Commons Sitting of 28 March 1890

NATIONAL DEBT.
Return ordered—
"Showing at the close of each financial year, from 1835–6 to 1889–90, both inclusive, the aggregate Gross Liabilities of the State as represented by the Nominal Funded Debt, estimated Capital Value of Terminable Annuities, Unfunded Debt, and other Liabilities in respect of Debt, the estimated Assets, and the aggregate Net Liabilities, also the Exchequer Balances; and, showing at the close of each financial year, from 1835–6 to 1889–90, both inclusive, the Gross and Net Expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund on account of the National Debt, and other payments in respect of Debt."—(Sir W. Harcourt.)

EAST INDIA (CRAWFORD CASE.)
Address for—
"Copies of, or Extracts from, Correspondence relating to Memorials from Members of the Civil Service as to the Mamlutdars incriminated in the Crawford Case."—(Mr. Bradlaugh.)

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir JOHN MOWBRAY reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, the following Fifteen Members in respect of the Bankruptcy Bill: Mr. T. H. Bolton, Mr. Caine, Mr. J. A. Campbell, Mr. Chance, Mr. Handel Cossham, Sir Robert
154
Fowler, Mr. H. H. Fowler, Mr. Gedge, Mr. Haldane, Sir E. Harland, Colonel Hill, Mr. Kelly, Sir Joseph M'Kenna, Mr. J. Lloyd Morgan, and Sir Albert Rollit.
Report to lie upon the Table.

QUESTIONS.

  MINUTE OF LORD DUFFERIN OF 6TH NOVEMBER, 1888.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he will lay upon the Table the whole of the Minute of the Marquess of Dufferin and Ava, as Viceroy and Governor General of India, dated 6th November, 1888, portions of which Minute have been already presented to Parliament?
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): No, Sir; in view of the confidential nature of the circumstances, the Secretary of State cannot lay the Minute upon the Table.
  MR. BUCHANAN: May I ask whether the object with which this Paper has been asked for both in this and the other House, and the object with which it was granted, was not to communicate to the House the views of the Governor General and other Indian Authorities?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I am unable to follow the argument of the hon. Gentle man; but speaking upon the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, I am prepared to say that it is not in the public interests that this Paper should be given.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole of this Minute has been printed in India, and that the withholding of it on the part of the Government may place in an unfortunate position the discussion which is likely to arise upon the Indian Council Bill?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I think it is possible that by a serious breach of confidence on the part of some one in the Public Service, what purports to be the Minute may have been given; but that would not justify me, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, in laying the Paper on the Table.

  THE LATE MAHARAJA SCINDIA.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the telegram of the Governor of India, on the 19th Juno, 1886, to the late Maharaja Scindia, was in reply to the dying request of His Highness, that his son should not be placed for instruction under a European tutor; and whether the Secretary of State will lay upon the Table the complete text of the letter the late Maharaja referred to in the previous answer of the Under Secretary, and of any reply thereto?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOE FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): I shall be much obliged to the hon. Member if he will postpone this question. I have not been able to communicate with the Secretary of State to-day.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Will Monday do?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: Yes; I think I shall be able to answer it on Monday.

  MERCANTILE SHIPPING REGULATIONS IN INDIA.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Bill, so far as they affect foreign vessels loading or discharging in British ports, will apply (should they become law) to foreign vessels loading or discharging' in Indian ports; and, if not, whether the Secretary of State for India will call the attention of the Government of India to the point, so that British subjects, whether English or Indian, may not be put at a disadvantage?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this question. The Bill would not apply to foreign vessels in Indian ports. It would, however, be open to the Government of India to enact analogous provisions.
  SIR R. LETHBRIDGE: Arising out of that answer, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman who is now representing the India Office here if the Secretary of State will communicate with the Government of India upon the subject?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: I think my hon. Friend had better wait and see what the provisions of the Bill are.

  IRELAND—DISTRICT INSPECTOR BIGLEY.
  MR. BLANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether representations have reached him that District Inspector Bigley, of Lurgan, lodged a complaint with the superior officer of a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary, named Dennis Burke, that he had been seen walking in company with a Nationalist car owner, named John Byrne, of Portadown, and that, in consequence of the report, Burke was removed to another station; and whether the Government will take any action in the matter?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Constabulary Authorities report that the constable named was not transferred to another station on the grounds mentioned in the question, but because of his having absented himself from his station without leave.

  IRISH FISHERIES.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been directed to the Report of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries dealing with the damage done by the drainage works to the spawning grounds, and to the statement of the Inspectors that the works at Lough Allen and Killaloe will have an injurious effect on salmon and trout fishing in the Shannon, as the excavations will destroy the spawning beds, and that the same result will ensue on continuation of the works at Battle Bridge; and whether any modification or alteration will be adopted in connection with the drainage works which will prevent such damage to the important fishing interests?
  MR. PATRICK JOSEPH O'BRIENalso asked whether several communications have been received from the "Limerick Board of Fishery Conservators," requesting to be furnished with the Report of the Evidence taken by the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries last year in the inquiry held by them along the Shannon as to the alleged injuries to the fisheries by the

  157
  "Shannon drainage works," and the wholesale destruction of the salmon fry by the too sudden lowering of the sluice gates at Killaloe as also alleged; what was the nature of the Report on this inquiry, and will it be laid upon the Table; and what is the objection to the Report of the Evidence being supplied to the Board of Conservators at Limerick?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Inspectors of Irish Fisheries have reported that the drainage works on the Shannon will injure the fisheries. The Board of Works hold an opposite opinion. The Fishery Inspectors' Report, and the observations of the Board of Works thereon, have been communicated to the Conservators of the river, who originally moved in the matter, and whose reply is now awaited.
  DR. TANNER: Will no attention be paid to this Report by the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries; will the suggestion of the Board of Works be adopted; are the representations of the Inspectors to be ignored?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My answer could not possibly have conveyed such an idea.

  BALLYCOTTON PIER.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the Grand Jury of the County of Cork have again refused to take over Ballycotton Pier from the Irish Board of Works; whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of Mr. Kirkby, M.A., C.E., that he found all the defects previously complained of more damaging to the structure, and that the pier was in a much worse condition, there being a distinct and appreciable settlement in the pier head, and the filling of the interior of the pier was also settling down and being washed away; and to the statement of General Thackwell, that he had also visited the pier and found it to be in a most unsatisfactory condition; and whether any steps will be taken during the coming season to remedy the defects and prevent further damage to the pier in question?
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): I have not seen the Report of the County Surveyor, or heard of any action of the Grand Jury. I am informed that the
  158
  pier was examined by the Board of Works' District Engineer on the 22nd of January last. He reported that on a comparison of the levels at several well-defined points he could find no difference since they were measured in 1888, nor in the batter of the walls. With the exception of differences in a few points, which are of no structural importance, the pier and breakwater were in a complete state of preservation. No repairs whatever have either been made or required since the transfer to the county on the 31st January, 1888.
  DR. TANNER: Am I to understand that the hon. Gentleman has not heard that the Grand Jury has refused, for the fifth time, to take this pier over?
  *MR. JACKSON: I had not heard, until the hon. Member's question appeared upon the Paper, that any further action had been taken by the Grand Jury. As I have said, careful measures have been taken from time to time, and I believe that there has been no change in the condition of the pier.
  DR. TANNER: If the Grand Jury persist in their refusal to take the pier over will the Treasury endeavour to get the defects complained of remedied?
  *MR. JACKSON: Either last year or the year before I told the hon. Member, in answer to a question, that the pier had been handed over in consequence of the Act, and it is not in the power of the Treasury or the Board of Works to interfere.

  ALLEGED SEVERE SENTENCE.
  DR. TANNER: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the report of the sentence inflicted on a young boy named Thomas Keefe, of Youghal, by Mr. Frank Hodder, R.M., from which it appears that Keefe was convicted on the unsupported evidence of a man named Josh Desmond; whether Mr. Hodder is correctly reported in Cork papers to have stated that he would sentence Keefe to six months' imprisonment with hard labour were it not for his youth; whether he is aware that the offence complained of was Keefe telling a man who spoke to and consulted him about the purchase of some cattle at Midleton Fair that the cattle were the property of a man who had occasioned the arrest of a mutual

  159
  friend of theirs; and whether an inquiry will be made into the circumstances of the case?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that Keefe is not a young boy. He admitted in Court that he is 17 years of age, and that he was a dealer in cattle on his own account. He was represented by a solicitor at the hearing of the charge. The statement in the third paragraph doss not accurately represent the offence. The man who was intimidated by Keefe from buying Desmond's cattle did not consult Keefe on the subject, nor was an attempt made at the trial to show that Keefe had any previous knowledge of the man. Desmond deposed to these facts in Court and his testimony was unshaken on cross-examination by the solicitor for the defence. No evidence was brought forward on behalf of Keefe. The magistrates, on the evidence produced, ordered Keefe to find bail for his future good behaviour, or, in default, three months' imprisonment. The Court had judicial knowledge of the prevalence of boycotting at Midleton Fair. The presiding magistrate did announce that only for the youth of the defendant, and that it was his first offence, the magistrates would have inflicted a sentence of six months' imprisonment. Keefe has given the required bail.
  DR. TANNER: Was he convicted on the unsupported evidence of Desmond?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have said that Desmond was a witness against him.
  DR. TANNER: The only witness?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know; but Desmond's evidence was unshaken on cross-examination.
  DR. TANNER: Was it not the simple fact that the man who wished to purchase the cattle asked the boy Keefe whose cattle they were; that the boy told him; and it was upon that that the charge was made?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That does not appear to have been the fact, but contrary to the absolute fact.
  DR. TANNER: What evidence was there against Keefe except that of Desmond?
  [No reply.]
  DR. TANNER: This is positively disgraceful.

  THE LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. PATRICK JOSEPH O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how soon will the Land Sub-Commissioners sit again at Nenagh, County Tipperary, no Sub-Commission having been held for the Unions of Nenagh, Borrisokane, and portion of the Roscrea Union connected with Tipperary, since the month of November, 1888; and whether, having regard to this fact, and considering the position of the tenants in these districts, in many of whose cases notices have been served for nearly three years, the tenants being still obliged to pay the old rents, and that in several hundreds of cases under the Land Act of 1887 notices have been lodged for more than two years, in which cases the tenants would be entitled to be refunded by the landlords the difference in the sums paid by them since the passing of the Act, and the amounts of the judicial rents when fixed, he will facilitate the holding of the Commission in these districts at an early data?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners report that a Sub-Commission sat to hear cases from the district named during the months of January and February, 1889. All originating notices received before 31st October, 1887, were disposed of at that sitting. The Commissioners have arranged for a Sub-Commission to sit for this district at an early date.

  SHANNON DRAINAGE WORKS.
  MR. PATRICK JOSEPH O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to an answer which he gave on the 1st July last, in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Smith-Barry), relating to the Shannon Drainage Works, namely—
  "That the Board of Works are of opinion that no serious injuries can result to the fisheries by these works,"
  will he state on whose authority the Board of Works was guided in that opinion; whether the Shannon Conservators think differently; and whether the evidence taken by the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries in their inquiry tended to disprove the statement in question; and what amount of money was sunk in

  161
  the drainage works at Killaloe, which were washed away by the recent floods?
  *MR. JACKSON: I think, but I am not sure, that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has promised to lay certain Papers on the Table, which will, I understand, give the information sought by the hon. Member. As regards Killaloe, I would only refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him yesterday on the same subject.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the last part of the question?
  *MR. JACKSON: I am unable to answer it. I do not know.
  DR. TANNER: Has any modification or alteration been adopted in regard to the drainage works of Killaloe?
  *MR. JACKSON: If the hon. Member will put the question on the Paper I will inquire.

  POSTAL ACCOMMODATION AT NENAGH.
  MR. PATRICK JOSEPH O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General what is the cause of the long delay in the erection of the postal pillar boxes decided to be placed at certain points in the town of Nenagh, County Tipperary; and whether he will be pleased to have inquiry made?
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): I find that the new letter box in Barrack Street, Nenagh, to which it is presumed the hon. Member refers, was erected yesterday. The box has not been placed in position quite so quickly as usual, owing, I understand, partly to delay on the part of the contractors in supplying it, and partly to a difficulty which arose in regard to the site.

  THE STATUTE OF EDWARD III.
  MR. WILLIAM CORBET: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state when the Return of the Statute of Edward III., ordered on 3rd instant, will be issued?
  *MR. JACKSON: It is not a matter within the control of the Treasury; but I have made inquiry, and I am informed that this Return will, it is hoped, be issued in a few days.

  NET RENTAL IN IRELAND.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the term "net rental," used on page 3, Return C. 5879, Session 1889, and also on page 3, Return C. 5978 Session 1890, of the Sales of Land (Ireland), has the same meaning as that given to it in his speech in introducing the Land Purchase Bill; and, if not, what is its meaning?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Net rent, as used by the Land Commission, excludes only head rent, Crown rent, tithe rent-charge, and drainage charge, but includes rates payable by landlord. Under my Bill the tenant will never have to pay head rent, Crown rent, or tithe rent-charge; and net rent, or, as it should rather be called, net value, excludes all rates hitherto paid by landlord, but henceforth to be paid by the purchasing tenant.

  ALLEGED BOYCOTTING AT CORK.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the statements in the Irish newspapers of the boycotting of the Reverend Matthew Kerr, Presbyterian minister of Cork; and if he can state whether the reports are accurate; and, if so, what the nature of the boycotting is?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There has been, and is, so far as I know, no boycotting, either in the proper acceptation of that word or in the modified sense of exclusive dealing, of the reverend gentleman in question. I understand that he thought he was looked coldly on by his clerical brethren, and, further, that he was not appointed to a prison chaplaincy to which he considered he had a claim. These would seem to be the proceedings which he chooses to describe by the very inappropriate term of boycotting.
  MR. SEXTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman adopted the obvious course of inquiring from the reverend gentleman himself?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir.

  THE RIVER BARROW.
  MR. LEAHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if it is his inten-

  163
  tion to bring in a Bill for the drainage of the River Barrow this Session; and, if so, when does he purpose introducing it, and if it will be on the same lines as the one of last Session?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall bring in a Bill if I see a reasonable chance of passing it.

  EVICTIONS IN DONEGAL.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the lately-contemplated evictions on the Stewart and Swiney Estates in County Donegal have been abandoned in deference to any suggestions made on the part of the Irish Executive; whether like suggestions were made to the agent of the Olphert Estate; and, if so, by whom, and what was his reply; how many families have been evicted on the Olphert Estate during the past week; how many evictions were abandoned and by whoso authority, and for what cause they were abandoned; and whether the Government will propose by their Land Purchase Bill to enable tenants evicted, and more especially tenants evicted in congested districts on the seaboard since the Land Purchase Bill was introduced, to avail themselves of the provisions of the Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must ask the hon. Member to repeat the question on Monday.

  CHARGE AGAINST AN IRISH MAGISTRATE.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any complaints have reached the Lord Chancellor of the conduct of Mr. Hugh Graham, J.P., of Rahoney, Dromore, County Tyrone, accusing him of drunkenness and threatening to assault a passenger in a railway carriage on the 27th of March, 1889, of being under the influence of drink while giving evidence in a Land Court on 23rd January, 1889, when Mr. Justice Litton had him removed from court by a policeman; and of being on another occasion drunk at the Omagh Railway Station and annoying ladies, when a policeman who was asked to arrest him refused, on the grounds that he was on railway premises; and whether
  164
  the Lord Chancellor has inquired into these allegations, and with what result?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must also ask the hon. Gentleman to repeat this question on Monday, and, in the meantime, I will obtain information.

  THE EXPLOSIVES ACT.
  MR. GILL: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether it is competent to hold a secret Court of Inquiry under the Explosives Act; and, if so, under what conditions and restrictions?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): It is quite clear that a magistrate acting in Ireland under the 6th section of the Explosive Substances Act, 1883, may examine witnesses on oath and take their depositions otherwise than in open Court. Should the examination take place in the presence of any person charged with the offence his counsel or attorney are entitled to be present as of right.

  MR. M'DERMOTT.
  MR. GILL: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether Mr. M'Dermott, an evicted tenant of the Clanricarde Estate, has now been 11 weeks in prison; and whether, in view of the fact that he has been brought within the past week from Galway Gaol to Ballinasloe, and remanded for the tenth time for refusing to give evidence before a secret inquiry, and that he has on this, as on each previous occasion, offered to answer any questions put to him in open Court, under these circumstances, and considering the severe punishment this gentleman has now boon subjected to, and the cost to the taxpayer involved in these frequent remands, he will now direct that Mr. M'Dermott be released?
  MR. MADDEN: This is a matter entirely within the discretion of the magistrate, with whom the Executive cannot interfere.
  MR. GILL: Considering the utter futility of this proceeding up to the present moment, the great expense involved, and also the fact that Mr. M'Dermott has repeatedly offered to answer any question that may be put to him in open Court, will the right hon. Gentle-

  165
  man the Chief Secretary exercise the discretion vested in him and order the man's release?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not see anything in the argument of the hon. Gentleman that should affect the decision of the Government either one way or the other.

  RICHARD PIGOTT.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Commissioner of Police sent an officer to Mr. Soames to ask him whether he had paid to the late Richard Pigott any of the notes which he sent, just before his flight, to his housekeeper in Dublin, and could he state what was the purport and date of Mr. Soames' reply; whether the police traced two of the notes for £10 and £5 as having' been paid to Mr. Soames by his bankers upon his cheque; whether a constable then saw Mr. Soames, and upon what date, and with what object; whether Mr. Soames wrote, and on what date, complaining of the language used to him by the constable; whether any reply has been sent to this letter; and whether, having regard to the fact that a witness before the Special Commission absconded while under cross-examination, the Home Office have also ascertained, or will ascertain, to whom and when Mr. Soames paid the two notes, and who paid them to Pigott, and when?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The answer to the first, third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs is in the negative. The answer to the second paragraph is in the affirmative. The police did endeavour to ascertain whether any person was responsible for the absconding of the witness Pigott. The inquiries made, of which I have already given the hon. Member the result, and the evidence given in Court having satisfied the police that Mr. Soames was not so responsible, any such inquiry as suggested in the last paragraph would be immaterial.
  MR. COBB: Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that it has never been suggested that Mr. Soames was responsible? But have not the Home Office attempted to trace the notes to the actual person who paid them to Pigott?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The police found that the two notes ultimately came from Mr. Soames; but whether they passed
  166
  through Mr. Soames's hands or through the hands of some of his clerks was not a matter for the police to inquire into.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these notes were drawn by Mr. Soames from the bank before, according to his own evidence, he knew anything about Pigott?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have given as complete an answer as I can. Mr. Soames drew the notes from the bank; they were subsequently found in the possession of Pigott's housekeeper; and therefore no further inquiry was necessary.
  MR. COBB: The point is, who was the individual who placed those notes in Pigott's hands?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I perfectly understand what the hon. Member means, and I have given him all the information I possess.

  INSPECTOR JARVIS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will cause Frederick Jarvis, now and in 1888 in the service of the Criminal Detective Department, to be asked whether he was, in November or December of 1888, at Kansas City with two persons named Pinkerton, who have a private detective agency in the United States; whether he went with the two Pinkertons to Pueblo Colorado, and whether he went himself to Del Norte, which is close to the ranche belonging to P. J. Sheridan; whether his presence in Del Norte was in any way connected with the vicinity of the ranche to that town; and whether the Pinkertons' agency is employed by Her Majesty's Government?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I repeat once again that Inspector Jarvis has never at any time been at or near Kansas City, or Del Norte, Colorado. The story of this officer's mission to Colorado is an absolute fabrication. I make this statement on the information of Jarvis' s superior officer, who, of course, has taken proper means to satisfy himself of the facts.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Does the right hon. Gentleman himself know that Jarvis's superior officer has satisfied himself of these facts?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have had the information communicated to mo by Inspector Jarvis's superior officer as authoritative.

  THE HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPT COMMISSION.
  MR. CRILLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can explain how it is that some of the volumes issued by the Historical Manuscript Commission in 1888 were allowed to appear without the valuable and exhaustive index which usually accompanies these interesting collections of manuscripts; and if, seeing that the value and usefulness of these volumes are largely enhanced by such an index, he will request the Historical Manuscripts Commission to prepare and publish an index to the manuscripts of the Duke of Rutland, the manuscripts of Earl Cowper, and any other volume of the series that is at present without an index?
  *MR. JACKSON: A question upon this subject was answered by the Under Secretary for the Home Department yesterday. Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to repeat the question to my hon. Friend.

  SERIOUS CHARGE AGAINST A WARDER.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in connection with the murder of a prisoner in Strangeways Gaol, whether, in view of the fact that the warder Mitchell had been previously charged by the Governor of the Gaol in question with assulting another delirious prisoner, any steps were taken by the Prison Commissioners to prevent the repetition of such an offence; whether Mitchell will be re-admitted into the prison service; whether, as Mr. Justice Grantham, in his charge to the jury, said that probably the day warder, Rappley, had been the cause of Gatcliffe's death, it is the intention of the Government to proceed against Rappley; and whether an inquiry will be instituted into the circumstances of the case, and take into consideration the suggestions of Inspector Captain Wilson?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): It is not the fact that Mitchell had been previously charged with assaulting
  168
  a prisoner, and he was charged at the Assizes, not with murder, but with manslaughter, and was acquitted. Mitchell has not been re-admitted into the prison service, and will not be. I do not understand the Judge to have expressed an opinion as stated in the question. There is no evidence against Rappley which would justify proceedings being taken against him. The fullest inquiry has already been made into the whole of the circumstances, and every precaution will be taken in future to prevent the possibility of such an occurrence.

  THE NEW FOREST.
  MR. COMPTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention, or that of the Commissioners of Woods, &c., has been lately directed to the enclosure of some 50 acres of the open, lauds of the New Forest, in the parish of Boldre, in or about the year 1832; and if he could state under what powers these enclosures were made; if under the Act of I and 2 Will. 4, cap. 57, under what powers the Office of Woods, &c., now claim a fee simple in such land free of commoners' rights, and charge a rack rent for the same under a lease made to private Trustees?
  MR. JACKSON: Yes, Sir. The attention of the Treasury has been directed to the subject of my hon. Friend's question. These enclosures were made under the Act of I and 2 Will. IV., cap. 59, not 57, as stated in the question; and I am informed that, inasmuch as this land has been enclosed for more than 20 years, the rights of the commoners have been extinguished.
  In reply to a further question by Mr. COMPTON,
  MR. JACKSONsaid: I understand that a record is kept in the Inland Revenue Department. I am not aware whether a record is also kept in any other office; but if the hon. Member will repeat the question I will answer it upon another day.

  THE LAND TAX.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the quota of land tax for each parish is permanently fixed by law, subject to reduction only on proof

  169
  of redemptions effected within the parish; if the Land Tax Commissioners for the division have power to reduce the quota on such proof being given, or if an order or certificate of the Inland Revenue Department is required; if there is any, and what, appeal in cases where the full quota is levied after proof of redemption has been offered; and, if there is a record accessible to the public kept in the Inland Revenue Department, and in the several divisional offices, of the various properties which have been from time to time exonerated from hand Tax by redemption, and of the quotas as they at present stand?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The answer to the first question is, yes. As to the second question, the quota can only be reduced upon receipt of an authority under the hand of the Registrar of Land Tax or his deputy, who are officers of the Inland Revenue Department. As to the third question, an appeal can be made to the Land Tax Commissioners of the district, and their decision is final. The answer to the fourth question is, yes. A record is kept in both cases in the Inland Revenue Department.

  ARMENIAN OUTRAGES.
  MR. LEVESON COWER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to the account in the Daily News of 24th March, describing the continued ill-treatment of the Christian population of Armenia; whether Her Majesty's Government have taken, or propose taking, any steps to ascertain the truth of these reports; and whether, in the event of their proving substantially correct, the Government are prepared to make any representations to the Turkish Government with a view to protecting the Armenians from a continuation or recurrence of such outrages?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: The account given in the Daily News of the 24th states from Vienna, on the authority of intelligence from Constantinople, that the Patriarch has received from the chief Armenian ecclesiastical authority in Van a letter giving full details of several cases of murder, pillage, and outraging
  170
  of women; as Her Majesty's Government have not seen the letter referred to they are at present without the particulars which are necessary for them to consider whether any fresh instructions should be sent to Her Majesty's Ambassador. The hon. Member will find, at the last page of Turkey No. 1, 1890, the instructions sent to Sir W. White on the 21th of January, which direct his Excellency to take every fitting opportunity to impress upon the Government of the Sultan the danger of allowing the continuance of such a state of things as had been shown to exist in the districts of Van, Bitlis, and Mush. Reports have been received that the lately appointed Vali of Bitlis, Raouf Pasha, has exerted himself greatly to check disorders.
  MR. LEVESON GOWER: Do the Government propose to inquire into the truth of the newspaper account to which my question refers?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: We cannot undertake to make inquiry into the truth of all newspaper statements which are made in an anonymous paragraph and professedly at third hand.
  MR. BRYCE: Is there any reason, when statements of this character have been made, why the right hon. Gentleman should not communicate with the Ambassador and inquire from him whether they have been confirmed?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: Reports of this character have been contradicted and shown to be without foundation repeatedly. If the occurrences referred to in the newspaper have taken place I feel sure that they will be brought to the notice of the Government in the ordinary course.
  MR. BRYCE: I hope my hon. Friend will repeat the question.

  SCOTCH SALMON FISHERIES COMMISSION.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.): I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Royal Commission on Scotch Salmon Fisheries have concluded their proceedings; whether, in addition to examining those who are officially responsible for what has been done, they have given the fishermen round the coasts and fishers on the rivers full opportunity of explaining their grievances; and how many of them have been examined?
  A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. MAXWELL,): As I had the honour of being Chairman of this Commission, perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to answer the question. The Commissioners have concluded their inquiry, and will shortly meet to consider their Report. Every opportunity was given to fishermen interested in the?question to give evidence, notice having been inserted in the newspapers of the meetings and inviting the attendance of witnesses. None, however, came for ward, except at Berwick-on-Tweed and Dumfries, at each of which places the Commission held a meeting. The evidence of 12 fishermen was offered and taken.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Where did the Commissioners sit? Did they visit the localities along the coast in order to give an opportunity to the fishermen to be heard?
  SIR H. MAXWELL: The Commissioners held sittings in Edinburgh, and also at any other place where they were invited to go.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Were they invited to go to any place on the East Coast?
  SIR H. MAXWELL: Yes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks) invited them to visit Berwick, and they went there. They were also invited to go to Dumfries, on the West Coast.

  FEMALE CLERKSHIPS IN THE POST OFFICE.
  MR. BLANE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the Civil Service Commissioners can state the shortest period within which they will hold the next examination for female clerkships in the General Post Office; and if the Commissioners will consider the advisability of holding these examinations at regular stated intervals, so that candidates may not lose time and money in preparing for an examination which may not be held till after they have passed the limits of age?
  *MR. JACKSON: The Civil Service Commissioners inform me that they are unable to state within what period the next examination for female clerkships in the General Post Office will be held. The date must depend on the requirements of the Service.

  THE MEDICINE STAMP ACT.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the varying decisions that have been given by the Inland Revenue Department as to what medical preparations need the patent medicine stamp and what do not; and whether he can take steps to amend the Medicine Stamp Act, or to secure its more uniform administration, or otherwise endeavour to allay the dissatisfaction felt amongst chemists and druggists on the subject?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: My attention has been from time to time called to complaints of varying decisions given by the Inland Revenue Department in this matter, but there appears to be no general dissatisfaction, and the trade has manifested no general desire for the amendment of the Medicine Stamp Act. Every attempt, however, has been made to secure its uniform administration. In addition to issuing a summary of the Medicine Stamp Law with observations thereon for the guidance of chemists, the Inland Revenue Department has undertaken at the request of the trade to advise as to the liability involved by the use of labels. These labels number some thousands per annum, and it is almost unavoidable that varying decisions should occasionally be given considering the many relaxations from the comprehensive charge imposed by law.

  CHARGE AGAINST PUBLICANS.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to a case at the Derby Borough Court on Thursday 20th March, when two publicans were summoned for supplying liquor to a drunken man, Alfred Hall, who died shortly after, and in whose case the verdict was "death from apoplexy, caused by excessive drinking;" whether the magistrates, having come to the unanimous decision that both of the defendants were guilty, fined one of them 40 shillings, and the other one 20 shillings, without endorsing either of their licences; and if this be correct, whether he will consider the expediency of legislating to provide more efficient measures for preventing this class of offences?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Justices that the facts are as stated. The defence of the landlords was that it was not noticeable to them or to their servants that the deceased was the worse for drink, and they gave evidence themselves and called witnesses to prove that the man was not drunk. The magistrates considered the case proved; but, having regard to the previous good character of the defendants, and to the fact that they did not know the deceased was drunk, they did not endorse their licences. I think the discretion of the Justices can be safely trusted in such cases; and I do not see any necessity for an amendment of the law.
  SIR W. LAWSON: Is it not the duty of a publican to know when a man is drunk?
  [No reply.]

  ENFIELD SMALL ARMS FACTORY.
  CAPTAIN BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, considering that the inhabitants about, and the workmen employed in, the Government Small Arms Factory at Enfield have subscribed largely towards public baths and washhouses for the use of the Government hands, and that Trinity College, Cambridge, has given the site, also that when completed the Local Board have signified their willingness to take them over, the Government can see their way to give a small grant towards the cost of their erection?
  MR. JACKSON: This question has been most carefully considered at the Treasury with a view to meet, if possible, the wishes of the inhabitants at Enfield, and the Treasury would have been glad, had the Local Board adopted the Public Baths and Washhouse Acts, to contribute the Government quota towards the rates. The Treasury, however, in view of the number of places at which the Government employs large numbers of workpeople, were compelled to the conclusion that they ought not to contribute to the capital cost of the baths. I am glad to observe that my hon. Friend states that the baths when complete will be taken over by the Local Board, and if there is power and a rate
  174
  is levied for the cost of maintenance the Government will gladly contribute its quota.

  MILITIA CAPTAINS' CONTINGENT ALLOWANCE.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in reference to Army Order No. 84, which deprives Captains of Militia of their contingent allowance, how armourers' charges for repairing and oiling arms, company stationery, and other minor charges will in future be met; and if he will state how many men in course of the training of their regiments during 1889 died or deserted; what was the total amount of their debtor balances; and what was the total amount of the contingent allowance paid to Captains of Militia for that year?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOE WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): The charges for repairing and oiling arms will fall upon the allowance granted to the officer commanding the corps under Articles 774 and 775 of the Militia Regulations. Company stationery will be provided from the Regimental Contingent Fund allowance under Article 770. Other minor charges must be more clearly defined before I can say how they will be met. The records for 1889 are not yet sufficiently complete to enable me to answer the latter part of the question; but, practically, captains of companies are relieved of all liability on account of debts contracted by their men while out for training, and also of the debtor balances of men who die or desert. They are thus gainers rather than losers by the new Regulations.

  SEVERE SENTENCES—CASE OF J. THORNTON AND J. HAIGH.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that Joseph Thornton and John Haigh were, on the 4th of March, at Durham, sentenced by Mr. Justice Day to six and seven years' penal servitude for assaulting a gamekeeper; and whether he is aware that, though the men in question were found poaching by the gamekeeper, it was close to the road, and in the day time; that no previous

  175
  convictions were proved against them; and that no mow dangerous weapon than a turnip was used in the assault; and, if so, whether he will make further inquiries with a view to considering the justice of the sentences?
  *MR. MATTHEWS: I have seen a newspaper report of this case from which I gather that the gamekeeper was brutally illtreated by the prisoners, who knocked him down, kicked him, tried to strangle him, and heat him about the head with a turnip until he became unconscious and received injuries from which he was still suffering after four months. The Judge, in summing up, called attention to the fact that there was no provocation whatever. Unless the hon. Baronet is in a position to place before me any new facts which were not before the Judge at the trial, I should not feel justified in interfering with the sentence.

  RIGHTS OF WAY IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, seeing that the Representatives of Scotland in this House on Tuesday week, in the proportion of nearly seven to one, voted in favour of entrusting to the County Councils the duty of maintaining and protecting rights of way in Scotland, the Government will bring in a Bill to give effect to the clearly expressed wishes of the Scottish people on this subject?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): The Government have given their attention to this subject, with every desire to meet the wishes of hon. Members. While in the present state of public business the Government are not prepared to propose legislation, they will be ready to give their candid consideration to any Bill which may be introduced by a private Member.

  TORPEDO PRACTICE IN THE MEDWAY.
  MR. EDWARD KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the result of the inquiries promised to be made regarding the explosions of torpedoes in the River Medway, and the consequent injury caused to the fishing industry in that river?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: Unfortunately torpedo practice cannot be carried on without injury to fish in the neighbourhood of the experiments; but so far as can be ascertained there is, and for many years has been, very little fishing in the Medway so far up as the mine-fields of the School of Military Engineering. No complaints appear to have been made at all recently to the Military Authorities.

  RAILWAY RATES.
  MR. ROBERT SPENCER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the maximum rates which the Board of Trade may agree upon with the Railway Companies will increase the actual rates to be charged for the conveyance of agricultural and dairy produce?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The hon. Member will understand that the whole question is now under consideration, and that it is not possible for me at this stage to say anything as to the relation of future maxima rates to present actual rates.
  MR. COBB: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Report or the result of the Railway Rates inquiry will be laid before the House?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am not surprised at the hon. Member's question. The inquiry has lasted a great deal longer than I thought it would. I will do my best to bring the result before the House in the present Session, in the manner contemplated by the Act.
  MR. MUNDELLA: May I ask if it is not the fact that maximum rates do not affect the actual rates charged?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I thought that everybody understood that.

  THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of the Government has been directed to the following Reuter's telegram from St. John's, Newfoundland:—
  "An immense demonstration and mass meeting of colonists took place here yesterday in connection with the Fisheries Question. Resolutions were unanimously passed indignantly protesting against the modus vivendi recently arrived at on the subject between France and England. The meeting authorised

  177
  Memorials to be drawn up to the Queen and the Imperial Parliament, demanding the extinction of French claims in the island, and appointed delegates to urge in London the importance of the present crisis;"
  and whether, in view of the strong feeling in Newfoundland, the Government will take steps to open up fresh negotiations with France, in order that a fresh modus vivendi may be arrived at on the Fishery Question, which will meet with the sanction of Newfoundlanders?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: Her Majesty's Government have seen the Report telegraphed. The House will see that no modus vivendi could be arrived at which would satisfy those who desire the extinction of French claims in Newfoundland. The matter in question is the respective rights of British and French fishermen under a certain Treaty. Her Majesty's Government and the French Government are approaching a basis of settlement; and, in the meantime, have agreed that without compromising principles or rights involved, the status quo as regards lobster-fishing and factories on the so-called French shore shall be maintained, thus obviating temporarily causes of dispute and possible conflict. The modus vivendi only applies to the season now opening. I may add that three days ago the modus vivendi was violently attacked in the French Chamber, and the right of the colonial fishermen to catch lobsters on the French shore at all was energetically denied by the Minister. A modus vivendi is therefore necessary. I think I have already stated that the despatch explaining the steps which led to the modus vivendi and giving the full text of it had not reached Newfoundland when the meeting in question was held. It will, in fact, not roach the Colony till next week. The policy of the arrangement will then be better understood.
  MR. W. REDMOND: In view of the extraordinarily excited state of public feeling in Newfoundland over this question will the Government take the earliest opportunity of cableing the full text of the arrangement with France?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: Her Majesty's Government have repeatedly expressed a wish that the Premier of Newfoundland should visit this country; and they think
  178
  it very desirable that delegates from the Colony should attend here, in order that British interests may not be injured by action hastily taken by persons in the Colony without full information.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Is not the excitement in Newfoundland due to the fact that the full nature of the arrangement come to is not understood; and, if so, will Her Majesty's Government send out a full account? Will the Premier of Newfoundland, who has been invited to visit this country, be consulted before any final arrangement is come to?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: I have stated that a despatch giving all information is. on its way to Newfoundland; but I cannot venture to indicate what may be done in the future. No doubt the feeling of the Colony will be consulted.

  THE REVEREND J. DOBIE.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received information with regard to the imprisonment of the Reverend J. Dobie at Hodeidah; and what steps have been taken to obtain redress for the ill-treatment he has undergone?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: No information has yet been received. Inquiry will be made of Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople as to what are the circumstances of the case?

  THE FISHERY BOARD BILL.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Fishery Board Bill promised by the Government, will be introduced before the Easter Recess, in order that it may receive due consideration by the classes interested therein?
  *MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I hope this Bill will be introduced shortly after Easter.

  EDUCATION STATISTICS.
  MR. JOHN TALBOT: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education when the Education Statistics for the year 1889 will be laid upon the Table?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): The statistics to which my

  179
  hon. Friend refers have been laid upon the Table this afternoon. It may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Revised Instructions to Her Majesty's Inspectors in connection with the new Code have also been presented to-day, and will be in the hands of Members as soon as possible.

  CIVIL SERVICE, SECOND DIVISION.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the Order in Council of 21st March regulating the future position of the Second Division of the Civil Service, whether it is intended in future to promote into the higher grade, or otherwise specially remunerate beyond ordinary members of the Second Division, clerks whose duties involve the superintendence of other clerks, or are otherwise of a more responsible character than the duties of the generality of their colleagues?
  MR. JACKSON: The Order in Council of March 21 makes promotion into the higher grade of the Second Division of the Civil Service dependent on positive merit. Apart from such promotion, the Treasury stated in their Minute of August 10 last, their concurrence with the Royal Commissioners that clerks of the Second Division of proved merit should be selected for a certain number of special posts, and should be eligible also for appointment to the Upper Division in case of exceptional fitness. The condition of not less than 10 years' service laid down in Clause 18 of the Order in Council of February 12, 1876, governing such promotions, has been altered by the Order in Council of March 21, 1890, to a requirement of eight years' service. These are the provisions for specially rewarding clerks of the Second Division.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Will the hon. Gentleman lay the Order in Council upon the Table?
  MR. JACKSON: Yes; I shall be glad to do so.

  REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to resume the attempt on which they entered in the Session of 1888, to reform the constitution of the other House of Parliament?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I can only speak of the intentions of the Government so far as the present Session is concerned. I must remind the hon. Member that a little later in the Session than this the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), in referring to a proposal which was before the House of Lords in 1888 for the reform of that Body, remarked that it was a subject which "in its natural dimensions would require the fresh, unbroken, and virgin energy of the House." I think the business already before the House for the present Session is not of a character which would permit of "fresh, unbroken, and virgin energy" being given to the consideration of the important measure to which the hon. Member refers.
  MR. BRYCE: If the right hon. Gentleman considers the question still of such importance, does he desire the House to understand that he proposes to resume it in another Session?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I am always extremely reluctant to enter upon any indefinite undertaking.

  CATTLE DISEASE.
  MR. LAWSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether it is true that no cattle disease has been reported to exist in the Netherlands; and, if so, whether he will instruct the authorities to relax the restriction placed upon cattle and sheep coming from those ports?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD or AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): There is no disease in the Netherlands, so far as we are informed; but it prevails extensively in Germany, and at no great distance from the Netherlands frontier. As a matter of fact, animals from the Netherlands are now admitted into the interior of this country, and are not even subject to the Order to slaughter at the port of debarcation. But, in view of the danger of disease crossing the Dutch frontier in spite of the precautions of that Government, the English Inspectors at the ports, in the exercise of the duties imposed upon them by statute, detain the animals for a certain number of days at their discretion, so as to insure their being free from contagious disease, before they are allowed to pass into the interior of the country. It would not be wise or desir-

  181
  able, in my opinion, to relax those precautions at present.
  MR. MUNDELLA: May I ask why, if there is no disease in the Netherlands, cattle from that country should be sent to compulsory slaughter?
  MR. CHAPLIN: It is quite true that just now the cattle in the Netherlands are free from disease, and, as far as I know, from the precautions which have been taken, they have been free from disease for a considerable period. But, on the other hand, there has been a good deal of smuggling of animals over the frontier from Germany.

PRIVILEGE.

  SIR W. MARRIOTT AND MR. PARNELL.
  MR. SEXTON: Idesire, Sir, to ask the right hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Sir W. Marriott) a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether the report on the leader page of the Times of yesterday of a speech delivered by him on Wednesday evening at a meeting of a body called the United Club, held at St. James's Hall, is correct?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: As a point of order, Sir, I wish to ask you whether a question can be put by one hon. Member to another unless such question refers to some Bill or Motion before the House?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Brighton holds an official position, and therefore the question can be put.
  SIR W. MARRIOTT: I have only a few minutes ago received notice of this question. Unlike most Members of this House, I do occasionally read the report of my speeches, and I have read the report of my speech of last Wednesday in the Times of yesterday. Though not verbatim, it was, according to my recollection, a very accurate report.
  MR. SEXTON: I have, then, to call the attention of the House to a matter of privilege. In order to ground the case of breach of privilege, I hope the House will allow me to road a brief extract from the Report of the Special Commission. The Commissioners say, on page 58 of the Report—
  "The third charge we have to consider is that, when on certain occasions the respondents
  182
  thought it politic to denounce and did denounce certain crimes in public, they afterwards led their supporters to believe that such denunciation was not sincere. This was chiefly based on the letter known throughout the inquiry as the fac simile letter. We find that all the letters produced by Pigott and set out in the Appendix are forgeries, and we entirely acquit Mr. Parnell and the other respondents of the charge of insincerity in their denunciation of the Phoenix Park murders."
  Having read that extract from the Report of the Commission, I propose to bring to your notice, and the notice of the House, three extracts from the report of the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Brighton, on Wednesday, at the United Club, which the right hon. Gentleman has just admitted in the presence of the House to be substantially correct. This, Sir, is the first extract—
  "When the Report of the Commission came to be examined in all its details, he might venture to say that, on the whole, the Times had substantiated the points upon which they started."
  I denounce that statement as untrue. The charges upon which the inquiry was demanded and upon which it was conceded were charges of complicity in crime on the part of Members of this House. These were the only charges in which the Irish Members and the country were interested—charges of intimacy with murderers, of payments to criminals for the commission of crime, and to secure the escape of criminals; and all those charges have been repelled by the Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman, by his votes in this House on the 10th and 11th of this month, concurred in the adoption of the Report of the Judges. What, then, are we to think of the man who, after giving his vote concurring in such Report, within a fortnight afterwards declares that these heinous charges have been proved? He further said—
  "It should be recollected that the letters which had been so much spoken of were not the charge against Mr. Parnell and his friends. They were only evidence of the charge. Disproof of the letters did not disprove the charge."
  And then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the charge had been "substantiated." What is the charge that he says has been substantiated?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman has asked the permission of the House to raise a matter of

  183
  privilege; but he is now making a statement and entering into arguments as to the meaning and effect of a speech delivered by an hon. Member of this House outside this House. Matters of privilege are much restricted. It is usual in such cases to read the incriminated passages to the House, and then we have to see whether they constitute primâ facie a case of privilege. But, so far, the hon. Gentleman is stating to the House his version of what the right hon. Gentleman said. If he will hand the passages of the report to the Clerk at the Table they can be read to the House.
  MR. SEXTON: Then I move that the passages which I have marked in the speech of the hon. Member for Brighton be read by the Clerk at the Table.
  *MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will bring the paper to the Table the Clerk will read the passages referred to.
  MR. SEXTON: I have only one copy, and I desire to have it back.
  Complaint made to the House by Mr. Sexton, Member for West Belfast, of certain passages in a speech delivered at the United Club by the Right Hon. Sir William Marriott, Member for Brighton, and reported in the Times newspaper of Thursday, the 27th March, reflecting on certain Members of this House, which he submitted constituted a breach of the Privileges of this House:—
  The said newspaper was handed in, and the passages complained of were read, and therewith, at the request of the Right Hon. Sir William Marriott, the context also, as followeth:—
  "When the Report of the Commission came to be examined in all its details he might venture to say that, on the whole, the Times had substantiated the points upon which they started, and the result of the Commission was to justify the action of the Unionist Party in the year 1886. It should he recollected that the letters which had been so much spoken of were not the charge against Mr. Parnell and his friends. They wore only evidence of the charge. Disproof of the letters did not disprove the charge. The charge which was sought to be proved by the letter was that Mr. Parnell was insincere in his denunciation of the Phoenix Park murders. Of what was that letter evidence? For his part, he never thought so much of the letter as many people did, because he thought it a very natural letter under the circumstances. Mr. Parnell was in alliance with these people, he was paid from the same funds, and he had the unpleasant task of denouncing his allies, He believed that Mr. Parnell had a perfect horror of the murders, and that he might have known they
  184
  did more harm than they could possibly do good to his cause; but he was bound to take off the rough edge of the denunciation he was compelled to give of the crime. If Mr. Parnell had written the letter he did not think he would be in a bit worse position than he now was placed in by the Report of the Judges. The Times had entirely established its case, namely, that Mr. Parnell was acting in alliance with others wanting separation, that he and his Parliamentary colleagues had no complicity in the illegal means taken to advance their common end by his allies, and that the letter was only one proof of the charge brought against them, which charge had been substantiated before the Commission. The Report was very satisfactory in some points, but with regard to others there was still a mystery. There was still a mystery over the letters, and there was still a mystery over the question bow that £100,000 had been spent. The Report found that the letter sometimes called the fac simile letter was a forgery. What was a fac simile letter but a letter like another letter that had been written? What was a forgery? It might be a pure invention, and the person whose name was used had never signed such a letter, or it might be a copy of an original document. That subject was left in the dark by the Report of the Commission. The Parnellite Party complained that the Judges did not denounce the Times for its negligence with regard to these letters. He knew Her Majesty's Judges extremely well, and he would undertake to say that they had always good reason for either saying something or omitting to say something."
  MR. SEXTON: I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that the extracts read by your direction by the Clerk at the Table from the report of a speech the accuracy of which has been admitted by the right hon. Gentleman constitute a gross breach of the privileges of the House. I first call attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman says that the Times has, on the whole, substantiated its charges before the Commission. I denounce that statement as unfounded, and I say that with regard to all these heinous charges the Irish Members, as is universally admitted, have been absolutely acquitted. Now, I come to the passage with regard to the forged letters. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "It should be recollected that the letters which had been so much spoken of were not the charge against Mr. Parnell. They were only evidence of the charge. Disproof of the letters did not disprove the charge. The charge which was sought to be proved by the letters was that Mr. Parnell was insincere in his denunciation of the Phoenix Park murders. Of what was that letter evidence? …. The letter was only one proof of the charge brought against them, which charge had been substantiated before the Commission."
  I ask the House what charge has been substantiated? I ask the right hon. and

  185
  learned Gentleman to define it in precise terms.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I have listened to the hon. Member, and I am bound to say that this is not a ease of privilege. It is the first time I have heard the passage or anything connected with it; but it is not a case of privilege—that I am clear about, having listened to the whole statement. It is a matter of argument as to the conclusions drawn by an hon. Member from a certain decision of the Judges, as to which every hon. Member is at liberty to affirm his own conclusions. Whether those conclusions are just or unjust is a matter of opinion, and the right hon. Gentleman advances this statement on his own credit and on his own responsibility. As to this being a matter of privilege, the passages in question do not relate to the action or to the conduct of any hon. Member in this House, and this is the point to which privilege is restricted in cases like the present. I, therefore, do not consider this a case which I could properly submit to the House as a broach of privilege.
  MR. SEXTON: Allow me to submit a few considerations. This speech arises out of a number of charges now ascertained to be false, made against a number of Members of the House. Those Members besought the Government to afford them means of investigation, and the Government appointed a Judicial Tribunal. That Judicial Body found certain charges to be false, and reported to that effect. The House is seized of the Report and of the findings of the Commission with regard to certain charges; and I humbly ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is still competent for a Member of this House to declare that the charges found by the Commission appointed by this House to be false, are proved?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That does not in the least alter the case. The whole of the quotations made by the hon. Member have been comments on the decision of the Judges; and provided they are made in such a way that they do not reflect upon the action of Members of this House——[Mr. W. REDMOND: Oh!] The hon. Member does not understand what privilege is if he interrupts me in that manner. I say that privilege is restricted in this House, and comments, unjust or unfair though they may be—I say nothing of their justice or fairness
  186
  —it is competent for any hon. Member to make, and to state the judgment he has formed as to the decision of the Commissioners. If every hon. Gentleman's speech commenting on the Report of the Judges is to be brought up as a question of privilege the time of the House would be entirely occupied with such questions.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish first to say that I was not the Member who interrupted you.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I am quite aware of that.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Mr. Speaker——
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. SEXTON: I now beg to submit to you in regard to the forged letters, as to which hon. Members of this House from their places here have declared their innocence, that the right hon. Gentleman in maintaining in a public speech that those Members were guilty has made an imputation against them as Members of this House.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I do not gather from the extracts read that the right hon. Gentleman did state that there was any responsibility attaching in regard to the forged letters to those hon. Gentlemen acquitted by the Commission. There was no charge of that sort made by the right hon. Gentleman, as I understood it.
  MR. SEXTON: The learned Gentleman in his speech said that my hon. Friend the Member for Cork was responsible for the forged letters, for he said—
  "What was a fac simile letter but a letter like another letter that had been written? What was a forgery? It might be a pure invention: and the person whose name was used had never signed such a letter, or it might be a copy of an original document. The subject was left in the dark by the Report of the Commission."
  I humbly submit to you that although the learned Gentleman admits that the letter forged by Pigott was a forgery, he suggests that it was the reflection of a genuine letter written by the hon. Member for Cork.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the best way would be to ask the right hon. Gentleman for an explanation on that specific point.
  SIR W. MARRIOTT: I admit fully the accuracy of the report; but there are some points omitted which would afford an explanation, and there are also some

  187
  words in my speech, the whole of which was not read, which would give the House a full idea of what was said. A great deal was said in no very serious way, but rather as chaff and banter. What I did say, and what does not appear, was this: I said it was reported that Mr. Parnell was going to ask for a Committee, and I said I thought that would be a great waste of time, and if he would take a friendly hint he would ask, not for a Committee, but for a friendly arbitration with the Times, with Lord Herschell as arbitrator. I further suggested that if Mr. Parnell was inclined to act in a friendly manner to the Times he should let the Times have the services of Mr. George Lewis; and the Times, by way of returning the compliment, might let Mr. Parnell have the services of Mr. Soames; while the senior Member for Northampton might come in as amicus curiœ, and then no doubts they would get at the facts as to the letters and the expenditure of the £100,000. But I never made a single charge against any Irish Member or against the hon. Member for Cork. I gave my interpretation of the Report of the Commission; that interpretation I am ready to maintain, and I think I am as well entitled to my opinion as other Members of the House are to theirs.
  MR. SEXTON: I will not add another word. The right hon. Member, having made grave and deadly charges against Members of the House, now shelters himself behind what he calls chaff. I leave him to what he has deserved—the contempt of the House and the country.
  MR. W. REDMOND: As a matter of personal explanation, I should like to explain that the involuntary exclamation which escaped mo was not intended in any degree to interrupt you, Sir, or to cause any disrespect to you. It was merely a protest against the action of the hon. Member.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I am glad to hear what has fallen from the hon. Member, and I quite accept his explanation that the exclamation was involuntary, and thank him for his courtesy.

  CHARITY COMMISSIONERS.
  Return ordered—
  "Of Copies of certain Objections and Suggestions received by the Charity Com-
  188
  missioners from Public Bodies and others relative to the Central Scheme published by the Charity Commissioners in pursuance of The City of London Parochial Charities Act, 1883,' for the regulation of the Charities comprised in the Second Schedule to that Act, and of the Replies of the Charity Commissioners thereto and to certain other like Objections and Suggestions."
  "And, of certain Memoranda and Reports prepared by the Charity Commissioners or their Assistant Commissioners on Technical Instruction on Institutions combining Recreation with Education, and on Free Libraries."—(Mr. Bryce.)

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
James Somervell, esquire, for Ayr District of Burghs.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill.
Army (Annual) Bill, without Amendment:—
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to enable Incorporated Companies to act as executors, administrators, and trustees, and in other fiduciary capacities." [Trust Companies Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled "An Act for the appointment of a Public Trustee.'" [Public Trustee Bill [Lords.]

MOTIONS.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (ORDERS OF THE DAY.)
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can give some intimation, in the event of the Tithes Bill being read a second time this evening, what day will be fixed for the Committee stage?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope on Monday, the 21st; certainly not before that day.
  MR. OLDROYD: Will the Allotments Bill be taken on Monday?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government propose to take Supply on Monday.
  MR. CHANNING: I think the reply a little ambiguous. The House would prefer to know positively whether the Allotments Bill will or will not be taken on Monday?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I think my answer was sufficient. Supply is likely

  189
  to take the whole evening. The Bill will not be taken.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: What business will be taken on Monday, April 14?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: Supply will be taken.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: What Supply?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I cannot say, but ample notice will be given.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Order for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Second Reading of the Tithe Rent-charge Recovery and Redemption Bill have precedence this day of all Orders of the Day, including the Committee of Supply."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I have not risen to oppose the Motion, but I wish to have some sort of understanding with the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of his persistent raids on the time of private Members. Apparently this demand is made in order to get an additional day for the discussion of the Tithes Bill; but, in point of fact, it really is asked in order to secure to the Government an additional day for the Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Easter vacation will not take place unless the Tithes Bill is read before Easter. Hon. Members intend to limit their eloquence on the Second Reading in order to secure that object. The Bill is to be discussed for two days; but no sooner had this arrangement been come to than the right hon. Gentleman said—"I must take Friday, and put down the Tithes Bill on that day, in order that I may be able to take Monday for Estimates." I have been unable to discover why the right hon. Gentleman thinks it necessary to have an additional amount of money before Easter. A few weeks ago he asked for a Vote on Account, and took a private Members' day. The Vote was for two months, an excessive term, and that amount might have carried the Government over Easter. If these things occur before Easter the House knows what will take place after Easter; not a single day will be left to private Members. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be more reasonable when he wants extra time to have Morning Sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays? What causes me to hate the House is that hon. Members never can
  190
  get any definite knowledge of what they are going to do a week in advance. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to have some compassion upon hon. Members, to consider that we are very long-suffering persons, and that he is the master of many legions. He might at least make some arrangement whereby hon. Members could have time to themselves at any rate after 9 o'clock in the evening.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I know it is of no use protesting against the Resolution, although I have on the Paper to-day an important notice, and one the appropriateness of which will cease unless it can be brought on before the Budget Statement is made. I do, however, want to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he is hardly dealing fairly with private Members. It is said that private Members only indulge in destructive attacks on the Government, and do not help in constructive legislation. I have introduced a small Bill dealing with certain small points of interest, and as to which I was assured by the first Law Officer of the Crown that it met with the approval of the Government; but, notwithstanding that, progress with it has been stopped by a mere notice of an Amendment put on the Paper by one of the followers of the right hon. Gentleman. The Government, by their action in regard to private Members, are reducing Membership of the House almost to a farce, so far as constructive work is concerned.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken will admit that he has not been unsuccessful in regard to legislation as a private Member, and that the Government have not been unwilling to render him assistance. As to the Motion which the hon. Member has on the Paper, I think that if he will wait until the Chancellor of the Exchequer explains the Budget, he will find that no opportunity has been lost by the postponement of that question. The hon. Gentleman who spoke as the representative of the humble and long-suffering Members of this House complains that he has no definite knowledge of what the House is going to do a week in advance. But may I point out that more than a week in advance I stated to the House that the Tithes Bill must be read a second time

  191
  this week, and that Supply would be needed before adjournment for the Easter holidays. I have given as much notice as was possible in the circumstances. The senior Member for Northampton has recommended Morning Sittings for the conduct of public business. I will give the hon. Member an opportunity of supporting a proposal of that kind which I shall make immediately after Easter. I think it is my duty to ask the House to vote Supply as rapidly as it can, consistently with the proper discharge of its duties; and I do not think at any time the House has adjourned at Easter without having made some progress in Supply. I should like to correct one statement which I made a few moments ago. I do not wish it to be inferred that the Committee on the Tithes Bill will necessarily be taken on the 21st April, because the Second Reading of the Land Bill must precede the Committee stage of the Tithes Bill.
  (5.1.) Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That the Order for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Second Reading of the Tithe Rent-Charge Recovery and Redemption Bill have precedence, this day, of all Orders of the Day, including the Committee of Supply.—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (SATURDAY SITTING).
Resolved, That this House do sit To-morrow at Ten o'clock; and that Mr. Speaker, as soon as he has reported the Royal Assent to the Bills which have been agreed on by both Houses, do adjourn the House without Question put.—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (SATURDAY SITTING).

  NEGOTIABLE SECURITIES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Bill to amend the Law relating to Negotiable Securities, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Sir John Lubbock, Colonel Hill, and Mr. Salt.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 206.]

  MARRIAGE (ACTIONS FOR BREACH OF PROMISE) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Roper Lethbridge, Bill to abolish actions for breach of promise of marriage, ordered to be brought in by Sir Roper Lethbridge, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Caine, Dr. Comrnins, and Colonel Makins.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 207.]

  PUBLIC HOUSES (HOURS OF CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Dr. Cameron, Bill to amend "The Public Houses (Hours of Closing) (Scotland) Act, 1887," ordered to be brought in by
  192
  Dr. Cameron, Mr. M'Lagan, Mr. Mark Stewart, and Mr. John "Wilson.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 208.]

  PAROCHIAL BOARDS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Dr. Cameron, Bill to reform the constitution of Parochial Boards in Scotland, and the mode of electing the Members of such Boards, ordered to be brought in by Dr. Cameron, Mr. Mackintosh. Mr. Shiress Will, Dr. Farquharson, and Mr. Barclay.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 209.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  TITHE RENT-CHARGE RECOVERY AND REDEMPTION BILL.

    SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [27th March], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    And which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months,"—(Mr. Picton,)—instead thereof.
    Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    Debate resumed.
    MR. C. W. GRAY: As this question is one of considerable importance to the constituency which I represent, I hope the House will excuse me if I trespass upon its attention for a somewhat longer time than usual, inasmuch as I desire to review the history of the tithes question before I come to the criticisms I have to make—I hope in a thoroughly independent spirit—on the provisions of the Bill which, is now before the House. This Bill is by no means the same Bill which was before the House last Session. The hon. Baronet the Member for Horsham (Sir W. Barttelot), said last night that I must of course support this Bill because it contains certain provisions for which I contended last Session, and I cannot but feel the force of that remark. At the same time I must say that this Bill takes entirely different ground in regard to other provisions. The hon. Member for Lanarkshire last night attacked the Bill from a religious point of view, but, as far as I am concerned, I shall deal with the measure entirely from an agricultural point of view. The hon. Mem-

    193
    ber for Lanark stated that the Bill would confer no benefit on the tenant farmers. That is a statement with which I cannot agree, and as to which I shall have something further to say at a later period. In order that I may push home the points I wish to make, it will be necessary for me to remind the House of the position of the tithes question prior to the passing of the Commutation Act of 1836. At that period a great deal of irritation had grown up between tithepayers and tithe owners. As long as tithe was collected in kind, it was only natural that continual disputes should arise. It had even occurred that a farmer who was bound to contribute one-tenth of the produce of his land to the clergyman, had sent his flock of ewes on to another farm at the lambing season. That led up to a state of things somewhat similar to that observable now in some parts of England—namely, irritation between the tithe owner and the tithepayer. Every hon. Member on this side of the House agrees that the irritation is to be regretted, and that the Government in bringing the Bill before the House hope to remove every reasonable grievance and cause of irritation. Another reason for the passing of the Act in 1836 was to prevent the tithe owner from participating in the increased production of the land, owing to the increased capital and extra science the farmer brought to bear on the cultivation of the soil. The repeal of the Corn Laws after the passing of the Tithe Commutation Act seriously affected the interests of tithepayers. That was the time when the question of tithe ought to have been taken up by Parliament. I can hardly imagine how the landowners allowed such a change to take place without re-opening the tithe question. Possibly the reason might have been that the advocates of Free Trade told the people of England, and especially the farmers, that the change would not, to any great extent, interfere with the farming interest. It will be in the memory of hon. Members that Mr. Cobden and others, who fought so vigorously the battle of Free Trade, told the landlords and farmers of England over and over again that they would always have the natural protection for their corn produce, which was consequent on the cost of transit upon the
    194
    corn shipped to this country by foreigners competing with us in our own markets. At that time, this doctrine was regarded as sound and reliable, and it is only of late years that we have found how mistaken was the view thus put before the country. But it may be asked how any relief from foreign competition could be expected from a Tithe Bill. It should be recollected that the scheme of the Commutation Act settled the matter on more than one base. It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had said, that there was a field or farm apportionment which could not be re-opened, because the data upon which it was calculated were gone. This first base was derived from a consideration of what the tithes had been worth on the average, of seven years to the Tithe Receivers. That was the first basis of the legislation introduced by the Commutation Act. The next step was to take an imaginary hundred pounds' worth of tithe, made up of equal quantities of wheat, barley, and oats, and the price of that imaginary hundred pounds' worth was to increase and decrease, as the market prices fluctuated. Why was that barometer set up? I maintain that it was for the sole purpose of showing the capability of the land from which the crops were derived, for paying in the future larger or less sums of money as tithe. For years that barometer worked well; there was very little grumbling, and when the tithe payer and tithe owner met, it was very often over a good bottle of wine. There was no ill-feeling between the two. But then came the time when the barometer ceased to do the work for which it was set up, when it registered the tithes at from 8 to 10 and 12 per cent. above par, while the tithepayer felt that he was paying a sum of money which was not the produce of his business, but was eating into the very capital with which he carried on his business. An hon. Member last night said rather than do anything unfair to the tithe owner he would suffer ruin. I do not come here to ask the House of Commons to save me and my brother yeomen from ruin, if they can only do that by being unfair to the tithe owner; but if the barometer set up has ceased to do the work for which

    195
    it was intended, I claim the right to ask the House to put something in the place of the barometer, that will act in a fair and equitable manner between the two parties. Last night we heard a great deal of the grievances of the clergy in Wales, and I sympathise with them very deeply. We have heard also that the tithepayers in Wales have a grievance. If so, I sympathise with the farmers there. When it is asked that the law should be strengthened to insist on the payment of a legal debt, I must say that I have no objection to that proposal. But if any step of that sort is taken, to my mind it is a re-opening of the settlement of 1836. If you re-open the settlement of 1836 for one purpose, then I say you must also listen to the demand to open it still wider for another. Last year the Bill brought in by the Government merely seemed to recognise that there was a grievance coming from the tithe owners, but there was no recognition of the grievance of the tithepayer. I then contended that if we re-opened the settlement of 1836 for the benefit of the tithe owners, we must also, at least, go a little further, and say that the landlord should be the person who actually handed over the cash to the tithe owner. The Government, I am glad to say, have adopted that principle, and it is, therefore, impossible for me to be very hostile to the Bill. I will pass to another provision. I contended also last Session that there must be some recognition of those cases where the tithe is greater than the rent. The proposal of the present Bill is that where the tithe is in excess of the rateable value, the landlord shall get redress. My objection to the proposal is this. Very rarely are farms of 300, 400, 500, and 600 acres assessed so low as I consider they ought to be. The reason is that there are wheels within wheels. Yeoman farmers owning land of that description consider the advisability of trying to get their assessment knocked down to the lowest point. In the first place, lowering the assessment would have the effect of raising the poundage which is levied from that assessment. And then, again, farms of this description are frequently mortgaged; and it is not to the interests of these men, farming their land
    196
    under these conditions, to, using an old phrase, "cry stinking fish" of their own farms too loudly, because that would open the eyes of the mortgagees, and the probability is that, within a very short time, they would receive a letter from the solicitor to the mortgagee asking for a cheque in reduction of the mortgage. When you come to such a state of things as we have in the eastern counties it is very serious. I can say, without hesitation, speaking of the agricultural land of Essex, that the tithe is very nearly half the income derived from that land by the landlord. The barometer I have spoken of must have worked badly when such a state of things has arisen in a county close up to the very suburbs of this great Metropolis. To be a settlement for any length of time the Bill must contain provisions recognising the altered state of things I have alluded to. I am convinced that if the rateable value clause was not written with actual clerical ink, if there be such a commodity, there was a tithe owner not far away when the clause was drafted. That clause will not get the Government out of the difficulty. A good many intricate questions and complications will crop up, and if I have an opportunity in Committee I shall ask the Government whether the Assessment Committees, when making out the assessment of agricultural property for this purpose, will be directed to divide the assessment under two specific heads—one being the value they put on the land and the other being the value they put on the houses and buildings. I hope I am not making a speech that is unduly—I must not say hostile but independent. It is only right I should be frank and fair with the Government. I must acknowledge that they have behaved most handsomely to me. I have not had the slightest pressure put upon me. I am, therefore, enjoying my independence, and when the Bill gets in Committee I shall raise the point to which I have just alluded. In equity, the tithe owner has never had an atom of property in the bricks or wood of which the buildings are composed. ["Hear, hear!"] I am very glad to find I am in that opinion supported by Tory Members, for they, like Caesar's wife, are beyond suspicion. There is no suspicion as to their idea of rights of property. If we are to be treated fairly on the point, if we

    197
    are told that it will be admissible to deduct the rateable value of the buildings, I shall begin to look much more favourably upon this clause, which is an innovation from the Bill of last Session. Now, one of the Tithe Bills of the Government proposed to give 5 per cent. to the tithe payer in consideration of the strengthening of the law for the benefit of the tithe owner. There seemed something very fair about that proposition, because in a re-opening of the settlement of 1836 for the benefit of the tithe owner, there ought to be given a quid pro quo for the tithe payer. I trust that question will be raised in Committee. I now pass to the redemption clauses. In them we have taken up entirely new ground. It is to the redemption principle that I look for a fair settlement of this very difficult question, and the Bill goes so far in its scope that if it can only be hammered into a reasonable shape when it gets into Committee, it may possibly meet the case from the agricultural point of view. Last night the President of the Board of Trade said the redemption scheme provided in the present Act of Parliament was a dead letter, and I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentlemen that for all practical purposes it has been a dead letter What do the redemption clauses in this Bill do for us? Up to 20s. there is machinery that may possibly be operative, but directly you get beyond that amount we find what, to my mind, will be a complete blank. First of all, before you can move a step the tithe owner and the tithe payer have to meet and agree that they will go in for redemption. I can imagine that, under certain circumstances, they may be able to do that, but that will not advance them much, because they have also to agree what the terms of the redemption are to be. Is there any probability that under existing circumstances any large number of tithe owners and tithe payers will be abie to agree as to the number of years' pruchase and so on? It must be borne in mind that the clerical tithe owner has only a life interest. I know some of them talk about being the Trustees of the Church, and I have no doubt when they say so they speak perfectly conscientiously. There are exceptions, but the great majority of English landlords have met these depressed times in a spirit of fairness that will do them
    198
    credit as long as the name English landlord lasts. Knowing what has been done by the ordinary landlord, some farmers have approached their landlord No. 2, the clerical tithe owner. In a few cases landlord No. 2 has given a little remission, but I know cases in which the clerical tithe owner has said to the farmer asking for a remission, "My good fellow, I should be only too delighted to give you a remission. It is true I can afford it, for I have got other property, and I should like very much indeed to do what you want, but I cannot do it because I look on tithe as a sort of trust, and it would be unfair to those clergy who have not private property if I were to do it." If these redemption clauses are to be more than dead letters, there must be some pressure brought to bear to bring the two parties together. What the pressure is to be I leave to the Government. [An hon. MEMBER: What would you do?] I am asked by a hon. Gentleman, who is a barrister, what I would propose. I do not think it is fair to ask a yeoman farmer to explain fully on the spur of the moment what sort of a scheme should be adopted. Briefly, I should say there should be some time allowed for redemption, I think it would be well if redemption, when made upon the application of the landlord, were compulsory within a certain number of years from the passing of the Act. I believe that if redemption were made upon fair terms the tithe owner or, I would prefer to say the Church, would derive a great deal of benefit and become a far stronger and more efficient institution for good. Now, the hon. Member for Lanarkshire stated last night that the tenant will get no benefit whatever from the proposed change. I know that theoretically the landlord pays the tithe now, but the tenant has always had to bear the brunt of all disputes as to whether the tithe averages were being properly taken. He will no longer be interested as tenant farmer in anything of that sort, and in that respect he will experience certain relief. I have heard, and I think there is a great deal in it, that if the Bill passes the tenant will benefit by a possible re-arrangement with his landlord. It has been suggested that in many parts of the country land being so unpopular tenants

    199
    will derive advantage from a new bargain, that is to say, he will not contract in the new arrangement or agreement to give the landlord exactly the same amount extra in rent that the landlord will take upon himself by way of tithe. I believe it is very likely that that will happen in many parts of the country. At any rate no tenant's cow or hay stack can be restrained upon, and he would have no thought as to corn averages and the like. I thank the House for having listened to me so patiently, and I have now only to express the hope that the Bill will be read a second time without a Division. My reason for expressing that hope is that I think the promise of the President of the Board of Trade that all Amendments will be considered with an open mind is one upon which we can thoroughly rely. I believe the Bill can be so amended that it would facilitate fair arrangements of the nature I am pleading for, strengthen the law where it requires strengthening, and give relief where relief can be fairly demanded.
    SIR H. VIVIAN: I think the Government will be convinced by the speech to which we have just listened that they have a very thorny path to follow: that in Committee very serious questions will arise. The hon. Gentleman has said that the reduction in respect to buildings upon farms must lead to a very large reduction in the amount payable for tithe. Once I had the buildings on certain farms of mine valued and I was perfectly amazed at the value set upon them. If buildings are not, as I believe they are not, subject to tithe, they undoubtedly enter into account in the fixing of the rent, and, if you are to assess the value of the tithe upon the rent, you must make very large reduction indeed in respect to the value of the buildings. That alone will largely diminish the income which the owners of tithe will be entitled to. Now, it is admitted that if the Bill is not aimed at Wales it is introduced in view of certain events in Wales. I always regret disturbances, like those which have occurred in some parts of Wales, but it must be borne in mind that the action which was taken by tithepayers in Wales was intended as a protest against the injustice of the tax they were called upon to pay. They had no desire, and they have no desire, to refuse payment of any just and proper tax. Their
    200
    object simply was to protest in the most stern and solemn manner against the appropriation of the tax they were required to pay. This Bill proposes that the tax shall be placed upon the shoulders of the landlords instead of upon those of the tenants. That does not relieve the tenant from the payment. He will be bound to pay more rent to his landlord; and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gray) has just said it is quite certain that a very large addition, if not the whole amount of tithe, will be added to the rent. It may be, and I hope it will be, that, in many cases, landlords will take a more just view of the position than the owners of tithe have up to this time taken. I believe that they will do so, and that will only prove how wrong has been the position of those who have owned tithe up to this time. If, as he believes, in the future landlords will make a considerable reduction in respect to extra rent they have put upon their tenants then that must be, indeed, a condemnation of the course taken hitherto by owners of tithe. I doubt whether rents are too high now; they may be in certain cases, but, at all events, what they will have to consider is whether money paid in respect of tithe is too high, and if they admit deductions from that, that is a distinct condemnation of those who heretofore received these rents. Undoubtedly the machinery will not be so direct as it has been heretofore. I am not so sure that we may not have again the question arising as to the payment of tithe in Wales. There are, happily, many small free-holders in Wales, and few of them are members of the Church of England. They will be called upon to pay tithe in the future as in the past, and it is quite possible that even this Bill will not prevent a recurrence of those lamentable actions which have taken place in Wales on some occasions. The landowners may object to pay the tithe, and it is evident the machinery of the Bill is far more complicated than that hitherto used. Is there anything more odious than the idea of a Receiver being appointed to be the manager of any man's farm? That may mean absolute ruin to the tenant, and is more likely to be so than anything he has encountered up to the present time. The grievance will not be removed. The tenants, though not so directly subject to

    201
    the payment of tithe, still will be as sensible as now that the sweat of their brows will go in payment of tithe, and to that they have a conscientious objection. That is the position of tenants in Wales. Bear in mind it is a question of conscience. I am old enough to remember when we had long and acrimonious debates in this House on the subject of Church rates, and at that time one of the most peace-loving Bodies in the community (the Quakers) refused to pay these rates, and in those long and often acrimonious debates, which few Members remember, it was said that Church rates would never be abolished, that it was a thing not to be contemplated. But after these debates there came a time when Church rates were abolished, and I ask are the fabrics of the Church of England in a worse position than before the rates were abolished? I say at no time have the fabrics of our Church been in so magnificent a condition, and why? Because we have to rely on the voluntary system. Of all others there can be no question the voluntary system is the most healthy to rely upon. The prophecies that the fabrics of our churches would fall into decay have all been falsified, and our churches now are the glory and splendour of our country. Well, but the Church has lost its hold upon Welshmen, and that owing to the grievous misuse of its high privileges for a great number of years. It is now something like 1,100 years since the old British Church passed away and was absorbed by the Romish Church. During that lengthened period it is no exaggeration to say Church matters have been in a scandalous condition in the Principality of Wales. During the Romish times, so far as I can read history, the position was a bad one, and it became worse after the Reformation. Nepotism prevailed to the largest extent, and men were sent to minister to the spiritual wants of the Welsh people who had no feeling of sympathy for the people and could not even express themselves in the language of the Welsh people, and by these men the great emoluments of the Church were absorbed. For very many years this led to a condition of things most deplorable, and out of this condition of things the present position of the Church of England in Wales has grown. Stupor prevailed, I will not say irreligion
    202
    prevailed, but at any rate history shows that a scandalous condition of things prevailed in the Church. The whole revival of the strong religious feeling in Wales began with the Methodist revival at the beginning of the century, and long after that the Church remained in its terrible state of stupor, from the effects of which it has never recovered. I was very much surprised yesterday to hear the hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. Reed), who has studied this question very deeply, take to task my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Glamorgan (Mr. Evans), whose excellent maiden speech has shown his possession of an ability, and a power in addressing the House, which, I am quite sure, will make him a brilliant Member of it. I was astonished, I say, to hear the hon. Member take my hon. Friend to task for referring to the tripartite division of tithe. I understood the hon. Member to say that no such thing ever existed, that there was no historical warrant for saying that a tripartite division of tithe existed in this country at all. Well, I admit that there is no absolute proof, and doubtless this proof has been lost in the mists of ages. But in that very excellent work, Ancient Facts and Fictions, Lord Selborne quotes from an old document of Ethelred's time, about 1014, which runs thus:—
    "Respecting tithe the king and his witan (or Parliament) have chosen and agreed that one third part of the tithe which belongs to the Church shall go to the reparation of the Church, the second part to the servants of God, and the third part to God's poor and needy ones in thraldom."
    Doubts of the authenticity have, I know, been thrown upon this document, but it appears to me to bear evidence of truth on the face of it. There you have tripartite division, and what has become of that division? We hear no more of it, the whole is applied to the maintenance of the clergy, and we are accused of sacrilege, or something very much approaching that, for suggesting that it might be applied to other purposes. Lord Selborne, upon the question how it was that the whole of the tithe became appropriated to parish purposes, says
    "There was certainly no such general appropriation of tithe to parish church made by any law ever enacted in England, though the laws of Ethelred gave to certain churches on private

    203
    estates a third of the whole tithe. As to how the third passed into the whole there is not, so far as I know, so much as a canon of any Council or decree of any Pope in the nature of a legislative enactment to explain."
    When so great an authority as Lord Selborne cannot explain how the Church became possessed of the whole of the tithe, I think I may say the evidence is lost. Nobody can explain it, or make out a real title to it. I suppose the title is one of prescription. No law or canon gives that title. The hon. Member for East Bradford used the word "British," and, properly speaking, that should refer to Wales only. Great Britain, we know, is a term including the whole of the kingdom, but certainly the British are the Welsh. The Welsh were not conquered until 1284, but the same arrangements existed in the whole Church, for the same Authority governed all the Christian Church. In 777 the ancient British Church was absorbed into the Romish Church. The ecclesiastics at Rome thenceforth governed the whole of the Church of Great Britain although Wales had not been conquered by the Saxons Kings. This is ancient history and, perhaps, I owe an apology for referring to it. I should not have done so but that my hon. Friend (Mr. Evans) was challenged on the point by the hon. Member for East Bradford. It is quite evident that the latter had not paid sufficient attention to the historical question to animadvert on the statement of my hon. Friend. I have a very long experience of Wales. I have been in touch with Welsh feeling through my connection with one of the largest Welsh constituencies for 33 years. For 27 years I represented the largest constituency in the Principality, and for six years I have represented one of the largest. I do not look at Wales from Shropshire through a telescope. I am in constant touch with the people among whom I was bred and born, and I tell yon very distinctly that the Church has lost its hold upon the people of Wales. The people of Wales have provided for their own places of religious worship. If they had not done so there would in the great County of Glamorgan have been a state of religious destitution, for the Church is so fettered that it could not meet the growing wants of an increasing population. You have a paro-
    204
    chial system, which of all others is the worst and most restricted in regard to increased church accommodation. You have the incumbent of the parish who can come down upon any one who desires to build a church, and insist upon his right to prevent it. But Free Trade has prevailed, thank God, in providing other places of worship. It is unnecessary to quote the enormous sums of money which have been expended by Welsh. Nonconformists in erecting and maintaining their own places of religious worship. There are no people in the world so deeply religious as the Welsh people. On the first growth of a village, with the first few houses, they erect a place of public worship, and this they do out of their own hard-earned savings. And yet you still call upon them to pay a further portion of those savings for the maintenance of a Church with which they have nothing in common. This is a grave and grievous wrong, and their refusal to do so is a protest against this wrong. They are a law-abiding, law-loving people, and this I say with perfect certainty. There is, I think, only one other Member of the House who can say he has addressed an assembly of 10,000 Welsh colliers on a mountain side. My hon. Friend the Member for the Rhondda Division stood with me and addressed 10,000 Welsh colliers on a Welsh mountain side more than once. On one occasion I remember addressing them on the question of reform of the House of Lords, and I remember well saying to them—"Now, you are a thoroughly loyal people; give three cheers for the Queen," and every man of them responded heartily. They were very excited about the position of the House of Lords; but I say no more loyal people exist within this realm. But do not try their patience too far; do not put too great a strain upon these law-abiding people. The unanimous cry of Welshmen is for redress of this grievance. Do not attempt to impose new fetters, and seek to rivet this Church upon the people more tightly. The existence of, the Church as a Welsh institution cannot be defended, and only by meeting the just demands of the people is to disendow the Church of England in Wales. I have quoted the case of the Church rates, and I would refer to the Irish Church. Have you not been com-

    205
    pelled to do justice to Ireland in regard to the great anomaly which existed there? Even to a greater degree the anomaly exists in Wales, and you refuse to redress this grievance, and endeavour to rivet the fetters more tightly. Do not continue such a policy. The cry of Wales is for Disestablishment; you cannot by such a Bill as this repress this cry; you will render it more bitter.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The hon. Baronet has just told us that he does not look at Wales through a telescope, and I must admit I think he looks at it much more closely, and from the point of view of one who studies the suffrages of Welsh electors with a view to his next return to Parliament. I confess I am surprised at the part Welsh Members have taken in this debate, because, as has been well remarked, it is the condition of things in Wales which has brought this question to a crisis and made legislation necessary. We have been told that the refusal of Welsh people to pay tithe is due to religious motives. I should be loth to say anything against the religious convictions of the Welsh people; and I firmly believe they are a religious and godly people. But I cannot attribute the excesses that have taken place in Wales to religion and philanthropy. I have paid close attention to this anti-tithe agitation, and I have not the least doubt of the lengths the people may be induced to go by a misguided sense of religion and right. There is an instance I do not think has been quoted, of a clergyman newly appointed to an incumbency in Wales, a man of blameless character, against whom nothing could be said. He arrived in his parish suffering under a very serious domestic affliction, and no sooner had he arrived than there was a universal refusal of tithe. The poor incumbent became poorer and poorer; the members of his family suffered acutely from want of nourishment; two of his daughters died; and he was reduced to the last verge of poverty. In this condition, he one day received a hamper and thought that at last some of his parishioners had taken pity upon his unhappy condition. Upon opening the hamper, instead of sorely-needed food, he found it tilled with nameless filth, and the message, "Here is food for you." These are the things that have taken
    206
    place, and will continue, unless a stop is put to them. If you tell me that such excesses arise from the depth of religious convictions then all I can say is: I would not give twopence for religious feeling that prompted such an action as this. The hon. Baronet tells us, as others have told us, that the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church of England in Wales is the proper remedy for the present state of things. But there is now a Unionist Government in power, which will not think of introducing such legislation as this, and that Government will continue in power for, at any rate, another three years, and perhaps many years longer. What does the hon. Baronet propose should be done in the meanwhile? Does he propose that the tithepayers should keep the tithe in their pockets? If not, he must be a party to some legislation to force them to pay it. The non-payment of tithe must have a most demoralising effect on the Welsh people. But this Bill does not deal with Wales alone, and I desire to refer to the speech that has been delivered by the hon. Member for the Maldon Division, whore presents a part of England which has suffered most acutely from the agricultural depression of recent years. The hon. Member committed himself to the assertion that the corn averages which govern the payment of tithe would establish a sort of test of the fertility of the soil.
    *MR. GRAY: I must correct the noble Lord there. What I said was that the corn averages would be a test as to the capability of the land to pay a larger or a less tithe.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I apologise to my hon. Friend and adopt his correction, though I cannot assent to the statement. Corn averages were established because it was thought, at the time, that corn was more fixed in value than any other commodity. It might have been fixed on a money basis, but it was thought that the value of gold would vary more than that of corn. That having been the means by which the tithe has been fixed, let us see whether, on the whole, it has worked fairly? I find that, calculating the average of years to the present day, and taking the years altogether, as, near as possible £100 is paid for what was fixed at £100 at the time of commutation. In the present year, and during the last

    207
    few years, of course, it has sunk far below that value, but, taking it all round, the tithe owner has got that which he bargained for at the time of the passing of the Tithe Commutation Act. I do not think, in the face of this fact, that there is reason to make any change in the law on the ground that the tithe owner gets too much. Let us look at the other side of the case. Docs the landowner get the same or more or less than at the time of the passing of the Tithe Commutation Act? I will not go into figures, but I will venture to say that, taking the titheable land of England as a whole—of course, Essex is an exception—the landowner has got at least two-thirds more than he had at the time of the passing of the Act, and, therefore, it is not fair to say that he has been prejudiced to the advantage of the tithe owner. The tithe owner has got what he contracted to get, and the landowner has obtained a great deal more. In those circumstances I cannot see that there is any case whatever for a revision of the tithe commutation, and I venture to say that the present Bill is not designed to effect any such revision. The settlement of 1836 is respected by the Bill. I know it is sometimes said that the Bill is a re-opening of that settlement, but I cannot see that a measure designed like this one, to make people pay that which they legally owe, and to enable the tithe owner to more easily recover his debt, is one which re-opens the Tithe Commutation Act. Will the House bear with me a moment whilst I give an illustration? I happen to know a very populous town in the North of England, which is near a great city—within five miles of it. In that town, owing to its proximity to the city, there are no County Court sittings, and I have been concerned lately in trying to persuade Her Majesty's Government—that is to say, the Lord Chancellor—to have County Court sittings in that town. The reason I did this is, because it is found that the creditors in the town in which I am interested are prejudiced by the necessity of having to go five miles away to the city where the County Court sittings are held, in order to get judgment against their debtors. I am informed that so much is this difficulty felt that it positively, in a very serious degree, prejudices the recovery of small debts.
    208
    Now, supposing the Lord Chancellor grants our request, and agrees that County Court sittings shall be held in this town, the immediate result will be that every small debt there will be more valuable to the creditor. Will the debtor be able to go to the creditor and say, "When I incurred this debt to you I thought I had to go to a town five miles off before it could be enforced against me? Now I find the debt can be enforced in a much easier way. It is not right that you should have all the benefit of the altered arrangements, and seeing that you can enforce the debt with much greater facility than you could before, I claim some remission." No doubt that case is a ridiculous one. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] But it happens to be so obvious that even hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House can see what I mean. That instance shows very well that the method of recovery of debt has nothing to do with the amount really due, and that if it is found—as it has been found—that it is difficult for the tithe owner, who has the first charge on the produce of the land, to recover his debt, it is a fair and legitimate thing for Parliament to alter the method of recovery without being accused of reopening the settlement of 1836, and being called on to reduce the debt due. I said at the opening of these few remarks that I had great sympathy with the Counties of Essex and Berkshire, and these counties which have felt so deeply the agricultural distress. Well, the Government have evidently felt that too, and in the Bill they have presented to the House they have considered—as I think, very properly and in a very generous manner—some of the difficulties these distressed counties feel. For instance, there is the important provision that in cases where the rateable value is less than the tithe a remission shall be made to the tithepayer as against the tithe owner. That, under the circumstances, is a generous concession, and it should be fully recognised as such. It is a concession because on a great number of properties the landlords will pay, although they do not get a sufficient rental. It is said that in cases of that kind, the landlords will charge a rent which the tenants will refuse to pay, and the land will go out of cultivation, as the landlords will have to take the land

    209
    into their own hands, and will find it impracticable to make use of it. If the tithe exceeded the rent there would be no remedy for the tithe owner. But in the great majority of cases there will be a hope that in better years it will be possible to make a profit, and the land will not be allowed to go out of cultivation. I think the landowner should receive assistance in this case, but it should be a concession from the tithe owner. In many cases where the tithe is found to be in excess of the rent the reason is that at the time of the passing of the Tithe Commutation Act the landowners wore allowed to apportion the tithe on their properties as they pleased, and they put it on as few farms as possible. Naturally, on those farms the pressure has been felt more than elsewhere; but because the landowner has chosen to put the whole of the tithe on a few farms, is that any reason why, 50 years afterwards, the tithe owner should be called on to suffer loss? That argument no doubt tends to show that the provision in the Government Bill is not fair to the tithe owner. But I think that, under present circumstances, and certainly in view of the difficulties which land is being placed in in the distressed counties, the tithe owner ought to be willing to make some concession in that direction. Let it be understood, however, that these are concessions, and substantial concessions; and many of us think that, having gone that far, we should not be called upon to go further in giving up the tithe owner's rights. Let us look at this thing from a common sense point of view. Hon. Members opposite are not so anxious to relieve the land of tithe as they are anxious to make the tithe question a running sore in order to facilitate their efforts to bring about the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the National Church. But hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House will fight to the death against that object. I say frankly that there is no question in the whole field of politics on which I would not rather make concession than on the question of the endowment of the National Church. That being so, those who strive for Disestablishment will have to look forward to many years of bitter struggle before they meet with success, even if they are ever successful. Are they prepared to allow the tithe
    210
    question during these years of struggle to remain in its present state? They must consent to legislation of some kind with respect to it, and therefore I would urge them, on grounds of fairness and morality, to give a cordial support to this honest endeavour on the part of the Government to provide a machinery under which, without friction, the tithe may be fairly, honestly, and readily paid to the Church of England, as she has a right to expect, whether in England or in Wales.
    SIR J. SWINBURNE: In the few observations I purpose addressing to the House I would disentangle the Bill from all its verbiage and ask the House to have regard to its main principles. Under the Commutation Act the produce of the land only is liable, and the tithe is only levied in a certain manner on the occupier; but under the present Bill a great change will take place, both in regard to liability and process by the tithe owner. If the landlord does not pay the tithe a Receiver will be put in, and he, the landlord, will become a tenant to the Receiver, who becomes not only Receiver and landlord, but manager also. Then the tithe is to take priority of all other payments, except quit rent. All these are enormous advantages to give to the titheowner, and yet there is nothing on the other side to balance them. The whole Commutation Act of 53 years ago is torn to pieces in giving the tithe owner these advantages. In Clause 4 of this Bill the tithe owner is empowered to take the whole of the produce of the land, and divide it as he likes; that is to say, if there happens to be more than one tithe owner they can divide the tithe as they like amongst themselves. The tithe owner, however, is saved the odium of being the collector, and actually the landowner and occupier are bound to advance the money to the tithe owner to pay his local rates and taxes. We heard the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade express how deeply he respected contracts and former precedents, but here we have the arrangement made in the extraordinary Tithe Redemption Bill, passed only a year or two ago, upset and the contracts made between landlord and tenant broken. Over and over again we have heard how

    211
    difficult it is for landlords and tenants to make bargains, and how, when they are made, they ought to be respected. The tithe owner has his taxes paid for him in advance, and yet we have nothing on the other side to set against this extraordinary advantage. I have only to-day received a letter from an eminent land agent who has been long engaged in the buying and selling of tithes, and who has been consulted by an ex-Prime Minister on the subject. He—the land agent—says the Bill is a poorly disguised attempt to increase the value of tithe at the expense of the landowner, but that the tenant farmers are too intelligent not to see that the merging of the tithe in the rent is only a device to remove the odium of collecting tithe from the shoulders of the parson. He adds that the provisions of the Bill will add 10 years' purchase to the market value of tithe rent-charge by raising it from 15 to 25 years' purchase. Then we come to the Redemption Clause. That clause only applies where the tithe is under 20s. Directly you come to a case where it is over 20s. redemption is optional, because a joint application is necessary. Suppose a young clergyman comes into an incumbency, the tithes on which amount to £500 a year, and asks his solicitor for advice. The solicitor would say, "You must be a very foolish man to have the tithe redeemed. You must take into consideration what the tithe rent-charge would be worth at 25 years' purchase. You collect it directly from the landed proprietor, and you have the best security. The landed proprietor pays your local rates and taxes in advance. You are a young man, and by the time you have lived in the parish for 30 or 40 years it will be very difficult to prove what the value of the tithe was before this Bill passed. If the redemption takes place then you will get double what you would get now." That is what the solicitor would say, and a very sensible and reasonable thing it would be to say. Personally, I am both a tithepayer and a tithe owner. My predecessors in title, who purchased the tithe rent-charge from the Crown, it having formed a portion of the estate of that unfortunate nobleman, Lord Derwentwater, never spent a farthing on the land, on which the tithe was charged, nor have I done so, as the
    212
    land does not belong to me. In my view the tithe owner in England stands in the same position as a bad Irish landlord who does nothing at all to improve the land, and the tithepayer is in the same position as a tenant in Ireland who has made all the improvements. Within the last 50 years two-thirds of Great Britain has been drained, land has been manured, and waste land brought under cultivation. All has been done by the tenant and the landowner, the tithe owner never spending a farthing. This Bill may well be compared with that relating to the purchase of land in Ireland, and we may well ask: Why should we be so generous to Irish landlords who have neglected their duty, and adopt a policy of spoliation towards English landowners who have done their duty to the best of their ability? I do not see why Clause 9 should require that the redemption for the price named should be "for the permanent benefit of the benefice." It would be enough to ensure that the redemption should not be detrimental to the benefice. With regard to the Receiver, I would ask the House to consider for a moment what would be the position of a Receiver in a small country village. Could a more ingenious plan be devised for getting up hot blood and provoking riot than putting in a Receiver to manage a farm and collect the parson's tithe? Then in Clause 12 the Bill goes on to provide that "if the owner fails to perform such duty," etc., not only he, but his executors and administrators, shall be liable to pay any subsequent owner of the land, or any part thereof, all expenses incurred by such owner in respect of tithe redemption. I never heard of such a clause: it is a punishment clause of unlimited duration. Again, Clause 13 empowers the Board of Agriculture to put a mortgage on the land. All recent legislation has been in the direction of trying to free the land, and thereby to reduce the law costs in land sales; therefore I say that this proposal is a step in the wrong direction. I can only see two courses open to us. Either we must repeal the Commutation Act altogether and find out the present real commercial value of the tithe and start on a fresh basis, or if the Government are determined to get rid of the tithes let them bring in a compulsory clause, providing for redemption at 15

    213
    years' purchase, the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find the necessary money on the same terms as are offered to the Irish tenants, namely, at 4 per cent. for 49 years. As to the proceeds of the sale, one-third should go to the Church, one-third be devoted to educational purposes, and one-third should go in reduction of the rates. I think that, without doubt, the Church has improperly absorbed the whole of the tithe. As a member of the Church I blushed to hear Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite declare that clergymen of the Church of England in Wales had, with their families, been on the very verge of starvation. What were their congregations doing to allow their ministers to starve in consequence of this tithe difficulty?
    MR. T. LEWIS: It is now being generally acknowledged that the occasion of promoting this Bill was the tithe agitation in Wales. As I have spent my whole life among the tithepayers in that country, I have had every opportunity of knowing their opinion and feelings upon the tithe question, and I can assure the House that the passing of this Bill will not, in any degree, pacify or satisfy them. Hitherto, the relations between tenants and landlords in Wales have been most amicable, but I am afraid if this Bill is passed, necessitating in many cases the re-adjustment of rents, it will occasion much irritation and ill-feeling. Indeed, it does not seem likely to give satisfaction to any class in the Principality—neither the farmers nor the landowners. A few months ago, in consequence of the general rumour that the forthcoming Tithe Bill would throw the payment of tithes on the landlord, a number of influential landowners from the adjacent counties, met at Rhyl, in North Wales, to consider the subject; and the result of their deliberation was to pass a resolution to the effect that no such Bill was required for Wales, but that what was wanted was a Bill to expel, cheaply and effectually, all lazy and troublesome clergy from their ministerial office. And I firmly believe that that is the opinion of a large number of other landowners who were absent. As to the tithepayers, this Bill will not satisfy them, because, though the landlord in the first instance is made responsible for its payment, yet the farmers well know
    214
    that it will finally fall upon them. It is well that the House should know that no Tithe Bill will give satisfaction to the very great majority of the Welsh farmers, except a Bill to devote the tithe to national purposes; as long as the tithe is used for the support of a small religious sect, the agitation and dissatisfaction will continue. It is not against the payment of tithes that the Welsh farmers object, but against its application. After all the efforts and sacrifices made by Nonconformists during the last 150 years to support religious instruction in Wales, which was almost wholly neglected by the Church, surely they deserve better treatment than to be saddled, in addition, with these proposed extra County Court expenses. Lord Aberdare declared some time ago
    "That religion would have disappeared from the country had it not been for the exertions of the Nonconformists."
    The late Dean of Bangor, speaking of the enormous numerical preponderance of Nonconformists, said—
    "Statistical apologists will hint that these Nonconformists exist only on paper. Paper adherents do not give money. The Welsh Nonconformists give far more than £300,000 a year."
    Also he added—
    "The Church in Wales has lost five-sixths of the Welsh-speaking people, and her strength survives among the English-speaking upper and upper middle class."
    In the County of Anglesey, which I have the honour to represent, there are several parishes where none but the clergyman, the clerk, and their families attend the church, while most of the inhabitants go to chapels. It is not, therefore, so very strange that the Nonconformist farmers object to pay tithes, seeing that they receive no benefit whatever for their money. I do, therefore, hope that this House will reject the Bill.
    SIR J. KENNAWAY: I desire to offer a few remarks to the House on this subject. The question of tithes has been for a long period before Parliament, and various Bills have been introduced dealing with it, but of all those Bills none have dealt so completely and fully with it as the measure before us, and certainly none of them have seemed to have anything like the general acceptance which this measure has found. I think

    215
    that the Government deserve credit for taking up and dealing with the question, for it is not a popular one. They have been told that they cannot touch it without raising many difficult and anxious questions which might really lead them into trouble, but they have acted in accordance with their high sense of duty. In that action they have, no doubt, been stimulated by the state of things which existed in Wales, and which I am amazed that hon. Gentleman opposite seem to contemplate with very little concern—I refer to the non-payment of tithes legally due to an amount so great as was mentioned by the President of the Board of Trade. It is extraordinary that the non-payment of £10,000 out of £38,000 should be regarded as a light matter, particularly when the legal obligation to pay has existed for so very long a time. Another factor which has, no doubt, had its influence with the Government is to be found in the sufferings of the Welsh clergy, who undertook their duties in the belief that the law would secure to them that which they were legally entitled to, though no more. And there is also before the Government this even stronger point—the refusal to meet legal obligations, such as tithe, though it may be treated with equanimity by those who do not suffer, yet is likely to be very contagious; and when once it is found that legal obligations of one sort can be avoided, it is very probable that the same thing will be attempted with regard to other obligations, with the result that the foundations of society will be disturbed, and law and order be shaken very considerably. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has stated that the measure will not satisfy the tithepayers of Wales. I do not suppose it will, because the Welsh tithepayers welcome the tithe agitation as helping them in their efforts to obtain the Disestablishment of the Church. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Front Opposition Bench yesterday (Mr. Osborne Morgan) stated that they did not want a measure to improve the collection of tithes, but one to deal with its distribution. No doubt some hon. Gentlemen opposite and we who sit on these Benches are not likely to agree on the matter, and I do not suppose that those hon. Gentlemen can expect that a Bill likely to please
    216
    them would be introduced by the present Government. But the means by which it is sought to enforce the law having been found incapable of application in a country where there is not much sympathy with the law in that particular respect, it becomes clear to the Government that something must be done to amend that law, for the sake of their reputation and to put matters straight. In England there has been very little agitation, comparatively, but still there have been grumblings, and, from time to time, pressure has been brought to bear upon the tithe owner to make a furthur reduction. But I think my hon. Friend the Member for the Maldon Division of Essex was rather hard on the clergy just now when he spoke of them as buttoning up their pockets and declaring that though they would be glad to make a reduction, yet for the sake of their order they could not do so. The hon. Member quite left out of sight the fact that there has already been a reduction of 22 per cent., which the clergy have had to bear, and are bearing without complaint, and it seems to mo most unreasonable and unfair to ascribe their unwillingness to put in force the unpopular remedy of distraint to anything else than kindness of heart; neither is it fair to ask them to make further reductions As I said before, the Government were pledged to deal with this matter, and have had the courage of their opinions. They have, no doubt, also avoided some of the blots which were certainly to be found in previous Bills, and especially that one which made the tithepayer personally responsible for the tithe. Now it is made quite clear that he is only liable for that which he gets from the titheable land itself, and that, I think, will remove one serious objection which has been felt to previous attempts at legislation on this subject. Then there is the question of re-valuation. Disappointment has been expressed because the Bill does not, beyond the fixing of a new rateable value, give any further power of re-valuation. No doubt, in some few counties—I am happy to say not in very many—the present settlement presses very hardly upon agriculturalists indeed; but we must remember that a bargain was made in 1836, and if we are to re-open that bargain because one party suffers, it would be necessary

    217
    to re-open the question altogether, and to give benefits to the tithe owner in cases where the land has increased in value, as it no doubt has done in many parts of the country. If that is done, and tithe should be reduced in certain parts of the country, we introduce a principle which it was the boast that the settlement of 1836 had effected, namely, the abolition of growing tithes. Therefore, it seems to me very clear that there is a hardship where the value of the laud has fallen more than the 22 per cent. reduction in the tithe, but such cases as that can only be met by the 2nd clause of this Bill, which is an honest attempt to deal with the difficulty. Again, if we reopen the question of tithe averages we shall be confronted with a very difficult problem, because there are other articles besides wheat, such as wool and hay, which have risen in value. We might, perhaps, have hoped that more would have been done in the way of redemption, but it is possible that some amendment in that direction may be devised in Committee. The whole question is, however, surrounded with difficulties, because each party puts the price very much higher or very much lower than the other, according to the point of view from which he looks at it. I particularly rejoice to see that compulsory redemption is enforced in the case of building land, for it has in the past been the cause of considerable trouble and annoyance. We must realise that anything we can do will be sure to meet with the opposition of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who find this tithe grievance a lever for pressing forward the Disestablishment proposals, about which they are so anxious. It has been said that the tithepayers object to pay this tithe because they disapprove of it and it goes against their consciences. I do not quite see the force of that argument, because they do not refuse to pay the tithe altogether; they only refuse to pay unless a reduction is granted. In the times of the agitation against Church rates those who objected to the rates refused to pay them on principle, but this question of a conscience which can be satisfied with a reduction of 5 per cent. I cannot understand. A further redaction of 5 per cent. for collection has been spoken of, but when we remember how very great the fall in the value of
    218
    tithe has been—22 per cent.—it cannot be right to ask the clergy to submit to a further reduction of 5 per cent. on their already attenuated incomes, more especially as there are already so many cases in which the tithe is paid by the landlord. I do trust we shall be able to bring this question to a satisfactory settlement, and I think we on these Benches should be unworthy of our position of supporters of law and order, and of the National Church, if we did not persevere in the attempt, not to give that Church any fresh advantages, but to preserve those rights which have belonged to her for so many years.
    COLONEL W. CORNWALLIS WEST: This question has been argued by hon. Members sitting on this (the Opposition) side of the House as if it were purely a matter of Welsh opinion, and my hon. Colleagues from Wales have taken a somewhat provincial and narrow-minded view of the subject. I have been sojourning during the last few weeks among those who are deeply interested in the tithes question, and I have been much surprised at some of the stories I have heard. I look on this Tithes Bill not only as a measure relating to the Principality of Wales, and directed against the Disestablishment of the Church, but as one closely related to the agricultural interest all over the country. What is it we find? We find that in the County of Norfolk the tithes are greater than in the entire Principality of Wales, and I think the people of that county have quite as much interest in this Bill, if not more, than the whole population of the Principality. I think that this Bill will, as far as I can judge of it, bring about a better condition of things as regards the agricultural interest in England. I intend to support the Second Rending of the Bill, and, in doing so, I may be allowed to say that I consider the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in introducing it was most courteous and conciliatory, especially when we remember that he told the House that any recommendations emanating from this side would, so long as they did not touch the principle of the Bill, receive the careful attention of the Government. I believe that if the Bill is read a second time this evening we shall be able in Committee

    219
    to introduce such changes as will, at least, settle the question for a certain time to come. The main principle of the Bill is one of which no one will deny the importance—it is to transfer from the shoulders of the tenant farmer to those of the owner the liability for the payment of tithes. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby last year said he regarded this as the proper principle to act upon, and I think so too. But we are told that if the landlords are to pay the tithes they will take care that the tenants shall repay them in the rent. Well, Sir, I for one will take the chances of this. I believe the tenant fanners of Wales are honest men, and that the greater portion of them will not attempt to shirk the responsibility they undertook when they entered into possession of their farms. It is very unfortunate that this question in Wales has got entangled with the question of religion. After all, tithes must be paid, and I think my Welsh Colleagues are inconsistent in opposing the Bill, because it will make tithes a much better property. They ought rather to support the Bill, because they may utilise the tithe in time to come for other purposes, and this Bill will give a better security to the tithe owner whenever it may be required for those national purposes of which we hear so much. I conceive also that the redemption of the tithe is the second great principle of the Bill; and it is one I have always advocated. I do hope and trust that Her Majesty's Government may see their way to put the redemption on easier terms. I cannot understand why, when Consols are as low as they are now, we should he asked to pay 4 per cent., and in my opinion the redemption scheme can be carried out on a plan much less expensive to the landowners than that which is proposed by the Bill. I have always considered that the incidence of tithes is certainly unfair; but, on the other hand, I see the difficulty there is in re-opening the settlement of 1836; at the same time I have always thought that before the Government touched this question perhaps the wisest course to have pursued would have been to appoint a Royal Commission to visit every county, and to consider the condition in which certain counties are placed by reason of the changed condition of agriculture throughout the whole
    220
    country. I can hardly conceive that the English public are aware of the frightful condition of some of the farms on which the tithe at the present moment is actually more than the rental. I think that the substitution of the County Court for the present system of distress is a proposal which cannot fail to meet the views of all hon. Members, and that the carrying out of this plan would conduce to the peace and the happiness of the country. We know that there are those who wish to keep up a state of things, which we all deplore, for particular purposes of their own, and I trust that their wings will he clipped and that it will be impossible to have again such an agitation as we have had in my country. I think the more sensible and rational of the Welsh farmers will feel that the settlement of the tithe question ought to put aside all further agitation in regard to Disestablishment, and that the effect of this measure will be to preserve the tithe not only for the Church in Wales, but for any future purpose of a national character.
    MR. RANDELL: I desire, Sir, to state what I believe to be the opinion of the great majority of my constituents on the subject now before the House. I am astonished at some of the observations of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, especially so as he is one of the Representatives of the Principality. He has complained that the Welsh Members have treated this matter from a provincial point of view; but if by that he meant a Welsh point of view, I could understand his argument, because this is strictly a Welsh question. The hon. Member also spoke of the Bill being of great service to the agricultural interest. If so, I would be pleased, though I doubt it; but the Bill ought to be confined to England. The Bill proposes to shift the burden of the present payment of tithe from the tithepayer to the landlord, and neither in that nor in the redemption clauses, Dot in the new method of recovery in lieu of the old form of distress, will it meet with anything but the strongest objection on the part of the Welsh people. The new form of recovery is nothing but an attempt to coerce the Welsh people to pay a tithe which they object to pay so long as the impost is

    221
    applied to its present purposes. The proposal to shift the payment is something thrown out with a view to the conciliation of the English farmer, but I hope the English farmer will not be deluded by proposals so fictitious. The Welsh farmer has been taught, and knows quite well, that if the landlord pays the tithe he will exact an equivalent from the tenant in the shape of increased rent. With regard to the redemption clauses the bulk of the Welsh Members are opposed to them altogether. We believe that under them tithes will be frittered away, and that by subsequent alienation they will be lost sight of altogether. We recognise tithes to be national property, and are anxious to keep them intact and apply them to national purposes, educational and otherwise. To that extent the farmer would be relieved, because what he pays in tithes he knows he will be saved in rates. As to the alleged right to the tithe for the purposes of the Established Church, I hold that what Parliament has a right to make Parliament has also a right to unmake. By shifting the burden from one shoulder to the other, you do not remove it. And if you insist upon doing this, then, I think, in all fairness, we may ask you to confer extended jurisdiction upon the County Court, so that the rents of the tenants may be [judicially' revised, as their rents will most assuredly be consequently increased. In recent years many large estates have been put into the market, and hundreds of tenant farmers have purchased their holdings, and are now freeholders. These men are chiefly Nonconformists, and they will as stoutly oppose the payment of tithe in the future as in the past until fairly appropriated. Then you will simply put in a number of Receivers of the County Court, and in that way practically confiscate their holdings. What is the object of the now method of recovery? I take it that it is to assist the Welsh clergy to recover their tithes. Had it not been for the case of the Welsh clergy I think the other questions that have been raised in this Bill would have been referred to a Royal Commission. Will this Bill have the effect of assisting the Welsh clergy? I think it will have the opposite effect, and that it will only accentuate the differences and further embitter the
    222
    feelings which already exist. Distress is at present levied upon the goods of the farmer, while the person of the parson is removed from the scene of action. The bailiffs and emergency men do the disagreeable work of collection. But under this Bill you make the clerical tithe owner a plaintiff in the County Court, where he will be sure to attract the attention of the industrial classes, who will be amazed at the strange spectacle of a minister of religion in a Court of Law demanding his pound of flesh from needy men who object, not to the payment of tithe, but to its misapplication. This new jurisdiction which you seek to confer upon the County Court will overweight its machinery and throw it out of gear. Already, there are complaints as to the bailiffs of County Courts not being able to do their duty in the matter of executions following judgment. Besides, solicitors and counsel will be employed, and such will be the legal paraphernalia, that to recover £5 of tithes it may easily be that £10, £15, or £20 will be expended in costs. I am glad the Government do not seek to re-introduce the penal powers which appeared in their last Bill. I do not say this with a view to encourage them to insert powers of that kind. I do not suppose that any Government would venture to imprison men who refused payment of tithes on conscientious grounds; but I say that without imprisonment clauses the Bill will be a dead letter. The County Court process is a double-edged weapon, and I think that while it will wound the victim, it will also wound the hand that strikes.
    MR. BEADEL: Mr. Speaker, it is a mistake to suppose that any Bill would satisfy hon. Members opposite unless it abolished tithes altogether. The Bill is for the purpose of amending difficulties which have arisen under the Act of 1836—an Act which was passed for changing that which was an uncertainty into a certainty. It created a rent charge as certain as any charge which might be made on private property, subject only to septennial averages of corn. I should have been glad if the Government had not touched that measure at all, but the necessity has arisen from the terrible state of agricultural depression. If hon. Members would

    223
    study the agricultural question they would realise the importance of putting it in a better position. They would take steps to cause the produce of the land to be worth more than the cost of production; would confer a great amount of good upon the whole nation, and overcome crotchets which exist in the minds of many. Unfortunately, there are thousands of acres which if absolutely tithe free the cost of production would exceed the value of the produce. That proceeds from only one cause; and, I think if the President of the Board of Trade were to take the Minister of Agriculture into his confidence, a remedy could be found. The President of the Board of Trade is taking a very wise and prudent step in trying to minimise the evils of the tithe system and in endeavouring to prevent the question cropping up again within short periods. I have always acted upon the principle that the tithe should be paid directly by the landlord, and that the clerical tithe owner should not be placed in the position of having to dun his parishioners for his daily bread. Therefore, I welcome the proposal which changes the payment from the tenant to payment by the landlord. With regard to redemption, I think it is bettor to get rid of small sums. I remember the time when tithe was 12 per cent. above par, and when it was paid with the greatest pleasure in the world; but now that it is 22 per cent. below par nobody likes to pay it at all. There is clearly something wrong in our system. I realise the true cause, and if hon. Members would take care not to allow articles to be sent into this country to compete with our produce, they would confer an enormous benefit on the community; you would hear no more of the tithe rent-charge difficulty, and you would find the National Church of this country in a very happy and contented state. (7.55.)
    (8.32.) Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: I was very much struck and amused by the remark of the hon. Member for Denbigh (Colonel West) that the introduction of this Bill would bring peace to Wales. It seems strange to me that anyone should entertain the idea that the introduction of the process of
    224
    the County Court into tithe collection will bring peace to any part of the country, much less to Wales. I was also very much amused by the statement of the noble Lord the Member for the Darwen Division (Viscount Cranborne) that he and his Party were fighting this question of tithe on this ground—that they mean to fight to the death the question of Church and State. He and his Party have fought to the death a good many questions, and they have always been worsted. They fought to the death against reform, against the abolition of slavery, against Free Trade, against Nonconformists having any social or political position, and they have been worsted in all the fights; and they will be worsted in the fight in which they are now engaged. Then I was amused at the noble Lord saying he depended upon the Unionist majority to defend the Church Establishment, because the present Unionist majority numbers amongst its ranks those who have said the most bitter things against the State Church, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) for instance. I listened with attention to the speech of my right hon. Colleague (Sir M. Hicks Beach) in which he introduced the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman admitted in his earlier sentences that the subject was difficult and complicated. I entirely agree with him, but I cannot see that the Bill grapples with the difficulties or unravels the complications. There are three Parties to be considered in this matter; and my complaint is that the Bill, as Tory legislation generally does, only takes one Party into view. I contend that tithe property is national property devoted for the time being to the interests of a sect, but the time will assuredly come when the nation will appropriate it to something more national than a sect. Last night the noble Lord the Member for the Petersfield Division (Viscount Wolmer) spoke very pathetically against meddling with the tithe question in any tinkering way, and he reminded us that in the settlement of 1836 the nation lost two millions sterling at least. His argument was that we must do what we can to strengthen the position of the property, but I maintain that this interference with the tithe question to-day is going to lead to a good

    225
    deal of frittering away of this national property. Hon. Gentlemen opposite profess to love the clergy. It is quite evident that they love themselves, because the burthen of all their speeches on this measure has been, a considerable reduction of the sum to be paid. Let me remind hon. Gentlemen that in the settlement of the tithe question at the Reformation, more than 25 per cent. of the tithe got lost by being appropriated not to the clergy, but to the landed interest of the country. The whole of this discussion goes to show that the great object the landed sections of the House have in view is to lessen the burden which presses upon them. I am a large tithepayer, but I do not want a Bill that will lessen the amount I have to pay. What I desire is that the payment should be diverted to some great national purposes; and I will not join hon. Gentlemen opposite in the endeavour to lessen the value of tithe in order to suit their own selfish purposes. Now, one of the Government's great boasts is that they are the farmers' friends. The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Gedge) was exceedingly candid last night when he asked why should the farmers have any relief. I say because the Government and the Conservative Party have always assured the farmer that they are the men who are looking after his interest. Here is a Tithe Bill, and I can find nothing in the Bill that will to any appreciable extent benefit the farmer. I find that the collection of tithe is to be brought under the same operation of law as rent, and the new process of collection will cost him four or five times as much as the old process. If the farmer does not get any more practical relief than this Bill gives him he will get very little. The next party in the question are the clergy, and I admit the Bill does something for them. An hon. Gentleman has said the Bill will increase the value of tithe from 15 to 25 per cent. I can hardly agree with that; but if that is so the measure will benefit the clergy at the expense of the nation, and therefore ought to be fought tooth-and-nail. Then I have been struck with another thing. The Government and the Party opposite are always pleading the sacredness of contracts. Contracts are always sacred when they want to get something out of the bargain. There
    226
    was a sacred contract made in 1836. Part of that contract was that you should not collect tithe except upon the crops that grow on the particular land that is titheable. But this Bill alters the whole thing. Where is the sacredness of contract? Where are your religious ideas of contract? I am aware that the Welsh clergy are labouring under considerable difficulty, but the difficulty arises from the fact that they depend upon what is not voluntary, but exacted. The President of the Board of Trade, when he was introducing the Bill, seemed to regard the Church and Christianity as synonymous terms. The greatest triumphs of Christianity were made in the early centuries, when tithes, if paid at all, were paid as voluntary offerings. Nowadays the clergy are always telling us that we are to have more in Heaven than on earth; but I find that when we come to anything like tithe, they think quite as much about earth as anything else. The President of the Board of Trade referred pathetically to the poverty of the clergy in Wales. Is it not a disgrace to a Church so wealthy, to a landed aristocracy so rich—and generally the aristocracy are members of the Church—that the clergy are so poor? Did it not strike the right hon. Gentleman that, when he was speaking of the poverty of the Welsh clergy, he was condemning his own Church and Party, in a way I should be ashamed to do? Then it is said we are trying to evade a just debt. It strikes me that comes with bad grace, considering that it is hurled at people who are supporting their own system of religion, and ask for nothing. We do not want to get rid of the payment of tithe at all, but we want to put tithe into a path where it will promote the best interests of the country. The farmers ought to know that no relief to any appreciable extent will come to them by the lessening of tithe. We want to get them relief by appropriating tithe in such a way as will save their pockets in other directions. I contend there is no confiscation in that, because, of the original tithe, as much belonged to the poor as to the clergy. How the clergy have got hold of it is rather singular to me. Some of us maintain that tithe ought to be appropriated to the relief of the poor. That would relieve the poor rate and would be a practical way of

    227
    helping the farmers. This is about the only country in the world in which there is tithe. There are two things you have never been able to transplant to any of our Colonies—a State Church and the present landed system of this country—and depend upon it, when a system cannot be transplanted, it is doomed. As you could not transplant a State Church to America and the Colonies, you will not be able to keep it here very long. And there is quite as much Christianity in the Colonies and America, where there is no State Church, as there is in this country. Then get rid of the idea that tithe has anything to do with the religion of the country. Let us clear our minds of cant and humbug. Let us recognise the fact that this is simply an attempt to keep the property of the nation in the hands of a few people. I am told that our arguments are based upon opposition to the Church. I have no opposition to the Church as a religious institution. I hope I have a solemn belief that the future of our country, as indeed the future of the world, depends upon the promotion of Christianity; but, on the other hand, I believe nothing has kept Christianity back so much as tithes and Church rates, which you have endeavoured to prop up. I venture to warn the Government that in endeavouring to tinker with great questions like this they are endangering the very object they have at heart. The noble Lord the Member for the Darwen Division said you have three years to live. The country is beginning to find you out, and only want an opportunity to put you to rout. [Mr. ADDISON: Hear, hear.] I think that, much as we value the presence of the hon. Gentleman who sits by the vote of the Mayor, we shall be without it after the next election. In conclusion, I have only to say that if the Government deal with the question at all, I wish they would deal with it in a generous spirit to the farmer, in a just spirit to the nation, and in a statesmanlike spirit to us all. They have only had regard for the clergy, and by that they will, I hope, deprive themselves of a good deal of support from the farmers. We certainly shall let the farmers know who their friends are, and who it is who come here under the pretence of being their friends, and then support a Tithe Bill
    228
    which carries them into the County Court and heaps far more costs upon them in the collection of tithe than ever before.
    MR. H. R. FARQUHARSON: There is a notice of Motion on the Paper in my name, but I am not anxious to move it on account of the very conciliatory speech we listened to last night from the President of the Board of Trade. The debate seems to have taken a triangular form. There are those who are anxious to do away with tithe in connection with the Church. There are those who are anxious to give to the full, and, in my opinion, more than the full, to the tithe owner; and, lastly, there are those who think, as I do, that some compromise ought to be made in the matter. I am very well satisfied with the Bill in many respects. I am very pleased that the landlords are to pay the tithe in future, because I am quite certain from my experience of tenant farmers, and it is considerable, that it is the wish of the tenant-farmers of the country that they should be relieved from the payment of tithe. Again, I welcome the arrangement for the recovery of tithe, because I think it will save a great deal of unpleasantness. I do not believe for a moment that the Government intend that the Receiver or the manager is to become a farm bailiff, and take the management of the farm out of the hands of the farmer. The Receiver will simply receive the rents which otherwise would go to the landlord. That is a very fair proposal, and one which I think will save a great deal of trouble. But when I come to the question as between tithe owner and tithepayer, I am very much opposed to the Bill, because whatever hon. Members may say, this is a re-opening of the settlement under the Tithe Commutation Act, 1836, and it is a re-opening of it in two ways. In the first place, you are making what was permissive under that Bill compulsory as regards payment of tithe by landlords, and you are substituting recovery by seizing the rents from recovery by distraint. The noble Lord the Member for the Darwen Division (Viscount Cranborne) told us that we have no right to complain, and he gave us instances of certain debtors in a town where there is no County Court. He

    229
    said those debtors would have no right to complain if a County Court was set in motion in that town. But that is not the question at all. As I view the matter, there was a special contract arrived at in 1836 between the tithe owner and the tithepayer. On the one hand, it was settled how the payment should be made, and on what that payment should be based. On the other hand, it was settled that there should be certain specified modes of recovery. That seems to be a widely different thing to the instance given by the noble Lord. I object to this re-opening of the settlement of the Tithe Commutation Act, 1836, on behalf of one party only to the bargain. I think if the settlement is re-opened at all, it should be reopened in the interest of both parties. I may say the Government have re-opened it on a remarkably tender point in regard to tithepayers. We do not object to pay tithe. English yeomen and landlords have never objected to it, but what we do say is that the amount of it we are asked to pay is unduly, improperly high; and we think that before the Government give tithe owners greater power for collecting their debt, it is their bounden duty to take care that the amount recoverable is not more than can justly be claimed. It is quite useless for the Government to think that by merely shifting the burden from the tenant to the landlord they can escape all further difficulty. In Wales, we are told, the payment of tithe is objected to from religious motives, but I am not at all disposed to credit that statement. I do not think it is entirely the case, and I should not have sympathy with the Welsh people if it was the case. That a man should decline to pay from religious motives is a strange motive to put forward; it is about on a par with a Liberal politician declining to pay taxes when a Tory Government is in office. I do not think it is the case. I have read the evidence as to the origin of the tithe riots in Wales, and the reason almost universally given was that farmers objected to the tithe because, instead of being a tenth, it was in many cases a quarter or even a half. We have had tithe troubles in Hampshire, and and there I believe the troubles arose with the landowners. The Bill itself, I think, points to the fact that too much
    230
    tithe is demanded, because we find in the Bill a clause making provision for a re-adjustment in those cases where the tithe exceeds the amount, the whole of the profit derived from the cultivation of the land. I cannot understand how anybody can suppose a man can come, and asking for a so-called tenth, have a right to claim more than the whole. Tithe is a misnomer in many cases. It is certain that tithepayers are suffering from an injustice, and the Bill proposes to stereotype and perpetuate this injustice, and, therefore, I think that tithepayers have a right to ask the House for some concession before they pass this Bill. It is all very well for hon. Members to twit the landlords upon the wish to pay less, but would not any man object to pay more than he would be properly required to pay? We do not ask to pay less for any other reason than that we think an unjust demand is made upon us. Then, I should like to call the attention of the Government to the effect upon agriculture of the present system of tithe collection and tithe paying. You have in Hampshire, in Essex, in Berkshire, and in many parts of the country, tithes exceeding in amount the value of the profits derived from the cultivation of the lands upon which the tithe is levied. And what does this mean? It means that the landlords are unable or unwilling to lay out a single farthing in repairs on buildings, or in keeping the property in proper order; that you have tenants discouraged from cultivation, and the land grows worse instead of better; and it necessarily follows that labourers lose employment, and so the Church grows more and more unpopular, being considered the primary cause of the trouble. This in itself should be a reason to induce the Government to make considerable concessions, especially in cases where we have the tithe equalling or exceeding the whole of the profits derived from cultivation. We are asked to suppose that the clause, providing that tithe owners shall have no greater claim than the amount of the profits is a concession to tithepayers; but it is impossible under this Bill that it should be arranged otherwise, for the Bill proposes that the new way of recovery of tithe shall be seizing on the rent or profits, and it is perfectly clear that the tithe owner could not recover

    231
    more than the rent, so it is a necessary consequence of the method of recovery proposed, and I do not consider it is a concession to tithepayers; and if it is so considered, it is not sufficient. I think that where the tithe exceeds the whole of the profit, a much more considerable concession may justly be asked. The point I wish to make is this: it is perfectly clear that if the tithe has become more than the whole, that the machinery for ascertaining the amount of tithe due must be out of order. I will not go into the whole question of corn averages; but I should like to point out that, under the present system, the lower corn falls the more faulty becomes the machinery. In the Tithe Commutation Act it is provided that the amount of tithe payable shall be calculated on the average price of British-grown corn sold in certain markets. When wheat is at 50s. a quarter, then farmers send two or throe qualities of corn to market, and the average is taken over the whole; but when wheat falls to 28s., the farmer only sends his best sample, not offering the second and third qualities; so that when the tithepayer can least afford to pay it, the tithe is high, being calculated not on the value of the whole crop, but on the value of the picked samples which alone are sent to market. Here, I think, we have a grievance that deserves inquiry. I daresay we shall be told it is impossible to re-open the whole question of tithe and corn averages, but that is not the point. The lathe owners say, "alter our method of recovery," and while we acquiesce in that, we say alter also the Act in another detail on our behalf. We do not ask to have the whole basis of corn averages altered; we ask merely for an alteration of the present system of ascertaining the value of British-grown corn. If that is done, I am certain the tithe will be lowered considerably, and we shall escape from the difficulty of having land where the tithe exceeds the profit. We shall be reminded of the difficulties, and that a Committee have reported on the almost impossibility of interfering with the corn averages. It may be so; and if it is so, and the Government wish to shirk the difficult and almost impossible task, then we ask them to extend to tithepayers some advantage in the Redemption Clauses of the Bill. As I understand these clauses, they are at present absolutely unworkable
    232
    and impracticable. I do not think you will find a single instance of a tithe owner or payer of tithe exceeding £1 redeeming under the terms offered in the Bill. We know that the clergy especially are very hard hit. They have a very small income, and I believe they might honestly say they could not afford any further reduction in that income. This means, according to the Government proposals, that the tithepayer would have to offer them such a sum for their tithe as at 3½ per cent. would equal their present income. This would amount to 28½ years' purchase, and the tithepayers are offered this at 4¼ per cent. If you work this out it amounts to this—that the tithepayer for 50 years will be called upon to pay 23 per cent. in excess of the sum now paid to the tithe owner. It is quite clear that no tithepayer in his senses would ask the tithe owner to agree to redemption on these terms. I cannot help thinking that under these Redemption Clauses the Government have an opportunity of making a considerable concession to tithepayers, and I trust from what the President of the Board of Trade has said that they will take advantage of the opportunity. If they do so, they will have the gratitude of the whole tithepaying community and of the whole agricultural interest, and, what I believe they will value more, the support of an united party, in which my vote will be included.
    MR. SAMUEL SMITH: As a Welsh Member, I am deeply interested in this matter, and what I have to say will be from a Welsh point of view. There is a total distinction between the Welsh and the English view. With English Members in the main this has been a question of property, and this has been exemplified in the interesting speech to which we have just listened; but in Wales we regard the question from a wholly different standpoint, and it is well the House should understand that the vast majority of the Welsh people regard this as matter of conscience and religious principle. I quite admit that, mingled with this, there are other motives; agricultural depression and other elements have played a part, but undoubtedly the principal element is the religious principle, and those who fail to acknowledge this will fail to understand the strong feeling of the

    233
    Welsh people. There is no doubt that the main object of the Bill is to rivet the tithe permanently upon the people in the interest of the Church of England. The greater part of the Bill is to render tithe safer than before, to make it more secure, and, so far as may be, to perpetuate it as the property of the Church of England as by law established. This is why the Bill is so unpopular in Wales, and why Welsh Liberal Members find it impossible to acquiesce in it. It is altogether too late for any legislative changes to reconcile the Welsh people to that Church. English Members may not be aware of the scandals attached to tithe appropriation in Wales in the past, and if I refer for a few moments to past history it is to explain the deeply-rooted aversion of the Welsh people to the present system by law established. A large proportion of the Welsh tithe was literally stolen from the country by Henry VIII. and his descendants, and given to Court favourites, sold again by them, and as lay property has been handed down to the present day to owners who have no residential or any other connection with the Principality. These facts have been burned into the memories of the Welsh people. Another large portion of the tithe was alienated by the Bishops, sold or set a part for the endowment of their families, and so it has come to pass that a great portion of the tithe has ceased to perform any ecclesiastical function or to be of any use whatever to the Principality. I am sure the Postmaster General will bear me out in this. To show the truth of my observation, I would remind the House that in 1836, when the Tithe Commutation Act was passed, the amount of Welsh tithe was £280,000, and of this amount £67,000 a year belonged to clerical impropriators nonresident in Wales; £61,000 to lay impropriators scattered over the country; £8,000 to schools and colleges; and only £137,000 belonged to the parochial clergy. But let it be remembered that a large number of the parochial clergy were absentees, their posts were sinecures, and the duties were discharged by miserably paid curates. So, of the whole of the tithe collected in Wales at the time of the Tithe Commutation Act, only a third went to the working clergy of Wales. Can the House conceive a greater abuse? There is only one comparison lean make,
    234
    and that is the way in which the revenues of the Irish Church were formerly distributed. The Welsh and the Irish Churches were conspicuous examples of ecclesiastical corruption, and each succeeded in alienating the feelings of the people. One illustration of the extent of the abuse of ecclesiastical management is furnished in the fact that in 1830 it was computed that in the See of St. Asaph, a poor diocese, no less than £27,000 a year was absorbed by the Bishop and his immediate relations, sons mostly, who had been preferred to all the rich livings in the diocese, and the entire working clergy of the diocese only received £18,000 a year. There was a state of things in which the parochial clergy were aliens in blood and language from the great bulk of the people; the ceremonies of the Church—such as baptism, confirmation and marriage—being performed in English and translated int.) Welsh by an interpreter at the Bishop's or clergyman's elbow. Need we wonder that the great bulk of the people became Nonconformists and that the Church of England stank in the nostrils of the people. Wales became absolutely alienated from the Church of England, and it is wholly impossible now to alter this condition of feeling. I do not say these abuses exist now. A great many Acts of Parliament have been passed to improve this state of things, and the most flagrant abuses have been removed; but even in the present year of the total tithe collected in Wales—£300,000—still, 37 per cent. is appropriated to lay purposes and only 63 per cent. to the local clergy. Contrast the action of the Ecclesiastical Authorities in Wales with that of the Nonconformists who, out of small earnings, have built 3,000 chapels, and maintain their religion at a cost of £300,000 or £400,000 a year, and it will be seen that the religious life of the people has flowed through channels outside the Church of England. No doubt there has been a considerable revival of the Church in late years, and the Establishment is in a much healthier condition than it has been in for the last century; yet, still, it cannot be denied that Nonconformity has made the Welsh people the most religious in Europe. This I assert without fear of contradiction. How can a people with such a history acquiesce in the payment of tithe to the Church of England? It

    235
    is wholly impossible. It never can be held that the tithe has any sacredness in the minds of the Welsh people. The Welsh people do not regard tithe as enjoined by the teachings of the Christian religion; their interpretation of the New Testament leads them to believe the tithe is no part of the Christian dispensation. To them it is a Jewish institution, and derives its existence in our time from the darkest ages in the history of the Church. They do not regard it as in any sense a divine institution, and it is impossible that it should have in their minds that sacred or semi-sacred character it has in the minds of many English members. We must bear these facts in mind in forming our judgment. It is impossible that we can legislate for Wales in this matter as we can for England, where apparently the majority of the people acquiesce in the payment of tithe and its application to the Church of England. The Welsh nation never can be satisfied until tithe is made national property. We must treat Wales as a nationality, and that is the foundation of the whole question. Wales has a separate nationality in history, language, blood, and ideas; and if you wish to have a peaceable and settled Wales, a source of strength to the whole Kingdom, you must satisfy this deep national longing. You do not understand how deep the feeling is; the great mass of the people are possessed by it; and, until you recognise this and grant religious equality, you will have ever recurring troubles in Wales. Pass what Bill you like now, you will come no nearer to a settlement of the question. Agitation will follow agitation, and trouble succeed trouble, and the demand for Home Rule will increase. Now, I put it to this Unionist Government, who wish to discourage Home Rule agitation, if they wish to weaken the desire for Home Rule in Wales, let them grant Disestablishment and the nationalisation of the tithe. Do this, and you will take the heart out of the Home Rule movement; refuse this, and you stimulate a movement against what you conceive to be the best interests of the kingdom. I believe the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Raikes) knows the truth of this. He lives in Flintshire, and knows the feeling there. He knows that if you refuse this the agitation will
    236
    increase and Members will be returned for Wales of more and more advanced opinions. I hold comparatively moderate views. I do not wish to see a needless multiplication of Legislatures; but to bind our peoples together there is only one way, and that is to recognise the national desire and deal with each part of the country in a manner suited to its national traditions and deeply-seated convictions. Then in Wales you will have the most contented and peaceable part of the United Kingdom. If you refuse this you prepare for yourselves and for the Legislature of the future greater difficulties to deal with. We do not wish to see things carried to extremes; we do not wish to see a very radical solution; we would rather see things solved in a moderate and reasonable way, and therefore we ask and hope for some expression of sympathy for the reasonable representations of the Welsh people.
    SIR JOHN DORINGTON: It is very much to be regretted that the hon. Member, like others, should have entered the region of Disestablishment and other questions altogether foreign to the objects of the Bill. There have been statements made on the Church Question and arguments based on these statements which should not be allowed to pass unanswered. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Hussey Vivian) alluded to the origin of tithe, and quoted Lord Selborne as apparently in favour of the idea of a tripartite division of tithe. The hon. Member for Bristol seemed also to say there was this tripartite division, and that there was a special allocation for the poor. But I know something of the matter, having made a special investigation of it some years ago, and I will ask the House, not to take my opinion, but to hear what Lord Selborne has said on the subject. He quotes a tract published by the Liberation Society, called The Case for Disestablishment. The author of the tract says of the tripartite division:—
    "(1) In all early laws about tithes it is clearly laid down that the poor were to have a share. (2) That at first the division into four parts, and after a while into three parts, prevailed here. (3) That later on when tithes were not so freely given away, and a law was passed to compel them, the same plan was insisted on, and the poor still had their share. (4) That this was before the time of Parlia-

    237
    ments, but when Parliaments made laws upon the subject their rights were preserved. (5) That nobody seems to know how or when the poor lost their legal claim to a share of the tithes."
    "Of these statements," Lord Selborne says, "there is but one to which that degree of respect is due, which may be accorded to all opinions which have been the subject of honest controversy among learned men, namely, that which relates to the division of tithes, in a remote age, into parts, of which one was for the poor; but it is necessary for those who maintain that opinion to show by historical evidence that at some time or other in England any such practice did in fact prevail, and this has never been, and never can be, done. It is absolutely unfounded."
    The idea arises simply from the practice of foreign Churches, which was never introduced into England. In some dioceses of French, Spanish, and some other Churches the division was into three only of those parts, the Bishop taking no share. The hon. Baronet the Member for Swansea (Sir H. Vivian) has spoken of the mysterious origin of tithes; but there is no mystery about it if the historic documents are investigated. The original gifts of tithes exist by hundreds in our public libraries, especially gifts by the owners of manors and parishes in this country. Thus you have the origin of tithes, and this explanation is probably quite sufficient for the purposes of this discussion. I think the Government deserve great credit for the way in which they have brought in the Bill, and the provisions which they have included for the collection and possible redemption of tithe. It is assumed that whilst the tenants have been in the habit of paying the tithes, it was not the intention of the Act of 1836 that they should pay them. But if that were not the intention it was the necessary consequence of the provisions in that Act for the recovery of tithe. The remedy is against the tenant and not against the landlord, so that it is much more to the interest of the tenant to pay than to leave the payment to the landlord. Where the tenants are willing to trust the landlords it is more convenient that the landlord should pay, and my own practice has been to take all the tithes into my own hands. But there is a drawback. What is the effect of the landlord taking this course? During bad years the tenants, paying a fixed rent, while the tithe is regularly descending, give a constantly
    238
    increasing rental to the landlord, because he pays a less tithe; but when the years are prosperous the tithes go up, and the landlord loses by that, and has no advantage from the increased prosperity of the land. So that in order to make things fair we should have to return to the exploded practice of corn rents. I think it desirable to make the change proposed by the Bill, namely, that the landlord should pay the tithe. Reference has been made to the provision of the 2nd clause with regard to the special rate. I look on that as the happiest provision of the Bill. It provides a means of discerning whether the tithe and the value of the land are in accordance with one another; and the valuation is placed in the hands of those who are sure, in their own interests, to see that the value is as high as it ought to be. The right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade alluded to grievances which undoubtedly prevail, and which, I think, demand a larger recognition from the Government than they seem inclined at the present moment to afford. With reference to what fell from the hon. Member for Bristol with regard to the landlords putting the money into their own pockets, I repudiate that insinuation altogether; but I would ask for a remedy, because it is an injury to the Church that these cases of hardship should occur. They are numerous in some counties, but rare in others, and form no large proportion of the total amount of tithe raised in England; but so long as they exist they are a scandal, and some way of dealing with them is needed. This opinion has not been formed without due consideration of the subject, nor without other opinions backing up my own. The question was discussed by a Diocesan Conference in my county two years ago, and a Special Committee was constituted, containing nearly all the dignitaries of the diocese—archdeacons, canons, and parochial clergy, as well as squires and landlords. The Committee came to the conclusion that, as a whole, the tithe system had worked well since 1836, and did not require any alteration except in regard to the hard cases, and that, with regard to the hard cases where the tithe is out of all proportion to the rental value of the land, some remedy was demanded, which should be

    239
    applied subject to revision—that is, that you should not apply a final settlement to any reduction you might make. The right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade has said it is impossible to have any re-valuation, and I quite agree in that; but where the tithe exceeds one-half of the whole valuation of the land, or amounts even to the full value, that is certainly not what was intended when the Act of 1836 was passed. That was intended to be a final Act, on the supposition that the conditions of life then prevailing would continue, and that the produce of the soil of England would remain the same as it was then. One object was to stop any further increase of the tithe consequent upon agricultural improvements, so that the door should be closed against a rise, and equally closed against a fall. But owing to the fall which has taken place in the prices of produce, it has become impossible to realise the rates in respect of which the land was valued. Tillage has largely disappeared, and the land has gone back from a considerable rental to the poor and inferior prices of pasturage, in many cases amounting only to 3s., 4s., and 5s. per acre. In such cases the tithe becomes an absurdity; certainly it is an offence against public sentiment. It is a transfer of the estate from the landowner to the tithe owner. Well, under the provisions of the 2nd sub-section of the 1st clause, I think it quite practicable to apply a remedy under equitable conditions to all concerned. Perhaps I may point out that, as I read the 2nd subsection, there can be no question, whatever a Superior Court might say, the Inferior Court having before it such a case might remit not only the excess beyond the whole value of the land, but the whole tithe itself. This was not probably the intention of the draftsman, nor is it desirable to go as far as that. I would propose that instead, as the 2nd sub-section provides, of persons whose tithe was in excess of the whole special rateable value being alone allowed to go into Court for redress, a much lower figure should be taken—say, even one-half of the special rateable value—and redress should be granted for one year. Thus, in the present circumstances, a just and fair arrangement would be arrived at which would not prejudice a revision in the
    240
    years when farming would again become a profitable industry in England.
    MR. W. ABRAHAM: I will preface the remarks I have to make on this Bill by saying that, not being a labourer or farmer, I do not pretend to understand the details of this measure, but being desirous of ascertaining what the farmers or the labourers have to say upon this subject, I have endeavoured to read what has appeared in relation to it in the Press, and that portion of the Press which is not at all times favourable to this side of the House. I also attended a few days ago a meeting at the Westminster Palace Hotel, a meeting of farmers from different counties in England. I will quote what I then heard in reference to this measure—
    "A Bill conceived entirely in the interest of the tithe owner, which will not redress any of the grievances of the lithe payers are suffering under a Coercion Bill to screw tithe out of unwilling payers, a sop to the Establishment at the expense of the land, and in Wales of something more than the land; a Bill which, failing to provide a proper means of revision and readjustment, added insult to injury, and perpetuated a state of things which it was impossible to bear."
    That is the judgment of the farmers of the Eastern Counties of England on this Bill; my own opinion is that it is a a Bill to give perpetual security to the increased incomes derived by the clergy under the Tithes Commutation Act. That meeting was composed of men who have been strict adherents to the policy of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. One of them said—
    "They had not burnt parsons' homesteads, nor boycotted the Conservatives, but had followed them like sheep, and this was their reward."
    An hon. Gentleman opposite has said there is to be no distraint, and no imprisonment. I do not know how he arrives at that conclusion; but, according to my reading of the Bill, it provides both for distraint and imprisonment. [Cries of "No."] An hon. Member says "No." True, under this Bill a man cannot be sent to prison, and his land cannot be sold, but he will incur the same consequences by non-payment of the tithes and costs. With a Receiver in possession the landlord cannot distrain for rent, and the farmer will be in this happy position, he will be able to punish

    241
    the landlord and parson while asserting his own independence at the same time. But what else can be done? If it is proved that a man is able to pay, and refuses to do so, and a process is issued against him for contempt of the judgment of the Court, he may be sent to prison at once. If that is not imprisonment I do not know what else it is. When this sort of thing comes about we shall have friction between landlord and tenant, instead of friction which at present exists between the tenant and the parson. This is what appears to me to be the real outcome of Lord Salisbury's Bill. If I am not greatly mistaken you will find, especially in Wales, that the result will be to alienate from the Church not only the tenant, but probably the landlord as well. I see it stated in a paper called Land and Water (and I am of the same opinion) that—
    "When the people recognise that the land of the country is to be farmed by County Court officials for the benefit of the clergy, and that the landlord is to be turned out of his inheritance for the sake of the parson a very formidable state of things will arise."
    Another statement was made at that meeting by one of the farmers opposed to the Bill, namely, as to the necessity of providing for re assessment of the basis of the tithe rent-charge. It was said that at the time of the passing of the Tithe Commutation Act of 1836 the average price of wheat was 7s. per bushel; an acre, of land producing 28 bushels. This would amount to £9 16s. per acre, which, after deducting £6 as the cost of production, left the farmer a net profit of £3 16s. 0d. as the average for the seven years preceding the Act of 1836. That was the basis on which the tithe rent-charge was then fixed, but through the abolition of protective duties the extension of railways in foreign countries, and the multiplication of the means of quick and cheap transit of corn from other parts of the world, the market prices in this country were greatly reduced. Now, supposing the home farmers were able, by the use of artificial manures and a system of high farming, to maintain a yield of 28 bushels per acre, how would the balance stand. Taking the average prices of the last six years he would only receive 4s.
    242
    per bushel, instead of 7s. as formerly; that would allow him £5 12. 0d. per acre, so with the cost of production being £6, there would be a loss per acre of 8s. Where, I ask, is the justice of compelling the farmer to pay the same amount on an article on which he is losing 8s. per acre as compared with his former profit of £3 16s. 0d.? The injustice of the case is at once demonstrated. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite may say that this is the case of the farmer and labourer only, but, with due submission, I beg to think otherwise. Why, the farmer has been compelled in a large measure to give up the profitless task of wheat-growing; indeed, we are told that no less than three million acres of land which formerly produced wheat are now turned into pasture. What does this mean? It means keeping the ploughman, the labourer, and the harvest-men deprived of their healthy employment on the farms, and sending them to the large towns to swell the already large number of the unemployed. It means the driving of these men by hundreds into our mines, where they will be surrounded by dangers of which they have had no previous experience, and whereby they will be not only in jeopardy of their own lives, but the means of jeopardising the lives of other people. To pass this Bill without some provision for revision and re-adjustment on the basis upon which the tithe rent-charge is made would be, as was stated at the Westminster meeting, adding injury to insult, which has already been heaped upon the agriculturists of this country as a remedy. It is proposed to remove the direct payment of the tithes from the tenant to the landlord, but is that any real remedy for the grievance? I am afraid not, for the transfer will benefit no one but the parson and the tithe owner, whose interests are entirely opposed to those of the other parties. It is idle, therefore, to attempt to create the belief that this question will be satisfactorily settled by merely shifting the immediate payment of the tithe from the tenant to the landlord. The tithe is an impost which impedes the cultivation of the land, and affects all the interests connected with the land—landlord, farmer, and labourer. It discourages the landlord from investing

    243
    capital for any purpose connected with the land. Hence, the mere shifting of the burden of tithe will not afford the remedy which is demanded, for tithe has grown to an amount which is quite out of proportion to the amount that the land can bear. It is admitted that this debate is a Welsh debate, and the hon. member for East Bradford went so far as to say that it is the agitation in Wales which has created the necessity for this Bill. I know that the President of the Board of Trade smiled his acquiescence at the assertion that it was a Welsh debate. But I cannot see, Sir, why it was necessary for him to sing to us again the plaintive cadence of the poor starving clergy of Wales. Sir, if there is any disgrace at all in this matter it is that the richest Church in the world should allow its ministers to come before the world as applicants for the charity of mankind. I think ail these allusions to the sufferings of the Welsh clergy is the greatest possible disgrace to the Church and the Churchmen themselves—especially in Wales. For there you have on the one side almost all the rich and landed people who have, in addition, about £300,000 a year of religious endowments. Yet with the sufferings of the clergy of this favoured Church all the world is ringing. On the other hand, you have in that little country the great mass of the poor and the labouring classes. You have the miners and the farmers the puddlers and the shepherds, and the small shopkeepers in the villages, and all of them that are free holders have actually to pay out of their small revenues tithes for the maintenance of a rival Church. These people have to build their own chapels, and maintain their own ministers. And you never hear of their minister being starved. The hon. Member for Oswestry said that this is not the spontaneous action of the Welsh, but is a case got up by the minority and a few agitators. If that is true, what a wonderful illustration of what minorities and agitators can effect. But I deny the contention, Sir. Previous to the tithe agitation, the Welsh people sent to this House 34 Members, 28 of whom were pledged to the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the English Church. The
    244
    tithe agitation is pressing forward with incredible rapidity, and that the course taken by the clergy has given it a greater impetus nobody will deny. The Welsh poet says—
    "Ergyd morthwyl yr arwerthwr,
    Werthodd geffyl ffarmio John,
    Drawodd gnul hen gloch angladdol,
    Eglwys traia y deyrnas hon.
    Gwerthi yd a gwair y bobl,
    Ceidwaid hedd yn rhoddi sen,
    Gwel'd y ffeirad yn yr hobl,
    Dyna ddaw a hi i ben."
    Yes, we have had very valuable assistance given by the minority and by the agitators. I do not pretend to know the origin of tithes, but this the Welsh people know, that it is used for purposes with which they have no sympathy. When in the reign of Henry IV. an Act was passsed providing that the Vicar should not be removable at the caprice of the proprietor, but was to be canonically instituted and inducted, he was to be sufficiently endowed for three purposes, "to do divine service, to inform the people, and to keep hospitality." That means divine service for the nation, not a few of the nation; and it means giving information to the nation in full and not in part; and it means hospitality, to whom if not for the poor? I contend that the tripartite arrangement is found in this Statute, although it is denied. For a very long time the vicar, Bishops, and parsons have disregarded the keeping of hospitality, as they consider it sufficiently maintained by keeping themselves, and giving such charity, if any, as they think fit to dispense among the poor of their own congregations. Tithes are the property of the nation, and are devoted to the National Church, maintained by law professedly for the advantage of the nation at large. The tithe, in our opinion, thus became national property. And when the nation was of one faith, their arrangement with respect to tithes was an intelligent one, and might have had the sanction of the national will, yet since that time a change has come over the spirit of the people. For years past the Church has not only failed but has neglected to do its duty in Wales. An article in a Bangor paper says the English services in the Welsh Cathedral bears the inobliterated stamp of the iron

    245
    arm. It gives interesting details regarding the services in the Bangor Cathedral. In the diocese of Bangor the Bishop receives an income of £4,200 per annum, and having sat upon his throne for 31 years he has drawn the enormous sum of £130,200. The second dignitary is the Dean; he holds a comfortable office for which he receives a handsome remuneration of £700 per annum, whilst the two Archdeacons, who are also well paid, conduct their services and deliver their charges in a language which is foreign to that spoken by the people. The Precentor, a person from Yorkshire, is also in receipt of good emolument; while the four Canons, who come to the city which affords them a pleasant change for three months every year, each receive £350 per annum for the amount of work they are called upon to do. To those may be added the ordinary and the minor Canons who are in receipt of £170 a year each, the total cost of upholding English services within Welsh Cathedrals reaches the enormous amount of £4,000 exclusive of the Diocesan. The condition of the cathedral churches in Wales is unique. The population of four Welsh cities is as follows:—Bangor, 10,000; St. Asaph's, 2,000; Llandaff, 800; and St. David's, including the island of Ramsey and several hamlets, a little over 2,000. This gives the total population of 14,800, or, say in round figures, 15,000; but it is to be remembered that not I per cent. of these people can avail themselves of the daily services conducted in these cathedrals. This being so, I would ask right hon. Gentlemen opposite of what good can these daily services in the cathedral of Bangor be to the Welshmen of Bethesda and the Welsh speaking population of the surrounding neighbourhood? Nevertheless the people have to pay this enormous sum of money for keeping up the services for the rich, while the poor are practically forgotten. I ask the House to contrast the position of Llandaff with its 800 people and Cardiff with its population of 80,000. Of what good are the services of Llandaff to the toiling people around? What good are they to the miners of Rhondda, or to the toilers among the hills and vales of Glamorganshire? So far as the adaptation of the Church system to the necessities of the people is concerned all
    246
    this money is entirely wasted. Not only has the Church failed in its ministrations, but it has neglected to do its duty to the people. There was a time when Wales stood in need of religious services and education. There was a time when one of our poets said that Wales was in "heathen darkness," and at that time the Church of England had a good opportunity of supplying the religious want that was then experienced. But it failed to do this. What does the Rev. W. Williams, of Pautycelyn, say?—
    "Pan oedd Cymru gynt yn gorwedd
    Mewn annuwiol farwol hun,
    Heb na Phresperter na ffeirad
    Nac un Esgob ar ddihun;
    Yn y gorwel tywyll du-dew,
    Pryd nad oedd y ffydd ond gwan,
    Pryd yr ofnent fyn'd i'r meusydd,
    Ac i'r lleoedd nad oedd Llan.
    Howel Harries'o Drefecca
    Fel yr Udgorn seiniai ma's,
    Weithiau o Sinai, weithiau o Seion,
    Addewidion nefol ras."
    This describes the time when Wales needed religious instruction, and the Church neglected the opportunity of imparting it. The Welsh nation in those days was similarly situated to the man who went down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among thieves, and the Levite coming along, looked at him and passed by on the other side, and loft him there to die. The priest, like the Levite priest of old, came, and saw, and passed along on the other side, and had it not been for Nonconformity in the character of the Good Samaritan journeying that way, and, taking compassion upon the people, bound up their wounds, poured oil and wins; upon them, set them on their beasts of burden and took care of them, the Welsh would have remained in the same position still. There the Welsh people would have been left until to-day for anything the English Church would have done for them had not the Church been moved by the fear of losing its emoluments. There is one point more to which I would refer. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade admitted last night that the tithes, like all other Church property, were paid for services rendered to the nation at large. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Dean of Manchester, in a paper he read some time ago, said—

    247
    "We must be fundamental, we believe in the Holy Catholic Church, we accept history in England as fairly interpreting its claims. What can be accepted from the civil power, and undertaken by the civil power without damage to the Sovereign, we are still ready to accept and to undertake for the sake of the nation and not otherwise. We must make it clear to the nation that the duty of bringing the people of this kingdom to the kingdom of God and of Christ we have at heart, and neither position nor possession."
    The clergy of the English Church say that they do not receive the tithes for doing other work than that of promoting the Kingdom of God. But in Wales the Church represents less than one-sixth of the people, while there are many parishes in the Principality that receive no service at all from the Church clergy. This is the case in Cardiganshire, Carmarthenshire, and Pembrokeshire. In a parish in Cardiganshire Mr. Griffiths Jones Penlan has been farming land for upwards of 20 years, on which he has paid £10 per annum for tithes, making a total of £200. During the whole of that period he has only been inside the church on one solitary occasion, namely, that of the funeral of his brother, which service is all he has ever received for his payment of £200. [A VOICE: More shame for him.] An hon. Member says "shame" because that person does not go to church, but what use would it be for him to go there, inasmuch as the service of the church is in a foreign tongue, which he, as a Welshman, is unable to understand. In this matter we are dealing with the Welsh-speaking people, and we are forcing upon them services in a foreign language, which they are incapable of understanding, and because they do not like to go to church to hear a service in a foreign tongue you cry "shame." This man is a deacon of a Calvinistic Methodist Chapel and pays every week his fair share towards the support of that chapel. He does not want your services, but still, though you have nothing to give him, you compel him to pay £200. In another case, in Carmarthenshire, the tithe payable in the parish is £78 per annum. There is a tiny church there, about the size of two wheelbarrows, and through the portal of that church there goes not a man, woman, or child from the beginning of January to the
    248
    end of December, and yet you compel the people of that parish to pay £78 a year in tithes. In another place, in Pembrokeshire, we find a small parish and a large farm, and of them you can say that the two are one. Mr. Gibbs, the occupier of that farm, pays somewhere about £50 a year in tithes, and there is not a church in the parish. How, under these circumstances, can you expect the Welsh people to continue loyal? Can you wonder for a moment that the Welsh people are opposing your Pill? It perpetuates a payment to the clergy for which they do nothing. Do you think this Bill is going to bring peace to Wales? I am afraid it will not. The Welsh people have been loyal to a degree. They are a peaceful nation, but I am afraid that if you force this measure upon them instead of bringing peace and goodwill to us you will bring something very different. You will create dissension. If you want us to be peaceful give us justice. It is impossible that lasting peace can exist unless it is based on justice; then, let me appeal to you to give us justice. Allow us to keep our money or give us something in return; we are poor and need the money for national purposes, and we protest against being asked to pay you these tithes without receiving value for them.
    MR. TALBOT: I must say, Mr. Speaker, that from the tone of the hon. Member's remarks I should not have been surprised at his incurring your rebuke for a complaint that this debate has been exclusively carried on in the English language. If it is wrong to have religious services in English it is, surely, equally wrong to have debates in this House in that language. But the hon. Member, despite what he says in regard to the Welsh language, is willing to come here and take part in our deliberations in the language which is common to all Her Majesty's subjects. The lecturing the hon. Gentleman has given is only one illustration, as I venture to think, of the extraordinary manner in which this debate has wandered. It does not seem to me that this debate has really approached the kernel of the question, nor, from what I have heard from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, does it seem to me that they take a very serious view of the situa-

    249
    tion. It is a very curious thing that when one of the most important measures of the Session, which has been introduced by Her Majesty's Government, is under debate the leader of the Opposition is not present in his place If I were to draw any conclusion from the appearance of the House, and especially of the Bench opposite, it would be that the leaders of the Opposition have some difficulty in making up their minds. After all, this is a Bill which in its substance the right hon. Member for Derby said last year he would cordially support. The right hon. Gentleman no doubt will follow, and will tell the House what line he is going to take on this occasion. I shall not be surprised if the right hon. Gentleman says that, although he cannot approve the Bill in every particular, he will not advise his hon. Friends to oppose the Second Reading. Whether he says that or not, that seems to be the tone, indicated by their general demeanour, which the leaders of the Opposition have adopted. That is a reasonable view to take. I am bound to say, however, that on my own side of the House little animation has been displayed on the subject. [Ironical cheers.] Well, perhaps we cannot be animated on all subjects. We look on this from a business point of view. No doubt the hon. Member who has just spoken stirred his friends up to the highest pitch of enthusiasm, I might almost say romance. We have had the subject treated from every point of view—from that of the Welsh bard to that of the politician. But I look at this as a matter of justice. The tithe is the first charge on the land, but it has been, in many cases, more difficult to collect it than the rent. Those who support the Bill do not ask for any exceptional privileges for the tithe owners. All we ask is that until a change is made in the fundamental institutions of the country and the Church is disestablished and disendowed the rights of the tithe owners shall be secured. Surely that is not an unreasonable ground to take. It is the ground on which for some years past I have endeavoured to advocate a settlement of this question. This is the fourth year in which Her Majesty's present Government
    250
    have brought in a Tithe Bill. Introduced under happier auspices than any other measure of the same kind, this Bill bids fair to settle the question, and I should have thought, therefore, that the House of Commons would approach it in a business-like spirit, with the intention of seeing justice done between man and man—which intention and desire has always been the distinguishing characteristic of the British House of Commons. But this debate has degenerated into a Disestablishment debate. Why is that so? Simply, I suppose, because hon. Gentlemen cannot find an opportunity for bringing forward the question of Disestablishment legitimately, and seize upon this Bill as an excuse. And they are utterly irresponsible on this occasion, for they know that an adverse Vote will not injure their cause. When we come to look at the details of this Bill, surely they are such as will commend themselves to the common sense of this House. There is one concession made by the tithe owner which ought not to be lost sight of. At present if land is out of cultivation, two years of tithe arrears can be claimed when it again comes into cultivation. But if this Bill becomes law that claim will fall to the ground. Hon. Members who represent county constituencies will find it rather difficult to persuade their constituents that this Bill is not conceived in their interests, for no one can controvert the statement that it will remove a pressure from the tenant which has long weighed upon him in connection with the tithe rent-charge. It will remove a great deal of friction, and that must be a boon which the tenant farmers of this country will appreciate. Again, it should be remembered that the tithe rent-charge owner is the only person who pays rates upon his income. Living, as the clergy do, upon very narrow incomes, sometimes, I fear, on the very verge of privation, they find themselves called upon to pay rates upon their tithe rent-charge. This surely should be borne in mind when we are considering the re-adjustment of this question. One word as to the redemption clauses. I am glad that the Government have taken up that subject, though in what form they will carry it out may not yet be certain. If the Pre-

    251
    sident of the Board of Trade, however, can induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to grant money on easier terms so as to facilitate redemption he will be doing a great good; and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will, in any case, take care of the interests of the tithe rent-charge owners, from whom great concessions are demanded. I sincerely congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the care and attention which he has given to the subject, and I can promise from this side of the House, if not an absolutely unqualified, at any rate a very general support. The impression left by the debate is that the House has come to the conclusion that the subject ought to be taken out of the category of unsettled questions.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: The hon. Member who has just sat down has found fault with us for not being sufficiently impressed with the magnitude and importance of this Bill, and he complained that I was absent when the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill made his statement. I am very proud that the hon. Gentleman thought it worth while to notice my absence; but there was also absent, apparently, a far more important person when this great measure affecting the tithe was opened to the House, and that was the representative of the University of Oxford (Mr. J. G. Talbot). Therefore, if he will permit me to return the compliment, I will express my extreme surprise that the hon. Gentleman should have chosen that particular moment to absent himself. He has talked of the unanimous tone which has characterised the whole of the debate on the opposite side of the House. The hon. Member must have singular conceptions of what constitutes unanimity. I have listened to every speech made to-night; but if the hon. Gentleman is of opinion that the speeches made by the Members for Maldon (Mr. Gray), West Dorset (Mr. Farquharson), and the Tewkesbury Division of Gloucester (Sir J. Dorington), were speeches unanimously in favour of the proposals of the Government, I entirely differ from him. There was not one single provision of the Bill which the hon. Member for Maldon did not condemn in a very strong manner.
    *MR. GRAY: I am very sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman,
    252
    but I must say I certainly did not express any condemnation of that particular clause which transfers the onus of paying the tithe on to the landlord.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Well, there is one clause which the hon. Member did not altogether condemn. I will do justice to that clause presently. I have to apologise for not having been present yesterday. The fact is I was usefully employed elsewhere. My absence from the opening of the debate was due to no desire to shirk this discussion, or to escape from whatever responsibility might belong to me in respect of this measure. The hon Member for Oswestry (Mr. Stanley Leighton) has said quite truly that I have expressed approbation of any Bill which proposed to do the following things: First, to put the payment of the tithe upon the landlord; secondly, to bring about an abolition of distress; and thirdly, to obtain a reduction of the tithe if the land required it. I entirely agree, and if this Bill contained those provisions, or anything like them, I should be perfectly prepared, however much I might differ on the details, to support it. But, in my opinion, it contains none of them. This Bill does not put the payment upon the landowner and discharge the tenant. Of course you are not speaking of the case where the landowner now pays the tithe, but of the case where the occupier bears the burden. I venture to affirm that where the tenant now pays the tithe under contract with the landlord, this Bill does not discharge him from that payment. He will have to pay it exactly the same, though you may call it by another name. And with regard to the owner who is likewise the occupier there is naturally no pretence that he receives any discharge. Now, I want this to be examined most carefully, because I want the occupiers of this country to see to what extent they get any relief at all under this Bill. You say the Bill abolishes distress. I absolutely deny that it abolishes distress on any occupier whatever against whom it now operates. Not only this, but it introduces distress under circumstances which will make it a much greater burden. It leaves distress in every case where it now exists and makes it far more burdensome and costly than at present. I ask any hon. Gentleman to look at Clause 6,

    253
    Sub-section 2, of the Bill. On the whole, in England I should say, it is the more ordinary case for the tenant to contract to pay the tithe, and that is the case dealt with under this sub-section. In that case the tenant of the land—
    "Shall owe in addition to and as part of his rent, such sum in each year as the owner has paid in respect of the tithe rent-charge."
    He is not relieved of the tithe rent-charge in any way. The landlord has paid the tithe, and he conies down on the tenant and levies upon him in place of the parson. The tithe under the name of rent will be exactly the same thing as the man paid before this Bill was introduced. How then is that man relieved? Take a case in which a tenant pays £100 rent for his farm and the tithe rent-charge is £50. At present the tenant pays £100 rent to his landlord and £50 to the parson. Under this Bill the landlord will pay the £50 to the parson, and he will come down upon the tenant and demand that £50. Calling it rent does not make it different; it is tithe just as it was before. What is the relief then? The only difference is that the landlord levies instead of the parson, and as the agent of the parson. Now, I have said that distress is not done away with. Supposing that tenant says to his landlord, "No, I will pay you the £100, but I will not pay the £50 of tithe which you have paid on my behalf "just as he might have said to the parson, "I will not pay the £50." The only remedy the parson would have would he distress upon the land. But what is the situation of the tenant-farmer now? He is liable, not only for that which can only be levied by distress out of the land, but as you have by this Bill constituted it rent due to the landlord, the remedies against the tenant are the same remedies as those which the landlord has for rent. But that is not all. It becomes a debt which can be sued for; it becomes a personal obligation which affects the whole property and person of the occupier; you can have executions not only against the land, but against the whole property of the tenant; ay, and in the last resource you can have ejectment for non-payment of this sum of money, which really is tithe. I say that so far from relieving the occupying farmer you place upon him a threefold burden; you
    254
    create against him two remedies for levying this sum of money to which he was not liable before. He is liable to tithe as a debt for winch, after judgment, he may be sent to prison, and you have made him liable to ejectment. A nice position this, in which to place the Nonconformists of Wales. You create against the tenant remedies of a most oppressive character to which he is not now subjected. That is the case of the tenant under contract to pay tithe at present; it will be screwed out of him as before. Now, let me ask the attention of the House to a matter of the gravest importance, and one which ought to be thoroughly understood in the country. Look at the condition of the small holder who is owner and occupier of his own land. In my mind, that is a class of the community that requires the greatest protection at the hands of this House. He is dealt with in Clause 3, Sub-section 2, which says—
    "Where the owner of the lands is also the occupier, he shall, on the appointment of the Receiver become tenant to the Receiver in like manner as if he had attorned tenant to him as owner, and the sum ordered to be paid were the rent payable to the Receiver as such owner."
    I ask the House to listen to this and to consider the case of a man of this class, so numerous in Wales, who refuses to pay tithe. In what position does this Bill place him? He is made tenant to the Receiver. Who is the Receiver? He is the agent of the parson, he is the tithe collector—what used to be called in Ireland the tithe proctor—and you positively take this freeholder and, in order to collect the tithe, make him tenant to the tithe collector. Is this going' to bring peace to Wales? A more monstrous outrage I never heard of. [Ministerial laughter.] Yes, you may laugh at these small freeholders, but you will soon laugh at the wrong side of your mouth, I think. If you make the small freeholders in England and Wales tenants to the tithe collector, you will find that your tithe, and the objects for which it is collected, will disappear very rapidly. Under this clause the tithe collector will have all the rights of the landlord, and amongst them, of course, the power of distress. What becomes, then, of the pretence that you do away with distress? The very first remedy that will be applied under

    255
    this clause is distress. The freeholder, being tenant to the Receiver, is subject also to an action and to judgment and consequences of judgment. This clause says—
    "Where the owner of the lands is also the occupier he shall, on the appointment of the Receiver, become tenant to the Receiver in like manner as if he had attorned tenant to him."
    There is no attempt to define the conditions of this tenancy, and whether they are to contain a provision for re-entry is not stated, but whether there is to be a provision for re-entry or not, if the man is made tenant to the tithe-collector he can be turned out of his tenancy at any time. It comes to this, that you make the small freeholder the tenant of the parson in order that the latter may recover the tithe. To suppose that you are going to bring peace to Wales by legislation of this character, to my mind, passes beyond the limits of absurdity. In Clause 3 you deal with the non-occupying landowner, and whilst you have created a personal liability in the case of the occupier, you take very good care that the landowner shall have no personal liability whatever. Throughout this Bill your extreme regard for the interests of the landowner and your extreme his regard of the interests of the occupier are conspicuous. In the first section of Clause 3 a landowner not being an occupier is protected in this way:—
    "An order under this Act shall not be executed personally against the owner."
    But there is no provision that an order shall not be executed personally against the occupier; in fact, it is to be executed personally against the occupier. Therefore, whilst you have provided that the owner shall not be personally liable,
    "Nor by sale of the lands nor by any process of law other than that provided by this Act,"
    you give no such protection to the occupier. Why then does the hon. Member for the Oswestry Division (Mr. Stanley Leighton) claim my vote for this Bill? It violates every principle which he asks me to support. He may, perhaps, say that some of the Amendments which were inserted by the Attorney General at the eleventh hour last Session were open to the same objection. That is perfectly true. I must confess that when those clauses were flashed
    256
    upon us all of a sudden by the Attorney General, I did not realise that this was the case. [Ministerial cries of "Oh!"] No, and I venture to say that at the time nobody realised it. It is rather remarkable that even in this debate no one has yet drawn attention to the consequence of making a man liable for rent in this manner, and to how entirely it changes the aspect of the question when you do that which is the keystone of this Bill, convert tithe rent-charge into a rent liability. If it be a reproach to me that I did not realise that these consequences would have followed from the proposals made last year, I accept the censure that may be passed upon me. I do not believe the Government realised what they were doing. I believe they thought they were giving relief to the tenant, whereas they were really imposing upon him a great burden. I also approved, as the hon. Member for Oswestry says, of the reduction of the tithe rent-charge. When the hon. and learned Attorney General produced his new clauses to the House last year, there was one which I fixed upon at the time as most valuable. That was the clause for the constitution of the County Court as a Land Court to revise the tithes, and now that clause has disappeared altogether. It is remarkable that the President of the Board of Trade denounced that clause and its principle in his speech yesterday. The Government are not fortunate with their Tithe Bills. They have introduced four, and they have all miscarried. Last Session they introduced a measure which was so knocked to pieces that they were obliged to change its whole scope, and now one of the very Amendments which they then proposed is condemned by the President of the Board of Trade. That Amendment said—
    "The Court, on being satisfied by evidence that it is just, shall make such order for the remission of part of the sum claimed as will prevent the total sum of the tithe rent-charge from exceeding the annual sum which, under all the circumstances of the case, may reasonably be taken to have been the net profit of the land."
    That is something like a remission of tithe. Net profit was the principle of that measure. If there was no net profit the whole sum could be remitted and

    257
    the amount so remitted could not be recovered. But all that has gone, and the Amendment proposed by the Attorney General, I suppose with the sanction of the Cabinet, carrying that principle into effect has altogether disappeared. And what have we in its place? We have this extraordinary affair called the special rateable value. I should have thought the farmers of England had been bothered enough with rateable value already without being introduced to a new rateable value. This is an entirely new departure from the proposal of the Attorney General last year, and I am not pledged to support anything entirely different from that. This is not the Bill I am pledged to support. In my belief this is nothing but a re-opening of the settlement of 1836. In my opinion, the claim of hon. Gentlemen opposite and on this side of the House for a fair and equitable revision of the position of the tithepayers is one that cannot and ought not to be resisted. I am glad that hon. Members behind me will take the opinion of the House about going into Committee upon the question whether there ought not to be a revision of the tithe. I think Her Majesty's Government must perceive from the speeches which have been made from their own Benches the largeness of the undertaking they have entered upon. The alterations demanded by the hon. Member for the Maldon Division (Mr. Gray) and the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Farquharson) are alterations of the whole fabric of the Bill. As to the Redemption Clauses, they have been condemned past all redemption by the speakers who sit behind me. There was no epithet of contempt which the hon. Member for West Dorset did not heap upon them. He said that under the terms fixed by this Bill no man in his senses would redeem, except it was in the case of small building property. Unless the Government intend to keep us sitting till September I should advise them to withdraw the redemption clauses. They are of no use to anybody; they are utterly unworkable, and I do not think they could ever be hammered into a workable measure. In dealing with property of this character, where the value is to be determined by bargain between the tithe owner
    258
    and the tithepayer, I can conceive no worse Body to preside over that bargain than the Board of Agriculture—it is the most unfit body that could be chosen. As the hon. Member for West Dorset said, the person who would negotiate on behalf of Church property would be merely the life tenant. The life tenant is not the proper person to deal in bargains with respect to that description of property, and if the redemptions are carried out the very worst Body to remain Trustees of that description of national property is the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. In their whole framework the redemption clauses are to be condemned. I confess I see but one merit in this Bill, and that is, that it professes to transfer the burden of tithes from the tenant to the landowner. But in its present shape it does not do so at all. As long as you leave the tithe upon the land you cannot help interfering with the tenant, because the occupier is the person from whom the tithe is to be collected. You have no hesitation in making the occupier personally responsible, and you have done so, but you have not made the landowner personally responsible. In all these respects it appears to me that the Bill entirely fails to accomplish the objects you professed in our discussion last August. It does not relieve the tenant by transferring the burden of liability to the landlord, and it does not abolish distress. It keeps up distress in every case where it at present exists, and it does not provide anything adequate to meet the other evils of an action against the tenant and dismissal from his holding. Nor does it provide anything adequate for the revision of the tithe. Under these circumstances I confess I see extremely little in this Bill that should make it worth adopting, and certainly nothing that promises a settlement of the tithe question. Throughout this discussion I have endeavoured to conform to the invitation of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Talbot), and to discuss the matter quite apart from the question of the appropriation of tithe. I have said nothing with regard to disestablishment, although I have my own opinion on it. I have looked at the question only from the point of view of the effect the Bill will have on the occupier of land in England, which, I think, will be most pre-

    259
    judicial. With reference to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton), and the speeches we have heard from representatives of Wales, if I may offer a word of advice to them, it is that they should sever the question of Welsh Disestablishment from the question of English Disestablishment. I think it is unfortunate that in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leicester the two questions are involved the one with the other; and it would be far better if the question of Welsh Disestablishment were made the subject of a separate Motion. When it is thus raised I shall heartily support it, for I believe the case for Welsh Disestablishment and the appropriation of Welsh tithes to education or other national purposes has been abundantly established and ought to be supported. No doubt we shall have to go into Committee on this Bill; but unless the Government alter the Bill as materially and as fundamentally as they altered the Bill of last year, I do not think there is the smallest chance of its passing into law. If they want to save the time of the House I strongly advise them to throw a great deal of their cargo overboard. If they confine their Bill to one or two clauses, one clause throwing the liability for tithe upon the landowner, and another clause giving the County Court power to equitably revise the rent-charge, then they might pass their Bill. But in the form in which it is now framed the Bill does neither of these two things. The occupier is left with all the grievances complained of, his burden is practically as before. A Bill which leaves the remedy of distraint and other remedies extant against the occupier, and which gives no equitable revision of the tithe, is a Bill so useless and so injurious that if a Division is taken I shall certainly vote against the Second Reading.
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): The right hon. Gentleman always interests the House, and never more so than when he is replying to himself. He has devoted the body of his speech to explaining away, as far as he can, that cordial approval which he bestowed on these self-same propositions when they were before the House last Session. The right hon. Gentleman is frank; he says
    260
    it is only recently he has found salvation on this subject; possibly what happened yesterday may have contributed to it; and I still cherish the belief that if he had spoken early yesterday we might have found him in the same mind he was in last August, when he assured the Government of his cordial support in passing these very propositions which he assures us now are impossible and untenable. The Amendments proposed last August by the Attorney General are not merely substantially but they are verbally identical with two of the clauses of the Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman objects to-night—Clauses 3 and 6. And what said the right hon. Gentleman then? He said—
    "What I desire is that the Government should introduce a clean Bill, if I may be allowed to call it so, such a Bill as that circulated in the form of the Amendments of the Attorney General. We will then consider that Bill, and deal with it as containing a principle we on this side of the House approve of, namely, that the tithe shall be put on the owner, and not on the occupier. It further contains the principle that the tithe shall be reduced when rents and profits are not adequate to meet it. We approve of that, and also of the principle that in future the power of distraint should be abolished."
    Well, Sir, that is the Bill of this Session. We have adopted the very words which at that time met with the warm approval of the right hon. Gentleman, although I am bound to say they were not viewed with equal approval by the right hon. Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan); for I believe he was almost a martyr, or at least a confessor, for the principles he then expressed, and to which he has now converted his right hon. Friend. I am unable to follow the particular circumstances which have led the right hon. Member for Derby this year to sit at the feet of the right hon. Member for Denbighshire; but the fact is evident. There is only one respect in which the Bill of this year departs from the Amendments of the Attorney General; that is in the clause by which the Assessment Committee are substituted for the County Court for valuation purposes. Those who are familiar with county business will see how considerably the Bill of this year benefits the occupier of the land as compared with the Bill of last year; because this Bill makes it possible to bring down

    261
    tithe to the level of the rateable value, which is formed on the basis of the land having paid a certain profit over the rental value instead of bringing it down to the net profit, which does not allow any margin of the sort. If the right hon. Gentleman has at heart the interest of the tenant-farmers, with whom he occasionally endeavours to coquet, though I think not very successfully, he should find in this clause an additional reason for supporting proposals on which he bestowed such encomiums last year. I do not know that I need occupy more time with the objections of the right hon. Gentleman; we may leave the speech of the one year to reply to that of the other. I think I have shown that the controversy is not so much between us and the right hon. Gentleman as between himself and one of his many former selves. For a moment or two I will refer to a few other speeches, though I am most unwilling at this hour to follow my hon. Friends and neighbours of Wales, who have made this discussion a sort of happy hunting ground for airing their views on Welsh disestablishment. I was glad to hear the words of counsel the right hon. Gentleman gave as to keeping separate questions distinct from each other; but I fear his example may, before long, be in the opposite direction. The Mover of the Amendment and others appeared to me to labour under a strange confusion and conflict of purposes, which made their speeches more interesting as psychological exercises than as contributions to serious debate. We have had hon. Gentlemen objecting to the Bill because it is a tithe owners' Bill, and we have had others objecting because they say it whittles away the property of the tithe. Not un-frequently we have heard hon. Gentlemen make use of both of these mutually destructive lines of argument as reasons for opposing the Bill. Most of the speeches which we have heard have answered each other; and it has been characteristic of more than one speech delivered below the Gangway opposite that it has answered itself. It is said that this Bill ought to be opposed because it will diminish what is called the national property in tithe, and we are told that this is national property because it belongs to the National Church, and then we are
    262
    also told that the Church is no longer to be regarded as the National Church. We are told that the State ought to take possession of the tithe because it belongs to a National Institution, and in the same breath we are told that the Church is not a National Institution. Such are the mutually destructive arguments of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and constitute the stock-in-trade of the usual disestablishment speeches we have listened to. But the hon. Member for the Bye Division (Mr. Stevenson) has discovered another pretext which excites our interest and cariosity more than the others with which we are more familiar. He told us we were to regard the tithe as not paid by the tenant—and there, I think, he was right—as not paid by the owner—and there, in a certain sense, he was also right—and then he proceeded to deduce from these established propositions the theory that the tithe is paid by the community, and therefore it was possible the community might become the recipients of the tithe. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is a landed proprietor; if he is, I trust he is not a mortgagor. If he is the proprietor of property subject to mortgage, he might as well declare that he does not pay the interest on the mortgage; it is paid by the community amongst whom he would otherwise spend his money. I remember he introduced this argument last year, and it struck me as one of the most interesting curiosities produced from the brain of hon. Gentlemen carrying on the search for novelties in politics. The speeches delivered by hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House have been very valuable contributious to the discussion. The hon. Member for the Maldon Division (Mr. Gray) has spoken with a vigour and independence which Her Majesty's Government are ready to honour and value; but though he made several suggestions as to the direction in which this Bill might be improved, he spoke generally in favour of it. The point he urged in regard to the separate assessment of buildings and land, and the deduction of the rateable value of buildings, is one the Government regard as well deserving consideration. There was another point he urged in the coarse of his speech with regard to the Board of Agriculture being allowed to appoint an arbitrator in the fixing the value of the tithe rent-charge which also appears to the Government

    263
    to demand very careful examination. In the same way some of the suggestions of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Farquharson), although perhaps not so practical because a little more ambitious, are yet suggestions the Government are glad to have heard, and which will receive the attention of the House in Committee. There have been two speeches made in the course of the debate in regard to the Welsh part of this question which I should like to notice. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said Wales was unanimous against the Bill, and that if this Bill were forced through it would justify a Separatist movement for Wales.
    MR. STUART RENDEL: What I said was a Separatist movement in this House.
    *MR.RAIKES: A Separatist movement in this House, I suppose by Welsh Members. But having fired off his minor pieces of artillery, the hon. Gentleman proceeded to tell us this is a punitive measure. Looking at the Times I do not find that word in the report of his speech; but he used the expression. Well, I shall have an opportunity next week of addressing a Welsh constituency, and I may tell the hon. Member that the first and foremost measure to which I will call attention, as a claim of the Government on the confidence of the Welsh people, will be this very measure he so describes. I feel sure that any audience in Wales before whom the effect of the measure is fairly stated and not misrepresented and garbled by those who make it their business to misrepresent, and who live by misrepresentation.—["Oh, oh!"]—I am making no reference to any Member of this House—I have never known any Member to be guilty of that—I am sure that any audience in Wales would regard this measure as a boon, and by no means as punitive. Unfortunately there are those in Wales who in the vernacular Press make it their business to misrepresent; indeed, one of the qualifications for a Radical candidate in a Welsh constituency at the present time appears to be that he should not understand the arguments by which he is recommended to the electors. Although I am not master of the vernacular tongue, I, for my part, am prepared to tell the Welsh people the truth about this Bill; and I am sure that
    264
    fair-minded men, of whom there are hundreds of thousands in Wales, so far from considering this as a punitive measure will regard it as a measure relieving the tenant-farmers from a grievance of which they have long complained. No doubt it will be punitive to the agitator, for it will deprive him of part of his stock-in-trade. I do not however, think that pity is likely to be excited for those who, having fostered and aggravated that grievance, are now doing all in their power to prevent its removal. I have only one word more to say, and that is with reference to the speech delivered two days ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Denbighshire. He went down in hot haste and, addressing his constituents, he declared the tenant would under this Bill be put in a worse position, an infinitely worse position, than before; that he was liable to be put into the County Court, to be mulcted in heavy costs, to be turned out of his holding by an officer of the Court in whose clutches he would remain until he paid the uttermost farthing. I wish my right hon. Friend had read the Bill before he made such an astounding statement. My right hon. Friend enjoyed some reputation at the Bar. He must know that a more outrageous distortion of the whole provisions of the Bill was never attempted.
    *MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: The right hon. Gentleman is quoting from an abbreviated report of my remarks. I was referring particularly to the 6th clause and to the occupying owner.
    *MR. RAIKES: I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the responsibility of the report. I have no doubt the most friendly reporter is sometimes obliged to abbreviate the reports of my right hon. Friend's speeches. But I am not able to give way altogether, for whether the right hon. Gentleman refers to the 6th clause or any other clause of the Bill, I should like to know how he can possibly justify the assertion that the tenant is liable to be put into the County Court and mulcted heavily in costs, because it is the owner who is to be put into the County Court, it is the owner who will have to pay costs, not the tenant. I know my right hon. Friend had no wish to misrepresent the Bill; but if he had he could not have done it more thoroughly. It is only right to expose

    265
    such misstatements in this House when they are made by a man of light and leading in Wales like my right hon. Friend. The system adopted in the Bill, the system of collecting from the owner not the occupier, has been the immemorial custom in Scotland. It has been in existence, I believe, almost ever since the Reformation. We have the experience of the most practical people in the world to guide us, and we see the Church of Scotland existing under these conditions, and retaining the affection and sympathy of the people. Certainly it cannot be denied that the Church of Scotland exercises a powerful influence in the social life of Scotland. This is the system we are putting into operation, and I believe our proposal will meet the approval of the House of Commons as a body, and that we shall be followed by some of the Members of the right hon. Gentleman's own Party. Where is the Leader of the Liberal Party? He is, I presume, where the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby was last year. He has not yet found salvation by listening to the eloquence of the Member for Denbighshire. The Bill, I believe, will be appreciated by the great majority of the people of the country, not as an attempt to aggrandise the Church, not to improve the position of landowners, but a serious effort to place the burden on the right shoulders, and relieve those who plead scruples of conscience against the payment of a just debt. We shall have the satisfaction of knowing that we have placed in a position of security this property, which I believe to be the property of the Church, but which equally requires to be guarded and defended if, as others say, it is property belonging to the nation.
    MR. PHILIPPS: I desire, Sir, to be allowed to make a personal explanation. In the heat of debate last night I made use of an expression in reference to the hon. Member for East Bradford which, as reported in the Times, is not correct; but which in any case, because of its personal nature, I regret having used.
    (11.55.) The House divided:—Ayes 289; Noes 164.—(Div. List, No. 39.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday 24th April.

INFECTIOUS DISEASE (PREVENTION) BILL.—(No. 80).
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 19.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I regret I was not in the House when this Bill came on last night. I understand that objection was raised to its being proceeded with in consequence of a fear on the part of some hon. Members that power would be given to the Local Government Board to approve the inclusion of certain diseases which are contagious in their character in the operation of this Bill. A similar question was raised last year, and I was then successful in assuring hon. Members that the word infectious distinctly excluded such diseases. I may say that my opinion is fortified by that of the Law Officers of the Crown. If, after consultation, hon. Gentlemen still think it necessary to expressly provide against this contingency, I will undertake to introduce the necessary words in the Interpretation Clause on the Report stage.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 20.
DR. TANNER: I desire to bring an important point arising out of this clause under the attention of the Committee. This clause provides that where the Act is put in force in any district in which a Local Act containing a similar provision is in force, such last-mentioned provision shall cease to be in operation. Now, I consider that to be altogether superfluous, and I propose to move that this clause be expunged, and that the Act shall not be put in force in any district in which similar provisions are enforced under a Local Act.
Amendment proposed, "That Clause 20 be omitted."
Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
MR. RITCHIE: If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to scan Clause 20 carefully he will find that if the provisions of this Act are by a Local Act enforced in any particular district this Act shall not apply.
DR TANNER: My point is that this clause is superfluous. Surely every district is the best authority to decide what are its own requirements. I will appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast to say if he thinks it judicious the clause should pass in its present form.
MR. SEXTON: I think the assurances we have received from the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill are satisfactory.
DR. TANNER: Very well. In deference to my hon. Friend's superior judgment I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday 14th April, and to be printed. [Bill 210.]

TREES (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 70.)
Considered in Committee. (In the Committee.)
Clause 2.
Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 9, after the word "shall," to insert the words "subject as hereinafter mentioned."—(Mr. Macartney.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Objection being taken to Further Proceedings, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday 23rd April.

TREES (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 70.)

  INLAND REVENUE REGULATION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Jackson, Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to the regulation of the Inland Revenue, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jackson, Mr. William Henry Smith, and Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 211.]

  HOP INDUSTRY.
  Ordered, That Sir Roper Lethbridge be discharged from further attendance on the Select Committee on Hop Industry.
  Ordered, That Mr. Herbert Knatchbull-Hugessen be added to the Committee.—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before One o'clock.