Commons Sitting of 10 February 1891

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  LEICESTER EXTENSION BILL.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [9th February]—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that the Committee do provide that those parishes or portions of parishes which under the Extension Bill are included in the borough but exempted from the payment of School Board rates, shall also be exempted from voting for Members of the School Board so long as their exemption from these rates continues, and that the Leicester School Board shall remain

  293
  free from responsibility as to the school attendance in those areas."—(Mr. James Ellis.)
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. JAMES ELLIS: In moving this Instruction, I wish to explain that Clause 70 of the Bill provides that the parish of Knighton and portions of other parishes in the immediate neighbourhood of the borough of Leicester shall be specially exempted from the payment of School Board rates until the Education Act in pursuance of the Elementary Education Act of 1870 shall provide that further school accommodation is necessary in such parishes, and shall declare that such accommodation, not having been provided by the parishes themselves, has been provided by the Leicester School Board at the request of the Education Department. I am sorry to appear in any way to oppose the Corporation of Leicester. I admit that the Bill which is now before the House is one which is much needed, and one of which I heartily approve, except in regard to this simple provision. I believe that the time has come when it is absolutely necessary that the old boundaries of the borough should be extended, and I think that the present proposal to take in the parishes enumerated in the Bill is as wise as any that can be proposed. But I am also of opinion that when they are taken in they ought to be taken in once for all and on the same terms. In this matter I simply represent the educational body of Leicester—the Leicester School Board. I do not profess to criticise the Bill as a whole, but simply to take exception to that part of it which affects the School Board. The parish of Knighton, in fact, represents the richest part of the town of Leicester, and it happens to be outside the boundary of the borough. But the wealth of Knighton is derived from Leicester. In olden times a tradesman lived close to his warehouse, and a shopkeeper close to his shop. It is, however, the custom in modern times for tradesmen and manufacturers to live outside the town. That fact does not lessen their interest in the town, or relieve them from the obligation to contribute towards its rates. My contention is that they ought no longer to be allowed to evade
  294
  the rates. They receive immense benefit from the borough of Leicester; they get their gas at a very cheap rate, and water is brought to them which they could not possibly bring for themselves. But, although they derive enormous advantages from their connection with the borough, they desire to escape the obligations which ought to fall upon them. I must say I am surprised that they should be unwilling, while they take part in the administration of the affairs of the borough, to avoid paying what is due from them. The Leicester School Board consists of 15 persons. It was elected two years ago without a contest, and it fairly represents the whole of the inhabitants, not only in a religious but a political point of view. It comprises a clergyman of an antient parish, several Churchmen, a Roman Catholic, a Baptist, and other Dissenters, and I myself represent the Society of Friends. So far as politics are concerned, we represent everybody in this House except our Irish friends below the Gangway, and upon this question we are absolutely unanimous. There is not a single dissentient from the opinion that the onus now laid on the part of the borough we represent is unjust. The question does not rest with Knighton alone. Knighton is provided already with a school equal to the education of its present inhabitants, and perhaps some 200 more. No one knows for a fact whether that is so or not, because there is no efficient management of the children with a view of bringing them into the school, for the Rural Authority takes little or no interest in the matter. But the difficulty does not stop there, because there are other parishes adjoining, such as the Abbey Lands, where Cardinal Wolsey died, and others which are un provided for. At present the children have no schools to go to, except those within the borough. I maintain that it is unjust to the ratepayers of the borough that they should be required to provide education to the children of these parishes at a cost per head of 12s. 6d. Unless something is now done to remedy this evil and anomaly, I venture to prophesy that for the next 20 years the question will not be one of this or that education, but of teaching the children out of the borough rates. I have no wish to labour the question, but I think

  295
  we have a very strong case. In Germany, houses, warehouses, schools, and everything are mapped out and placed in their proper places; but in this country, unfortunately, the system is to allow every individual to do pretty much as he likes. My contention is, that if we pass this Bill as it stands we shall introduce a new element of confusion and disorder. I therefore ask this House, not only in the interests of the people of Leicester, but of all other towns to assent to this Instruction, or something equivalent to it.
  MR.TAPLING: The hon. Member opposite has given a history of this case from his own point of view, but I hope to put a different complexion upon it. I think it is an error to say that there is any unwillingness, as far as Knighton is concerned, to come into the borough of Leicester. The hon. Member has alluded to other districts, but they are of very little importance, and Knighton alone is really aimed at in this Instruction. The Corporation of Leicester have been anxious to enlarge the boundaries of the borough, but they have been met with very great opposition. They have now come to a definite arrangement with the principal inhabitants of Knighton. The circumstances of Knighton are somewhat peculiar. There is a very good school there, towards which large sums of money have been subscribed through the liberality of the inhabitants. As yet there has never been a school rate in Knighton, and when the inhabitants were asked to be included in the Leicester rate they made the reasonable request, that if they are to continue to carry on their school at their own expense they should not be saddled with the school rate of Leicester. The Corporation have assented to that principle, and are willing to carry out an arrangement to that effect. But, after all, this is not a permanent arrangement, because in future it will become, in all probability, the duty of the School Board to supply additional accommodation in Knighton, in which case the ordinary School Board rate will be imposed on the ratepayers of that place. The agreement between the Corporation and the inhabitants of Knighton is embodied in the 70th section of the present Bill. And I may add, that the Manchester and Stockton-on Tees Improvement Bills contain
  296
  similar provisions. If this Instruction is carried it will involve the Corporation of Leicester in a breach of faith towards the inhabitants of Knighton. And on that ground I ask the House to reject it. The latter part of the Instruction asks that the Leicester School Board shall remain free from responsibility as to the school attendance in the new areas. If the Bill is assented to by the House it will have the effect of providing that the Attendance Committee of the Union, which includes Knighton, shall in future have no jurisdiction at all in Knighton as regards the School Board. There would thus be absolutely no educational control whatever in Knighton. I venture to think that my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council will not be prepared to tolerate such a state of things for a single moment, seeing that it would inflict a serious injury upon the cause of education in Knighton and upon the Voluntary Schools there, which up to now have been eminently successful. The expense of an attendance officer from Leicester to look after the attendance at Knighton would be very small indeed, and is not likely to be for an indefinite period, as I have no doubt that the parish before long will be included within the borough for education purposes. The proposal of the hon. Member, if adopted, will have the effect of abolishing all control over the attendance of the children at Knighton, and will practically take them out of the operation of the Education Act. I am not authorised to say so, but I do not think my constituents would feel inclined to hold out about the question of votes. That, however, is a matter which may be considered in Committee. and the Bill amended accordingly. I ask the House to leave the discretion in the matter to the Committee upstairs, instead of imposing this mandate upon them. I am afraid that if the Instruction is carried it will seriously jeopardise the passing of the Bill, and I therefore trust that the hon. Member will withdraw it.
  MR. JAMES ELLIS: If the hon. Member will give an assurance that the inhabitants of Knighton will forego the voting power I am ready to withdraw the Instruction.
  MR. TAPLING: I am not authorised to give that assurance on their behalf.
  SIR W. FOSTER: The Corporation of Leicester are at present engaged in the difficult task of making arrangements with the outlying parishes in order to increase the area of the borough. I know how difficult such an operation is, especially in regard to a great and important borough like Leicester. At the first sight I was inclined to support the Corporation in the arrangement they propose to make, but I feel that it is introducing a new principle, which is altogether unconstitutional. Hitherto I have always been taught that taxation without representation is a kind of tyranny, but here we are going to have representation without any taxation whatever. I think it would be a mistake to introduce into the Bill the principle of giving to a certain number of the inhabitants the power of electing members to the School Board without requiring them to contribute to the School Board rates. I think the suggestion thrown out by the hon. Member for the Harborough Division (Mr. Tapling) is a wise one, and I trust that it will be adopted.
  MR. COURTNEY: I think it is a pity that this discussion should be continued, because it can scarcely be seriously maintained that the parish of Knighton, while not contributing to the school rate for Leicester, should yet possess the power of voting at the School Board elections. I believe that any Committee upstairs would view such a proposal with distrust and dissatisfaction, and I therefore hope that some agreement will be come to. I listened to the remarks of the hon. Member for the Harborough Division in opposition to the Instruction, and I think he exercised great discretion in intimating the practicability of bringing the parish of Knighton within the borough of Leicester, with the proviso that so-long as it was not called upon to contribute to the school rates it should not possess a voting power in the election of the members of the School Board.

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;—
  The House went;—and being returned;—
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—
  1. Tramways Order in Council (Ireland) (Athenry and Tuam Extension to Claremorris Railway) Confirmation Act, 1891.

  LEICESTER EXTENSION BILL.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. TAPLING: I have only a word to say, with the permission of the House. I wish to repeat my own strong opinion that my constituents at Knighton would give way on the question of voting, if the hon. Member opposite will give way as to school attendance. That would be a compromise. I will do my best to get it agreed to.
  MR. JAMES ELLIS: I am very glad to assent to that proposal, and I beg to withdraw the Instruction.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY (RATES AND CHARGES) PROVISIONAL ORDER.
  Motion made, and Question proposed
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under 'The Railway and Canal Traffiic Act, 1888,' containing the Classification of Merchandise Traffic, and the Schedule of Maximum Rates and Charges applicable thereto, of the Great Northern Railway Company, and certain other Railway Companies connected therewith."—(Sir M. Hicks Beach.)
  MR. P. STANHOPE: Before the Question is put I should like to obtain, if possible, an undertaking from the President of the Board of Trade that he will give, the House an opportunity of discussing the general principle contained in this and the other Bills about to be brought forward. I admit, of course, that the general terms of these Bills have already been more or less defined by the Railway Act passed two years ago; but there are other proposals made by the Board of Trade which, in my opinion, ought to be fully discussed by the House before the Bills are sent to a Select Committee. I

  299
  will therefore ask if the right hon. Gentleman will undertake that the Committee shall be large one, and representative of all sections in the House, so that this question may be fully and adequately discussed?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: Some time must necessarily elapse before the Second Reading of the Bills can be moved, and in the interval it will be my duty to ascertain what is the desire of the House in the matter. I should like to point out that it is absolutely impossible for the details of the classification or of rates to be discussed in a Debate in the House of Commons; these matters can only be settled by a strong Joint Committee of both Houses, to which I hope these Bills will be referred without any unnecessary delay.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  OFFICERS TRAINING ROYAL NAVY AND ROYAL MARINE ARTILLERY.
  Return ordered—
  "Showing training and pay and pensions of the Executive Officers up to and including the rank of Lieutenant Royal Navy, and up to and including the rank of Captain Royal Marine Artillery, and furnishing similar information respecting Executive Warrant Officers Royal Navy."— (Sir John Colomb.)

  SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM BUILDINGS.
  Copy ordered—
  "Of the Conditions under which the competition has been invited for the building about to be erected to complete the South Kensington Museum."—(Mr. Bartley.)

  BUILDING SOCIETIES.
  Return ordered—
  "Of an Abstract of the Accounts furnished by Building Societies incorporated to the 31st day of December, 1890, including Great Britain and Ireland, under the Building Societies Acts, in pursuance of the Act 37 and 38, Vic. c. 42, s. 40, in the annexed form: —

  Register Number.

  Year when Incorporated.

  Name of Society, and Chief Office or Place of Meeting.

  Year of the Society's Existence.

  Date to which Accounts are made up.

  Number of Members (where stated).

  £

  Total Receipts during the last Financial Year.

  £

  To the Holders of Shares.

  Liabilities.

  £

  To Depositors and other Creditors.

  £

  Balance of Unappropriated Profit.

  £

  Balance Deficit (if any).

  £

  Balance due on Mortgage Securities (not including prospective
  Interest).

  As ets.

  £

  Amount Invested in other Securities, and Cash.

  (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 273, of Session
  1889)."—(Sir Robert Flower.)

QUESTIONS.

  THE INDIAN HOSPITAL CORPS.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether it is the case that the men of the Indian Hospital Corps and bearer companies in war time receive less rations than the Sepoy; are allowed only 10 lbs. weight of kit against 33 lbs. allowed to the Sepoy; are entirely unarmed when in the field; and are rewarded only by a bronze medal, while the Sepoy receives a silver

  301
  one; and whether anything can be done to remedy these conditions?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,: The statements contained in the question are substantially correct. The arrangements referred to are made by the Military Authorities in India, and the Secretary of State sees no ground for interfering with them.

  MAGAZINE RIFLES FOR INDIA.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office asked the Indian Government £5 10s. a piece for magazine rifles to be supplied to it, or at what price these rifles are now being offered to the Indian Government; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Correspondence which has passed between the War Office and the Government of India on this subject; and whether, before it is "decided what royalty or other payment shall be made in connection" with Mr. Speed's patents affecting the new magazine rifle, an opportunity will be given to this House of expressing its opinion on any such proposed decision?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,: The Government of India will take two-fifths of their supply from contractors, and the remaining two-fifths from Government Factories at a higher price, thus sharing with the Government the higher price, which is the rule in regard to contract made weapons. My answer to the second question of the right hon. Gentlemen is, that by the Patents Act, 46 and 47 Victoria, Cap. 57, Sec. 27, the responsibility rests with the Treasury of approving the payments which may be awarded for royalties.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether the Government did ask £5 10s. each for the rifles supplied by them to India?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Certainly, Sir; I told the right hon. Gentleman about it the other day. £4 15s. was the cost of preparing them (without the bayonet) at the ordnance factories, and £4 at the
  302
  works of the contractor. Three-fifths came from the ordnance factories and two-fifths from the contractors.

  GOLD COINAGE BILL.
  MR. MONTAGU: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to introduce the Gold Coinage Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: After mature consideration, I have come to the conclusion not to press forward this measure till I see my way clearly as to whether it may not be convenient and expedient to link the restoration of the gold coinage with some further proposals relating to currency.

  THE MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL.
  MR. PHILIP STANHOPE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the recent application of the Manchester Ship Canal Company to the Corporation of Manchester for financial assistance, and to the fact that the Manchester Ship Canal Acts contain provisions for the vesting of the undertaking, under certain circumstances, in a public Trust; and if, in view of this application, he will afford facilities for the discussion of the Canal Development Bill, now before Parliament for the fourth succeeding Session, or will allow it to be referred to a Select Committee, in order that the whole question of the development of canals under responsible Public Authorities may be adequately considered?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes, Sir; I am aware of the application of the Manchester Ship Canal Company to the Corporation of Manchester, and of the provisions of the Manchester Ship Canal Act. I do not quite see the connection between the first part of the hon. Member's question and the second, and at present I do not propose to ask the House to consider the whole question of the development of canals.

  LAUNCH OF NEW WARSHIPS.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether arrangements can be made for the accommodation of such Members of the House as may desire to

  303
  attend the interesting ceremony at Portsmouth Dockyard on the 26th instant, when Her Majesty the Queen is expected to be present to name the two new powerful ships Royal Sovereign and Duke of Connaught, about to be added to the British Navy, now in course of construction at that dockyard; and whether Members can be accompanied by their wives or daughters?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,: Believing that certain Members of the House would desire to witness this ceremony I have had 500 places reserved for their accommodation. The Secretary of the Speaker has been good enough to undertake their distribution under the same conditions as tickets were issued for the late Reviews.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: About the ladies?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I propose that every Member shall have power to take with him either a wife or a daughter.

  BANK OF ENGLAND NOTES.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under the present law regulating the issue of bank notes, the Bank of England is bound to pay five sovereigns (or other equivalent gold coin) for each £5 note of their issue, and similarly for notes of a larger denomination, or whether the Bank can legally tender for such notes 40s. in silver and the balance only in standard gold coin?
  MR. GOSCHEN: No, Sir; the Bank of England cannot tender 40s. in silver in part payment for a £5 note. They are bound to pay the whole amount in standard gold coin.

  METROPOLITAN STREET ACCIDENTS.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the statement in the Annual Report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, for 1889, that during that twelve months no fewer than 5,330 persons were run over by vehicles in the streets of the Metropolis and maimed and injured, and that 140 persons were run over and killed; and whether he contemplates taking any steps, by legislation or other
  304
  wise, to ensure a better and safer regulation of street traffic?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: Yes, Sir; the figures are correctly quoted, and they are extremely serious. The matter is receiving the careful attention of the Commissioner of Police, who already employs a large number of police in regulating the traffic and protecting foot passengers. Should he find that the powers of the police are insufficient to cope with the difficulties of an ever-increasing traffic, he has promised to lay before me suggestions for securing better and safer regulations.

  LIVERPOOL POSTMEN.
  MR. CROSS: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received Petitions from the postmen at Liverpool, praying, amongst other things, for the removal of the limit in the number of stripes, for a limitation of the total number of hours over which their daily duties are spread to twelve, for modifications in the uniform supplied, for improvements with regard to their pay and overtime allowances, and for the reckoning of all Sunday work as overtime; and whether he is now prepared to give an answer to the petitioners?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,: My hon. Friend is perhaps aware that Petitions such as those to which he alludes in his question are by no means confined to the postmen at Liverpool, but have been received from several other large towns. Such being the case I thought it best to refer them to a Committee which has had under consideration the position of provincial postmen generally throughout the country. The Report of this Committee I hope to receive very shortly; but I may mention that in anticipation of it, endeavours are already being made to reduce as far as possible the period over which the daily attendance of postmen is spread, whenever a revision of the outdoor duties at any office takes place.

  THE BARNSLEY MAGISTRATES.
  MR. JACOB BRIGHT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he

  305
  has seen the following paragraph in the Barnsley Chronicle of Saturday, 31st January:—
  "Why not the man as well?—Ann Meadows, widow, Barnsley, was charged with having accosted people for an improper purpose in Pontefract Road, Friday night last. P.C. Harris proved the case. Defendant had only come out of Wakefield Gaol on that day (Friday). In the course of the proceedings, Mr. Carrington (the magistrates' clerk) made a private communication to the Bench. A sotto voce conversation ensued, in which Superintendent Kane also joined. Defendant was sent back to prison as a rogue and vagabond, for three months."
  If it is in accordance with the approved practice in our Courts of Justice that words should be used to influence those who are sitting in judgment which cannot be heard by the accused person; and will he consider whether a more lenient sentence would not be a more just sentence in this case?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Clerk to the Justices that the only communication made by him during the case was in reply to a question asked by one of the Justices, having reference to the man who was in the company of the defendant, and that nothing said by him, or by the Superintendent, had the slightest bearing on the case against the prisoner. Nothing, therefore, seems to have occurred contrary to the rules which should govern the practice of the Court. The woman was a bad character, having been convicted no less than six times for similar offences since July, 1889, and it was in respect of these convictions, coupled with proof of gross public indecency, that the Justices passed the sentence, with which I am not able to advise any interference.

  LONDON TRAMWAY MEN.
  MR. WALTER M'LAREN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the desire of the London Tramway Men's Union that their excessive hours of work should be reduced, and that they should form the subject of a Government inquiry; and whether he would include in the duty of the Committee on the Hours of Labour of Railway Servants an inquiry also into the hours of labour of tramway men, or whether he would move for another Committee on that subject?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, Sir; I have not had any communication on the subject referred to by the hon. Member. I do not propose to ask the House to inquire into the hours of labour of tramway men. The conditions of their employment, and the incidents of their work, differ very largely from those of the employés on railways.

  TELEGRAMS.
  VISCOUNT CURZON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether there is any general order under which telegrams, not fully addressed, are not delivered when the officials have no reasonable doubt for whom they are intended; and whether the system of delivery of telegrams can be made the same as that of letters, in which case the delivery is made to the most likely person?
  MR. RAIKES: In reply to my noble Friend I must, I fear, say that it is impracticable to make the system of delivering telegrams identical with that for delivering letters. The object of the Telegraphic Service is instant action, and it would not be possible, without serious injury to other persons making use of it, to detach messengers on voyages of discovery, which would necessarily very seriously retard the delivery of other telegrams. I hope that as a general practice the postmasters endeavour to meet the convenience of the public when they have no reasonable doubt respecting the addressee of a telegram. But I must own that I have observed with regret, in some particular cases which have been brought to my notice, a reluctance to interpret liberally the regulations of the Department, which I have never failed to visit with appropriate censure.

  CHAPEL ROYAL, WHITEHALL.
  MR. JAMES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury to what balance the saving effected by the closing of the Chapel Royal, Whitehall, is carried, whether of the Civil List or of the Estimates.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON.: The expenditure on the Chapel Royal, Whitehall, was defrayed from the Civil List. Reductions of expenditure from the Civil List accrue to the Civil List.

  ARDCHATTAN AND MUCKAIRN SCHOOL BOARD.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether School Boards have any power by law to examine the school register or roll of attendance of private schools within their jurisdiction; whether he is aware that in filling up the Schedule 33 (a) for the year ending 31st May, 1890, and giving the attendance at the Episcopal school, the School Board of Ardchattan and Muckairn filled in 40 as the number on the roll upon information funished to them by the Episcopal school authorities, and whether to this Return was appended a memorandum by the School Board to the effect that several children were entered on the register both of the Ardchattan public school and the Episcopal school; whether in the Return for the year ending May, 1887, the number on the roll of the Episcopal school was returned, in a similar manner, at 68; whether the accuracy of these Returns is now disputed by the School Board, and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the register of the Episcopal school, giving the names, addresses, ages, and daily attendances of the children from the opening of the school in 1886 till date; what was the average attendance at the Episcopal school for the school year completed prior to December last; what were the numbers alleged to be on the roll and the average attendance when an application was made but refused in 1886, and what were the numbers alleged to be on the roll and in attendance when the application was granted in December last; what were the special circumstances, if any, which induced the Department to grant in 1890 an application which they had rejected in 1886; and whether the resignation of the School Board has now taken effect, and what steps the Department intend taking with the view of carrying on the educational work of the parish?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,: Under Section 30 of the Education Act of 1872, a School Board is entitled, but only in so far as is necessary to enable them to discharge their duties under the Act, to access to the school register of any school. Before any such right of access could be exercised,
  308
  it would be incumbent on the School Board to specify, and, if need be, establish the existence of the duty in respect of which they asked access to the register. I am not aware upon what information the School Board filled up the Return in 1890, the contents of which they certified to the best of their knowledge and belief. A memorandum to the effect stated by the hon. Member as to entry of certain children on the registers of both schools was added to the Return, but it is obvious this had the same bearing upon the attendance at the public school, as upon that at the Episcopal school. In the Return of May, 1887, 68 children were entered as on the registers of the Episcopal school, but a note appended to that Return reduced the number to 31 children of school age. No such note was appended to the form of 1890. I am not aware that the Board has ever disputed the accuracy of its own Returns, although the statements it now makes with regard to the. attendance at the Episcopal school are at variance with them. The Department is not in possession of the information which the hon. Member desires me to lay upon the Table, and it is not such as could properly be made the subject of a Parliamentary Paper. As the Episcopal school has not been on the annual grant list for a year, the amount of its yearly average attendance cannot be given. The numbers alleged to be on the roll of that school in 1886 was 26, but the statement in respect of attendance and the probable continuance of the school did not appear to my Lords to be so proved as to establish a claim that the school should be placed on the annual grant list. As I have already stated, my Lords were of opinion that sufficient proof of the existence of a body of children for whom the school was required, and of the probable continuance of the school, had in 1890 been given to entitle the school to be placed on the annual Grant List in 1890. My Lords have been informed that the resignation of the members of the School Board has taken effect, and they propose to issue an order for a new election.

  THE CARDIFF STRIKE.
  SIR E. J. REED: I wish to put a question to the Home Secretary, of which I have not been able to give notice. I desire to know whether the

  309
  right hon. Gentleman is aware that soldiers are being employed at the Cardiff Docks, thereby causing extreme irritation and apprehended breaches of the peace? Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether this extraordinary measure has been resorted to, and, if so, by whose authority?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have no knowledge on the subject of the hon. Member's question, except what I have seen in the papers.
  SIR E. J. REED: I will put a question to-morrow.

  RAILWAY EXTENSION AT KINSALE.
  MR. MORROGH: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he has received a Resolution passed by the Town Commissioners of Kinsale, asking the attention of the Government to the recommendation of the Fisheries Commission in reference to the extension of the existing line of railway to deep water, and asking that facilities will be afforded to the Cork and Bandon Railway in carrying out the said recommendation, with a view to afford employment so as to cope with the serious distress caused by the almost total failure of the potato crop in the district; and whether it is the intention of the Government to comply with this request?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOE IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: A resolution of the nature mentioned was received in November last. The Government have no funds at their disposal for the proposed railway extension. As the result of recent inquiries it is not apprehended that any serious distress will arise in the district referred to, or any cases of such a nature as cannot readily be dealt with under the powers of the ordinary Poor Law.

  IRISH DISTRESS.
  MR. MORROGH: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he has received copies of a Resolution adopted at a public meeting in Timoleague, County Cork, on Sunday, 1st instant, and signed by Rev. Father Mulcahy, P.P., Rev. E. Donovan, rector, by local Justices, and the local dispensary authorities, calling attention to the great distress prevailing amongst labourers and small farmers in the townlands of Abbeymahon, Cregane, and Timoleague, and
  310
  pointing out several useful and reproductive works on which employment could be given, so as to relieve those poor people from destitution; and, what steps do the Government propose to take as regards this district?
  MR. MADDEN: The Resolution referred to has been received, and the matter referred to is undergoing consideration.
  MR. DALTON: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether the Government propose to start any relief works in the parish of Lower Templemore, County Donegal, as it is admittedly one of the most congested and distressed districts in that county; whether information has reached the Government that people on several occasions assembled at the Police Barracks in the east of the parish clamouring for work to tide them over the distress so acutely felt; and if he can explain why the engineer who was sent in December last to open up relief works in the district was recalled in a few days?
  MR. MADDEN: The matter is receiving the careful consideration of the Government.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Having regard to the fact that large sums have been contributed by this House for the relief of distress in Ireland, that large sums have also been voluntarily subscribed, and that hundreds of families in Donegal are in a state of absolute destitution, may I ask when the relief will be begun?
  MR. MADDEN: The relief has begun, and works are actively in progress.

  IRISH PAWNBROKERS.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if it is his intention, this Session, to introduce a Bill to regulate the trade of pawnbrokers in Ireland, with a view of shortening the hours of labour in pawn-broking establishments?
  MR. MADDEN: Yes, Sir; a Bill dealing with the Law of Pawnbroking is in course of preparation under my directions. I am not able to say how far, if at all, it will be possible to deal with the special matter referred to in the question. I shall be glad to consider suggestions from any hon. Members who may take an interest in the subject.
  MR. SEXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to assimilate the law in Ireland to that which now exists in England?
  MR. MADDEN: The Bill is a measure to consolidate and amend the law in Ireland which at present is in an unsatisfactory state, and, so far as is practicable, to assimilate it to the English law.

  THE M'KINLEY TARIFF BILL.
  MR. DE LISLE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is true, as reported in the Times of the 9th instant, that the M'Kinley Tariff Bill has ruined the sewed muslin trade of Ballyshannon, County Donegal; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will introduce a Bill to raise such sums upon American imports as may be required to start fresh industries in the povertystricken districts of Ireland?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I have no knowledge of the subject treated in the first part of the hon. Member's question. As regards the second part, I cannot say that I have any intention to start a policy of retaliation against the United States in consequence of the M'Kinley Tariff Bill, especially as it is to be hoped that the Americans will see that they have made a great mistake in passing it.
  MR. DE LISLE: Have any representations been made to the Government of the United States pointing out all the evils which the tariff has created?
  MR. GOSCHEN: That is not a matter which comes within my power.

  UNTRIED PRISONERS AT LIMERICK.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if his attention has been directed to complaints raised by the Magistrates and Corporation of the City of Limerick to the practice of marching handcuffed, untried prisoners, principally charged with trivial offences, through the public streets of Limerick from the county gaol to the Court houses, a distance of nearly two miles; and if, in view of such complaints, he will direct that a covered vehicle be in future employed for such purpose, as in other cities?
  MR. MADDEN: The matter referred to in the hon. Member's question, is not one in which the Government can undertake to interfere.

MOTIONS.

  SITTING OF THE HOUSE (ASH WEDNESDAY).
  (4.26.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do meet to-morrow at two of the clock.—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  MR. HENEAGE: I for one feel bound to protest against this Motion. I do not know whether it is moved in the interest of the officers of the House or of hon. Members. So far as the officials are concerned they can attend service and yet be here at 12 o'clock; and it is quite certain that so far as the occupants of the Treasury Bench are concerned they would not be here at 12 o'clock in any case. There is an important subject to be debated to-morrow, and although I should be prepared to take a Division upon it at once, as there is nothing new to be said upon it, I am afraid that all the time available will be required.
  MR. PICTON: This annual Motion is simply an ancient and hollow formality. I think there ought to be a Return of the number of Members of the House of Commons who go to church on Ash Wednesday. If it is found that a majority or any considerable number do attend, there might, perhaps, be some reason for the Motion. But everyone knows without any Return at all that the contrary is the fact. No doubt there may be a few here and there who go to church, and I not only respect their ideas on the subject, but I honour them. The vast majority, however, do not go, and I, for one, feel bound to protest against the Motion as a sham.
  (4.29.) The House divided:—Ayes 226; Noes 135.—(Div. List, No. 45.)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—TITHE RENT-CHARGE RECOVERY BILL.
  THE FIRST LORD or THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,in rising to move—
  "That the proceedings on the Tithe Rent-Charge Recovery Bill have precedence of the Notices of Motion and the other Orders of the Day on every day on which it may be appointed,"
  said: I think it only respectful to the House to take the opportunity of ex-

  313
  plaining the course which the Government propose to adopt with regard to Public Business. The position is such that they are compelled most reluctantly to take the time of private Members this day, but they hope that it will not be necessary to take advantage of the Motion, on subsequent days. I think it will be admitted that the Government have done everything in their power to render unnecessary the course which they now find themselves compelled to take, and I hope, therefore, that the Resolution will not be met with prolonged criticism on the other side of the House. I have been—the Government have been—from the first most anxious to meet the challenge of the right hon. Member for Newcastle, and to supply an opportunity for the discussion which the right hon. Gentleman desires to raise on the conduct of the Executive in Ireland. But hitherto the Government have been prevented, by the slow progress of the Tithe Bill, from giving the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman desires, and which we also desire. In the circumstances, we have no alternative but to ask the House to agree to this Motion, upon the understanding that if the consideration of the Tithe Bill as amended is completed this evening it will be put down for Third Reading on Thursday, and Wednesday's business will not be interfered with. I take it almost for granted that the measure will be read a third time on Thursday, and, therefore, that the Government would not find it necessary to avail themselves further of the powers conferred by the Motion. But the House will understand, having regard to the prolonged consideration which has been bestowed upon the Tithe Bill up to the present, that it will be unwise in the Government to ask for any less powers than they now seek. If the Bill is read a third time on Thursday, we shall place Monday next at the disposal of the right hon. Member for Newcastle for the Vote of Censure of which he has given notice.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the proceedings on the Tithe Rent-Charge Recovery Bill have precedence of the Notices of Motion and the other Orders of the Day and every day on which it may be appointed."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am bound to say it seems to me that this Motion is not warranted by the circumstances at the present period of the Session and in the present condition of Public Business. The Government have no ground whatever to complain of the progress of their business or of the discussions upon the Tithe Bill and the other measures which they have submitted to the House. The time has not arrived for breaking in upon the ordinary Rules of the House in this violent manner. The right hon. Gentleman says that if the Tithe Bill is read a third time on Thursday he will not make any further use of the Motion; but, according to my recollection of the conduct of former leaders of the House, it is not usual to ask for powers a great deal in excess of those that will probably be wanted. If the Bill is read a third time by the 12th of February, and in that I myself see no difficulty, the Government, I think will have no reason to complain. I must vote against the proposal, because, under the circumstances, I think it is unnecessary.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I am, unfortunately, not a disinterested party in this Debate, because I have on the Paper for to-night a Motion dealing with a subject of great importance and interest to the country. Without entering into the merits or demerits of that Motion, I think hon. Members on both sides of the House will admit that it is of national importance and Urgency, and, therefore, I should not feel justified in acquiescing in the action of the Government, having regard to the extreme importance of the subject of my Motion, were it not that I feel that when the Government bases its claim on the ground that the exigencies of the Public Service require that progress shall be made with particular measures before a given date, unofficial Members are bound, so far as they can, to facilitate the course of business. Unofficial Members of the House of Commons in times past have been, and justly so, very jealous of their rights and privileges, but they have invariably allowed cases of emergency like these to be dealt with. I understood from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, the other night, that it was submitted that the requirements of the law made it necessary that the Government

  315
  should proceed with financial measures at a given date, and under such circumstances, I think that unofficial Members would scarcely be justified in insisting upon their extreme rights. But in acquiescing in the Government proposal, I am bound to point out that if demands of this kind are to be made at the beginning of the Session, it will be extremely difficult for private Members to discharge their duties to their constituents. It so happens, however, that the question which I intended to raise to-night also figures on the Notice Paper for this day week in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, and I trust we shall have the assurance of the Government that there will then be no interference with the fair consideration of that question, the importance and urgency of which are admitted by all. On the understanding that we are not to be asked to give up our rights and privileges except in a case of emergency like this, I, for one, shall be prepared to accept the Motion.
  MR. BRYCE: Like the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken I am interested in this matter, and I am so interested in two ways. In the first place my Motion stands in front of his, and in the next place he will have an opportunity this day week of obtaining a discussion upon the subject in which he is interested. But I know from long experience how little facility is given to a Member whose one ewe lamb is taken away. I may mention that this is the ninth year in which I have, without intermission, endeavoured to obtain a discussion on the subject of my Motion in this House. It is a subject which excites very great interest, and I think the Government have done wrong in endeavouring to stifle the discussion upon it. The right hon. Gentleman has talked about the Public Service, but he gave no reason whatever to prove that there was urgency in the matter of this Tithe Bill. Last year we met on the 11th February. This is the 10th February, and I submit that there is no precedent whatever for taking private Members' privileges away so early in the Session. This is a new departure which I hope will excite considerable displeasure in the House. I shall merely express my belief that the Government would do well to propose a Standing Order
  316
  putting it in their power to take the time of the House whenever they please, for it has now become almost a farce to suppose that this House sits here for any other purpose except to deal with the questions which it may please the Government to have discussed.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I want to ask the House what is going to become of private Members' nights if proposals such as that made by the Government are constantly to be brought forward. During Session after Session, at any rate during the last two Sessions, a great majority of the nights which properly belonged to private Members have been taken by the Government. As to the present Motion, the House has now only just reached the date at which Parliament generally meets. There has already been held an Autumn Session in order that the Government might be enabled to make good progress with its own Bills, and as the result of this, two important measures, so called, have been advanced from stage to stage with great rapidity. Yet already, on the 10th February, private Members are asked to give up their nights in order that the Government may be enabled to proceed still more rapidly with one of these measures—the Tithe Bill. The Tithe Bill is not a measure which has created any great public interest. People who have to pay the tithes do not seem to care for the Bill at all, and those who receive them would, as far as can be made out, be quite as well off without the Bill as they will be with it. In short, the Tithe Bill is emphatically not one of those measures to whose immediate progress the rights of private Members ought to be sacrificed at so early a period of the Session. If the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet Division of Kent, who, though an interested party, has announced his intention of supporting the Government on the Motion, carries out that intention, he will be foregoing his privileges as a private Member in a most unnecessary and unwarrantable manner. For my own part I shall divide against the Motion, in the firm conviction that the course proposed by the Government can have no support from any Members who has the welfare of the country at heart. If private Members' rights are taken away on the 10th of February where will

  317
  they be later on, in the middle of the Session?
  MR. S. T. EVANS: As one who has taken an active part in the discussion on the Tithes Bill I should like to say a word or two upon this Motion. I have not observed that anything has been said to show what is the urgency of this particular question. I am informed that the only justification for a Motion of this kind at any time is urgency. We have been reminded that this is only the 10th of February. We are sitting before Parliament is ordinarily called together, and before this Motion is carried I think we ought to hear from the Government Benches what is the urgency of the question. The Tithe Bill is an important Bill, which ought not to be rushed through its various stages. It is a Bill dealing with a very large amount of property—property of the value of £4,000,000 a year, and I certainly do not think that a discussion extending over seven nights is too prolonged for a Bill of this kind. I can only conceive two arguments which might be used to show the urgency. One is that the passing of such a Bill as this might be necessary in the interests of "law and order." Hon. Members who urge that know very little of the Principality of Wales, except what appears in the newspapers. I can assure them there has been no real disturbance in the Principality. Interested persons have called for the assistance of the military, but let me give the House one instance to show that it was utterly unnecessary to call out the military in certain cases in which they had been called out.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is quite beside the question before us.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: Then if law and order do not constitute the urgency of this matter, the only other point is that the parsons in the Principality should have their pay. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade will say that we Welsh Members have unduly prolonged the discussion; and therefore I ask, why should Members be put to inconvenience and lose their rights in order to enable the Government to push forward this measure?
  MR. PICTON: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Thanet Division of Kent spoke of the duties of unofficial Members. I think there may be a difference of opinion as to what those duties are, and undoubtedly they generally differ according to whether their leaders are in or out of office. As to the official Members, it is their bounden duty to lay before the House grave reasons for taking such steps as are embodied in this Motion. It has been often assumed by the Government that unless this or that measure is passed by a certain time awful consequences will happen. But in the past such consequences have not resulted, and I think it is time that the Government learned a little better as to the nature of their responsibilities towards the country. I earnestly hope that this side of the House will show some spirit in the matter, and make a determined protest against this most unjustifiable and tyrannical invasion of the rights of private Members.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: I have listened in vain for arguments as to why the time of private Members should thus be monopolised by the Government. If the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the House succeeds in getting his comprehensive Resolution passed, not only will the rights of private Members be lost for this evening, but to-morrow also may be gone, and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar, who has the first place for an important Resolution on Friday evening next, may lose the opportunity of bringing that forward. It means that the whole of those hon. Members who have taken the trouble to ballot at the beginning of the Session, in order to obtain a favourable place for the Bills which they have in charge, are, because the right hon. Gentleman chooses to think that certain progress should be made with Public Business, to lose those chances. I hope that hon. Members will vigorously protest against this action of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman is introducing these gagging Resolutions earlier and earlier each succeeding Session. I think it ought to be borne in mind that last Friday night the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity of pushing forward the Tithe Bill, and he failed to avail

  319
  himself of it. It was well known that the Motion which stood first on the Paper for that evening would not occupy the whole of the evening, and he might very well have proceeded with his Tithe Bill after 8 o'clock. But on the plea of the fatigue from which he and his colleagues were suffering as the result of their labours during the week they facilitated a count out on purpose that they might go home. Why, under such circumstances, should private Members be robbed of the facilities which are given to them under the ordinary Rules of this House? I think it behoves us to strenuously protest against this action of the First Lord of the Treasury, and I, for one, shall go into the Lobby against him.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: It is very true that "there's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip," and that saying is exemplified by the fact that after nine years of long weary waiting my hon. Friend the Member for South Aberdeen had at last got the opportunity so long desired of bringing forward a question in which Scotch Members are so much interested, and he is suddenly deprived of it by this proposal of the leader of the House. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to give my hon. Friend any facilities for bringing on this Motion at a later stage of the Session? I am sure my constituents would be very dissatisfied with me if I did not take the opportunity of making a protest against the proposal to prevent the discussion of a matter in which they take a great interest. I have had many communications from public meetings in Scotland asking me to back up my hon. Friend in this matter, and I am certain that the decision of the Government will cause extreme disappointment to many of the Scotch electors. The zeal of the leader of the House for this Tithe Bill is of a somewhat suspicious character. It does not strike me that there is any overwhelming necessity for pushing forward the Tithe Bill. At any rate, no proof of that has been shown to-night. I think that probably the object of the Government is to burke and shirk the discussion of the question involved in my hon. Friend's Motion. I have no doubt that such a discussion would be extremely inconvenient to many hon. Gentlemen who sit opposite.
  DR. CLARK: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the House will facilitate the progress of Public Business by the course he has taken. We find, year by year, more and more time is taken up by Supply. We also find that more and more private Members' nights are taken away by the Government, with the result that, as hon. Members are deprived of legitimate opportunities of raising questions in which they are interested on those nights, they seek the opportunity in Committee of Supply, and thereby prolong the discussion of the Estimates. I think that if the right hon. Gentleman would only utilise the time of the House in a better fashion he would help on Public Business. I must say that, outside the crofter question, the subject of access to mountains is one which has caused more disturbance in Scotland than all other Scotch questions put together; and therefore it is a great pity that the opportunity my hon. Friend, after so many years' waiting, has secured for bringing it on, is now to be taken away from him. I venture to say that the interest in that question, and also in the question involved in the Motion of the right hon. Member for Thanet, is greater than that embodied in the Tithe Bill. Of course, we expected a conspiracy of silence from the Government. We knew they would not attempt to answer our arguments. But, indeed, we ought to have from the First Lord of the Treasury some reason for, at this early stage of the Session, taking away private Members' nights. One effect of this Motion will be to induce private Members to conspire together to see how best they can circumvent the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the leader of the House said the Government had done everything within their power to facilitate the progress of business; but how was it they allowed the House to be counted out last Friday evening? Knowing something of the Members who were to have spoken on the Motions down for that evening, I assert that the Government might have reached the Tithe Bill by 8 o'clock, and would then have had four hours to deal with it. But for some reason it suited the Government Whips to allow a count out, and thus four hours were deliberately thrown away. If you take away the time of private Members

  321
  we shall have to retaliate, and take away a good deal of your time in discussing questions which we desire to have debated.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I must enter my protest against the implication of the First Lord of the Treasury that discussion on the Tithe Bill at its various stages has been unduly prolonged. If the right hon. Gentleman had been as constant in his attendance of these Debates as has his colleague the President of the Board of Trade, he would have known that the very reverse is the case, and that at the close of the Committee stage the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had nothing but words of commendation for the actions of Members on this side interested in the Bill. Indeed, the only words of criticism which fell from his lips were directed against one of his own supporters. It will also be in the recollection of many hon. Members that a very important Amendment indeed, affecting the future relations of landlord and tenant, was last night passed without a word from the Government and without any discussion from this side. Can it be said, then, the discussion was unduly prolonged on that point? When we consider that during the Autumn Session the First Lord swooped down upon private Members and took the whole of their time, it seems an extreme proposal on his part to pursue a similar course now.
  MR. A. STAVELEY HILL: I think the hon. Member for Caithness must be of a confiding disposition if he really thinks that any number of Members staying in the House on Friday night would have enabled the Government to reach the Tithe Bill that evening. The length to which the discussions on the Tithe Bill have been protracted has rendered necessary the Motion made by my right hon. Friend. What has necessitated the prolonged discussion on the Tithe Bill? Has it been questions arising out of the merits of the Bill, or is it something ulterior lying behind? I do not suppose there is any hon. Member who doubts for one moment that it is the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle is not ready to debate his Motion with regard to events in Tipperary; and it is a significant thing
  322
  that, whereas the right hon. Gentleman was sitting in the House up to the moment when this subject arose, he has now removed himself from the House. I doubt whether we shall see him again at the present Sitting. Doubtless the leader of the House regrets that he has taken away the opportunity for the hon. Member for South Aberdeen and the right hon. Member for Thanet bringing on their particular Motions; but his action is the only way of dealing with the obstructive tactics applied to the Tithe Rent-Charge Bill.
  MR. J. STUART: It is interesting to find that at least one Member has risen to support the Government Motion by argument. I leave it for the House and the country to say whether the Debates of the Tithe Bill have been unduly prolonged. Hon. Members generally should remember that they are dealing not with the particular question in hand, but with the certainty that private Members will lose their nights altogether during the rest of the Session. For, if this thing was done in the green tree, what will be done in the dry? If the time of private Members is taken away for a measure like the Tithe Bill, what are we going to do when the Land Purchase Bill comes on? What is the good of the House coming together in Autumn Session if, before the time that Parliament usually sits, private Members' time is to be taken away? Remember, that hardly any great question has become matured for legislation which has not first formed the subject of exhaustive discussion on private Members' nights, and one of the great causes that have led the Government into difficulties is the want of consistent and steady action they have shown in regard to measures before the House, and the fact that they have not taken sufficient opportunity to ascertain the opinions of private Members in regard to them. It is not an unimportant point to consider in connection with this Motion how the Government have used the time of private Members in previous years when they have taken it. They have, in fact, practically wasted that time over Bills in regard to which they did not know their own mind, or the minds of Members on their own side, and which they eventually had to withdraw. I oppose the Motion also because,

  323
  if it is adopted, I believe it will endanger the Motion of the hon. Member for Poplar on Friday night, on a question in which the working classes of the country are very deeply interested. I should have liked, too, to hear what arguments could have been adduced by hon. Gentlemen opposite in support of the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet. It would be very interesting to see if there are any new ideas to be advanced. I rather fancy the Government are not anxious to have that Motion brought forward.
  MR. STUART RENDEL: If this Motion is to be interpreted as a reproach to Welsh Members for the manner in which they have conducted the Debates on the Tithe Bill, I think it is not justifiable. I understood that, as far as the Committee stage of the Bill was concerned, we had not only no reproach, but distinct commendation and approval from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. Certainly there has been on no single occasion any opportunity of prolonging the Debate unduly, because the Government have been most conciliatory and ready to meet the wishes of Welsh Members. The action of the Government seems to have followed in consequence of what has taken place on the Report stage of the Tithe Bill; but I maintain that there has been no waste of time, and that fact has been admitted by Members of the Government. In making the Motion, the right hon. Gentleman has hardly assumed that there is any great urgency for it; and notwithstanding the slur that has been cast on the Welsh Members by the drastic character of the Motion, I repeat that they are entirely free from any charge of having by collusion needlessly wasted the time of the House.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: I am perfectly certain my right hon. Friend meant to cast no slur upon the conduct of Members from Wales in reference to the proceedings on the Report stage of the Tithe Bill. There has, however, been delay, and on the Report stage, from other quarters. I may point out, however, that if the House comes to a decision on the Motion, they will have the whole of the evening for the remainder of the Report, which may be
  324
  perfectly well concluded in that time, and thus this will be the only day of which private Members are likely to be deprived.
  MR. HUNTER: Not only is this a most unwarrantable invasion of private Members' rights, but I think the Scotch Members have special cause to complain of the conduct of the Government in their treatment of Scotland. I am afraid, however, that this is only a part of their customary policy. If they introduce any measure affecting Scotland it is one opposed to the wishes of the great majority of the Scotch people, and it has to be carried by the votes of English Members. This evening a question of great interest to the whole of the people of Scotland was to have been discussed, and yet the First Lord of the Treasury selects this above all other days to advance a wretched and miserable Bill, in which even the people of England have no interest, and we are deprived of one of our rare opportunities of scoring in this House another Scottish majority against the Government. But I do not complain, for the Government are giving to the Scottish people another object lesson in the necessity of Home Rule for Scotland. It is another illustration of the necessity for making some provision for the consideration of Scottish questions, and if we cannot have our business transacted in this House we must transfer it elsewhere. This is the conduct of a Government which came into office to demonstrate the beauties of the Union and the advantages Scotland derives from it; and I anticipate that, as a result, the next General Election will see the return to this House of a large number of Members pledged to vote for Home Rule for Scotland.
  MR. ABRAHAM: The House will, I am sure, pardon me for entering my protest against the action of the Government in thus taking away the rights of private Members on the pretence of urgency for pressing forward the Tithe Bill. I think the Government have themselves to blame entirely for greater progress not having been made with the Tithe Bill. There are points in the Bill which the Welsh Members could not pass over without protest and strong resistance—points involving injustice to the Welsh

  325
  people which the Government might well have abandoned. At the same time, although the Government have sought to push on the Bill from stage to stage with great haste, there is little, if any, demand or necessity for it in Wales. Not a single class of people—not even the clergy themselves—have united in any demand for the Bill; and I cannot conceive a more frivolous excuse for the important Motion proposed by the First Lord of the Treasury than the one which has been given. If the time of private Members is to be taken away in this manner, the attendance of private Members will soon become of little use, and we may as well stay at home and await the call of the Whips, who will, in due course, force us, like dumb driven cattle, into the Division Lobbies. I believe that this feeling is growing on both sides of the House. The private Members ought not, without urgent necessity, thus to be deprived of their rights, for some of the best and most useful legislation ever passed by this House has been initiated by private Members.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: I am sure the hon. Member for the Kingswinford Division of Staffordshire is entirely misinformed as to our views with regard to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle. Personally, in consequence of the pressure put upon me by the Whips, who desired the Bill to go through last night, I abstained during that Sitting from making more than one or two remarks. I want the House to consider for a moment what happened last Friday night. At considerable personal inconvenience I came back at 7 on that evening to help in the discussion of the Tithe Bill, and was at once informed that the Government had arranged a count out. My information has been confirmed in many quarters since, and yet now, in the middle of February, when, under ordinary circumstances, Parliament would be discussing the Queen's Speech, we are asked to take away the time of private Members. The First Lord of the Treasury has often twitted me with not having brought in a Bill respecting the appointment of Managers and Trustees of Charities. You might just as well ask a private Member to jump over the moon as to
  326
  pass a Bill when the time of Members is taken away so early in the Session. Really, Mr. Speaker, I think Her Majesty's Ministers ought to consider what a very bad precedent and example they are setting in forcing this proposal upon the House.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: There is a Motion standing next on the Paper which we must vote upon without discussion, as far as this Debate is concerned, as it would not be in Order to discuss it now. I only mention it to remind the House of its existence, and to ask at what hour the Government propose to close the discussion on the Tithe Bill, in the event of the Motion being carried. As I understand, the First Lord of the Treasury says this is a case in which he will pick and choose. He will not give facilities for the discussion of the Motion respecting access to mountains in Scotland, but he says if we do not dispose of the Report stage of the Tithe Bill to-night he will not to-morrow impinge upon the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill. What business has he to say he will shut out the Scotch discussion, but will allow an English discussion to take place because certain Dukes and Lords are interested in it?
  MR. J. KELLY: May I remind thé hon. and learned Member that the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill applies to Ireland?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Of course, I am not such a fool as not to know that. The Government say, in effect, that they will keep us sitting as long as they like—and why?—because they are determined not to interrupt the discussion about the deceased wife's sister. I say that is a most offensive proposition to put before this House; and if it is a question of the relative merits of access to mountains in Scotland and marriage with a deceased wife's sister—in which only Dukes and Earls are interested—between the health of Her Majesty's subjects and the matrimonial alliances of members of Her Majesty's family, the former ought to be considered first. What the Government ought to say is, that if the Tithe Bill is not finished by 12 o'clock, they will sacrifice the deceased wife's sister to-morrow. Do the Government mean to put before us the issue that the Deceased Wife's Sister

  327
  Bill is more important than the Tithe Bill? The supporters of the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill may be ready to sit up all night in order to obtain a discussion of that Bill to-morrow, but I am not ready to do so. If the Government have any bonâ fide belief that the Welsh Tithe Bill is of such immense importance, let them put it down for tomorrow. Those who remember the time when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian led the House of Commons will recollect that he never made a Motion to take the time of the House towards the end of the Session without having a long string of precedents on which to support his proposal. When the Fourth Party, under which I was schooled, used to sit on this side of the House in the Parliament of 1880, precedents used to be wrangled over if it was proposed to take half an hour of the time of private Members. The noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord R. Churchill), or some other Member who was acquainted with all the precedents, from Genesis to Deuteronomy, used to bring them forward, saying, "In such a year so and so was Prime Minister, and he said so and so," and he used to go on quoting until he came down to what Lord Beaconsfield said or did. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian never made such a Motion without a string of precedents as long as your arm being brought forward. The First Lord of the Treasury is so brazened in this matter—I use the phrase merely in a Parliamentary sense because, if he will allow me to say so, he is "the mildest mannered man" that ever cut a Parliamentary throat—he is so brazened in this matter that he comes down to the House, merely says he wants to-morrow, and must have tomorrow, simply because he wants it. This House, it must be remembered, met in November, apparently for the right hon. Gentleman's amusement, and it is now the 10th of February, a date at which the House of Commons has frequently not begun its labours. The right hon. Gentleman, however, is so greedy for the despatch of business that he absolutely wants to have the most important Bill of the Session read a third time at a period when the House has
  328
  not usually met at all. Under the circumstances, I should like to know when Parliament is going to dissolve—on what day in the month of April is the Prorogation to take place? I suppose everything is going to be in proportion. In view of the way in which the Welsh Members, whose grievance you admit, are being treated by the Government, I tremble to think what the Irish Members may expect when the Chief Secretary comes back. The Welsh Members have ventured to say three or four words in a mild manner, and they have been charged with obstruction of the most atrocious character. When we get into March, and the landlord's mouth is open a yard wide for British treasure and finds it not, what will be said of the Irish Members if they venture to discuss the Land Purchase Bill? It is not one, but probably every private Member's day that will be taken for that measure. I regard the action of the Government in this business as absolutely revolutionary. If, in the words of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), some hon. Gentlemen opposite who now receive £1,000 a year for holding their tongues in the House were sitting here below the Gangway, I tremble to think of the amount of rhetoric which would be discharged at the head of the Government if a Motion of this kind were made. This House of Commons has practically become a house of placemen. The Government come down with their Bills and Motions, and if anybody else ventures to propose a measure he is shut out. Private interest is no longer of any importance, and the people of the country ought to understand that no Member can successfully legislate unless he has a salary of from £1,000 to £5,000 per annum.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. and learned Gentleman has asked me up to what hour I shall ask the House to sit this evening. I trust it will not be necessary to ask the House to sit beyond midnight. It was hoped that it might be possible to conclude the consideration of the Bill last night. I certainly trust it will be concluded to-night. With regard to to-morrow, I have no desire whatever to interfere with the progress of Bills if it can be avoided; but if the consideration of the Tithe Bill is not completed to-day, I shall be constrained

  329
  to put the Order down for tomorrow.
  (5.43.) The House divided:—Ayes 243; Noes 178.—(Div. List, No. 46.)

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION FROM THE STANDING ORDER).
  (5.58.) Motion made, and Question put,
  "That Proceedings on the Tithe Rent-Charge Recovery Bill, if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order, Sitting of the House."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 242; Noes 172.—(Div. List, No. 47.)

  SCHOOL BOARD FOR LONDON (SUPERANNUATION BILL).—(No. 49.)
  (6.13.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Mr. Bartley be a Member of the Select Committee on the School Board for London (Superannuation) Bill."—(Sir Richard Temple.)
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: I object to the Motion, on the ground that I have a Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the whole subject as affecting teachers in England and Wales. It seems to me it is a subject that should not be dealt with piecemeal, but that before action is taken there should be a general examination into a superannuation system, and it is not desirable to proceed to the nomination of this Committee until the House has had an opportunity of considering the Report of a Committee upon the whole question.
  MR. SPEAKER: The position is somewhat peculiar. The Mover and Objector are permitted to make short explanatory statements, but if there is evidence of considerable opposition to the Motion, it is obvious that the discussion cannot proceed now, and under Standing Order XVI., it was never contemplated that it should proceed under these circumstances. I am invested with authority to put the question at once for the Adjournment of the Debate, and as there is evidence of opposition to the Motion, I do so.
  Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  SIR R. TEMPLE: To what day, Sir.
  MR. SPEAKER: I am afraid the hon. Baronet must fix the day for himself.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: To-morrow.
  Debate adjourned till to-morrow.

MOTION.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (INTERMENTS) ACT (1879)AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. J. W. Sidebotham, Bill to make better provision for the regulation and control of Cemeteries provided under "The Public Health (Interments) Act, 1879," ordered to be brought in by Mr. J. W. Sidebotham. Mr. John Albert Bright, Mr. William Cross, Mr. Godson, Mr. Lees, and Mr. William Sidebottom.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 205.]

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  TITHE KENT-CHARGE RECOVERY BILL.—(No. 184.)
  Order read, for resuming the adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to the Bill [9th February] (on consideration, as amended,)
  And which Amendment was, in page 2, line 14, after the words "or other powers," to insert the words,—
  ''Provided that if the officer satisfies the Court that there is no sufficient distress on the lands liable to the payment of the tithe rent-charge, the Court may authorise the owner of the rent-charge to sue out a writ of habere facias possessionem, in accordance with Section 82 of The Tithe Act, 1836:—(Sir M. Hicks Beach.)
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Debate resumed.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I would invite the close attention of the House to this proviso. It provides that in any case where the officer—it does not say by what means—satisfies the Court that there is not sufficient distress on the land where the occupier is the owner, then there may issue a writ of habere facias possessionem, and the entire property of the small freeholder will be handed over to the tithe owner. The President of the Board of Trade last evening said there was a provision of this kind in the Act of 1836, and that it would take effect under this

  331
  Act; to which, there was the obvious retort, if that is so, then there is no necessity for the insertion of the Amendment in the Bill. But on further considering the Bill I think it will be evident that without the incorporation of these words there will be no power of the kind under the Bill, because by the 1st subsection of Clause 2 it is expressly enacted that tithe rent-charge as defined by the Act shall not be recovered in any other manner than that provided under this Bill. That would clearly repeal any provision of the Act of 1836, which is inconsistent with the provisions of the present Bill. I would point out how severely the occupiers and small freeholders are dealt with under this Bill, and it is apparent from this and other provisions that the interest of the tithe owner is considered first, then the interest of the landlord, and last of all the interest of the occupier and small freeholder. By way of illustration I may mention that the landlord is allowed three months before proceedings are taken aginst him, but the occupier is allowed no time at all. By the next sub-section of this clause no similar provision is made for seizure or sale of land which is let by the landlord to a tenant. Without stretching the imagination, a case might be conceived where it would be impossible that the rent and profits from the farm would equal the tithe rent-charge, and yet the Government have not inserted any provision to secure the payment of tithe in such a case, though that might be done by the sale of, or a charge upon, the land. I might put a case where rent and profits would not be sufficient for payment of the tithe. Take the case of land let in consideration of buildings being erected, or a fine or premium being paid—say let for 14 years with only a peppercorn rent for the first seven years; what is there then for the Receiver of the Court to receive? Where the landlord is not himself in occupation, where he is a big landlord letting to small tenants, there may be cases where the tithe rent-charge is not recoverable at all, and the only way to secure it would be by a charge upon, or sale of the land. That, of course, would not be to the interest of the landlords, but to many classes in the community it would be an advantage to have land sub-divided more than it now is. The
  332
  Government are not prepared for that, but they are prepared on the ipse dixit of an officer to allow a writ of habere facias possessionem to be issued. The Bill was thoroughly discussed in Committee, but I do not know by whose suggestion this proviso is moved, or why there is no similar provision in the case where the land is let. You say that the powers of the tithe owner are not to exceed those under the Act of 1836, and the first sub-section of Clause 2 expressly states that the tithe rent-charge shall not be recovered in any other manner than by this Act.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: Will the hon. Member look at Sub-section 2, which, of course, governs these words—
  "The order shall be executed by the appointment by the Court of an officer who, subject to the direction of the Court, shall have the like powers for the recovery of the sum ordered to be paid as are conferred by the Tithe Acts on the owners of a tithe rent-charge for the recovery of arrears of tithe rent-charge, and no greater or other powers."
  That includes the officer's right of entry.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: But the right hon. Gentleman has an Amendment.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The hon. Member will allow me to explain that as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby urged that the words might be construed to give the right of entry to the officer and not to the tithe owner, our object is to remove uncertainty from the construction to be put upon the words.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I hold that the words are very clear. There does not happen to be a law officer on the Bench opposite at the present moment, but there is a great legal luminary there who could decide between us. The words of the sub-section run as follows:—
  "Where it is shown to the court that the lands are occupied by the owners thereof the order shall be executed by the appointment by the court of an officer, who, subject to the direction of the court, shall have the like powers by distraint for the recovery of the sum ordered to be paid as are conferred by the Tithe Acts or the owner of a tithe rent-charge for the recovery of arrears, and no greater or other powers."
  The words "by distraint" were inserted last evening, and it is clear that only the powers of distraint are intended. I am

  333
  sorry to find myself in conflict with the right hon. Gentleman, but I have no doubt that only the powers of distraint are given by the words of the section. Coming back to my first point let me say this. If you have power already under the Act of 1836, will that power be still applicable, and if so let me ask what is the necessity for incorporating this proviso at all? If the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to confer more power than already exists—why put in the proviso? The proviso itself is very much more obnoxious than Section 82 of the Act of 1836, to which he has referred. I contend that that section does not apply, but if it does then let it be so, but this is a very different proviso, that the Court without hearing evidence shall be satisfied with the ipse dixit of its officer.
  MR. H. R. FARQUHARSON: I hope this proposal will be thoroughly threshed out, for from the landowner's point of view it is most important. I cannot understand why this addition is proposed to be inserted. As the hon. Member opposite has said, if it is in the Tithe Commutation Act why insert it here? I cannot help thinking from the experience we get of the wishes of the tithe owners that they must have some very good reason for this Amendment. There is another objection. With other hon. Members I have had the advantage of a classical education, but I must confess I have forgotten the Latin I learned in my younger days, and of this I am quite certain, that when yeoman and tenant farmers come to read over this Bill in which they are so much, interested, they will stumble at this proviso, scratch their heads, and wonder how it is an English Parliament cannot use English words. I know the right hon. Gentleman has said that the Act of 1836 gives power to enter on land for the recovery of tithe, but I will say that this clause in the Act of 1836 is the most objectionable clause in the whole Act, and is ten thousand times more objectionable now than when it was enacted. The conditions of agriculture have immensely altered, there are thousands of pounds invested in agriculture now where there were tens or hundreds of pounds in agriculture in 1836. This Bill puts into the power of the tithe owners to enter on a man's
  334
  land and take possession of what is known as tillages. Under the Agricultural Holdings Act it is specially laid down that tillage and a variety of acts of husbandry shall be considered property for which the person entering on the land shall pay, but here you allow the tithe owner to come in on a yeoman farmer's land, seizing the whole of the tillages without any allowance whatever. I do not see why the tithe owner should have greater freedom in taking another man's property than any other man in the kingdom. When the tithe owner takes advantage of this clause there will be several courses open to him. He might enter on a man's land, and, devoting the whole of it to grain, breaking up most valuable pastures, he might do an incalculable amount of mischief to the land and cause great loss to the owner; he might get in a large crop to satisfy himself, ruining the land for years to come. The land might be farmed badly or too well, causing future loss. There is another course which the tithe owner may adopt, and which he generally does adopt when he takes possession of the land. If the tithe owner, when he takes possession, does not pay for what are termed tillages, it is perfectly clear that when he goes out of possession neither he nor his tenant, if he have one, can have any claim for tillages. I should like to know what respectable farmer at the present time will enter upon land upon such conditions. The tenant will have to quit directly the tithe owner is satisfied, without being able to claim any notice. No respectable tenant farmer would give anything like a reasonable rent for land that has to be let upon such conditions. The result will be that the tithe owner, by taking advantage of this clause, will be able to keep the landowner out of the possession and enjoyment of his land, not only for a year or two years, but possibly for the whole of his life-time. I think it is a most objectionable clause, and I propose to move a slight addition to the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman with the object of, to some extent, obviating the difficulties I have mentioned. I propose to add the following proviso:—
  "Provided always that any person obtaining possession of any lands by virtue of such right shall make such payments to the owner as would be due from an incoming tenant under

  335
  the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883, and shall during his occupation he subject to the provisions of that Act and to the custom of the country."
  Clearly, if a man has to pay for tillage on coming in, he will have some claim for them on going out. Under my Amendment it will not be in the power of the tithe owner, as I believe it is at the present moment, to destroy the tithe payer's property. It would be the most wanton destruction for a tithe owner who took possession of pasture land to plough up that land for the purpose of securing one good crop to satisfy his claim. I hope this matter may be thoroughly discussed, and that the yeoman-farmers and landowners generally will be protected from the rapacity of the tithe owners.
  Amendment proposed at the end of the proposed Amendment, to add the words—
  "Provided also that any person obtaining possession of any lands by virtue of such writ shall make such payments to the owner as would be due from an incoming tenant under 'The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883,' and shall, during his occupation, be subject to the provisions of that Act and to the custom of the country."—(Mr. Henry Farquharson.)
  Question proposed,, "That those words be added to the proposed Amendment."
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I think my hon. Friend rather misconceives the occasions on which this proviso would operate. This sub-section has nothing whatever to do with a case where land is let.
  MR. H. R. FARQUHARSON: My suggestion is that the tithe owner would let the land to cover the tithe.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Of course if the tithe owner let the land he would become subject to the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883 like any other landlord. That is not the case which the Amendment, as my hon. Friend has moved it, would deal with. The case it would deal with is that in which an occupying owner fails to pay the tithe rent-charge and the tithe owner, finding nothing on which to levy a distress, enters upon the land. In that case there will clearly be no tenant on the land. My hon. Friend proposes that the occupying owner shall be paid by the tithe owner when he enters into possession for acts of husbandry and other compensation under the Agricultural Holdings Act. Now, what acts of husbandry could there
  336
  be? Of course, there could be no hay or straw on that land, because if there were the tithe owner would distrain, and the case that it is desired to meet could not arise. There might be growing crops; but the tithe owner would be entitled to those. They would be his right; he would come in by right of ownership of the tithe. The acts of cultivation which have produced those crops will have been done by the owning occupier with the money with which he ought to have paid his tithe rent-charge, which is the first charge on the land, and when the crops come to maturity the tithe owner has the right to seize them as, under the existing law, he has the right to seize hay and straw. There can come in no question of compensation at all. I have endeavoured to deal with the case from the hon. Gentleman's point of view, but from my own point of view the case where this right of entry would come in force, would not be that of farms under cultivation, but that of derelict farms in the legal occupation of the owner, which he is unable to cultivate and on which there is no distress. The tithe owner in those cases would enter upon the land or let it under the provisions of the Act of 1836. If in doing so he committed waste by breaking up pasture or any thing of that kind he would be liable for damages for that waste. I confess I do not see in what way the words moved would apply to the case in point.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: This Amendment arises in connection with the question of derelict farms, and it is a singular fact that the case of such farms was overlooked by the framers of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of these discussions fairly enough, but I hope no one behind him will say we are delaying the Bill, seeing that we are discussing an important feature which was not even considered by the framers of the measure. We have had Tithe Bills before us now for two years, and have gone through them clause by clause, and Amendment by Amendment, and that the attention we have bestowed upon the Bill is amply justified is shown by the fact that the Government never considered this subject until now. We know that in several parts of the country land has not yielded any rent at all, and there

  337
  being no means of distress, the farms have become derelict, and have passed into the hands of the tithe owners, very often into the hands of the colleges, who—as I once took the liberty of saying, and I think further inquiries justified the statement—are not the best cultivators of the soil in the world. I have seen an example given where the land passed into the hands of the colleges under such powers as are now proposed, and was let subject to the condition that it should not be cultivated according to the custom of the country. Now, what did that mean? It meant that the land would be run out. The custom of the country is intended to preserve the fertility of the soil, and, by keeping up a proper rotation of crops, to prevent its exhaustion. But in the case to which I refer, in order to facilitate the letting of the derelict farm, it was tendered subject to conditions which would be possible under the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, and which led to waste of the land as complete as could be. The right hon. Gentleman has introduced this Amendment, but he has not at all met the objection I took, and in consequence of which this proposal has been submitted, because I asked what was going to happen in the case of the County Court if the land under this process, which is known in connection with the old tithe rent-charge as a writ of habere facias possessionem, passed into the possession of the Court? Before, the tithe owner was the person who came in under this writ, but here, under this Amendment, the Court may authorise the owner to sue under a writ of habere facias possessionem, and it is not clear that the County Court itself will not take possession in the person of its receiver.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The right hon. Gentleman has omitted to notice that we have inserted the word "distraint," so as to show that the only power the officer of the County Court will have will be that of distraint.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I want to know what are going to be the exact limits of the County Court powers in this matter of derelict farms, because it is a very material question. You know the tithe owner is not placed in permanent possession of the land. He is only placed in possession for a period
  338
  sufficient to repay the distress and the costs. That is the object with which he receives possession of the land, and when he has satisfied the tithe-charge and the costs, the land is restored to the original owner. What we want to know is what will be the treatment of the land in the interval, because after three or four years' treatment in the manner I have just referred to it would become so dilapidated that when returned it would be in a worse condition than it was at the beginning. These are matters which arise on the question of derelict farms, and I shall be very much surprised if hon. Gentlemen opposite, who take some interest in the treatment of the land, do not give consideration to these points. Simply to introduce this right under the authority of the County Court without any further provision or explanation as to how it will act seems to me a most unsatisfactory thing.
  MR. C. W. GRAY: The point under discussion is a much more important one than the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade seems to think. It is quite true that if there are crops on the land which can be turned into money, the tithe owner will have the right to turn them into money. But there may be a considerable number of acres on the farm under what is called tillage, on which nothing is growing. Now, if there is a tithe of some £10 or so due to the tithe owner, I do not think that he should be allowed to enter and spoil the tillages.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I would point out that the tithe owner's desire to realise his tithe would compel him to complete the cultivation that had been begun. If the land had been ploughed he would harrow and sow and reap the crop, and after selling it keep the amount of his tithe and pay the remainder over to the owner of the land.
  MR. C. W.GRAY: Quite so, if the tithe owner, or whoever the man may be, who got possession of the farm understood as much about agriculture as the right hon. Gentleman does. But I can assure him, that in dealing with the heavy clay lands of Essex it would take a very clever man to know what to do with a particular tillage. It is a perfectly reasonable supposition on the part of my

  339
  hon. Friend that a great deal of injury might be done to a vast amount of preparatory work in the way of tillages by a man who might enter under this clause, and who might know no more about farming than I do about legal definitions or other lawyers' work. Under these circumstances, unless a great deal more light is thrown on this proposal of the Government. I am afraid I shall be compelled to oppose it. I should be very sorry indeed if the tithe owner for the sake of recovering a small amount of tithe, should be able to spoil a great deal of labour that had been done in the way of tillages.
  MR. WROUGHTON: I have viewed this Bill with great suspicion, because I believe it to be drawn solely in the interest of the tithe owner, and with no regard to the interest of the tithepayer. I have a suspicion of this Amendment, which, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman may be able to remove. It says—
  "If the officer satisfies the Court that there is no sufficient distress on the lands liable to to the payment."
  That seems plausible enough. But it does not assure us that what is found on the farm in the shape of chairs and tables will not be touched. I do not find those words in the old Act. In the Act of 1836 the word "premises" is used instead of "lands," thus rendering personal property liable to distraint.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am willing to take the words of the old Act. Nothing will be liable to distraint except that which is liable now.
  MR. WROUGHTON: I do not think that is satisfactory. The whole nature of tithe is that it is a charge on the land or the produce of the land. At present, as is well known, landowners and yeomen farmers have found it impossible to farm their land at a profit. They have been farming for years and finding all the capital—giving themselves all the trouble and incurring all the risk—and they have found that after paying the heavy tithes, commuted in the time of the Corn Laws, they have nothing for themselves. Unless we are careful in framing the clause we shall find that everything may be taken from
  340
  them, personal property, as well as the produce of the land.
  MR. H. T. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: As one who has been for years engaged in practical agriculture, I must say I think the hon. Member for Dorsetshire has made out a very good case for this Amendment. I do not think the President of the Board of Trade was justified in assuming that no acts of husbandry would be performed by anyone coming in under this order. It seems to me that cultivation and tillage of some kind is always going on, and that whilst the tithe owner was waiting for £10 worth of produce to pay his tithe damage to the extent of £20 or £30 might be done. I do think that under the circumstances, it is reasonable that the owner of the land should be protected, and if my hon. Friend goes to a Division, I shall go into the Lobby with him.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,: There has been considerable misapprehension on this matter. The subject has, no doubt, been brought under consideration, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby stated, by the raising of the question of County Court dealings with derelict farms. But hon. Members have exaggerated the extent to which the Amendment will have application. If there is an owner or occupier in the place it is scarcely possible to conceive that there will not be sufficient distress, therefore, it is only in cases of derelict farms where any necessity for entry will really arise. In these cases, the assumption is that the land has, to a great extent, gone out of cultivation, and that cultivation has to be taken up on behalf of the tithe owner, who desires to make what he can out of the land. It is at this point that we have stepped in. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has said, over and over again, that he does not wish to improve the position of the tithe owner. Well, this Amendment does not improve his position one whit, but simply enables him to take up the powers conferred by the Act of 1836, and exercise them in the case of derelict farms. It is not the case that any fresh powers are given of touching tables or chairs or anything of that kind, but the tithe owner will be able to go in

  341
  and cultivate the land. An hon. Member said it is a question of the ipse dixit of the officer of the Court, but it is nothing of the kind. The object is to put the tithe owner in exactly the position he would have been in under Section 82 of the Act of 1836. I think if hon. Members who know anything of the law will look into the matter they will see that if the tithe owner is allowed to go on to a farm he should be under the same liabilities as occur at present where compensation can be claimed if he wantonly or wilfully mismanages the land. Hon. Members below the Gangway do not seem to understand the circumstances in which this proviso is applicable. It is applicable to the case of derelict land, because if there is sufficient on the premises to satisfy a distress the question as to power of entry never arises. The argument about ploughing up the corn lands, and so forth, would not, of course, apply where the owner is in occupation. Let me instance a case where the owner has been in occupation. He will either go on cultivating the farm or not. If not, the time will come when there will be no crops on which a distress can he levied, and the power of entry will arise. This power has not been taken advantage of by the tithe owners to any extent, because they find it better to wait till the crops are ripe or have been raised by the occupier or owner, so that they may then avail themselves of the power of distraint. It is only where the landowner is unable to cultivate the crops, and treats the land as derelict, that the power of entry would be exercised by the tithe owner instead of by the Country Court bailiff.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I would put it to the Government: Why cannot they avail themselves of the exceedingly useful suggestions which have been offered from both sides of the House on this matter? The hon. Member who spoke before the Attorney General has suggested certain limitations whereby the distress shall be only on the produce of the land, and there was the suggestion of the hon. Member for West Dorsetshire (Mr. H. Farquharson), whose object was that if any harm ensued from the undue proceedings of the tithe owner in entering upon the land the owner might obtain compensation
  342
  for wasteful or improper cultivation. As the matter stands, however, we have not even the ghost of a guarantee that the operation of the Government Amendment may not extend to other cases besides those of derelict farms. I can conceive a case in which a man, having got in his crop, finds that he has not sufficient money to pay the tithe, and the land may be of such a nature that it may be thought desirable to let it lie fallow for a certain number of months. What, I ask, will be the position of the tithe owner with that land, say between autumn and the end of March? During that period the land may be much in the position of derelict land, and yet it would be unjust to permit the tithe owner to step in and take possession of the farm. The tithe owner might not be sufficiently acquainted with the proper rotation of crops or with the character of the soil, and the farm might thereby suffer deterioration. In a case of that kind, I fail to see what the operation of the Amendment moved by the President of the Board of Trade would be, and therefore I feel that some sort of limitation or safeguard ought to be interposed.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I would remind the House that this power of entry has always been in force under the old Act, by which the tithe owner was enabled to put the writ of habere facias possessionem in force if he could not get what was due in any other way. I am somewhat surprised that the hon. Member for Berkshire when he addressed us did not give us a case in point with which he is intimately connected. The hon. Member owns a farm which was unable to pay rent or tithes, and he handed it over bodily to the tithe owners, who, I believe, are still farming the land. I think it would have been very interesting if the hon. Member had told the House what results had been obtained by the tithe owners. I am afraid they do not get much. As a rule, however, the tithe owners are afraid to take the land, and would rather forego a large portion of tithe than have the land upon their hands. Still the question that has been raised as to tillages is a very important one, and I think it obvious that there ought to be some safeguard against the land being injured or deteriorated. It would be a simple

  343
  matter to add a few words that would effect this object, and I hope the Government will see its way clear to the adoption of that course.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: We are told that if the tithe owner, in entering upon a farm, breaks up pasture land or commits waste, he is liable to pay compensation; but I do not know under what provisions that liability is incurred. However, assuming he is liable for actual waste, is there any security that he is liable for permissive waste. I do not know that he would be liable if he merely allows the land to go out of cultivation or does not cultivate it properly. It is said that the officer of the Court would not have the power suggested by the right lion. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt), namely, of management, but only the power of distraint; and that appears to be so, as far as I can gather from the construction of the section; but let me point out what a circuitous procedure this would require. After the passing of the Act you cannot enforce the payment of tithe except by the intervention of the County Court, and in certain cases the order of the Court is to be executed in one way, while in other cases it must be executed in another way. The Amendment says—
  "If the officer satisfies the Court that there is no sufficient distress on the lands liable to the payment of the tithe rent-charge, the Court may authorise the owner of the rent-charge to sue out a writ of habere facias possessionem, in accordance with Section 82 of The Tithe Act, 1836."
  And you must go to a Superior Court to get that writ, and again to supersede it. In fact, proceedings may go on for ever. Moreover, the Government do not adopt the words of the Act of 1836—"If there should be no sufficient distress on the premises." If the Amendment of the Government should be adopted, I shall feel it my duty to move the omission of some of the words and the insertion of those used in the Act of 1836.
  MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS: I cannot but think that the Government would have done well not to have put this Amendment on the Paper, as it seems to me only to complicate the difficulty. I cannot see why, when they have got nearly all they want they should go out of
  344
  their way to introduce into the mode of procedure under the Bill this old fashioned, arbitrary and inconvenient mode of trying to get at the tithe. I would suggest that they had better withdraw the Amendment altogether; if they do not I think they will find they are placing their friends the tithe owners in a very different position. I think hon. Members are right in insisting that if the tithe owner takes it into his head to enter into possession when he finds a farm will not pay tithe, the occupying owner shall be placed in a fair position, and afforded an opportunity of obtaining from the amateur farmer, or tithe owner, a fair compensation for whatever injury may be done. I hope the Government will see the wisdom of not persisting with this very foolish Amendment.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: With the permission of the House, I think I may state that I shall be able to some extent to meet the wishes of my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon. This does not seem to me to be a question to be dealt with as a matter of compensation between landlord and tenant. The positions of the parties are different, and, therefore, the law as to compensation, as it appears to me, would not properly apply. But I think there is a great deal in what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, and by hon. Members on this side of the House as to the possibility of the landowner being injured by waste or improper cultivation, and I will undertake that we will have the point carefully looked into with a view to having words drawn up and inserted so as to make it perfectly clear that the land owner shall be properly safeguarded by rendering the tithe owner liable to him for any injury by waste.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Will those words be inserted tonight?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I cannot undertake to frame the words off-hand. The Amendment would have to be made elsewhere.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not think that this is at all a convenient way of dealing with the Amendment, and surely, when our conduct on this side of the House has been so freely criticised in relation to this Bill, it is a singular

  345
  thing that the Government cannot manage, on account of the extreme haste with which they are pressing forward this Measure, to introduce a few words qualifying their proposal before the Bill leaves this House. This is the second Amendment they cannot find time to introduce into the House of Commons, and what is the consequence of all the helter-skelter with which the Bill is being forced upon us? These are Amendments which, from time to time, the Government have resisted, hour after hour, until, when an Amendment has been proposed from their own side they allow themselves and the House to be driven into a corner, and then say, "For heaven's sake allow us to propose an Amendment in the House of Lords, and take your chance whether it will be adopted there or not."
  MR. HAMBRO: I have not heard a single remark from the Government showing what objection they have to the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Dorset, and I hope to hear from them some assurance that they will meet the object he has in view.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I would ask whether the Government cannot meet the object by re-commiting the Bill in order to introduce the Amendments they propose. We have no business to be met by the statement that Amendments will be introduced in the House of Lords. If I am in order in doing so, I will give notice that we will call on the Government to re-commit the Bill for the purpose of introducing their Amendments before the Third Reading.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is quite competent to the House to re-commit the Bill before the Third Reading.
  MR. H. R. FARQUHARSON: I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept words carrying out the object of my Amendment?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: What are the words?
  MR. H. R. FARQUHARSON: I have no form of words to propose; I leave it to the Government to frame the words they may think necessary for the purpose.
  MR. C. W. GRAY: May I ask whether we are still expected to agree to the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman
  346
  has upon the Paper? Would it not be better to allow it to remain in abeyance?
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: As there seems to be a good deal of division of opinion on the legal aspect of the matter, the Attorney General saying one thing and hon. Members belonging to the legal profession on this side saying another, I think it would greatly facilitate the passing of the Bill if it were re-committed for the purpose of having an Amendment inserted that would meet general acceptance.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon I may state that I will not press my Amendment now.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  (7.30.) Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 21, after the word "Receivers," to insert the words, "as in any other case."—(Sir M. Hicks Beach.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. S. T. EVANS: These words were struck out in Committee. I raised an objection in Committee which was supported by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby. These seems to me the very same words which were struck out in Committee.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: There was a misapprehension when the words were struck out in Committee, and these words are necessary to make line 21 read in accordance with subsequent provisions. They do not enable the County Court to confer more powers upon the Receiver, but simply to give the Court control over the Receiver.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The words are in accordance with the alteration which the hon. Member himself effected in Clause 2, and they are to enable the Court to have full control over the Receiver, and not to enable the Court to confer further powers on the Receiver.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: Would it not be better to insert the word "over" instead of "in respect of?"
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have no objection at all.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 21, to strike out the words "in respect of," and insert the word "over."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: We come now to the case which the Government promised to consider in Committee. I beg to move to insert at the end of Sub-section 3 the following words:—
  "Except in cases where the Receiver satisfies the Court that such rents and profits are not sufficient to comply with and satisfy such order."
  I think it is very clear to the House that in cases where the rent and profit of the land are not such as to satisfy the tithe rent-charge, there is no provision at all for the recovery of the tithe charge. Take the case which I used before, of a lease of 14 years between an occupier and a landlord. It might be that the landlord had a spite to the tithe owner, and would say to the occupier—"Give me a big fine, and let me have it at once; or, pay me the rent in advance and I will give you the farm at a lower rent for the subsequent period of the lease." In that case the lowered rents may not be sufficient to satisfy the tithe, and it will not be paid at all. Or take the case of a landlord letting the farm for 14 years on these terms: The buildings are wrecked, and he says—"I am a poor landlord; I cannot spend money to erect buildings; but if you (the tenant) will erect the buildings, I will for the first seven years let you have the farm rent free, or for a peppercorn rent." That is very often the case, I am told. Under such circumstances, it would be impossible for the tithe owner to get his tithe at all. This is one of the cases which the Government promised to consider. I should like to hear what the Government have to say about it, for it is clearly a case which ought to be governed by the Act.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 24, after the word "lands." to insert the words—
  "Except in cases where the receiver satisfies the court that such rents and profits are not sufficient to comply with and satisfy such order."—(Mr. S. T. Evans.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The words proposed by the hon. Member inflict upon the owner a disability from which under the Bill he is especially guarded, and it is contrary to the existing law that any land should be sold for arrear of tithe. I hope the House will not agree to the Amendment.
  MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS: It is quite obvious that if the owner of the land objects to the tithe, he may arrange with the occupier for a fine or some other consideration, and the consequence may be that the tithe owner does not get his tithe. Or it may be that no actual rent is paid for a term of years, and that the sum due by the ordinary tenant to the ordinary landlord is considerable. My hon. Friend might adopt a form of words which require the Receiver to satisfy the Court of the value of the land.
  MR. LLOYD- GEORGE: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to take the case of a farm which is let at a peppercorn rental in consideration of some outlay by the tenant or some capital outlay. Under this section the tithe owner is only entitled to enter into receipt of the actual rent of the land. If the tithe is in excess of that actual rent, then the tithe owner is barred of his remedy. Again, suppose the landlord lets his farm to his son or to some relative at no rent whatever, or merely a nominal rent, in that case under this section the tithe owner would not receive a farthing out of the landowner. He is only entitled to receive rents which the tenant is liable to pay to the landlord. He cannot go beyond the actual extent of the rent of the property at the time, because this section is only applicable to cases in which the owner is in occupation. It cannot be said the owner is in occupation when he has let his land at a nominal rental. I think in the interest of the tithe owner this Amendment should be made to apply. Unless this Amendment is adopted it will be open to anyone by a simple contract of the character I have indicated to get out of the payment of any tithe whatever. Therefore the tithe owner would be deprived of any remedy whatever. If I were asked how to get rid of this Act, I would reply that the simplest way was this. Let the owner of the land, instead of letting at an annual rental of £100, ask the tenant

  349
  to pay a premium of £1,000, letting the tenant have the land rent free in consideration of the premium for ten years. If there were an agreement of that character, the tithe owner would be absolutely without any remedy whatever. Now if the landowner refuses to pay tithe, the tithe owner makes application to the Court, which appoints a receiver, who simply steps into the shoes of the landowner himself. The Receiver can only do what the agent of the landowner might do; he can simply receive the rents and profits and compel the occupier to pay such rents and profits as he would be liable otherwise to pay to the landowner. Therefore, the tithe owner would have no remedy whatever. I certainly venture to think that my hon. Friend's proposal is a very good way of getting out of the difficulty.
  (7.48.) The House divided:—Ayes 99; Noes 133.—(Div. List, No. 48.)
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: I beg to move the omission from Sub-section 6 of all the words after the words "rent-charge." My reason for doing so is that the last portion of the clause appears to be taken, in substance at all events, from the Irish Coercion Act, and I believe that it is unknown to the English law. I believe the practice is unknown to the English law, that we should proceed against unknown persons. The clause at present reads that proceedings may be taken against the owner of land without the name of the person being known. I think that is entirely unconstitutional, and against the practices and wishes of the law-givers, at least in England. I have no doubt we shall hear from the Law Officers of the Crown what is their opinion of it. We may find that a statute of Edward III. may be brought to bear on this. The practice laid down under the Irish Coercion Act of proceeding against unknown persons does not commend itself to the British public. I hope that the Government will agree to these words being struck out of the clause.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 41, to leave out from the word "rent-charge," to the end of Sub-section (6) of Clause 2.—(Sir John Swinburne.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  SIR R. WEBSTER: The hon. Baronet has assumed a most lively interest in these unknown persons. What we say is that when the tithe owner is not known proceedings may be taken to force him to disclose. It seems to me a proper thing that there should be procedure by substituted service. An owner may be lying dark, and the object is to force him to a disclosure. It is a mistake to suppose that this machinery has never been provided in any Act except the Crimes Act. It has been put into Bills during the last five or six Sessions, and before that—into the Bankruptcy Act, the Merchant Shipping Act, and other measures, of which I could give the hon. Member a catalogue. I am sure there can be no objection to the clause.
  MR. LLOYD GEORGE: Before the question is put I should like to know whether is it incumbent on the tithe owner to make any inquiries as to who the owner of the land is. Is it sufficient for him to say, "I do not know who the owner of the land is?" Is there no protection against the landowner saying, "I am not going to take any trouble to ascertain who the owner is?"
  The House divided:—Ayes 120; Noes 67.—(Div. List, No. 49.)
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: Now that my Amendment has been rejected I beg to add at the end of Sub-section 6 "and the occupier has refused to give the name of the owner."
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 3, at the end of Sub-section (6) of Clause 2, to insert the words "and the occupier has refused to give the name of the owner."—(Sir John Swinburne.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment. As he was told twice before the last Division, this is a matter which will be settled by rules.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: Perhaps I may explain.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I rise to order. The hon. Member has already spoken.
  SIR W. PLOWDEN: I think the Government might well accept this Amendment. If the question has to be settled by rules, why should it not be settled here?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: May I point out to hon. Gentlemen that you might just as well insert in the Statute every condition that will enter into the minds of those who will frame the rules. To insert such a condition as the hon. Baronet proposes would be stultifying the Act.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: I rise to a point of order. Mr. Speaker, as I have not spoken upon this Amendment, I wish to ask you whether I have not the right to speak?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has proposed the Amendment, and has actually spoken to it. He cannot speak again.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Could not the Government accede to the insertion of some such words as the Attorney General suggested, so as to make it necessary for the tithe owner to make all reasonable inquiries as to who the owner is? What I am desirous of providing against is the possibility of the clerical tithe owner saying "I am not going to bother myself as to who the owner is." Only a few weeks ago, the case came under my notice where the tithe owner served a notice upon a wrong person. I can quite understand that the Amendment will not cover every circumstance and contingency, but it is a proper Amendment as far as it goes. The rules will simply set forth the method whereby service shall be effected. I should like to see some indication, direction, or instruction to the framers of the rules, as to the character the rules should assume. Unless some Amendment, such as this is adopted I trust my hon. Friend will go to a division.
  (8.20.) The House divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 114.—(Div. List, No. 50.)
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Before the right hon. Gentleman proposes his Amendment I have an Amendment to propose in words suggested by the Attorney General at the end of Sub-section 6 of Section 2, as follows—"Every reasonable inquiry having first been made as to who the owner of the
  352
  land is." This will provide a sort of direction to the framers of the rules as to what line they should take with regard to tithe owners serving notices under this Bill without having made any investigation into the circumstances of ownership.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 3, at the end of Sub-section (6) of Clause 2, to insert the words "every reasonable inquiry having been made as to who the owner of the land is."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I really must protest against the hon. Member taking this course, casually taking out one of the many provisions which will have to be made a matter of consideration, and making it the subject of special reference in this way. It is impossible that we can accept this Amendment.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: But I hope the Attorney General will give some consideration to this suggestion. Cases have happened in which tithe owners have served these notices upon the wrong men altogether; and these men were put to considerable expense to get relief from the consequences of notices being served. The hon. Member has knowledge of the law, and practical experience of what has actually happened in Wales, and certainly I do not think it is asking too much to say that some small trouble should be taken to ascertain the real owners. The words are those actually used by the Attorney General himself.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I am sure my hon. Friend does not wish to put the House to unnecessary inconvenience. His intention was by introducing some words of this kind to prevent a tithe owner from capriciously serving notices upon the land when he had no real difficulty in finding out the actual owner of the land.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I hope the hon. Member will not think it necessary to press this; it is a matter that must be dealt with by the rules, and I will undertake to mention the matter to the Lord Chancellor.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Since the right hon. Gentleman has undertaken to see that proper protection shall be given

  353
  to owners in this matter I will not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 3, at the end, to insert the words—
  ''The fees payable on the proceedings under this section shall not exceed those set forth in the Schedule to this Act, and the fees, charges, and expenses in or incidental to any distress under this Act shall be the same as are for the time being payable under "The Law and Distres Amendment Act, 1888."—(Sir M. Hicks Beach.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I was in hopes the right hon. Gentleman would have tendered us some explanation of the proviso and the Schedule to which it refers. When this question was discussed in Committee it excited the greatest interest in all parts of the House, the suggestion for a Schedule being thrown out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury in discussion upon my Amendment which was defeated. It is because of the evident interest that in several quarters of the House was taken in the subject that we have to thank the Government for a Schedule. But this Schedule is very defective inasmuch as it deals simply with the question of "fees," and not of costs. There seems to be a universal agreement in the House that costs ought not to exceed the amount of present distress proceedings. The right hon. Gentleman said last night that the Schedule which I in Committee proposed dealt with fees only, and at the time I could not refer to a copy of the Schedule or a report of the proceedings, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman he is mistaken.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have a copy of the Schedule here.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: With the proviso referring to the Schedule?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes; referring to the Schedule where nothing but fees are set out.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman is not so conversant with the practice of the Courts as the Attorney General. The Schedule does deal with other matters. "In all proceedings for the appointment of an officer under Sub-section 1 of Clause 2, if the sum does not exceed £5; 2s. 6d.; if the sum exceeds
  354
  £5; 5s." There is not a word there about fees at all.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: But those are fees.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: Yes, but it does, not say Court fees. Further, "For every day's possession, 2s. 6d." This is not a Court fee. You might as well say that a witnesses allowance is a fee. Then the Schedule must be considered in connection with the proviso, which governs its application; and my proviso ran—
  "Provided always that the total costs to be allowed to the tithe owner, in any case under Section 2, shall not exceed the costs specified in the Schedule of the Act."
  I might also refer to the words used by the right hon. Gentleman himself in his speech in replying to me, in which he made use of the following terms: He had endeavoured to point out the objections to framing a Schedule of costs. "And again, there was a prospect of a long discussion upon questions of shillings and sixpences in a Schedule of costs;" and, in fact, throughout it must be in the recollection of Members that the discussion turned upon the question of costs, not of Court fees only.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It is quite possible that I may have inadvertently used the word "costs."
  MR. S. T. EVANS: Well, the point is not worth elaborating. The proviso referred to the total costs, and it will be in the recollection of hon. Members that the discussion ranged over cost of various proceedings, notices, interrogatories, witnesses, solicitors, &c., and I would point out that if we are simply to have a Schedule of fees we are very little better off, for these fees in the proposed Schedule are not appreciably lower than the fees now are. It will be remembered, too, that in illustration I cited a case in which the amount in dispute being only 30s. the cost of witnessess was £11. I said witnesses in that case came from Brighton, and the Attorney General seemed to question whether witnesses would be required; and then it was shown there must be proof of title of the tithe owner, and proof of assessment, and that costs would be incurred by this means. Now, starting from the principle accepted, that so far as we can, costs shall not be heavier under the new procedure than

  355
  under the old, let me point out that now , you can only have the costs of distress, but under the new procedure you must incur greater costs to some extent, because there will be County Court proceedings before the distress takes place. That, however, is the framework of the Bill, and we cannot alter it. But I think it would be entirely against the spirit and intention of the House when this question of costs was left over to the "Report" stage that we should allow a set of rules to be framed and the costs of barristers, solicitors, witnesses to be left uncontrolled——
  MR. SPEAKER: It is my duty to point out to the hon. Member that on a previous occasion, when an Amendment proposed by the President of the Board of Trade was under consideration—an Amendment to provide for the recovery of costs as well as the tithe in the County Court, an Amendment to this Amendment was proposed by the hon. Member for Camborne to the effect that the costs should be "according to the Schedule." The House negatived that proposal, negatived, therefore, the inclusion of costs in the Schedule; and I cannot, therefore, reconcile that negative with the proposal in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman to include "total costs, charges, and expenses" in the Schedule.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: With every respect for your ruling, Sir, may I point out that the word "costs," as they appear in that part of the Bill, refer to costs allowed by the Bill, and we are now discussing what those costs should be. In that case, the reference was general to costs allowed under the Act, and the costs were not specified.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: On the point of Order, may I remind the House that on the occasion to which you have referred the hon. Member for Camborne argued that the costs should be set out in the Schedule, and it was for the purpose of so including them that he moved his Amendment.
  MR. SPEAKER: That was so. The question was whether there should be a Schedule of costs and fees, and upon that the House decided in the negative.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: Then, Sir, I will say no more on the Amendment, but
  356
  defer my remarks until we reach my Amendment of which I have given notice, if I shall than be in order in bringing it forward.
  MR. SPEAKER: My ruling will apply to that Amendment, inasmuch as he hon. and learned Member proposes to leave out "fees" and insert "total costs, charges and expenses," or, in other words, to include in the Schedule that which the House has already negatived. The Amendment would be out of order.
  MR. W. BOWEN ROWLANDS: If I may say a word on your ruling, Sir, I would observe that nobody supposed we were so arguing he question at any time as to exclude this point of costs from consideration when reached.
  MR. SPEAKER: Of course. I have nothing to do with what may have been in the minds of hon. Members; I can only take the facts as I find them. It was the question that costs should be according to the Schedule that the House negatived, and I am bound by that decision.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: May I be allowed to observe, Sir, that I pointed out that this Amendment was one upon which the question might be raised.
  MR. RANDELL: But are we excluded from debating the question of costs? We are now dealing with Court fees, letting costs stand quite apart. Are we excluded from debating costs? With all submission to your ruling, Sir, I would say I believe the House fully understood this question would arise on the Amendment of the President of the Board of Trade, and I feel sure the House will consider the Government have broken faith with the House if——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is apart from the point of Order. It would be out of Order to discuss the question whether costs should form part of the Schedule. (8.45.)
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I understand from your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that it would be out of order to include a scale of costs in the Schedule.

  357
  I do not know whether I should be in order in discussing, without going into figures and detail, the question whether that Schedule should cover costs as well as fees.
  MR. SPEAKER: That is the point of Order I decided.
  MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS: I understand, Sir, that the question of costs being part of the Schedule was disposed of on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Camborne. I venture to submit that if the Amendment now before the House is adopted, there is nothing that would preclude me from moving a proviso to follow it, which would deal with the total amount of costs to be recovered. The Attorney General shakes his head, but it is to you, Sir, I appeal, to decide the point of Order.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade whether in the event of our agreeing to this clause without discussion, he would consent to re-commit the Bill with the view of discussing the Amendment of the Schedule so as to include the question of costs.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I cannot agree to re-commit the Bill. The situation is this: I have moved the words on the Paper with regard to fees. The Schedule has been on the Paper several days, and hon. Members were well aware it relates to fees and not to costs. I understand the ruling of the Speaker to be that costs cannot be dealt with in the Schedule; but I should imagine it is possible for hon. Members to move Amendments expressing their views as to costs. It is not for me to express an opinion as to whether that would be in order or not.
  MR. SPEAKER: My ruling was that the Schedule is exclusively a Schedule of fees, and the Schedule cannot be amended so as to include costs associated with fees. When the hon. Member for South Glamorgan asks me if he can bring forward the question of costs, I reply that he can bring forward an independent Amendment to the effect that the costs shall not exceed a certain amount. That will be in Order, but it cannot be included in the Schedule.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: Would it be within our competence to add a second Schedule dealing with solicitors' and barristers' costs?
  MR. SPEAKER: I should like to see the Schedule before expressing an opinion upon it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS: I beg to move the following proviso at the end of the last Amendment:—
  "Provided always that the total cost, including fees, chargeable against the tithepayer shall not exceed 5s. in the pound on the total amount recovered, and in no case shall exceed £5."
  I was afraid, Sir, when I heard your ruling with reference to the Schedule on the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that we were by a misapprehension of the gravest kind, I would call it, precluded from discussing that which, from the point of view of the people of Wales, is the most important matter in this Bill. I apologise for intervening with this Amendment, and hope it will not preclude other hon. Members from dealing with the question of costs at a later stage of the Bill. I think, however, that this Amendment will meet the views of my Welsh colleagues. It will be in the recollection of the House that when the question of costs was raised in Committee it was discussed in considerable detail. As I understood, in response to objections and to suggestions from this side of the House, and after a very emphatic statement on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir H. James), an undertaking was given by the Government that they would deal with the question of costs in the Schedule. I may have been wrong—it may have been owing to my denseness and stupidity. I am not imputing bad faith to the Government. The question is a highly technical one, and the word "fees" and the word "costs" are very often interchangeable. My hon. Friend below the Gangway clearly has used the word "costs" in that double sense, though no doubt, technically, there is a broad distinction between the fees charged on entering upon a stage of County Court procedure and the costs as between attorney and client or party and party.

  359
  The Welsh Members quite understood that the whole question of penalty and costs to be imposed upon the unhappy tithepayer was to be considered by the Government, and that the result was to be put before the House in some way. I was never more amazed than when I found the Schedule on the Notice Paper. What does the Schedule come to? The Government might have saved themselves the trouble of putting it there, for it is simply a statement of the Court fees. Of what use is that to us? What are we gainers by it, except that we have a slight reduction of the Court fees? If you are going to use this Act in reference to the freeholders in the whole of Wales, let us realise what it comes to. I confess I am not familiar with the procedure which puts the receiver into the possession of the rents and profits of land, and, so far as I can make out, it is a process that is not very convenient under ordinary conditions. It has been imported into this Bill; but when I turn to the County Court Consolidation Act, I find that the method of procedure is a very unusual one, and that it involves a number of steps. First of all, we may assume that the occupying land owner is disinclined or unable to pay his tithe. Well, under the procedure we are about to introduce it will be necessary to go to the County Court. If the application be to the Court, you must have as many copies as there are parties, and one for the Judge, and these must be furnished to the Registrar. The application having been made, notices are served on all those who are concerned. This involves a certain number of fees. The cost of service of the summons or notice where the claim exceeds £10, I find, is 5s., and there may be three, four, or five persons on whom they have to be served. Is that charge included in the Schedule? No. Then come the solicitor's charges, and from the first to the last stage of this complicated and expensive process the costs may be heaped up to any extent without any safeguard on the part of the tithe-payer. Looking at the scale of costs that may be dealt with, I have no hesitation in saying that, in order to obtain the appointment of a receiver where the sum of £10 is being sued for against a recalcitrant occupying owner, it would
  360
  be possible to spend £10, £15, or even as much as £20 in costs. In fact, there seems to be no limit to these charges. The receiver becomes an officer of the Court and has to render all the accounts, and is thereby entitled to poundage and costs generally. It is, indeed, almost impossible to define the numerous ways in which costs may be piled up. We have it on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir H. James) that the costs of the County Court are exceedingly high, and after that statement was made the Government told us they would not only look into the matter, but would arrange a Schedule that would give a fair scale. But how are they doing this? They have drawn up a scale which I unhesitatingly say will press very harshly on the poor tithepayer. This ought not to be, especially when we remember that the effect of this Bill will be to increase the value of the tithe at least 25 per cent. The present Prime Minister recommended in introducing a former Tithe Bill that, considering the increased security it would give to the tithe, at least one-fifth should be allowed in return to the tithepayer; but the tithe owners refused this, and that Bill was not proceeded with. By this Bill you not only give the tithe owner an easy debt-collecting machinery, whereby the payment of the tithe may be enforced, but you actually increase the value of the tithe at least 25 per cent., and to a large extent render it a saleable security, and yet at the same time, you, propose to inflict a system of costs that will press with extreme harshness on the tithepayers as a body I think that when a machinery such as is provided by this Bill is put at the service of the tithe owner it ought to be put in motion at his own expense. The costs of County Court processes are admitted to be absurdly high, thereby inflicting an unjust tax on those who have to pay them, and the sooner these heavy charges are swept away, and the doors of our Courts of Justice are opened in such a way as to get rid of this shameful tax on the public, the better will it be for the country generally. But whatever the costs are I say this: that they should be borne by those who are acquiring by means of this Bill an

  361
  enormous increase of property, and ought not to be imposed on the poor tithepayer.
  Amendment proposed, at the end of the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words—
  "Provided always that the total cost, including fees, chargeable against the tithepayer, shall not exceed five shillings in the pound on the total value recovered, and in no case shall exceed five pounds."—(Mr. Arthur Williams.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. W. BOWEN ROWLANDS: It is contended on this side of the House that in imposing a new process for the collection of tithe the Government should take care that those who have to pay the tithe will not be put to greater cost than is incurred under the present system. This question was discussed in a tolerably full House when the Bill was in Committee, and, as has been stated, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury agreed with us in saying that the Schedule of costs in the County Court at the present time was excessive. What, I ask, would have been the meaning of the arguments then employed if we were only considering the mere question of fees? And here let it be understood that I am not charging right hon. Gentlemen opposite with having consciously violated any engagements, although certainly from what occurred I should have thought they would have been disposed to have taken a more favourable view of the question, and to have adopted the moderate proposal now made by my hon. Friend. Under the old system of distraint nothing but the ordinary fees were chargeable against the person whose goods were seized, and it was in view of this fact, and of all the other considerations that have been brought forward, that the Government gave a pledge that the whole question should be dealt with in a Schedule. I cannot imagine how they can have supposed that we understood their promise in any other sense than that in which we have been discussing the matter this evening. Surely there can be no objection to their re-considering the question, and dealing with the entire matter of costs and fees in an amended Schedule. It is obvious, and
  362
  has been fully admitted, that under the new and substituted process for the recovery of tithe the costs should not be more onerous than they have hitherto been; and I would appeal to the Attorney General to say whether it was not intended that the penal consequences to the tithepayer should not be increased by this Bill? Even assuming it to be right that the tithepayer should pay the solicitor's costs, he ought, at any rate, to know what those costs will be. I cannot understand what objection there can be to the framing of a Schedule from which a man may learn the extent of the costs to which he may be put in resisting a claim for tithe. I hope, therefore, the Government will see their way to the production of such a Schedule as will show the ultimate limit to which the costs in these cases may hereafter be carried.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think I am right in saying that hon. Members on this side of the, House do not wish to deprive the tithe owner of the legitimate costs he may incur in sueing for his tithe, and, therefore, we would not oppose any rational Schedule of costs. What we say is that the present Schedule of County Court costs is utterly irrational and highly oppressive. The vast majority of cases under the Bill will be undefended cases; but wherever a case is defended all sorts of intricate points relating to questions of boundary and law will be sure to crop up, and in such cases it is only fair that the tithe owner should have a proportion of the costs he may be put to; but it would be only right to adopt some such Amendment as that suggested by the hon. Member for the Gower Division, that in such cases we should not allow costs beyond the Schedule of the Bill. The House negatived that proposal, so that the present position is this: that whenever there is any legal point involved the Judge may certify that the point was in the public interest, and that the tithe owner should have his proper costs. But the cases to which the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Glamorgan is applicable are those in which there is no trial. In Wales there will be shoals of cases in which the tithepayer will protest against the

  363
  payment of the tithe. These cases, when brought before the Court, will not be defended; there will be no intention of raising points of law. Why should a solicitor be employed in those cases? There is absolutely no necessity for one. Or, why should witnesses be called? Under the Schedule, if applied to undefended cases, a solicitor would be allowed to charge 6s. 8d. for preparing the proof of each witness; 5s. for every copy; and a fee for every brief, where, in fact, no brief is required at all, because there is no defence. I think it is a most offensive exercise to be made of the Act. In hundreds of cases in England the tithepayer cannot pay his tithe except only by instalment, and when summoned before the Court he states his willingness to pay by instalments of £1 a month. If this Schedule is allowed to stand in these cases all the costs to which I have referred would be incurred, though not in the slightest degree necessary. The other day I looked into the costs of an undefended case in the County Court. It was very well known that the case would not be defended. In fact, the only reason the defendant was in Court was that he could not pay, and he was asking for time. In this case the solicitor was allowed 13s. 4d., or 6s. 8d. for entering the case, so much for serving the summons, and so much for preparing the brief; and in this case, as in every case, it was within the power of the solicitor to give notice to defend. So that you may have undefended cases—I am not speaking of defended cases—in which the costs can be run up to £6, though the sum owing is only £20. I think this a most monstrous thing. Another strong argument is, that the costs in these cases should be circumscribed in a greater degree than in ordinary cases. As a rule, in Wales, these cases will be presented in batches of 40. To enter one involves little more expense and trouble than to enter the whole 40. Really the whole work could be done by the solicitor's clerk in a couple of hours. Yet the solicitor is entitled by the Schedule to run up a bill in these 40 cases of from £100 to £200. I venture to think that a separate Schedule should be given limiting the costs in undefended cases, unless, indeed, it is intended that the costs should be used as a means
  364
  of crushing agitation. But in endeavouring to crush the agitation, it seems to me that you will also be oppressing the yeoman farmers of England, by the introduction of these costs and fees.
  MR. H. R. FARQUHARSON: I have not enjoyed a legal education, but I distinctly understood the Government to say during the course of this discussion that they would take care that the tithepayer was not in a worse position after the passing of this Act, especially with regard to this matter of costs. But now the Government are endeavouring to ride away on some ridiculous difference between fees and costs. To my mind, either one or the other is very much the same against the tithepayer, who is compelled to pay them. I venture to suggest to the Government that it would be wise to re-commit the Bill altogether, so that we might clearly understand what the Government does mean.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: I do hope the suggestion coming from the hon. Member will be taken into consideration by the Government. We laymen, not learned in the law, look not upon legal complications, but upon the broad principle, that the tithepayer should be put in no worse position with regard to costs than he was before. Though I do not go so far as some of my hon. Friends below the Gangway, yet I know that those who look upon tithe as national property are prepared to accept a reasonable solution of this question of costs, and surely the proposition that they should not exceed 25 per cent of the sum claimed is a reasonable one.
  SIR HUSSEY VIVIAN: Sir, I have refrained hitherto from joining in discussions which appeared to be to me of a purely legal character. We have a strong bench of Welsh lawyers, which, has enabled Welsh Members to take up a leading position in discussions on this Bill. I have always thought it undesirable for Members to speak in this House on question which others know better than themselves. But here is a question which the lay mind is perfectly well able to grasp. I

  365
  think it would be unreasonable to refuse the request contained in the Amendment. How can it be justified that the costs may be 50, or perhaps 100, per cent. of the amount paid? Is that reasonable, is that just to the Welsh people? Surely it is desirable to pass an Act which will be regarded as just. If the Government refuse this limitation to 25 per cent. the Welsh people will consider that justice has been denied them. The learned Attorney General smiles. A lawyer may look at the matter from his point and a litigant from his; but I venture to suggest to the Government that, in the interests of justice, it would be well to allow this Motion to be carried.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I should think the Government would be glad to seize an opportunity of fulfilling their pledge to give a Schedule of costs. The noble Lord the Member for Darwen dissents from that statement, but he is not the Government. This point has so far been argued from the Welsh point of view; but I would point out to hon. Members who are interested in the Eastern Counties that it equally affects the farmers in that district. There, as I understand, the farmers suffer severely from the agricultural depression; and I would ask, are they not the men most likely to go to the County Court in order to secure the advantage of paying the tithe by instalments? And yet it is the fact that, whether the case be defended or not, a solicitor will incur all the costs. At present no costs are allowed, either of solicitor or barrister, in recovering tithe by distraint. The necessary preliminary proceedings in the County Court will cost something, and that cost will be additional; but you are heaping upon them the costs of solicitor and counsel, which are not at present allowed. I maintain that it was clearly understood that the total burden in the way of costs imposed by the new procedure should be comprised in a Schedule, and yet the Government are now under cover of a strict technical difference between fees and costs, refusing to do so. I hope that the Government will re-consider the question, if they wish the Debate to be carried on in the same spirit in which it has been conducted hitherto.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I hope that nothing which falls from me will prevent the Debate being carried on in the same spirit; but I confess I think that the kind of spirit shown by the hon. Member for South Glamorgan, who said that the tithe owner should get nothing of these expenses, but use this improved machinery at his own expense, is hardly likely to promote a fair settlement of the question. I wish to appeal to the recollection of the House to say that there has never been one word said to justify the assertion as to the inclusion of costs in a Schedule. There was a suggestion that a maximum should be imposed; but I wish to call the attention of hon. Members opposite to the speech in Committee of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, who followed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury, and supported his demand, on the ground that it was not a question between plaintiff and defendant but between the plaintiff and the Treasury. He stated that the Treasury were exacting in fees more than was necessary. That was, in the main, the argument which induced the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to agree to insert a Schedule. In language which was, perhaps, not so careful as it should have been, I expressed my own opinion that in an undefended case the costs would not exceed a few shillings, and in reply to me either the hon. Member for Gower or the hon. Member for Carnarvon quoted fees, and fees only. I took it down at the time, and the words may be found in Hansard. The hon. Member referred to the plaint fee of 1s. in the £1, and the hearing fee of 2s.in the £1, and he showed that in a case in which the claim was for £5 19s. 6d. the costs would be 18s. But I venture to submit that these fees have nothing whatever to do with the costs of solicitors or witnesses. It has been suggested not only that there should be a maximum, as proposed in another Amendment, but that individual costs in the County Court should be reduced. Costs, however, necessarily depend upon the number of witnesses, on the distances they have to travel, and on other circumstances. Hon. Members opposite, therefore, are under a misapprehension, and it is most remarkable

  367
  that this notice having been down on the Paper for four or five days nobody has put down any Schedule purporting to deal with costs. The only Amendment on the Paper, that in the name of the hon. Member for the Eifion Division, proposes that there shall be a total percentage limit; but no one has framed a Schedule enumerating item by item the particular costs to be incurred. Taking a defended case, prior to this Bill the costs in an action of replevin, whether in the County Court or in the Superior Courts, would be five or six times as much as in the procedure under this Bill. In an undefended case, I admit the order of procedure would be that there would be small costs before distress, and then distress. As to distress, it is provided that the costs shall be the same as were payable under the Distress Act, 1888. There is no doubt as to the way in which costs in undefended cases ought to be dealt with, and the Government will take care that they shall be dealt with by rules of the Rule Committee. Under these rules the costs of employing a solicitor will not be allowed where no notice of defence has been given. If the tithepayer admits that he owes the money, a rule that no costs shall be allowed beyond the fees will meet the objections that have been made. I say this with the authority of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. If the tithepayer admits owing the money no witnesses will be necessary, and the fees wholly or in part will be remitted. If witnesses are called in such cases, the tithe owner will have to pay for them himself. The only case which will not be met by these rules will be cases of strenuous defences, where the tithepayer goes into Court meaning to put the tithe owner to the expense of proving his case, although he knows that he owes the money. In all fairness and justice the moderate costs allowed under the Bill ought in such a case to be borne by the tithepayer. What is the proposal before the House? Is there anything more ridiculous than to say that the maximum costs, including fees, shall not be more than 5s. in the £1, when any one of the fees may in small cases of a few shillings exceed the proposed maximum? Such a proposal is not businesslike. It is the kind of suggestion which does very well for those
  368
  who endeavour to pose as the friends of the poor tithepayer, but which really suggests a false standard, which would allow an absurdly excessive amount of costs in large cases and a ridiculously inadequate amount in the small cases. I hope that I have satisfied hon. Members that they are under a misapprehension, and that in undefended cases the costs will be strictly limited by the rules which the Government will have framed.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: It is not contended that in undefended cases solicitors' and barristers' costs are not now incurred; but will the hon. and learned Gentleman undertake that in such cases there shall be no legal professional costs under this Act?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I am perfectly willing to undertake that the rules shall, in cases in which there is an admission of liability, prevent such costs being charged against the tithepayer.
  (10.23.) The House divided:—Ayes 108; Noes 146.—(Div. List, No. 51.)
  Amendment moved, in page 3, line 7, before the word "have," to insert the words "or of the County Courts Act, 1888."—(Sir M. Hicks Beach.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I beg to move the next Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 9, at the end, to insert the words—
  "And shall in any other case have no other or greater powers of fine or imprisonment than are conferred by the County Courts Act, 1888."—(Sir M. Hicks Beach.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. S. T.EVANS: This is the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade undertook to put on the Paper the other evening in place of one which I withdrew. I will explain why I put my Amendment on the Paper to restrict powers of imprisonment to Section 48 of the County Courts Act. On the 2nd of February I put this question to the Attorney General—
  "Is the Attorney General willing to confine cases of imprisonment to this one Section 48?"
  The right hon. Gentleman replied as follows:—

  369
  "I am not aware that I ever said I desired to avail myself of any other section. I have never suggested by one word that there should be any liability except under this section."
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I beg pardon, but if the hon. Member will look back he will see that that answer was given in reference to a discussion concerning interference with the bailiff.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: It was a discussion on an Amendment moved by an hon. Friend of mine, dealing with imprisonment in general under the powers of this Bill. Bat there is one point on which I should like to have some explanation from the Law Officers. Everyone would desire that the power of the County Court to protect itself and its own dignity should remain intact. There are, however, in the 162nd section of the County Courts Act words relating to officers either going away from or coming to the Court. I should like to know whether, in the opinion of the Attorney General, those words have reference to the time the Court is actually sitting, or whether they would include the case of a bailiff going from his office armed with the warrant of the County Court to execute a process? If the hon. and learned Gentleman's answer to that question is not satisfactory, I shall ask the Government to insert the express sections in the Act, and I am not sure that in any event I shall not do so. The County Court is a Court of Record. [Mr. ADDISON: Hear, hear!] I am glad that an hon. Queen's Counsel has found that out at last. It seems to have dawned quite freshly upon him. Is it not the case that a Court of Record has the power inherent in itself of imprisoning for contempt? We want to make it perfectly clear that no power to imprison outside the specific cases mentioned in the County Courts Act, 1888, is given to the County Court Judge.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I have no doubt that "going to and returning from the Court" means going to and returning from the Court in which the Judge sits—not going to the place armed with a warrant. Again, power to commit for contempt in face of the Court is now controlled by Section 162. The other powers as to imprisonment are in Sections 48 and 50 and following sections, and they refer to jurors, bailiffs, and so
  370
  forth. There was a case where a County Court Judge attempted to exercise some other power, and he was restrained. There is no power of the Court to exercise the power of imprisonment, except in the cases mentioned in the section of the Act.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  The following Amendment stood in the name of Mr. A. WILLIAMS:—
  In page 3, line 9, at end, to insert—"Provided that in no case shall a person charged with having committed any offence under the forty-eighth or one hundred and sixty-second sections of 'The County Courts Act, 1888,' be taken into custody by an officer or bailiff of the county court, or be brought before a county court judge, hut the charge shall be inquired into by a court of summary jurisdiction. On such inquiry, the person charged shall be asked whether he will have his case summarily decided or tried by a jury. If he elects to be tried by a jury, and the Magistrates consider that a case for committal has been made out, he shall be committed for trial at the next quarter sessions."
  MR. SPEAKER: This Amendment is not in Order. The hon. and learned Member proposes an alteration of the County Courts Act in respect of Clauses 48 and 162. He proposes that anybody charged with contempt of Court shall not be tried by the County Court Judge, but shall go before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and, on appeal, shall have the right to a jury. The House has passed an Amendment to the effect that in the case of any second action or matter under this Act it shall be lawful for the plaintiff or defendant to require a jury to try the said action or matter.
  MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS: Am I to understand, Sir, that when these sections of the County Courts Act have been incorporated in this Act it is not competent for the House to modify the general law?
  MR. SPEAKER: Certainly not; because it is not applicable to this Act. The hon. and learned Gentleman refers to any officer of the County Court.
  MR. C. W. GRAY: The Bill contains three principal provisions: Firstly, the tithe rent-charge has in future to be recovered from the landlord only; secondly, tithe has to be recovered through the County Court; and, thirdly, there is the clause which by a misnomer is called a Relief Clause. I have always

  371
  contended that if we deal with cases where the tithe is out of all proportion to the value the landlord derives from the land from which the tithe issues, we ought to deal with them in a spirit of justice and fair-play. In my opinion, this House owes a long-standing debt to the tithepayers on this description of land. The debt was set up when the Corn Laws were repealed. That was the time when the tithe question ought to have been taken up by Parliament. Again, there has been a great change in local rating, and that charge has a great bearing on the point. At the time of the apportionment of tithe in 1836 it was found that during the seven previous years rates had been so high—in some cases 10s. and 15s. in the £1. In consequence, a large sum was added to the tithe apportionment to enable the tithe owner, after the passing of the Commutation Act, to pay the rates. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset (Mr. Farquharson) in the very interesting pamphlet he has written on the tithe question, shows that in one case in which the tithe apportionment was £800 per annum, between £400 and £500 was added in respect of the payment of the rates. My hon. Friend shows, and no one has ventured to question his assertion, that since the passing of the Commutation Act a very much less sum than £400 or £500 in the case mentioned would have been sufficient to enable the tithe owner to pay the rates. In reality, the tithe owner has been saving, out of the sum which was added to the tithe apportionment to enable him to pay the rates, a very large sum, if not every year, at any rate during most of the years which have passed since the enactment of 1836. Under these circumstances, I have a right to claim that if relief is to be given by this Bill at all, it should be real and not illusory. The hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Talbot), who, I think it will be admitted, notwithstanding the presence of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Gedge) is the leader in this House upon all matters connected with tithe and the Church, said on the 26th of January—
  "This Bill is essentially a Bill of compromise and conciliation. It is a Bill for the settlement of a long vexed question, and we
  372
  can never settle any vexed question unless there is a certain amount of give and take."
  I ask the hon. Gentleman if he can place his finger upon one part of this Bill which can be said to contain the principle of give and take, or to exhibit any spirit of compromise in the interest of the tithepayers. The hon. Member and his friends will not suggest for a moment that the give and take principle is to be found in the first part of the Bill, which transfers the payment of the tithe from the tenant to the landlord. Anyone who knows anything about the tithe question must admit that in that clause there is an invaluable concession to the tithe owners. Can the hon. Member show me one word in the next part of the Bill—in that part which deals with the recovery of tithe through the County Court—which breathes of compromise in the interest of the tithepayers? If there is any give and take, it must be in this 3rd Clause to which my Amendment applies, and I ask the House to bear with me if I repeat one or two arguments I have used before. This clause puts the tithe question for the future in this position: Parliament in 1891, decides that the tithe owners' property from the land may be double that of the property of the landlord or the yeoman farmer. If I am asked whether I will accept this 3rd clause as a relief clause, I shall say no. Although, we have waited for years to get this question settled, I would ten times rather the question remained as it is than have it settled as now proposed. During the last few years, several Bills dealing with the tithe question have been introduced, and I think every Member of the House will agree with me, when I say that each Bill has been better than its predecessor. When we have concluded the consideration of this Bill, I think all fair minded men will, on examination, find that every Amendment accepted by the House has improved this Bill. That leads me to believe that as we go on, as Parliament becomes more and more acquainted with the technical questions relating to tithepaying in the Eastern Counties, and those parts of England where tithepaying has become such a grievance, we shall get a fair

  373
  recognition of our just claims. If this so-called relief clause is passed, we shall be twitted on every platform, from Land's End to John O'Groats, with having dealt with the question in this way. A certain amount of relief will be given to a very limited number of large farms, but we shall be challenged to name one small farm of from 10 to 15 acres upon which there are buildings of any value which will come within the point of relief. I am very sorry that I have to take up this position to-night. I acknowledge most freely the courtesy with which we have been met by the President of the Board of Trade, but I feel I should be false to the promises which I gave to my yeoman farming friends in the Eastern Counties before I entered the House if I did not say on their behalf that we much rather the whole question of relief remained in abeyance than be settled on the suggested terms. We are to have a Commission to inquire into the question of Tithe Redemption. Why should not this question remain in abeyance until that Commission has reported? I am satisfied that when that Commission present their Report we shall be able to make out such a strong case for the small farms that Parliament will not dare to turn a deaf ear to our appeal. I have another very strong point in connection with my proposal. I may say with almost literal accuracy that there are not twenty Members in the House who really approve of this clause, or at least they have not expressed themselves in favour of it. We have had a number of speeches condemning the clause from all points of view. It has been condemned because it does not go far enough, and again, because it goes too far; but who are the Members who approve the clause I have failed to discover. I am sometimes accused of being a confiscator and I was twitted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby with being a greater robber than the Government, and thereupon he held out to me the right hand of fellowship. But now I ask the attention of the House to the wishes and recommendations of a most important meeting of tithe owners held in the county of Essex with the Rev. H. F. Johnson, Archdeacon of Essex, in the chair. A number of the clergy were assembled, and I am bound
  374
  to say, judging from the report of the proceedings, they do not seem to have been a very happy family; but at any rate we are right in paying every respect to the resolutions passed at this important assembly of clergy, and one of the resolutions arrived at was that the whole of this third clause should be expunged. Now what will the Government do? Will that stalwart champion, of the Church, the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Talbot), assist in giving effect to the wishes of this assembly of clergy? They sent me this circular and, at last, I am happy to say that I am not only acting in accordance with the wishes of my own particular friends, the yeomen farmers of the Eastern Counties, but with the wishes of the clerical gentlemen who met at Chelmsford, and also with the wishes and request of a gentleman who has taken an active part in connection with, the payment of tithe and this Bill, Mr. Lloyd of the Tithe-payers' Association. I regret to have to ask the House to eliminate an important part of the Bill, but still, the other two parts of the Bill will be just as valuable and just as workable.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, to leave out Clause 3.—(Mr. Gray.)
  Question proposed, "That the words from the word 'where,' in line 22, to the word 'payable,' in line 26, both inclusive, stand part of the Bill."
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The first and second clauses of this Bill, as the House is aware, alter the present law with regard to tithe by transferring the direct liability for tithe rent-charge from the occupier to the owner. That has been felt almost universally by tithe owners to be a great benefit and advantage to them. I do not think that that is denied by my hon. Friend who has just spoken. There has been a general admission, I do not say a universal admission, for there have been a few exceptions, such as the resolution passed at the meeting to which my hon. Friend has referred, but I think there is a general admission from the

  375
  tithe owners that in return for this benefit and advantage something should be given to the tithepayers. That something has been embodied by the Government in the clause now under discussion. That has been loyally accepted by Members who represent more especially the interest of the tithe owners in this House, who though feeling—I know they feel—that perhaps it will be giving the tithepayers more than tithepayers are fairly entitled to, bearing in mind the settlement of 1836, are yet willing to support the proposal as a quid pro quo in return for the advantage to tithe owners gained under Clauses 1 and 2. That being so, this 3rd clause which does certainly give an advantage to tithepayers over the present law—I do not think my hon. Friend will deny that—is attacked because it does not give enough. That is my hon. Friends position. My hon. Friend would have been content if the maximum amount of tithe had been fixed at half the value of the land instead of two-thirds.
  MR. C. W. GRAY: A compromise.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Certainly, if his Amendment had been carried he would not have moved the omission of the clause. But what is his action now? I recalled to his mind the old proverb, "half a loaf is better than no bread." I think my hon. Friend must have taken note how, during the course of his speech, he was cheered by hon. Members below the Gangway opposite. What is the position they have taken up in reference to this matter? I must say a rather inconsistent position, because in contesting the 2nd clause they have done their utmost to throw impediments in the way of recovery by the tithe owners of tithes justly due, and now when we come to deal with this 3rd clause they stand up as defenders of the tithe owners, and object to tithepayers receiving any relief. Therefore, if my hon. Friend succeeds in defeating the clause he will do it, not by the aid of those who agree with him, but by the aid of those who absolutely differ from him, and who, if they had their way through his aid, would take very good care his friends should get nothing
  376
  from the tithe owners. That would be the result of the success of my hon. Friend. I do not for a moment deny that if this 3rd clause is struck out it will to my mind amount to a very serious alteration of the Bill. But my hon. Friend must face the possibility of this Bill going on without the 3rd clause, and what then will he say to his friends and farmer constituents in Essex? Will he say, "The Government proposed that the tithe should in no case exceed two-thirds the annual value of the land, and that would have relieved some tithepayers; but I got that clause struck out, and now there will be no relief at all." I trust that hon. Members who desire to give some relief to tithepayers will not take what, with all respect to my hon. Friend, I must characterise as the ostrich-like view he takes; but although they may think the clause does not give tithepayers as much as they would desire, yet they will see that it is better than that there should be no relief at all.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: I take it that the hon. Member for Maldon knows very well what he means by his Amendment, and those who support that Amendment know very well why they do so. The argument of the hon. Member for the Maldon Division amounts to this—that there is no concession whatever in this Bill of the slightest value to the tithepayer. Last year a concession was proposed that would have been of real value, and not at all an excessive concession, of 5 per cent. all round.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: There certainly was a proposition that there should be a concession of 5 per cent. all round.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: That was not proposed by anybody last year.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The year before, or previously, it does not seriously affect the argument. The concession of 5 per cent, in the original scheme would have been a very genuine alleviation to the tithepaying classes as against the very great benefit which the Bill confers on the tithe owner. All who are engaged

  377
  in agriculture in this country, whether landlords or tenants, and still more so the yeomen farmers, are aware that some thing ought to be done to correct those serious cases in which the excessive payment of tithe is a hindrance to the due cultivation of the land; and no one who knows agriculture well can believe that the proposed relief in the Bill will affect more than one or two farms in many counties. What is the proposed relief? It is where under Schedule B the valuation of the tithe exceeds two-thirds of the valuation of the farm there is to be a reduction. But what is the expense of carrying on the work of an estate in this country? In old days the working expenses in agriculture used to be, on a large estate, something like 25 per cent. of the rent; but now-a-days, with the fall of rents; these working expenses have risen to 33 per cent. I speak generally, but from knowledge of a good many estates. Thirty-three per cent. is equal to a third of the rent, and the Government propose that when the tithe turns two-thirds of the valuation under Schedule B then the tithe shall be reduced; that is to say, the proposal of the Government is that no relief whatever shall be given until the tithe has eaten up the whole of the available rent of the land. To that no answer is given. That will be the case on large farms and large estates, but it will be very much worse on small farms, where buildings make a very excessive part of the valuation. On those farms where relief is most wanted the proposal of the Government will give no relief whatever. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who are concerned with the cultivation of land know perfectly well that in those serious cases where the tithe makes such inroads on the rent or profits from the land, cultivation cannot be carried on at all, or only on sufferance. This proposal gives no relief whatever, therefore it is, I conclude, that the hon. Member proposes to strike out this clause, feeling certain that it will relieve nobody. It is a sort of pretence of relief which the right lion. Gentleman says the tithe owners have accepted loyally, and well they may accept it loyally. On that account the hon. Member makes the most emphatic protest
  378
  in his power against this sham, this illusory relief to the tithepayer, in a Bill which gives such relief to the tithe owner, by proposing to strike out the clause; and in the interest of sound and sincere legislation I shall certainly vote with him, and I trust every hon. Member who has the true interests of agriculture at heart will do the same.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: The simple answer to the right hon. Gentleman's opening remark in reference to the 5 per cent. reduction is this, that it was a proposal made when it was suggested that tithe rent-charge should be a personal debt recoverable upon the whole estate of the landowners. There is nothing of the kind in this Bill, and, therefore, no reason for the reduction. As the clause was brought in I very readily voted for it, because it seemed to me to give temporary relief to both parties, a temporary reduction from the tithe owner, and a temporary relief to the tithepayer, which might bring into cultivation land which otherwise would fall out of cultivation. The clause is wisely framed in the interests of both parties. The clause then contained a sub-section which has since been struck out on the Motion of the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton), a sub-section, having special reference to the 58th Section of the Act of 1836. Under the section a landowner in possession of different lands, upon the whole of which there was a tithe rent-charge of, say £200 a year, was permitted to put the whole of the tithe rent-charge upon a portion of such lands, providing such lands were worth three times the value of the tithe, or £600 a year, leaving the remainder of the land free. But even without that sub-section I think the clause ought to remain in the Bill on the general ground that the temporary giving up of a portion of the tithe due to the owner will assist in bringing land back to cultivation, and then in the future the tithe owner will be enabled to receive his full amount of tithe due to him.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: It appears to me that the attitude of the

  379
  hon. Member for the Maldon division is one that does him a good deal of credit. The position in which he stands is this. Under the first clause it is admitted there is considerable advantage to the tithe owner, because henceforward he will recover his tithe in a single cheque instead of in a number of small cheques with all the inherent difficulties of collection. It is also admitted that under the second clause a great advantage is given to the tithe owner on account of the more stringent means of recovery placed at his command. Under these circumstances, with these two points admitted the only question remaining is whether in compensation for these advantages to be conferred on the tithe owner there is to be any benefit to the tithepayer. Now the contention of the hon. Member for Maldon appears to be that under Section 3 of the present measure you are conferring on the tithepayer a visionary and theoretical advantage which will be of no real benefit. Under the circumstances I hope the hon. Member will not be content with an academic protest, but will go to a Division on the point. It is a question which excites the deepest interest among all concerned in the cultivation of the soil, and more especially among yeomen farmers, to whom the clause can only give relief in an infinitesimally small number of instances. I question whether throughout the whole of Suffolk the clause would give relief to two small farmers. The same might be said of the counties of Berkshire and Essex, where in typical cases brought forward this clause will effect no reduction, though some benefit might be effected by the alternative proposal of the hon. Member for Maldon. Even that Amendment if carried would have effected in a very small degree any alleviation of those grievances for which a remedy is only to be found in a revision of tithe. Under the circumstances, I think that every hon. Member who is concerned with agricultural interests should go into the Lobby with the hon. Member for Maldon as a protest against this pretence of reduction, which is really no reduction at all. If this clause
  380
  is struck out I hope it will leave the way clear next year, or the year after, for more definite and complete proposals based to some extent on evidence brought before the Royal Commission, over which it may be assumed Lord Basing will preside.
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: I must draw attention to the curious anomaly which presents it self on this almost the final stage of the Bill. This clause we are now discussing and which my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon wishes to excise, is the only relief to the tithepayer in the Bill. The other two clauses are in the interest of the tithe owner, the hon. Member says and I do not deny that. This clause is by the admission of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Maldon the only relief clause in the Bill, but he now says it is illusory. Having allowed the 1st and 2nd clauses to pass without protest, the hon. Gentleman now asks the House to excise the only clause which conveys any relief to the tithepayer. I should have thought it impossible that any friend of the farmers could make such a proposal. If any intelligent farmers have listened to the hon. Gentleman they will find it difficult to support the hon. Member's peculiar position. From my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade we have heard the position clearly put, and I should not have risen but for the hon. Member's allusion to myself. My hon. Friend said that I, in a previous stage of the Bill, spoke of the Bill as a compromise—a Bill of conciliation—a Bill of give and take. I repeat that now, and I say that as the first two clauses place the property of the tithe owner on a more satisfactory basis than before, so this clause, I believe, is a concession to the tithepayer. My hon. Friend says it is a concession hardly worth having, but at any rate, it is better than no concession at all, and if it is worth anything, my hon. Friend had much better accept it. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Stevenson) suggests that if the clause is refused now something better may be secured a year or two hence, but when the hon. Gentleman has had such a

  381
  length of Parliamentary experience as I have had, he will not expect that a subject which has been five times before Parliament in recent years, and has occupied so much time, will be likely soon to be taken up again. If my hon. Friend thinks the concession to the tithe-payer is worth anything at all, he will do well to accept it; however small the concession it is better than none at all.
  MR. H. R. FARQUHARSON: I have no hesitation in saying that I shall vote for the omission of the clause, and for the reason that I believe it absolutely contains no concession to the tithepayer. The right hon. Gentleman says that a half a loaf is better than no bread, and I accept all the wisdom of the proverb, only here I do not see the half-loaf. It is said that the object of this so-called concession is to induce the landowner to keep his land in cultivation for the benefit of the tithe owner. How can that be called a concession to the tithepayer? The noble Lord (Lord Cranborne) says, the only good reason for revision of tithe is to keep the land in cultivation, for it is directly to the disadvantage of the tithe owner that the land should go out of cultivation. Again the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Gedge) says this proposal will no doubt for a time reduce the amount of the tithe on certain lands, but the reduction would in many cases lead to the full tithe being paid in future years. In other words hon. Members who have spoken on behalf of the tithe owner have made no secret of their real opinion, that this clause contains no concession to the tithepayer.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The hon. Member is not quite right as regards what I said. I stated that I thought the Government had gone too far, and that the only defensible ground for action of this kind was to prevent land going out of cultivation.
  MR. H. R. FARQUHARSON: At all events, the noble Lord is of opinion that it is directly to the disadvantage of the tithe owner that the land should go out of cultivation, and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has told us that the object of this so-called concession is to keep the land in cultivation for the benefit of the tithe
  382
  owners. That bears out my statement that there is no real concession in this clause. The tithepayers have claims upon the tithe owners for some concession. One of those claims is based upon the question of the corn averages. The amount of tithe payable is based upon he average price of British grown corn in the English market. It does not, however, pay the farmer to send in inferior samples of his corn. Only the best samples are sent in, and the result is that the corn average, and consequently the tithe average, is based upon he picked samples of the year's crop. In this way you get a fictitiously high tithe average. Reference has already been made to the question of rates. Act the time of the passing of the Tithe Commutation Act the Tithe Commissioners were instructed to award to the tithe owners such a sum for the future as would equal the net value of their receipts on the average of the previous seven years. In some cases the Commissioners added to the tithe a sufficient amount to enable the tithe owner to pay the rates, but as the rates were very high at that time the average amount added to the tithe in this respect was 10s. in the £1. Immediately upon the passing of the Tithe Commutation Act the new Poor Law came into operation; down went the rates, and ever since then the tithe owner has had the advantage of having a sum awarded to him equal to 10s. in the £1, although the amount of rates he is called upon to pay does not exceed 2s. in the £1. These constitute distinct claims which the tithepayer has upon the tithe owner. The only bargaining power the former has had in his hands is now being taken away by the Government without compensation. And not only do the Government take away the tithepayer's bargaining power, but they impose a very heavy fine of extra costs upon him, and compel the landlord to become the collector for the tithe owner. The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell) told us a few nights ago that in Yorkshire the tithe was so small in hundreds of cases that it was not worth while to collect it. Therefore you are imposing upon landowners the duty of collecting sums which the tithe owners in some cases have not thought it worth while to collect.

  383
  Then we have this instance—I do not like to say of bad faith—with regard to the buildings: When the Tithe Commutation Act was passed it was argued that the landlords would lay out their money more freely if the tithe owner had no claim upon the extra value imparted to property in consequence of increased expenditure on buildings. On the faith of the understanding then come to, money has been spent on buildings all over the country. Now you are providing that the tithe owner may take into the valuation buildings which have been put up by the landlord. This clause contains no concession whatever to the tithepayers. I would remind the House that the President of the Board of Agriculture (Mr. Chaplin) has made no remarks whatever upon the Bill, nor has the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. W. Long), a gentleman whose opinions on agricultural matters are much valued. I can only say that their silence on this matter is much more eloquent than any speech they could possibly make. For my part, as the representative of a constituency largely composed of tithepayers, I must decline to accept this so-called concession, which is no concession at all, and I shall vote for the omission of the clause.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,: The hon. Member who has just sat down, and some others, have so often alluded to me in the course of this Debate that I wish in one sentence to say why I support this clause. Whether the concession made by the clause be great or small, the Bill is undoubtedly more favourable to the tithepayer than it would be without the clause. After what has been said with such admirable clearness by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Sir M. Hicks Beach) on the point, I do not think it is possible to dispute it. It is a matter of great surprise to me that representatives of the agricultural interest are about to oppose the clause. If I were still sitting in the place which I formerly occupied
  384
  below the Gangway, and had to choose between the retention or omission of this clause, I should most unquestionably vote for its retention.
  (11.38.) The House divided:—Ayes 170; Noes 109.—(Div. List, No. 52.)
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 26, after the word "payable," to insert the words "exclusive of any costs incurred in the recovery thereof."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to move, in page 3, lines 26 and 27, after the word "exceed," to leave out the words" two-thirds of." By this Motion I propose to restore the clause to the shape in which it stood in the two or three original Tithe Bills of the Government. Under those Bills power was given to the County Court to inquire whether the tithe exceeded the annual value of the land, and, if it did, a remission was given to that extent. Why the Government have backed out of that position I cannot understand. The position of the Prime Minister in the House of Lords was that he was anxious that the land should not be driven out of cultivation, and that would be the case if the tithe was in excess of the annual value. The moment the tithe is reduced so as to be on a level with the actual value of the land, there is no fear of the land being driven out of cultivation, and why the Government propose to go beyond that I cannot understand, unless it be for the purpose of bribing the landlords of the country to accept this measure. Something has been said about a quid pro quo, but there is nothing of the kind—there is no consideration given to the tithepayer. In the first clause of the Bill it is provided that the burden of paying the whole tithe shall be thrown on the landowner, even though there be a contract to the contrary. That means that 25 per cent of the value of the tithe is taken out of the

  385
  pockets of the landowners, and transferred to the pockets of the tithe owners. It is stated that under this section one-third of the value of the tithe is taken out of the tithe and put into the pockets of the landowners as a sort of consideration for what they have been deprived of in the first section; but, as the hon. Member for Maldon has amply shown, this section will only apply to a very few instances, and in 99 cases out of 100 the landowner will be deprived of £2 per cent. of the tithe by having the burden of collecting it thrown on him, and will only get 15 per cent. in return. Why should one-third be taken from the tithe and put into the pocket of the landlord under this clause? Land in Wales is much inferior to land in the Eastern Counties; the tenants have to pay 15s. or £1 an acre for it, and they have to pay heavy railway rates to get the produce to market, and are then supposed to compete with the farmers in the Eastern Counties. If land is driven out of cultivation in the Eastern Counties it is often the fault of the landlords themselves. Why is land in the Eastern counties at present uncultivated? It is because the policy of large farms has been adopted. Small holdings, on the other hand, can be cultivated at a profit. I know a farm of 200 acres which could not be cultivated so as to make even the tithe; but the owner let it to labourers in small holdings at £2 an acre, and they are making an excellent thing of it. I do not see why bad landlords who have mismanaged their land and starved the tenants out of their holdings should receive one-third of the annual value in order to induce them to accept the Bill, whilst good landlords who manage to keep their tenants on the farm, and keep them in a tolerably good condition, get nothing but the burden of 25 per cent. cast on them by the Bill. The Government have introduced so many and so contradictory Bills, that I cannot understand why they should be in such a difficulty with regard to this. The arguments which have been used in support of one Bill can always be effectually quoted in favour of its successor. The noble Lord the Member for Darwen who represents the clerical party in this House, and who acted as a sort of
  386
  adviser to the Government in this House, pledged himself against diminishing the interests of the clergy, yet now he is found marching through the Lobby in favour of reducing that very interest by one-third. I should like to know the reason why hon. Gentlemen opposite change their minds, and why they should treat as dishonest in 1890 that which they accept as honest in 1889. Is it that they are ready to sacrifice to political and party expediency that which they will not sacrifice in the interests of the community at large? Another Member who has always supported the interests of the clerical party is the hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. H. Byron Reed). That hon. Member has not been so constant in his attendance since the reduction by one-third. When speaking in support of the Bill of 1889, the hon. Member for East Bradford, after expressing a sort of sentimental sympathy for the tenant farmers, said—
  "That a contract is a contract, an agreement is an agreement, and that the bargain between the land owners and the tithepayers in 1836 must be adhered to, and the tithepayer must be prepared to take the rough with the smooth."
  In 1891 the hon. Member opposes that view by voting for the reduction of the tithe property by one-third. I submit that that is grossly inconsistent. What becomes of the charges of confiscation? We are continually reminded about the Ten Commandments, and about the necessity of inculcating the decalogue among Radical Members of this House. But to apply the Ten Commandments to the tenant farmers of Wales is to be told that we intend to rob the Church. It is a very different thing when the landlord takes his one-third. Then the Ten Commandments are entirely forgotten. They are not a question of ethics, but a question of objects altogether. They have rolled the Ten Commandments into one: "Thou shalt keep thy contracts," and there the "thou" is to apply to the occupier, and is not to tend to the landowner by any means whatever. From whatever point of view we regard this, whether from that of the clerical tithe owners as one class of the community, or of a class which does nothing, or of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester and others, who regard this as national property, I submit that there is

  387
  no reason at all why we should rob the whole country for the sake of a few landlords.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 26, to leave out the words "two-thirds of."—(Mr. Lloyd-George).
  Question proposed, "That the words 'two-thirds of' stand part of the Bill."
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: As this question has been discussed at length more than once, I hope hon. Members will not think it necessary to discuss the decalogue, political morality, and the respective merits of large farming in Essex and small farming in Wales. The object of the clause is to secure to the owner of the land something which will give him sufficient interest in the land to keep it in cultivation. That cannot be fairly called robbing the owner of the tithe, because it is his interest as well as the landlord's that the land shall be kept in cultivation.
  MR. BYRON REED: I should not have intervened in this Debate, but for the observations which have been made with regard to myself personally. There was not a grain of argument in the mass of rhetorical chaff which the hon. Gentleman addressed to the House. As far as the rhetoric went, it was to the effect that there was a discrepancy between this Bill and previous Bills introduced by the Government—a discrepancy against the tithe owner and in favour of the tithepayer. That is to say, the hon. Member complains of the Government having, under great pressure, made concessions to the party which he represents. For those concessions hon. Members opposite now prove themselves ungrateful, and I venture to think that the Front Bench on this side of the House should take note of the way in which their efforts at conciliation are received by hon. Members on the other side.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: Sir, I had not intended to speak until the hon. Member addressed the House. I am rather sorry that he has not been able to grasp the argument of my hon. Friend which was clearly stated. His argument was not that the Government was inconsistent, but that the hon. Member had
  388
  swallowed the principles he previously professed. Two years ago the hon. Member for East Bradford proclaimed the sacredness of contract, that a bargain once made ought never to be changed. Now the hon. Member is a supporter of the Church, while we on this side regard tithe as national property which we object to see whittled down. The hon. Member, however, though champion of the Church, is really, for party purposes, making ethics dependent upon objects, and he is going to rob the present holders of tithe of one third of their property to put it into the pockets of the landlords.
  (12.15.) The House divided:—Ayes 146; Noes 76.—(Div. List, No. 53.)
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I now beg to move in page 4, line 7, after Sub-section (2) insert—
  "For the purposes of this section the owner of tithe rent-charge shall have the same right of appeal as the owner of lands, whether under the enactments relating to the said assessment or under this section."
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: There is no objection to that.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 14, after Sub-section 3, to insert the following sub-section—
  "If either the tithe owner or the owner or occupier of the said lands is dissatisfied with the said assessment, he may appeal to the county court for the district in which the said lands are situate, and the county court may, after such service upon the owner and occupier of the said lands and the said surveyor of taxes as may be prescribed, appoint a valuer to determine such annual value, and his valuation shall be final upon the matter."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I hope the hon. Member will not press that Amendment, as it is not possible that I can accept it, as it would entail a double hearing, and would afford no advantage over what is already provided for.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Then I will ask leave to withdraw this Amendment, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment which stands next upon the Paper.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I shall be able to accept it with a slight modification, which I will explain when it is moved.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 17, after Sub-section (4) to insert the following sub-section:—"Where a special apportionment has been made in pursuance of Section 58 of 'The Tithe Act, 1836,' whereby tithe rent-charge has been charged specially upon certain closes of land in different proportions, and to the exclusion of certain of them, the court shall not grant a remission under this section unless satisfied that the applicant would have been entitled to such remission if no such special apportionment had been made."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I propose to insert words which will make the subsection more clear, and will obviate the extensive litigation that might otherwise arise. I would, therefore, amend the proposed Amendment by adding in the first line, after the word "where," the words "It appears from any award that."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I will accept that Amendment, which I think is very reasonable.
  Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think that the Amendments already accepted by the Government give a right of appeal in any action or matter arising out of the recovery by distress of tithe rent-charge, and I certainly cannot understand why any distinction should be drawn between an action in the first instance and one arising out of distraint. I have no doubt there will be several actions involving very complicated points of law, and I think this section will become inoperative unless the words I suggest are added.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 27, after the word "Act," to insert the words "or in any action or matter arising out of any proceedings for the recovery of tithe rent-charge under this Act or the Tithe Acts."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR R. WEBSTER: It is impossible to accept the Amendment. No new jurisdiction is being created which will necessitate the Amendment, and the ordinary rules of appeal will apply in cases which do not arise under this Bill. The principle the Government act upon is this that, except in cases of new jurisdiction, matters shall be left as they are. This Amendment would alter the County Courts law in respect of actions of replevin, simply because they may arise in tithe cases. I hope the House will at once decide this point and not further discuss it.
  (12.34.) The House divided:—Ayes 68; Noes 141.—(Div. List, No. 54.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg now to move the adjournment of the Debate. Seeing that to-morrow the House has to meet to discuss the marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister Bill, there is no reason why the officers should be detained here longer to-night. We know that the Government have power to put this Bill down whenever they choose. There are still some important matters relative to costs to be considered, and I think in the extra two hours they will have to-morrow for attending church, they would do well to try and agree to some reasonable arrangement.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended, be now adjourned."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I hope the hon. Member will not press this Motion. There are only two Amendments remaining on the Paper, and for some little time past the discussion has been proceeding in a spirit which shews the desire of hon. Members to arrive at the conclusion of this stage. I am endeavouring to meet their wishes so far as I can, and may I point out that if the Report of the Bill is finished to-nigh there need be no further interference with the rights of private Members.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: I think the Government ought to grate-

  391
  Fully accept the proposal of the hon. Member, as it will afford them time to reconsider their position, for considerable confusion appears to prevail in their minds on several points which we have had to discuss at great length. If the Bill were re-committed some Amendments might be introduced with very great advantage.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: There are two Amendments which I am afraid it will take some time to discuss unless the Government give us an undertaking with regard to the costs. I understood the Attorney General to pledge himself that a rule shall be made securing that in undefended cases no solicitors' costs whatsoever shall be charged. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman agree to incorporate such a rule in a clause in the Bill? Of course I do not doubt that he will adhere to his undertaking, but I want to point out that when the rules come up for discussion we cannot deal with them in detail: we shall have to accept or reject them as a whole. But if the hon. and learned Member will insert this particular rule in the Bill I think we can complete the Report stage to-night.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: If the hon. Member wishes to have on the face of the Bill the fact that rules, dealing with undefended cases, will be made I have no objection. But I think my undertaking ought to have been sufficient, for it is a most unusual practice to put, say, half a dozen rules on the face of an Act of Parliament. The words of the rules which I have read are clear, that the costs of employing a solicitor will not be allowed in any case in which no notice of defence is entered and in cases in which there is such notice they will only be allowed for work done sub-sequent to such notice. Again, witnesses' costs will not be allowed in any case where the tithepayer has not given notice of defence.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: As the question of costs was raised upon my Amendment, I may perhaps be allowed to point out that if such rules are put in the Bill they cannot be altered without
  392
  the Bill being repealed; but if they are not so incorporated they might be changed in a few months. For this reason I shall be glad if the Attorney General will agree to the incorporation of the Rules in the Bill.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It shall be done.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Move.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It can be done in another place.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Under these circumstances, I do not propose to move the remaining Amendments on the Paper.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: And I, of course, withdraw the Motion to adjourn the Debate.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Thursday.

  FACTORIES AND WOEKSHOPS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Secretary Matthews, Bill to amend the Law relating to Factories and Workshops, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Ritchie, and Mr. Stuart-Wortley.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 205.]

  GLEBE LANDS (SALES).
  Return ordered—
  "Showing the Sales of Glebes under 'The Sale of Glebes Act, 1888,' " (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 89, of Session 1890)."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)

  ELEMENTARY TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider of the best system for providing for the Superannuation of Public Elementary Teachers in England and Wales.—(Mr. Talbot.)
  It being One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  House adjourned at One o'clock.