a much greater extent the occupying tenant. Ground rents are subject to
  1026
  Imperial taxation. They are subject to the Succession Duties, like all other property; and it is merely in respect of local burdens that they are exempt. I stand upon the terms of the Motion of the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Saunders), and I maintain that, according to those terms, it would be a mere shifting of the burden pro tanto from the lessee on to the owner of the land. As I have already stated, it is entirely a matter of contract. All the contingencies are taken into consideration; and if the ground landlord had to pay rates and taxes there would be an additional charge in assessing the amount of ground rent. The value of the house is not affected by the ground rent or the rate-ability of the house, because the rate is on the house as it stands, and is altogether independent of any consideration with regard to ground rent. The rates are levied on the letable value of the house. So far as the owner of the ground rent is concerned, if he understood that he was to pay rates and taxes he would make provision for them in his contract. Something has been said about ground rents being absorbed into a few hands; but, in considering this question, it must not be forgotten that, as a matter of investment, ground rents are equally as valuable as Consols, and that large sums have been invested in the purchase of them at a low rate of interest. They are bought for the reversion which the purchasers are to acquire, and it would be most unfair to place an additional tax upon persons who have been encouraged to buy ground rents under the law as it now stands. Mention has been made, in the course of the debate, of the Prudential Office as a large absorber of ground rents. I do not know whether the hon. Member who mentioned the fact is aware that that is an Office which has been specially established for the benefit of the humbler classes. I believe that the Prudential has the largest number of small policy holders of any Office in the world, and they have invested considerable sums in the purchase of ground rents for the benefit of the working classes. Thousands of working men have become, through this Office, proprietors of ground rents; and to tax them now for the purpose of shifting the burden from the person who is now liable in order to place it on the

  1027
  shoulders of the owner would result in great hardship upon a most deserving class of people. Now, with regard to the present leasing system, I know a good deal, both by tradition and experience, as to how property is managed. Let me take property in my own immediate neighbourhood—I mean the Bedford Estate. I believe there never was an estate laid out with greater benefit to a large city. It has been laid out in large squares with short streets, and a great deal of the ground has been sacrificed for the purpose of securing the health and comfort of those who live there. And what is the result? The Bedford Estate forms one of the lungs of London, greatly to the benefit of the adjoining properties. The result of the building operations upon it has been that the houses now existing upon that estate are nearly as good as when they were originally built; and they have been re-let for a certain number of years, the tenant doing the necessary repairs, which are rather of an ornamental character than for the purposes of the fabric. Hon. Members talk of the abuses of this system of ground rents; but they ought also to remember the advantages which it confers. Other estates—such as the estate of the Duke of Westminster—have been laid out in a similar manner, with large open areas; and I venture to say that a good deal of that property would never have been built upon in the manner that it has if it had not been for the personal assistance given by the late Marquess of Westminster. If this assistance could not have been obtained, the consequence would have been that houses of an inferior description would have been erected, and the land would have been laid out in a manner prejudicial to the health and comfort of those who have to live upon it. I do not think that sufficient reasons have been given to induce the House to assent to the Motion, or even to send the proposal to a Select Committee. The Committee to which it is proposed to refer it has a large enough amount of work upon its hands without being required to consider this question. It is a question relating to a great principle, for it really involves the principle of taxing the unearned increment of property, as it is called; and, therefore, in the strongest terms, I protest against it.
  MR. FORWOOD: Perhaps the House will allow me to say a few words on this matter from an entirely different point of view from those with which the question has hitherto been approached. I have the honour to be the Chairman of a Municipal Committee which has charge of, perhaps, the largest estate owned by any Corporation in this country, hardly excepting London. The Corporation of Liverpool is the owner of the reversion of nearly one-third of the City of Liverpool. It has some 5,000 leases on that property, and its income in the shape of fines, and income from renewals and rents, amounts to something like £100,000 a-year. Perhaps the House will allow me to state the experience I have have had in reference to the administration of that large estate. That property, where it is leased, is all leased under obligation by the Municipal Corporation Act of 1835 for terms of 75 years. We have no option; we cannot sell the reversion out and out; we are compelled to let it only on leases not exceeding that term of 75 years. The leaseholders are given by the Corporation the option of either paying cash for the extension of, or a full lease of 75 years, or of paying a sufficient sum of money cash down to secure the Corporation, and pay an annual ground rent as a commutation for the balance. If I understand the effect of the Resolution now under discussion aright it is that that commuted fine, which is commuted at something like 4 or 4½ per cent into an annual rent, should be made liable to local taxation. It would be clearly and manifestly unjust to the owner of that ground rent—for it really is a ground rent—to tax him on the annual value for local rates. He has given to the leaseholder the opportunity of paying the fine in cash or of commuting it into a ground rent. The leaseholder has found it more to his interest to keep his capital money in his pocket for building or other trade purposes, and to borrow, so to speak, the money from the Corporation, the owner of the fee simple, and to pay them a rate of interest on it. Where can be the justice of laying local rates on that which is really interest on the fine, any more than in laying local rates on the proceeds or revenues derived from Consols or Railway Stock or anything else of that kind? The advantage to the

  1029
  public in the matter is that if there is any unearned increment in that case, and there has been a large unearned increment through the growth of the town and the increase of its trade, it goes to benefit the ratepayers; whereas, if the Resolution were adopted and leaseholds compulsorily enfranchised, you would take that unearned increment from the ratepayers and hand it over to private individuals. Then we come to the advantages which are derived by the town from this system of leaseholding. Under the system the owners of the property—the Corporation in this case—are able to exercise a control over the character and the class of buildings erected in the town, and, further, they are able to secure that the buildings shall be a credit to the place, and that no tenant on the estate shall do anything to injure or depreciate the property of another tenant. Moreover, there are covenants in the leases by which certain trades are restricted to certain localities, or are prohibited in other localities, and we are thus able to assure to the holders of those leases that they shall remain in the quiet enjoyment of their properties without having a nuisance created next door to them. As to the value of the property, within the last 12 or 18 months, so much is that leasehold property esteemed by those who occupy it that the owner of one of the leasehold lots, having purchased the adjoining freehold, went to the Corporation and asked them to take the freehold off his hands and grant him a 75 years' lease of it. He preferred one leasehold tenement under the Corporation to having one-half freehold and one-half leasehold; and he put on that property buildings which cost him over £60,000. Let me give another instance. The Corporation of Liverpool desired to promote the improvement of the town and the erection of comfortable homes for the working classes. Two years ago they purchased an estate of 55 acres, and gave £150,000 for it. They ran streets through it which were broader than the bye-laws required. They carefully considered the selling terms of the estate. They considered it better first to offer the estate on lease on a fine for a sum of money to be paid down; but those who were experts in the matter of building houses said they would much prefer to buy the property if the Corporation commuted their fines into
  1030
  ground rents, as they could put up a better class of house if they had not to invest so large a proportion of their capital in the cost of the land. They preferred to put it in the house. Now, under the proposal made to-night, that system would be penalized by a local taxation that has not hitherto been imposed. If I had closed my eyes while listening to the tenour of many of the speeches delivered by hon. Gentlemen opposite, I should have imagined myself to have been in the midst of a German Socialistic Debating Society rather than in the House of Commons. I have heard a great deal this evening about persons reaping where they do not sow, and about balances of convenience. I want to know where the line is to be drawn between a man making a profit of the increment of value from shares or speculation in Stocks, and the natural increment of the value of his land? I have ventured to trouble the House with these observations, because I feel that if this matter is relegated to a Committee specially appointed to consider certain questions in regard to another and a different subject, much inconvenience will arise. I certainly think that this is a question which should not be brought to a Committee formed to consider another subject; but if it is to be dealt with at all, it should be dealt with in a different spirit from that in which it has been approached to-night; and I am strongly of opinion that there are larger interests?—namely, the general interests of the public—involved in the matter.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: The question is not the leasehold system, but whether a large amount of property in London and other towns which escapes local taxation should bear its fair share of local burdens. The Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. Saunders) is that no system of taxation can be equitable unless a direct assessment be imposed on the owners of ground rent. My hon. Friend goes still further, and proposes that the owners of increased values—meaning, I suppose, other interests in property—should also be made amenable to local taxation. Now, Sir, at present local rates are imposed upon annual value, and not upon capital value; and the question is whether capital value should not also be taxed. While there are improvements and public works

  1031
  which benefit the present taxpayers and occupiers, who contribute in respect of annual value, there are also permanent and substantial and long continuing improvements which inure to the benefit of the property itself. The owners of property should, therefore, contribute to local taxation. It has been questioned whether the Committee appointed to deal with compensation for improvements and leasehold enfranchisement, will be able to consider also this question of the re-adjustment of local taxation. I think the Committee should be authorized to do so. There is a strong feeling in London that as long as local burdens are thrown entirely upon annual value and upon the present occupiers, it will be impossible to attempt those great improvements of which the Metropolis stands so much in need. If any authority were required for the proposition that ground rent and other property should be taxed, I would refer hon. Gentlemen opposite to an authority which, I believe, they, at all events, will not question. The noble Marquess who leads the Conservative Party, in his statement upon the Report of Her Majesty's Commissioners for inquiring into the Housing of the Working Classes, said—
  "Taxes from which outlay is drawn should be of a kind which all sorts of property should join in paying. There was no ground for charging such expenditure on the occupiers of land and houses only. Incomes of all kinds, whether they come from Consols or from Foreign Stocks, or debentures, ground rents, or mortgages, ought equally to bear such burdens."
  That authority, which, I am sure, hon. Gentlemen will admit the force of, strongly bears out the contention which I am putting before the House—that the ratepayers of London who contribute in respect of annual value, have a right to call on the owners of property to contribute towards those permanent improvements, which are not only for the benefit of the present occupiers, but also of present owners and of future generations of owners of property—the landlords of the future who will inherit property of enormous extent and of enormous value. I cordially support the proposition of the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Saunders), and I concur also in the Amendment of my hon. Colleague the Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson), to refer the matter to the Committee
  1032
  appointed to deal with improvements in towns and the leasehold question. I hope it will be a strong and representative Committee, and that hon. Members who are technically acquainted with the subject will be placed upon it. I trust that we shall obtain from the Committee a full and comprehensive Report, dealing with the whole question of local taxation.
  MR. DWYER GRAY: I am of opinion that by far the most valuable contribution to this debate has been the speech delivered by the hon. Member for Lancashire (Mr. Forward), who has given us the example of that great town. In that case, the Local Authority has been fortunate enough, according to his account, to secure the ownership of one-third of the City of Liverpool. I do not know, however, whether it amounts to one-third in area or one-third in value—probably one-third in value; but the hon. Member has explained to us what has occurred in Liverpool. There, the Local Authority, representing an entire community, has been able to ensure for the community what is called the unearned increment of increased value of land due to the industry of that great and progressive community. We have been told that the revenue derived from that one-third of the value of Liverpool now represents £100,000 a-year, all of which is devoted to the public purposes of the town. I would ask hon. Members and the House to consider what would be the condition of Liverpool to-day if the Corporation of the town had not, by accident, been landlords to this large extent, and what would be the condition of Liverpool if, instead of owning one-third of the land of Liverpool and getting one-third of the unearned increment due entirely to the industry of the people, they had owned the entire property, and had secured for the community the increased value of the whole of the land. The hon. Member quoted the example of Liverpool as a reason why the House should not entertain the proposition of the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Saunders); but I think the lesson to be derived from it is a totally different one, and the logical conclusion we obtain from the facts so clearly laid before us by the hon. Member for Lancashire (Mr. Forwood) is that we should consider the

  1033
  suggestion in the sense of my hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. Saunders), or in the sense proposed by the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson). There is, to my mind, a certain amount of vagueness in the proposals of the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution. The hon. Member for Hull, with very great clearness, presented before the House the evils of the present system; and although I am extremely conscious of them, and, although as a Member of the Commission on the Housing of the Poor, my attention was drawn to the grievous suffering inflicted on the working classes by the existing system of land tenure in towns, I do not think it at all necessary for me to add anything to the force of what has been stated in that particular direction. But the hon. Member for Hull confines himself to the proposal that ground rents should be subject to taxation; but when the Seconder of the Resolution came to make his speech, he, with the instinct of the learned Profession of which he is a distinguished ornament, qualified the proposition of the hon. Member for Hull by saying that existing contracts must be respected, and it is only when the lease falls out that we must have an amended system of taxation to which ground rents are to be subjected. Now, I venture to say that if you adopt that principle the vote of the House will go for nothing, and it will be a mere nominal change signifying nothing. There may be two houses in the same street, side by side, one of which is held on a lease which is acquired after the amendment of the law contemplated by the Resolution, and the other with 75 years still to run. The occupier of the one would be relieved of his proportion of taxation, which would be transferred by the change to the ground landlord, while the occupier of the other, probably a competitor in trade, would be subject to taxation for 75 years. The hon. Member still further qualified his proposition; and I venture to think that if the proposal contained in the Resolution were carried out, the anticipations of its bringing about any considerable amelioration either in the condition of taxation, or of the working classes, would not be realized by the results. Except so far as existing leases are concerned, I do not believe that the proposed taxation would have any effect
  1034
  whatever. Of course, as far as existing leases are concerned, in the event of new taxes being proposed, the ground landlord, either in part or in whole, would have to pay them, You would relieve the existing occupier from new burdens that were not contemplated when the lease was granted, but when a new lease came to be made the sum which the lessee would be called upon to pay for the land would be made up of two factors—the rent and the taxes. Therefore, if you simply make an alteration in the law requiring the ground landlord to pay a certain amount of taxation, it would have no effect whatsoever except as regards existing leases. The moment those existing leases expired the ground landlord would be able to recoup himself for whatever portion of the taxation had been put upon him, by increasing the rent, because it is only fair to assume that this taxation of ground rents would only be in relief of taxation that would otherwise be paid, and, consequently, the existing evils would not be permanently touched. It was because I had convinced myself, although I am afraid that I failed to convince any other Member of the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Poor, that no such piecemeal legislation as that contemplated could be of any permanent effect in removing the evils which all of us acknowledge to exist, that I ventured to suggest a more radical remedy. The remedy I suggested was that every town should be placed in regard to the whole of its lands in the admirable position which Liverpool, by a fortunate accident, occupies with regard to one-third of that town. The arguments of hon. Members who have spoken in favour of the Resolution, if they are worth anything at all, go a great deal further than their conclusion. The kernel of the question is, who is entitled to the unearned increment? Who owns it all? Either the ground landlord owns none of it and has no right to take any part of it, or he holds the whole of it, and you have no right to take it from him. What I say is, that he who has created the unearned increment should own the whole of it, and that any shifting of taxation can be but temporary in its effect, and will give no permanent relief whatever. The hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Saunders) has quoted numerous cases of the enormous increases in the value of land which

  1035
  have been made while the ground landlords were asleep. Some hon. Member has mentioned the Duke of Westminster's estates. I believe that that family came into the possession of those estates owing to a fortunate alliance on the part of an ancestor with some person who had a quantity of land then used for dairy farming. What was then worth a few shillings, or at the most a few pounds, is now worth as many thousands of pounds. But is his Grace the Duke of Westminster entitled to that increase of value? Does it not belong to the community who created it? I think it does; and the only way in which the question can ever be finally settled is by what is called a municipalization of the land—giving to the community represented by the Local Authority of the district the reversion of the property in the locality. Every town would then enjoy the same advantages which Liverpool now enjoys, and it would enjoy, for the benefit of the people, the unearned increment of the land. The Local Authority would then have a facile and effective means, not merely, as in Liverpool, of preventing disagreeable trades being established in undesirable localities, but of securing that the working classes should be housed in reasonable comfort and under conditions which would give them a chance of preserving their health and life. This House is frequently asked to pass laws to enable the Local Authorities to improve the sanitary condition of towns and make provision for the better housing and comfort of the poor. These two facts have been incontestibly proved — that there are hundreds of thousands of the working classes who are housed under circumstances in which decency, propriety, and even any approach to comfort, are practically impossible; and side by side with this fact, is the additional fact that there has been an enormous increase in the value of the land. This increase in value has been exactly in the same ratio as the increase of the misery and helplessness of a large proportion of the working classes. At present the landlords are actuated by no other motive than the capacity of the working classes to pay the rent imposed upon them. There is no doubt that rents do rise, and, therefore, the nominal increase in the earning power of the wage-earning class is completely neutralized by
  1036
  the power of another class to abstract so large a portion from them. I cannot see the reason of this question being exhaustively investigated by a Royal Commission, seeing that no action whatsoever has been taken by Parliament in reference to this portion of the subject, and I fail to see what result the hon. Member anticipates from a second investigation of the same facts. The Order of Reference must be wide to enable the question to be properly considered. It must not be confined only to the incidence of taxation, but must go deeper down into the question, what has been done with the unearned increment? And I think that the best plan, under the circumstances of the case, would be to refer it to an independent Select Committee. If the hon. Member restricts his Reference simply to the question of taxation, it is to be feared that the House will have two or three more voluminous Reports signifying nothing, or very little. I am perfectly ready to support either the original Motion or the Amendment, because, as has been stated by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill), I believe we shall not in any way strike a blow at the system; and when we show that the community is entitled to this increase, and the system is shaken a little, people will come more and more to the conclusion that the community are entitled to relief in this matter. It is not so much that I anticipate any great result either from the original proposal or the Amendment that I shall support the general proposition, but because I believe that the ventilation of the subject will do an enormous amount of good. I am certainly surprised that no hon. Member has put the question upon a broader aspect—namely, whether any mere shifting of the burden of taxation can effect the object desired.
  MR. A. C. CORBETT: I did not intend to intervene in this debate to-night, and I should not have done so if I had not noticed that so very little prominence has been given to the part of the Resolution which I specially favour—that part in which it is urged that a direct assessment be imposed "on the owners of increased values imparted to lands by building operations and other improvements." I believe that if permission were given to the lessee to deduct the local rates from

  1037
  the ground rents paid to the lessor, it would do nothing to reduce the amount of rents. I know this—that when I invested money in leasehold houses, I did so on a distinct understanding and on the distinct contract that those houses should bear all the local burdens. Those who have invested in ground rents have gone into their 4 per cent investments on the distinct bargain that those ground rents should be subject to no local burdens. I hold that there is no call for this House to intervene between us, and to relieve me of burdens upon which I distinctly calculated in paying the price, and putting upon ground landlords a burden which their contract distinctly excluded. A good deal has been said to-night as to the relief which such a proposal would give to the working classes. I deny that it would give them such relief. I know that if I were permitted to deduct the amount of local rates out of the ground rent I pay to the ground landlord it would not have any necessary effect whatever upon the amount of rent which I should exact from my tenants. If you are to have the reduced rents you must affect supply or demand, and the one measure by which you can increase the supply of houses is by the tax which has been proposed upon vacant land. Now, I happen to hold about 30 acres of vacant land in the neighbourhood of London, and upon that vacant land I pay not one farthing of local assessment or of Imperial taxation; and when I sell it at a profit I am told that it is not necessary for me to return it under the Income Tax. Now, I contend that this is an unfair immunity from taxation, and is a distinct premium offered to landowners to keep their land out of the market. I contend that if the State were to tax this land it would give to me and other landowners a great inducement to bring our land early in the market at lower rates than would otherwise be secured. I, for one, should not feel that the country or the Local Authorities were doing me any injustice whatever if they compelled me to say what I held to be the real annual value of the land, and to assess me upon it. I hold that it would be no injustice to me for them to say—"You have put a certain value upon your own land; we take it at your own valuation;" in the event of my assessing it at too low a price. By this means, a large additional amount
  1038
  would be brought into the Local and Imperial Exchequers; and the result would be that the owners of land would be induced to bring their property into the market at an earlier period and at lower rates.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I do not intend to ask the House to divide on the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson) as to whether this matter should be referred to a Select Committee; but I should like the House to understand before they adopt the Amendment what it really is that is proposed to be referred to the Committee. We have had several very interesting and somewhat discursive speeches; but upon a question of so general and far-reaching a nature it would be well that the House should understand what amount of substance there is in the proposition put forward. I will not detain the House longer than I can help, and not longer than a few minutes; but before I sit down I think I shall be able to satisfy the House that the real question which lies at the root of the Motion of the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Saunders) is the question of the incidence of taxation in general, and not of the taxation of ground rents. I must say that this debate has been amusing as well as instructive. Several hon. Members—notably the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson), who made a very interesting speech in which he ran full tilt at the landlords—appear to have spoken chiefly for the purpose of arousing the feelings of the House with regard to landlords. In the course of the debate we have heard such words introduced as "legalized spoliation." I want to bring the House back to the terms of the Motion of the hon. Member for Hull, and to see that we do not, under cover of this Motion, remit to a Committee a much larger subject, and one which is not within the fair scope and purview of that Motion. The Motion consists of two parts—the first having regard to the question of the direct assessment of ground rents. That question has been fully debated by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I will point out what the outcome of it is. The hon. Member for Hull has suggested some scheme, the details of which he has not unfolded to us, whereby by taxing ground rents in

  1039
  the hands of the receivers of those rents the amount is to flow into the coffers of the Public Authorities. No doubt, that is a most desirable result for the Local Authorities if we could achieve it. No one can deny that ground rents are taxed; it must be admitted that ground rents do contribute to the local taxation; but it is complained that by the terms of the bargain between the landlord and the tenant the burden is borne by the occupier or by the person who pays the rack-rent. Now, I contend that the proposal of the hon. Member for Hull is simply an alteration of the burden by taking it from one person and putting it upon another; and if the House will bear that matter in mind for a moment I will endeavour to criticize the Motion in a friendly spirit. I have, on more than one occasion, had occasion to deal with these matters from a practical point of view. Let me, then, ask the House to consider the case of a man who is about to grant a building lease—say for 80 years—on an estate in London for which he gets £20 a-year in the shape of ground rent. So long as he receives that £20 a-year it is a ground rent. But suppose the ground landlord requires money, and he goes to the tenant and says—" Redeem the ground rent because I should like to have the cash." Supposing in that case the tenant bought the landlord's interest at 30 years' purchase, and the money was then invested in Railway Stock, or Debentures, or in Consols, surely in that case the hon. Member for Hull does not suggest that those investments are property which, under the terms of his Motion, is to bear its burden of local taxation; and yet it is equally a sum of money that has arisen out of the transaction between the landlord and tenant. Let me put another case. Take the case of a ground owner who is able to build a house on land which is worth £10,000. The ground rent would be, at 5 per cent. £600 a-year, and a building worth £10,000 upon it would bring in an annual return of £700; or 7 per cent against 5 per cent on the ground value, the united rents being £1,200. It is not denied that that would be a fair rental, and taking one property with the other, that it should contribute to local burdens, and berated at the full amount of £1,200. At the present moment the Local Authorities get that full amount,
  1040
  but instead of being in two hands it is in one. It is said that there ought to be some increased assessment upon it in order to cover the ground rent. Now, suppose the owner himself, had the land which was worth to him £10,000, and suppose he spent £10,000 to put a house upon it, would he not be fully taxed, if he were called upon to pay rates on a rental of £1,200 a-year? The Local Authority would have no right to charge him any more, and yet, because a man is not fortunate enough to build his own house upon his own property, but builds one on the estate of somebody else, in some way or other this land is to be further taxed, although the occupier is at present paying upon the full rent of £1,200 a-year. In the case of a man living in his own house, and upon his own land, you would put both the land and building together, and the occupier of that house and land, if the overseers did their duty, would be rated to the full amount. On what ground of justice could any difference be made? Why should that property be required to contribute towards local burdens if it happens to be occupied by the owner who gets the benefit of all public improvements, but lets somebody else live in it? I think that many hon. Members have not seen the difficulty, because they have not put the concrete case. There was one matter alluded to by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Addison) of which hon. Members opposite did not see the point. Not only in Lancashire, but in other places, a man who has knowledge of what land is likely to grow into takes it for building purposes—say at £5 an acre—when it is only just emerging from agricultural land. He keeps it for five or ten years, and then lets it off for, perhaps, £15 an acre; and I know that on many plots of land there are ground rents which vary from £5 up to £100 or £200, which they become worth when the estate has been developed and is covered with buildings. Then on which of these ground rents is this taxation to be imposed? Is it to be upon £5, or £50, or £100, because in each case benefit has been received out of the increased value of the property? The hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Saunders) has, no doubt, very excellent motives in his mind for increasing the income of the Local Authorities; but I am afraid that he has, to a certain extent, been

  1041
  bringing forward a subject for taxation which already is or ought to be fully taxed. I desire on this occasion to draw the attention of the House to the real way in which this question ought to be regarded. A great deal has been said by the Mover and Seconder of the Motion about a man getting the advantage of other people's money; and one proposition formulated by the hon. Member for Hull has been lost sight of in the more recent debate—namely, that the value of the property to be taxed is imparted by the community, and ought to be taxed in preference to the value imparted by the individual. I have not the smallest objection to the proposition in general terms; but let us endeavour to see what it means. I may put a test case which I challenge hon. Members to dispute. I will take the case of a Stockbroker in the City of London who takes a place in the neighbourhood of the Stock Exchange, and lets it out in very small rooms indeed—somewhere near Hercules Passage, or Moorgate Street—and he pays £70, or £100, or even £150 a-year. His sole contribution to local burdens consists of poor rates and general rates, and he pays them either directly, or, more commonly, indirectly, because all rates and taxes are borne by the people who let the house. That man gets the full advantage of residence in one of the urban districts of the Metropolis; but he is able to come up to town and keep his City premises in the neighbourhood of the Stock Exchange, and yet, while his receipts may amount to £5,000 or £6,000 a-year, he does not contribute either to the local burdens there or anywhere else in respect of them. He pays nothing except the Property and Income Taxes; and money made in that way contributes in no way to local burdens. Hon. Members desire to embark in an inquiry as to whether the incidence of local taxation fall in the right direction now; and I agree with the hon. Member for Sussex (Mr. Gregory), whose experience is as great or greater than that of most hon. Members. He told us that if there is to be an inquiry as to whether these burdens are fairly borne by the owners of real property or of personal property, he does not think the owners of real property have much to fear. If it were feasible or practicable, I should welcome
  1042
  any inquiry into the question whether local taxation is fairly borne by the occupiers of land, and whether personal property does not escape to a degree to which it ought not to escape, and whether it should not bear its fair share of the burdens of taxation. The second part of the Motion suggests that there should be a direct assessment on the owners of increased values imparted to land by building operations or other improvements. That question opens up an entirely different point, and is scarcely a matter to be referred to the suggested Committee. Almost all taxes are based on the value of the occupation, which is considered a way of getting at the income of the occupier. Of late years the tenant is supposed to be rated at the fair annual value of the house. If he occupies that house he is supposed to pay the rates himself; so that, at any rate, he gets value for the payment he makes. If a man continues to occupy land and enjoys it with his residence, leaving it vacant, and not placing upon it anything which would naturally bring it up to a fair rateable value, I think the overseers would not be doing their duty if they did not assess it to the local rates; and although the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Corbett) may have escaped scot-free he certainly was in occupation of the land, and he ought to have paid the rates. If you think fit to pass a law which will establish another basis or another standard of rateable value on which these taxes would have to be assessed, very good; but let it be considered on its merits. But the law, as it now stands, is this—that the occupier of the land is to be rated at the fair value of his occupation. If the hon. Member for Hull means more than this, he is departing altogether from the present system of rating. I do not say that he may not have fair grounds for departing from it; but he is bringing in a system of rating, not by virtue of the value of the occupation, but to some capital value which a man is supposed to have in his pocket, and of which he is not earning the income. Surely that is a somewhat curious question to remit to the investigation of a Select Committee. I have no wish to follow hon. Members in the wholesale attack they have made upon landlords. I dare say there are many others who agree with the language which has been used in the course of

  1043
  the debate; but although some of it might have been expected from the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) in the course of platform speeches, I do not think it advances a discussion of this kind to speak of "legalized spoliation." These leaseholders took their leases with their eyes open; many others are quite willing to take them up; and the persons who have entered into these building speculations, have frequently made, as hon. Members are aware, large fortunes. Indeed, some of the largest fortunes which have ever been made have been made out of these speculations; and it is ridiculous, therefore, to speak of the legal tenure by which property is held in the Metropolis as "legalized spoliation." I would remind hon. Members that there are sitting in this House, on both sides, the descendants of gentlemen in the highest position who have made enormous fortunes by taking up land and speculating with it honestly, and not, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, as "jerry builders." I scarcely think that some of the terms which have been applied to these persons are at all warranted, or can be justified. It has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Sussex (Mr. Gregory), and other hon. Members, that there is much to be said in favour of ground rents, and for this reason—that a man may only be able to take a small plot of land from the ground landlord, and it is of great advantage to him to know that, by a restricted covenant, people leaving property adjoining that which he holds will not be able to put up a public-house, for instance, or some other building that would be an eyesore. But for the restrictions imposed by the ground landlord this might be done; and if the House will consider the question from an impartial point of view it will be seen that there is a great deal to be said in favour of the present system. It must be of great advantage to those who wished to build houses or shops to know that, by virtue of the controlling power of the ground landlord, he would be protected against having opposite plots used for objectionable purposes that would destroy the value of his own plot. An hon. Member who spoke on this question excited some laughter when he said that there were persons in Liverpool who preferred to be lessees of the Corporation of Liverpool rather than
  1044
  freeholders. All I can say is that I am able to endorse that statement, not by my personal knowledge of Liverpool, but of London. The Corporation of London have been letting their land on 80 years' building leases—not a very long term, indeed a comparatively short one—and, Sir, when even a considerable sum of money has to be spent on the buildings upon the land, it is yet a fact that the 80 years' leases, so long as there are 40 years of them unexpired, command a higher price in the London market than London freeholds do. Therefore, I point out that it is by no means a disadvantge, but possibly an advantage, to occupy property held by lease from such a body or landlord as a Local Authority. A great deal has been said about the separation of the rating of ground and the rating of houses; but I think I have shown that this would produce no beneficial result. A good deal has also been said by certain persons as to there being a supposed increase of taxation which can be gained by the adoption of some such plan. I think I have been able to show the House that this could not arise from the mere separation of the assessment. Having heard every word of this debate, and listened with great interest to the speeches of hon. Members, I have to say that, while I do not desire to trouble the House by dividing to-night on the Motion of the hon. Member for Hull, and while admitting that the question may go as a sort of adjunct to the Committee, I think it is important, before coming to that determination, that the House should understand that, by referring the terms of the hon. Member's Motion to this Committee, they are referring what is only the limb of a much larger question, and that even if the Committee were to enter upon that inquiry, and extend its deliberations to the length which the Motion of the hon. Member would demand, the probable result would be that their inquiry would be abortive. Perhaps some apology may be due to hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in favour of the course proposed, because I have not dealt with all their arguments; but I believe I have shown that no really beneficial result can be obtained by leaseholders, landlords, or owners, by referring to the Committee the terms of the Motion of the hon. Member for Hull.
  MR. DUCKHAM: Sir, I have been much interested in the debate upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Hull; but, as far as I have heard, it has only been upon a part of the question. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. A. C. Corbett) has boasted of having 30 acres of land on which he pays no rate and no taxes. I must confess that he is very differently situated from myself, or anyone else whom I know. It has been said by the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson) that a great grievance is experienced in London with regard to local taxation. Sir, I must tell the House that we agriculturists have felt a great grievance for many years in connection with this subject; we feel that there are many interests on which this great question can and should be brought to bear very differently to the system at present practised. As a farmer, I am taxed on the improvements which I effect on the soil, and which are for the general benefit of the nation. Sir, I hope, if a Committee is appointed to inquire into the question of the local taxation of the country, that they will have such Instructions as will enable them to make inquiry into the whole question, and not merely into what really is no more than the fringe of a very great question, and that, from their inquiries, legislation will result that will do something to relieve the burden which we have so long laboured under, and which has been repeatedly brought before the House of Commons. And, Sir, not only do I trust that the Instructions to the Committee will be such as to give them power to inquire into the whole incidence of local taxation, but that they shall have power also to inquire into the desirability of establishing a better system of valuation by which local rating shall be regulated. Lord John Russell, when he introduced the Bill for the repeal of the Corn Laws, said that inquiry into and re-adjustment of local burdens would be necessary and must take place. I will not detain the House further than to remind it that a great interest is now being taken in the extension of the number of small holdings and in the extension of peasant proprietorship in the country, and to repeat the hope I have already expressed that the Instructions to the Committee will be such as to bring about an exhaustive inquiry into the grievance under which
  1046
  the farming interest now labours in respect of local taxation.
  MR. FLYNN: Sir, I have no desire to stand for any length of time between the House and the division which hon. Members are anxious to take upon this very important question. But there have been some observations made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster), with regard to which I may say that the short time which I desire to devote to them will not, in my opinion, have been wasted. The hon. and learned Gentleman informed the House that it is extremely difficult to come at this question of ground rents; he says that there are many shopkeepers and others in the City of London and large business centres who have made considerable fortunes in the businesses in which they have been engaged; and he asks how you can discriminate between the taxation levied on those profits and the taxation put on the ground rents of the houses where those businesses have been carried on? I wish to point out the fallacy of the hon. and learned Gentleman's observations. Shopkeepers in any locality or district cannot expect to maintain a monopoly of profit for any long time; if their profit goes beyond ordinary trade profits, there comes an influx of capital into the business, there follows an increase in the number of shopkeepers and the profits get distributed over a larger area. I wish to point out that, in the case of those particular localities in which large fortunes are made, it must, in the long run, be apparent to anyone who gives the subject a moment's reflection, that large profits must attach to the ground rent. Profits will not increase beyond a certain point in whatever business you may take, on account of the tendency of capital to flow in, and on account of the increased ground rent in the localities in which the businesses are carried on. The hon. and learned Gentleman brought forward an instance of a Stockbroker in a certain part of London, occupying small premises at a certain rent. Now, Sir, it is perfectly obvious that in the rent which the Stockbroker pays for his offices is included the ground rent as well as the rates and charges payable by the owner of the entire premises. If it be true that Stockbrokers, as a rule, make such large profits, there

  1047
  can be no doubt that the number of persons engaged in the business would be very largely increased; but the hon. and learned Gentleman should set against this imaginary case the large number of cases of Stockbrokers who lose all they possess in their endeavour to get a share of the profits which are made in the Stockbroking business. Be that as it may, it is a well-known law in economics that profit, when it goes beyond a certain point, becomes divided. But it is not so with ground rents. We find that the profit of Stockbrokers in the City of London is one of the reasons why ground rents have run up in London and other large centres; and I say that the contention of hon. Gentlemen on this side, as well as upon the opposite Benches, that it is fair and equitable that ground rents should bear a just proportion of municipal and local taxation, is a proposition which has only to be stated to be believed by everyone who gives it a moment's consideration. Sir, Irish Members are very largely interested in this question. I myself know the hardship and injustice that is done in the town of Kanturk, in Charleville, and in other towns in the county of Cork. The town of Kanturk is in the district which I have the honour to represent; it is the centre of a populous district where a large amount of business is done, and where much more might be done but is not, because the noble Earl who is the owner of the entire town contributes nothing towards the expenses of the place, although he derives an immense revenue from the ground rents. We could multiply instances of this sort, Mr. Speaker; but it is not now necessary to do so, because I believe that the experience of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House will furnish many confirmations of the truth of what I say. I have only to add, with regard to the Motion of the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Saunders), that it meets with the approbation of Irish Members on these Benches, as it will meet, I believe, with the approbation of all those who are interested in the improvement of the condition of the industrial community throughout the Kingdom.
  MR. SAUNDERS: I cordially assent to the Amendment proposed, by the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson), and I think that the submission of the two ques-
  1048
  tions to the Committee is the best course to be adopted.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question proposed,
  "That the words, 'That the question of imposing a direct assessment on the owners of Ground Rents, and on the owners of increased values imparted to land by building operations, or other improvements, as recommended by the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes,' be there inserted."
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I understand that the scope of the Reference to the Committee will be widened to a considerable extent by the Resolution which the House is about to adopt, and also by the decision which has been taken, as I think, rather in contradiction of a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that the Committee should inquire into the relations between ground landlords and lessees. I now ask what is the intention of Her Majesty's Government with reference to this Committee? Names of the proposed Members of the Committee appear on the Paper, and I believe they were to be nominated to-night; but, I think it would be advisable, looking at the great importance of the question which the Committee has to consider, that some measures should be taken for increasing the strength of that Committee by the addition of the names of a few hon. Members who may be competent to deal with the subject. I do not know what are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with regard to this; but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board will be able to give us some information.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN): Sir, I think the House will feel that there is a great deal of weight in the observations of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. There is no doubt that the original scope of the Reference to the Select Committee has been considerably extended, and that the Committee will have to perform functions of a very important character. Under the circumstances, we think it desirable to strengthen the Committee by the addition of certain names of weight in this House. I am glad to say that it has

  1049
  been already arranged, in view of this proposed extension, that the Motion for this Committee shall not be made tonight, but be postponed to a time when it will be more conveniently brought forward. On that occasion I have every hope that the names proposed will be found to have the confidence of the House.
  MR. GREGORY: Would it not be better, Mr. Speaker, that when the names of the Committee are proposed, the terms of the Reference should also be settled? We shall have to make the Reference sufficiently wide to include within its scope the Motion of the hon. Member.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "improvements," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "be referred to the Select Committee on Town Holdings,"—(Mr. Lawson,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put.
  Resolved, That the question of imposing a direct assessment on the owners of Ground Rents, and on the owners of increased values imparted to land by building operations, or other improvements, be referred to the Select Committee on Town Holdings.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  RIVERS PURIFICATION BILL.
  (Mr. Hastings, Sir Edward Birkbeck, Lord Charles Beresford, Sir W. Guyer Hunter, General Sir William Crossman, Colonel Sandys.)
  RIVERS PURIFICATION BILL.

    [BILL 101.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    SIR EDWARD BIRKBECK: Sir, in the absence of the hon. Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Hastings), I have been called upon unexpectedly to move the second reading of this Bill, the object of which is to secure the purification of our rivers by bringing about a better arrangement with reference to sewers, manufacturers' refuse, and other drainage works which are turned into them, and which in dry summers make those rivers
    1050
    a perfect nuisance, as well as injurious to the general community. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the evidence laid before Parliament by the various Royal Commissions will be considered sufficient to show how desirable it is that legislation of the kind proposed should take place. The hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Charles Russell) made a speech last week at the Mansion House in support of an amendment of the present law; and, therefore, I trust that Her Majesty's Government will not think it necessary to oppose the Motion which I now make.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Edward Birkbeck.)
    SIR HENRY ROSCOE: Sir, I rise to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. And I do so with confidence, not because I am in any way opposed to the purification of our rivers. It seems to me that this is one of the most important questions which can claim the attention of this House. And I very much regret that at this late hour it is impossible to enter fully into its merits. The subject of the pollution of rivers is well known to Members of this House; but it seems to me that, however desirable it may be to arrive at a solution of that question, the measure before us is one which it would be dangerous to allow to pass. In the first place, the Bill makes no distinction between impurities caused by sewage operations and impurities caused by manufactures, as is the case in the Act of 1876; but, Sir, that distinction is one of the very greatest importance. I believe I may say, with some degree of certainty, that while the impurity due to sewage is a matter that can be satisfactorily dealt with, at a certain cost—because all sewage impurity is approximately of the same composition—the question of dealing with impurities which are the result of manufactures, is one which presents much difficulty, for it is well known to all Members of this House that the character of the impurity differs with the character of the manufacture—as, for example, alkali works, dye works, paper mills, and brewers. In this Bill, Sir, all the impurities arising from manufactures are treated in one and the same way; and, in consequence of this, the standards which have been fixed therein are either

    1051
    so stringent that they will act if they are passed into law, most prejudicially to the manufacturers in this country, or they are, in some cases, so insufficient that they would be of no avail. It is absolutely impossible, in most cases of this kind, to draw a hard-and-fast line; but the standards which are here set forth are unvarying, having regard neither to the character of the pollution nor the character of the stream into which they pass. If this question of the impurities arising from our varied manufacturing and mining processes is to be settled, it must be settled, to a great extent, upon a geographical basis. We may require one set of standards for one river, and even for different parts of one river, and these may be totally different from the standard which it is necessary to apply to other rivers. Then, Sir, I find among the provisions of the Bill a clause which provides that any person shall be guilty of an offence against the Act who puts into, or causes or permits to be put or carried into, any stream any solid or liquid matter calculated to interfere with the flow, alter the bed, or pollute its waters—that is, one single act is to constitute an offence under the Act. Again, action may be taken on the results of the analysis of one sample of water drawn for examination; but for the purpose of arriving at any fair conclusion as to the pollution of a river, it is hardly necessary to say that we ought to have a number of samples drawn of the water passing every 24 hours, in order that we may have an average sample of the water. Again, the Act of 1876 enables manufacturers to apply the best practical means in their power. We are unacquainted at the present moment with any scientific method by which rivers containing these various manufacturing pollutions can be rendered pure; but if such means can be established, there may be a chance of obtaining a satisfactory result: In this Bill, however, the application of such means are not permitted; and, therefore, I believe it will be unworkable. There is another clause in the Bill which is very striking and demands our attention. Clause 6 enables any occupier, or owner, or any representative of the Local Sanitary Authority, to institute proceedings in the County Court, and those proceedings may be taken by
    1052
    any individual, and without expense to him. Well, Sir, I say that this is opening the door, as it appears to me, to vexatious litigation of a very undesirable character. Again, in Clause 3 it would seem that the Judge, whose duty it is simply to enforce the law, is made responsible for the method of purification—that is to say, he is to dictate the way in which the purification is to be carried out. The distinction, as I have said, is not made in this Bill, as it ought to be made, between sewage and between the refuse or pollution caused by manufactures. Now, it seems to me that the time is come when we may satisfactorily deal with the sewage question; but we must proceed in this matter carefully, and by degrees; and before any attempt can be made to deal with the pollution by manufactures, I am of opinion that we ought to deal with the question of pollution by sewage. It is evidently extremely undesirable to interfere with the manufacturers of this country by any vexatious legislation; and I know it is generally felt by manufacturers that this Bill, if it becomes law, will most seriously interfere with the various enterprizes and manufactures carried on, especially in the North of England. I have had the pleasure of introducing a deputation to the President of the Local Government Board of a large number of gentlemen interested in the manufactures of the North, and they have unanimously declared that the Bill will have a disastrous effect upon their industries. Those gentlemen are perfectly willing to have the matter investigated; they are not at all interested in keeping the rivers in the present state, and they are fully aware that much may be done in the direction desired. And here I wish to call the attention of the House to the analogy and the difference between the Alkali Acts and the present Bill. The Alkali Acts for the purification of the atmosphere from noxious vapours have been most successful in their operation; they have been received by all chemical manufacturers with satisfaction, and the result has been most beneficial both to the public at large and the manufacturers in detail. I believe that legislation with regard to river purification may also, with due care, be rendered satisfactory both to the manufacturer and the public; but the distinction between air pollution and water pollution

    1053
    must be borne in mind, and the kind of legislation which is applicable to the one is evidently not applicable to the other as regards the uniformity of the standards of purity. I cannot support the standards which have been introduced into this Bill; some of them, indeed, are even of a monstrous character—thus I may state that one of the standards of purity for the waters running into streams which may be used for potable purposes permits an amount of acid to be present in the water which is one-fifth of the amount of acid which actually falls into the air of the City of Manchester—that is to say, that the rain water which falls in that city contains five times as much acid as is permitted to go into the river. This standard is, then, much too strict. But in another instance, which, with the permission of the House, I am about to give, the standards are not nearly strict enough. If we assent to the standard (f) for drinking water—namely, that the water should contain one part of sulphur in 100,000 parts of water. I can inform the House that the water which is supposed to be pure would smell very much like Harrogate water, and that it would be very improper to allow such a liquid to run into water to be used for drinking purposes. I could, if time permitted, refer to many similar inconsistencies in the Bill; but, Sir, I will not, at this late hour, intrude upon the attention of the House further than to recall to the notice of hon. Members the fact that the Bill does not attempt to do what is absolutely necessary—that is, draw a distinction between sewage impurity and manufacturing impurity; that it does not attempt to deal with the sewage question as it ought to be dealt with, and that it does attempt to deal with manufacturing pollution in a way that will be detrimental—I may say almost disastrous—to the trade of the country. I may also add that legislation of this importance for dealing properly with the great question of the pollution of our rivers, to be made efficient, must be a much simpler one than the present one, and that if it is introduced in the form of a Private Bill, such a Bill must receive Government support. For these reasons, Sir, I oppose this Bill, and move that it be read upon this day six months.
    MR. HUTTON: Sir, I think the importance of this Bill is hardly recognized by the hon. Member who made the Motion for the second reading, because there is no doubt that it will affect some of the largest manufacturing interests in the country; and I, on behalf of a number of manufacturers both of Manchester and of Salford, entirely agree with what has fallen on this subject from the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Henry Roscoe). Throughout Lancashire, Yorkshire, and in the manufacturing districts generally in the North of England, a number of large factories have arisen within the last 40 or 50 years, an enormous amount of capital has been spent in works there, and large populations created in the neighbourhood of rivers which flow through those districts; and I may say, that if this Bill is passed into law, those populations will be dispersed, and instead of prosperity there will be wide-spread poverty. We have in Lancashire about 90,000 persons applying to the Guardians for outdoor relief, which is something like 12,000 in excess of the number at this time last year; and I am satisfied that if the Bill becomes law that number will be enormously increased. Sir, it is impossible to estimate the damage which this Bill would do if it were sanctioned by Parliament. We have such a large population crying out for the protection of labour, that, rather than put other difficulties in the way of our industries, I ask the House most seriously to consider the injury that will be done by passing the Bill. We have all at heart the desire to secure greater purity of water in our towns; but I am convinced that not only would the Bill do a great injury amongst the populations in the manufacturing towns, but that the suggestions made by the hon. Member opposite could not be carried out. I do not hesitate to say that the Bill ought to be considered very seriously, and that the restrictions which it places upon labour ought to be struck out. Sir, I beg to second the Motion of the hon. Member for South Manchester (Sir Henry Roscoe).
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Sir Henry Roscoe.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN),: Sir, this Bill is certainly of a very extraordinary character, and it is to be regretted that it has been brought on so late at night, and in the absence of the hon. Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Hastings), who is one of the promoters of the Bill. It appears to be a Bill which, if passed into law, would seriously interfere with, if not destroy, some of the most important manufactures of the country. The hon. Baronet who introduced the Bill stated that it was supported by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General (Sir Charles Russell). I have the authority of the Attorney General for saying that he has never given support to the Bill, although he is an advocate for the purification of rivers, and that he sees very much to object to in the measures by which the Bill proposes to carry this into effect. I think that a reference to one clause of the Bill will be sufficient to show that it is impossible for the House to accept it. The Bill is based on the idea that the provisions of the Act of 1876 are insufficient. That Act throws the duty of showing that the provisions of the law are observed upon the Sanitary Authorities of the districts. "Well, no doubt in some cases the Sanitary Authorities are the worst offenders, so that the law calls upon the criminals to prosecute themselves; but there is power of appeal to the Local Government Board, and the Local Government Board can call upon the Sanitary Authorities to proceed. But, Sir, the alternative which is proposed by this Bill is contained in Clause 6, and I venture to say that nothing more extravagant than that clause has ever been submitted to the House of Commons. It proposes in Clause 6 that if the Sanitary Authority refuses to take proceedings, then the person aggrieved has the right to proceed himself and charge the cost to the Sanitary Authority. It is, therefore, actually proposed that a person alleging a grievance shall be entitled to call upon the ratepayers to prosecute his claim at their expense. That is much the same as introducing a Bill into this House to provide that any person alleging any pecuniary loss or damage shall
    1056
    be given a right to call upon the Public Prosecutor to carry on his case at the public expense. I think I have said enough to show that, if there is any deficiency in the existing law, the remedy proposed by this Bill is not the way to meet it. As a remedy for any deficiency which there may be in the actual existing Authorities, we should look to some scheme of local government, whereby the Sanitary Authorities might be compelled to perform their duty if anything illegal takes place. Under these circumstances, I shall certainly support the Motion of my hon. Friend behind me (Sir Henry Roscoe).
    LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: There are two great questions which this Bill concerns. One is the manufacturers' interest, and the other is the public health. Those people who drink the waters of rivers have a very great interest in this matter, and it was on that ground that hon. Members were induced to back the Bill. The hon. Member opposite (Sir Henry Roscoe) suggests that it shall be referred to a Select Committee.[Cries of "No!"]
    SIR HENRY ROSCOE: I moved that the Bill be read a second time on this day six months.
    LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg pardon. I misunderstood the hon. Member; but in that case I will propose that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, because I consider it a matter of very great importance to the public health. I therefore propose that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
    MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord is not entitled to make that Motion until the Amendment before the House has been disposed of.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Second Reading put off for six months.

    EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT (1880) AMENDMENT BILL.
    Ordered, That the Select Committee on Employers' Liability Act (1880) Amendment Bill do consist of Sixteen Members:—The Committee was accordingly nominated of,—Sir THOMAS BRASSEY, Mr. AINSLIE, Lord CHARLES BERESFORD, Mr. BRADLAUGH, Mr. WILLIAM CRAWFORD, Mr. CROMPTON, Mr. GILES, Mr. JACKSON, Mr. NOLAN (Louth), Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR, Sir JOSEPH PEASE, Sir EDWARD REED, Mr. SUTHERLAND, Mr. TOMLINSON, Cap-

    1057
    tain VERNEY, and Sir RICHARD WEBSTER, with power to send for persons, papers, and records. Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Mr. Secretary Childers.)

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886, the sum of £544,772 he granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.
    House adjourned at One o'clock.