Commons Sitting of 27 February 1891

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. (by Order.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir J. Lubbock.)
    MR. MORTON: On a former occasion I opposed the Second Reading of this Bill.
    SIR J. LUBBOCK: Perhaps if I may be allowed to interpose I can say a word or two upon the subject of the Second Reading of this Bill, which I think may probably save the time of the House. The fact of the case is that the London County Council have consented to omit the clause which proposes to take part of Clapham Common for building purposes. Although it is called Clapham Common the proposal was to take a piece of land which forms no part of the main Common, but is simply a piece of out-lying ground of a triangular shape. At the present moment we have a Fire Brigade Station on that piece of ground, which is large enough for the fire-engines, but it is not adequate for the accommodation of the men and horses, and, it is obviously desirable that the men and horses should be in the same place as the fire-engines, so that in case of fire they may reach the spot as soon as possible. The Council are, however, always anxious to meet the views of the Local Authorities and the residents, and they have been given to understand that there is a general feeling against taking any more of what may be termed the Common. The omission of the clause will, to some extent, increase the danger of fire; but as the Local Authority wish it omitted, we do not propose to insist upon it, but will withdraw it in Committee. I therefore trust that the hon. Member will not press the Instruction of which he has given notice.
    MR. MORTON: If it is understood that the London County Council assent to the Instruction which I had intended to move later on for the omission of Sub-section B of Clause 6 I have nothing further to say. But I do not understand from the promoters of the Bill, in the Paper which they have circulated to-day, that that is so. All they say is that they will withdraw it in Committee, but we who oppose the clause have no wish to incur the expense of going before a Committee at all. Let me explain what my position is in regard to this matter.
    MR. COURTNEY: May I be allowed t o interpose for a moment. If an arrangement is made in this House by which the promoters undertake to withdraw a particular clause, it is just as binding as an Instruction to the Committee to omit the clause.
    MR. MORTON: I am not quite satisfied, and I hope that I may be allowed to make a statement. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for London University (Sir J. Lubbock) has said that the action we are taking in this matter may interfere with the work of the Fire Brigade. That is not so. The right hon. Baronet says that this piece of land is not a portion of the Common. I think there is no doubt that it is. It is shown on the plans in the office of the London County Council as being part of Clapham Common, and it is not quite so small as the right hon. Baronet has suggested. The piece scheduled by the London County Council is 1,400ft., or nearly one-third of an acre. I am aware that it is not intended to use the whole of it, but the Council propose to take the whole.
    SIR J. LUBBOCK: I merely pointed out that it was an outlying piece of land on the verge of the Common, and, speaking on behalf of the London County Council, I have already given the hon. Member an assurance that this part of the clause will be left out.
    MR. MORTON: I am quite prepared to accept that offer, but I was desirous of showing that in 1878 the then Metropolitan Board of Works, who always took great care of this Common, actually gave us notice that we must give up our temporary occupation of this very piece of land. At that time we did what the

    1809
    London County Council ought to do now on their part—we removed a stone yard from that site, and purchased a piece of land for a stone yard in another part of the parish. Another complaint I have to make against the London County Council is this: They never recognised us as the Local Authorities until we gave notice in this House of opposition to the present Bill. A letter sent by the Local Authorities last year was not even replied to, and it was only when it was found that we intended to oppose the Bill upon the Second Reading that we received a recognition; and yet we now find that our views are to be assented to. As I have now an assurance that it will not be necessary for the Local Authorities to go to any expense in appearing before the Committee upstairs I shall be quite satisfied to withdraw the Instruction which was put down in the interests of the Local Authorities and of the people who reside in the vicinity of Clapham Common.
    MR. BOULNOIS: I think that the Instruction may now be withdrawn after the explanation of my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the London County Council that nothing will be done to interfere with Clapham Common. I may say that this morning I received an intimation from the Local Board stating that, in view of the concession which the promoters of the Bill are prepared to make, they intend to withdraw their Petition against the Bill.
    MR. BARTLEY: May I ask whether any decision has been come to in regard to the notice which stands on the Paper in my name to omit Clauses 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 and 64 from the Bill?
    SIR J. LUBBOCK: I am afraid that on behalf of the London County Council I must resist that Instruction.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a Second time, and committed.
    MR. BARTLEY: I have now to move—
    "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to omit Clauses 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 and 64 from the Bill."
    These clauses propose to enable the London County Council to provide a
    1810
    superannuation and provident fund for the provision and payment of other allowances on death, superannuation, resignation, retirement and discharge to persons who have been taken into the employment of the Council since the 21st of March, 1889. I object entirely to the way in which this scheme has been introduced into the Bill. It is an Omnibus Bill, which proposes to give the London County Council a number of powers of various kinds, and it involves a very comprehensive scheme of pension and superannuation allowances to the officers of the Council. In the past we have had various schemes for this object introduced into Parliament—for instance, in the case of the London Police, when the subject was introduced in a Government Bill and in a scheme which was proposed by the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir R. Temple) for the officers of the London School Board. But this scheme for the superannuation of the officers of the London County Council instead of being brought in as a public measure is tacked on to a Private Bill with various other proposals in connection with the Council. It will be referred in due course to a Committee upstairs and it will be there fought out; but the scheme will not be necessarily examined in any way as to the basis of the actuarial valuation, or upon the lines upon which such a scheme of superannuation ought to be considered. I have referred to the scheme of pensions and superannuation allowances for the officers of the School Board, and I cannot see why the two schemes should be treated in a wholly different manner. As a matter of fact, this scheme is a very large one. The number of persons employed by the London County Council is, I am told, something like 4,000. Therefore the scheme is a very large and important one. It is not like the ordinary superannuation scheme of a Railway Company or of a bank where the whole cost is paid by the company themselves; but in this case we are asked to sanction a scheme mixed up with certain other proposals which is to throw one half of the cost upon the local rates of London. So far as the Bill itself is concerned, I find that it contains no real scheme at all. I have been informed privately that the London County Council have a scheme before

    1811
    them, but it has not been scheduled in the bill, and no information is given to us as to the basis on which that scheme is founded. All that we know is that unlimited power is given to the London County Council to do exactly what it likes. I know that I shall be accused by the hon. Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson) of attacking the London County Council. But I do not think it is attacking the County Council to say that it is only reasonable they should show us, some way or other, what the scheme is and how it is to be worked. Is it to be a scheme like that which was put into the London School Board Bill, in which an actuarial valuation was made an incident of the scheme without having undergone a sound examination. I object to any scheme being propounded until we know what that scheme is to be, and can have it laid upon the Table of the House, so that we may give an opinion upon it. Some of the clauses contained in the Bill are of a very startling character. The London County Council are to have power to frame this superannuation scheme, and they are to have the power of contributing one-half of the superannuation fund from the rates. Individually, I do not object to that proposal, but I find that the London County Council is to have, of its own ipse dixit, the right to say which of its officers shall belong to the fund, and which shall not. The Council is to be able to disqualify any person from going upon the fund, or to allow others to belong to it, just as it likes. I do not think that Parliament would be justified in handing over to the London County Council the right of saying to its employés that one shall be allowed to join, but that another shall not; and in that way to have a discretionary power to prescribe who may join and who may not. One of the clauses of the Bill says that there are to be a set of rules laying down who are to contribute and be benefitted by the fund, and who are to be disqualified from becoming contributors and participators in the benefits. I think it is only right to know whether it is to be a compulsory or a voluntary scheme. Indeed, it is a matter of essential importance that we should know that fact. Then, again, the London County Council is to have a discretionary power,
    1812
    dismissing any person from the benefits of the scheme whenever it may think proper; also to divide the fund into different classes, and to remove any contributor from one class to another. I would ask the House to remember what the fund is that we are going to ask the employésof the London County Council to contribute to. It is a fund for the superannuation of officers, and we are asked to give the County Council a discretionary power, when they dismiss an officer, whether for a fraudulent cause or not, to decide whether any part of the money he has contributed shall be returned to him. I maintain that the essence of a fund of this nature is that the money taken from a man's salary belongs to him whatever may afterwards occur. It is quite clear that the Council ought to have no discretion in the matter at all, but that a fund deducted from the salaries of individuals should go absolutely to the persons from whom the money has been taken. Although I know there is a difference of opinion as to the allocation of that part of the fund which is contributed from the local rates, I hold that you have no right to take a benefit away, paid for at one period of a man's life, because that person subsequently has done something wrong. There are a great number of points concerning this fund which I think ought to be threshed out by a Select Committee on the basis of some tangible and distinct plan. The right hon. Baronet opposite says that it has been considered undesirable in a scheme of this kind to go into details; but in Clause 60 the Bill descends to the smallest detail, and prescribes that copies of any scheme in force under the Act shall be supplied at a price not exceeding 6d. to any person in the employ of the Council interested in the fund. I propose that it shall be an Instruction to the Select Committee to omit all the clauses relating to the superannuation scheme. I think that they ought to be embodied in a separate Bill. It is said that a separate Bill would increase the cost; but the scheme of the County Council, in reference to sky advertisements, has been introduced as a separate measure, although it might reasonably have formed the subject of clauses in an Omnibus Bill. The question of pension

    1813
    and superannuation allowances, following former precedents, ought to form the subject of a separate and distinct measure. I am afraid, unless I have satisfactory assurances, that I shall be compelled to press this Instruction to a Division.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to omit Clauses 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, and 64 from the Bill"—(Mr. Bartley.)
    SIR J. LUBBOCK: I can make no complaint of the manner in which my hon. Friend opposite has brought forward this Instruction. At the same time I hope the House will not consent to it, but will allow these clauses to go to a Committee upstairs, by whom they can be thoroughly investigated. When the London County Council came into existence they found that there was already a scheme for pensions and superannuation which had been going on for some time under the auspices of the Metropolitan Board of Works. There were certain difficulties in connection with that scheme, and the County Council felt that without interfering with any of the servants already employed, it would be wise to place the matter upon a more satisfactory footing. They therefore made inquiries into the system, adopted by other municipalities, by the great Railway Companies, and other large bodies, and having obtained the necessary information, they prepared the scheme which they now ask Parliament to sanction in order to enable them to put it into operation. The hon. Gentleman, opposite says that the House ought to have an opportunity of considering whether, from an actuarial point of view, the scheme is satisfactory. But the scheme is one that does not require any actuarial calculation; practically, what it comes to is this: the employésof the London County Council make contributions out of their own salaries to a fund, and the County Council supply an amount equal to that contributed by the officers themselves. There is no need, therefore, for any actuarial valuation in the matter.
    MR. BARTLEY: Is that in the Bill?
    SIR J. LUBBOCK: No; but I make the statement by way of
    1814
    explanation. Then, my hon. Friend says that the scheme may lead to an increase of the rates. That cannot be the case, because under the system in force, when the County Council was established the whole amount of the pensions was paid out of the rates, whereas if this Bill is passed practically one-half only will be paid out of the rates, while the other half will be contributed by the officers. The hon. Member wishes the rules and regulations to be laid down in the Bill. This is not usual, and, moreover, we have found under the old system considerable difficulty in determining what the real meaning of the Acts of Parliament was. We have been put to much legal expense in endeavouring to ascertain this, and we therefore propose to leave the County Council to decide what are the classes of servants who are to be brought under the operation of the scheme. Surely, if London is to have a County Council at all, that is a detail of administration which the House may well entrust to them. As to the return of the contributions of those who have ceased to contribute to the fund or to be in the service of the County Council it is proposed that when an officer leaves voluntarily he should receive back the whole of his contribution with compound interest. But in the case of a person who has been discharged for fraud, we thought that the amount standing to his credit in the fund should be utilised for the purpose of making good his defalcation as far as possible.
    MR. BARTLEY: What clause is that?
    SIR J. LUBBOCK: It is not in the clauses of the Bill, but it is part of the scheme. If we were to put all these provisions into the Bill it would make it a very complex measure, and would involve the London County Council in a serious expenditure besides occupying the valuable time of the House in an unnecessary discussion. The terms of the Bill have been very carefully considered, and it is for that reason and not from a desire to keep any details back from the knowledge of the House, that I think it is not advisable to put them in the Bill. Of course all this information will be completely open to the Select Committee upstairs, from whom there is no desire on the part of the London

    1815
    County Council to keep anything back. All that I ask the House to do now is to allow the Bill to go to a Select Committee for its consideration. If the Instruction were carried the County Council would be precluded, for some time to come, from awarding any pension at all; and all those who have been in the habit of dealing with large organisations will agree with me that unless there is some system of superannuation allowances and pensions the result is the adoption of the undesirable and expensive system of keeping on employés long after they have ceased to be fit for work. All these matters have been carefully and thoroughly considered, and when the Bill comes back from the Select Committee, if it is not satisfactory my hon. Friend will have an opportunity of bringing the subject forward again. I hope that after this explanation the hon. Member will not press the Instruction.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: I certainly sympathise to some extent with the remarks which have fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Mr.Bartley). At the same time I hope that he will not press the Instruction he has moved, but will allow the Bill to be considered by a Select Committee upstairs. So far as the alterations proposed by the Bill in connection with superannuation are concerned I think they will commend themselves to the approval of the House. The London County Council inherited from the Metropolitan Board of Works a definite system of superannuation, so that they can give superannuation now, but the whole of it is provided out of the rates. The County Council are bound by a scale which is very much like that of the Civil Service.
    MR. LAWSON: It is the Civil Service scale.
    MR. RITCHIE: It is proposed by the present Bill that some provision shall be made for contributions towards the fund from the servants themselves. That is a principle which the general tendency of public opinion favours, and it is one which I think will commend itself to hon. Members in most parts of the House. Therefore, so far as that alteration is concerned, I am disposed to regard it as a distinct improvement upon the
    1816
    existing state of things. What I think is not an improvement is this: at present there is a distinct scheme upon which the London County Council are bound to give their superannuation and pension. There is no definite scheme whatever in this Bill.
    MR. LAWSON: That will have to go before the Committee upstairs.
    MR. RITCHIE: It ought not only to be put before the Committee, but I think it ought to be included in the Bill with all its main features. At the same time, I would ask my hon. Friend not to press the Instruction, because I believe the Select Committee will regard the matter from very much the same standpoint, and that in dealing with the question they will consider it desirable that some of the main features of the scheme ought to be included in the Bill itself. If the Instruction is not agreed to and the Amendment is not proposed, the Bill will come back to the House in a more satisfactory shape than that in which it will leave the House. There is another matter upon which I desire to say a word, namely, the exclusion of the Government Auditor from any control or supervision over these superannuation allowances. Parliament has given to the Auditor of the Local Government Board the power of auditing the accounts of the London County Council, and I think it would be an unfortunate thing if we were to exclude this particular item from his audit. I trust that the Committee upstairs will direct its attention to that point.
    MR. J. R. KELLY: Before the Bill is disposed of I desire to say a few words. I want to know what the position of the ratepayers is. I do not agree altogether with the Bill as it has been submitted to Parliament by the London County Council, and I think that Clause 51, which repeals the Act for the acquisition of Raleigh Park in Brixton, ought to be omitted. So far as the superannuation of the officers of the London County Council is concerned, I fail to see upon what principle the ratepayers of London should be called upon to contribute one-half of the fund. If the London County Council wish to deal with the matter and will bring in a specific Bill, I do not see why they

    1817
    should not do so; but surely the ratepayers are entitled to be considered and to have a voice in the matter. I certainly cannot see any analogy between the servants of the London School Board and those of the County Council, and I want to know what real objection there is to dealing with the question by a separate Bill. Why is this Bill to be chucked at the head of a Committee without any details whatever? The right hon. Baronet opposite objects to an actuarial calculation.
    SIR J. LUBBOCK: What I said was that in this case an actuarial calculation was absolutely unnecessary.
    MR. J. R. KELLY: I understood the right hon. Baronet to object to the observations made by the Mover of the Instruction, as to the absence of an actuarial calculation. The ratepayers of London will have to make good any deficiency that may arise in any actuarial calculation. Are the London County Council to be treated differently from any other body of employers? Are the ratepayers to be represented or not? They are represented in the Council, and some of their representatives have seats in this House, but in no other way are they represented here. But if the County Council suppress all the details of their measure, the ratepayers will have no representation here at all. I fail to see why they should not be represented generally, in addition to their representation on the Council. In the absence of a complete scheme the ratepayers will have no voice in the matter, and I hope the hon. Member below me will press the Instruction he has moved.
    MR. COURTNEY: I should like to say a word or two in consequence of what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. He thinks that a scheme of superannuation ought to have been included in the Bill. Now I have had to deal with several Private Bills brought in by the great Railway Companies in which the question of superannuation has been introduced, and it has always been an important point for consideration whether schemes of superannuation ought or ought not to be incorporated in such Bills. Personally I have always found myself incompetent to judge or express
    1818
    an opinion as to the actuarial accuracy of the scheme submitted to me. The Committee to which this Bill will be referred, may have precedents to guide, them and larger powers, but I confess that I entertain some doubt whether their opinion will be of much value. I have often felt that something ought to be done in the matter, and that safeguards should be inserted in Private Bills dealing with cases where servants retire in consequence of a reduction of staff, or from being dismissed for misconduct, or when they retire of their own free will, so that they may not be deprived of the entire benefit of a fund to which they have largely contributed. I have no doubt that the London County Council will provide safeguards to prevent abuse, and conditions might be inserted in the Bill that such safeguards, shall be provided, but I cannot think that their full scheme ought to have been inserted in the Bill. Hitherto, in the case of London, the rates have supplied the fund, and the proposed alteration does not constitute a reason, why the entire scheme of the County Council ought to have been presented. I have thought it right to utter a word of caution in consequence of the great weight attached to the words of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, especially when I heard him say that, in his opinion, it might be expedient after all to incorporate the scheme in the Bill.
    MR. BARTLEY: On the undertaking which has been given that an outline of the scheme will be submitted to the Committee, and time will be allowed to consider it, I beg to withdraw the Instruction.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    LONDON OVERHEAD WIRES BILL. (by Order).
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time,"—(Sir J. Lubbock,)—put, and agreed to.
    SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I beg to move that it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill is referred to consider the advisability of amending the Bill so that its provisions may be in accordance with Part II. of the Public Health Acts

    1819
    Amendment Act, 1890. It will be in the recollection of the House that when this Bill was presented in another form I, as a Metropolitan Member, took a strong objection to it. It then contained a clause which enabled overhead wires to be forced on the occupiers of houses whether they liked it or not. In the Bill as it has now passed the Second Reading, that objectionable clause has disappeared, and as I was the Member who moved the rejection of the Bill at the former period, I have put this Instruction on the Paper partly to mark the fact that those Metropolitan Members who formerly objected to the Bill now consider—and I think I may speak for most of them—that the Bill in its present form, if not entirely unobjectionable, is much less objectionable than the former measure. I find that the most objectionable clause, namely, that which allowed overhead wires to be put up whether people liked it or not, has disappeared from the Bill, and I am free to admit that that fact has taken out the whole of the sting of our objections to the measure. As the Bill in its present form is admitted to be a compromise, it has been represented by various interests concerned that, on the whole, the compromise would be more satisfactory and a more complete and fair one all round if the Committee upstairs were to be instructed to assimilate the provisions of the Bill, as it affects the Metropolis, to the provisions of the law which affect the provinces generally. The Public Health Acts Amendment Act of last year was passed after a great deal of careful consideration of the interests involved in the measure, and I believe it has been found to work satisfactorily in the various great cities of the provinces where its provisions are needed. It seems to me that, as these provisions have now been satisfactorily tried elsewhere, they may fairly be extended to London. I do not wish, on behalf of the Metropolitan Members, to lay very great stress on the difference in the Bill as it stands and as it would be amended if this Instruction to the Committee is carried out. The Instruction only directs the Committee to consider the advisability of making certain changes in the Bill. It will be seen that it gives the fullest and freest discretion to the Committee to leave the Bill as it stands, simply indicating the
    1820
    advisability of their considering the provisions of the general law as they affect the provinces. For these reasons I venture to move the Instruction, in the belief that it is one which will commend itself to all the interests concerned in the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    ''That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill is referred, to consider the advisability of amending the Bill so that its provisions may be in accordance with Part II. of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890."—(Sir Roper Lethbridge.)
    GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY: I felt it my duty to object to the former Bill; but I should not object to the present Bill if the Instruction moved by the hon. Member were adopted. I believe that the Telephone Company would them selves welcome such an Instruction. My objection to the original measure was that I am opposed to any proposal to give to the London County Council or the Telephone Company power to place overhead wires on the houses of people who object to them.
    SIR J. GOLDSMID: There are one or two points of the Bill which it strikes me will require careful consideration. I myself should object to the Telephone Company or any other company placing standards on my houses in order to carry on the means of public communication either in the shape of electric lighting or telephones, if they are to be constantly subject to inspection. I know from experience and to my cost what is meant by this interference and inspection. It is of no use to say that notice is given of the visits of the Inspectors; I should certainly order all standards to be removed from my property if they are liable to constant inspection. Clause 8 provides that—
    "The Local Authority may charge every company and person owning any wire, placed or retained overhead, after the passing of this Act, such reasonable fees in respect of the identification, and such reasonable annual charges in respect of supervision of wires as shall be fixed by the bye-laws hereinafter provided."
    It seems to me that this is something like adding insult to injury. The company is not to be asked whether the wires require inspection but the County Council is to claim the right of numbering them and of charging persons who do not want the inspection a fee for carrying it out. I certainly think that such a provision is

    1821
    not warranted by the circumstances of the case. In other cases of inspection the public employs the officer who makes the inspection and pays him, and there is no ground whatever for charging a fee. Clause 10 provides by-laws for regulating the position of the wires, the manner in which repairs and alterations are to be made, and other matters which certainly deserve the careful attention of this House. I was in America two years ago and I found that telephonic communication was much more general there than it is in London; and I was told that the reason was that the facilities given to the Telephone Companies and others are far greater than in England, and especially in London. I think that the officers of public bodies should not have power to check improvements in the Metropolis, or so prevent the necessary increase of a system which has become so useful. I do not say that it would be so; all I say is that it might be so, and in that case the question of bye-laws is one that is likely to be of much interest to this House and to the public. We certainly ought to know what the powers are which we are placing in the hands of the London County Council. I do not say this from any feeling of distrust of the County Council. I agree that in many things they ought to exercise supervision on behalf of the ratepayers; but I do not think it is advisable to give them powers which may interfere with the extension and development of telephonic communication.
    MR. LAWSON: The hon. Member for South St. Pancras (Sir J. Goldsmid) objects to the 10th clause of the Bill. I may inform him that it has been modelled on the recommendation of a Committee of this House in 1889. Here there is no system of inspection of overhead wires whatever, and it was the fear that we might have in this country as lax a system as that which prevails in America which has induced the County Council to insert this clause in the Bill.
    MR. ESSLEMONT: I rise to order. It appears to me that the speeches we are listening to are Second Reading speeches, and are not directed to the Instruction before the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: The Bill can only be discussed as far as it is affected by the Instruction.
    MR. LAWSON: As I have already stated, the provisions of this Bill are in exact conformity with the recommendation of a Select Committee, and therefore its principle has already received the approval of the House. I trust that it will be allowed to go to a Committee without this Instruction.
    SIR J. LUBBOCK: My hon. Friend the Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson) is quite correct that the clause which has been condemned is a clause which was inserted in the Bill in deference to the opinion of a Committee of this House. As to the complaint made by the hon. Member for South St. Pancras in regard to the charge of a fee for inspection, I may explain that the fee is charged to the owner of the wire, and I think it is only right that the owner should pay for the inspection. It is perfectly true, as is stated in a circular issued by the Telephone Company, that there have been no instances of fatal accidents in the Metropolis from overhead wires, and that is very creditable to the company; but I believe there are a large number of derelict wires which do not belong to the company, and it is in regard to them that some inspection is required. I am not clear that the Instruction which has been proposed is really required. I think the Committee would be fully able to do all that is desired without any Instruction being passed; but, at the same time, the County Council do not object to the Instruction if it is understood that the hands of the Committee are not to be tied and that they may decide as they deem proper, after hearing the evidence. As to the advisability of introducing into London the provisions which are carried out in the provinces, I must remind the House that in many respects the circumstances of the provinces are altogether different from those of London.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: The House will remember that some time ago I ventured to move an Instruction to the Police and Sanitary Committee on Private Bills that they should sanction no provision which would interfere with the general law, and at that time I called attention to

    1823
    the provisions of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act which was passed last year. The provisions of that Act were considered by a large and strong Select Committee, and among other things they deal with overhead wires; but the law which is considered proper for the rest of England does not apply to the Metropolis. Although it may, to some extent, impose a limit on the power of the London County Council, I think that where the general law of the land has been clearly laid down by this House, and is in operation in Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, Birmingham, and other great cities, London ought to submit to the same provisions. The only objection I have to the Instruction moved by the hon. Member for North Kensington (Sir Roper Lethbridge) is that it only asks the Committee to consider the advisability of amending the Bill, whereas I think it ought to be made mandatory. Of course, as the right hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir J. Lubbock) has pointed out, the Committee can consider the advisability of amending the Bill without any Instruction at all. I therefore propose to amend the Instruction by striking out the words "consider the advisability of amending" in order to substitute the word "amend," making it a mandatory Instruction to the Committee to carry out the provisions of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890. I do not see why this Committee should have more power than the Police and Sanitary Committee.
    Amendment proposed, to omit the words "consider the advisability of amending," in order to insert the word "amend."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. F. S. POWELL:The House may remember that in conjunction with the right hon. Gentleman opposite I took part in conducting through this House the Public Health Bill of last year. The new law has been adopted in most important districts in the country; and in making the application of Part II. general in London we are only acting upon the principle which Parliament has largely adopted, of having
    1824
    one universal law. Since the Public Health Acts Amendment Act was passed last year it has been adopted, according to the information which has reached me, in no less than 180 towns, some of them the largest in the country, including Manchester and Salford. I think that this House ought to feel confidence in the provisions of this Part, as they last year received the approval of the Board of Trade and the Post Office. May I add that many of the objections which have been urged to-day were raised before the Committee upstairs, but did not prevail.
    MR. COURTNEY: When the proposal of my right hon. Friend (Mr. H. H. Fowler) was made the other day to pass a cast-iron Instruction absolutely for bidding the Police and Sanitary Committee from considering any matter which interfered with the Act of last Session, I ventured to express a doubt as to the expediency of adopting that Instruction. I was satisfied from the experience I had gained that it might prove extremely inconvenient, and that it might hamper the progress of improvements in provincial towns in matters of this kind. My right hon. Friend now wants, in a most stringent way, to take the Code of Regulations in respect of overhead wires as adapted to provincial towns and impose it en masse on the London County Council, without allowing that body to go before the Committee and represent in what particulars, if any, it is undesirable to adopt it. If the House agrees to accept this proposal, and decides that the Committee shall under no circumstance make a variation, I venture to think that it will fetter the Committee in a very unwise way. I think that the Amendment which my right hon. Friend has proposed is open to a very serious question as to its advisability as a matter of Order. We require strict notice of an Instruction, and no Instruction has been put on the Paper more than an empowering Instruction telling the Committee that it is to have power to do that which it has power to do already. Without any kind of notice my right hon. Friend springs upon the House a mandatory Instruction. If that is not out of order it is certainly against the principles upon which our Rules of Order are founded. At any rate, if for that reason only, I think the

    1825
    Debate should be adjourned. What is now proposed is that we shall say to the London County Council, "If you desire to deal with overhead wires you must adopt, without the slightest variation, the Code which we have laid down for provincial towns." I deprecate the adoption of the Instruction, either in its original or amended form. I think that the Committee, while approaching the question with a knowledge of what has happened in the House, should be unfettered.
    SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: After what has fallen from the Chairman of Committees I should like to point out to the House that the Instruction was purposely worded so as to indicate that the Bill in its present form, as amended by the Instruction, would be a compromise fairly agreeable to the whole of the House; and, secondly, it was purposely worded in such a way as to indicate that the Committee upstairs ought to have power to hear what the London County Council has to say in defence of its position. To impose a mandate upon the Committee in the way the right hon. Gentleman opposite has proposed would be quite contrary to the view I had in placing this Instruction on the Paper. I am, therefore, sorry to say that I cannot in any way accept the Amendment, but after what has been said by the Chairman of Committees, I think the simplest plan will be for me to withdraw the Instruction and to allow the issue to stand simply as between the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton and the Bill.
    MR. SPEAKER: The Instruction moved by the hon. Member for North Kensington is to empower the Committee to consider the advisability of amending the Bill. The Amendment is a mandatory Instruction to the Committee to amend the Bill. I am of opinion that that is an alteration which would not be in order.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I quite see, Sir, the force of what you have said, and I at once bow to your decision in the matter. I shall withdraw the Amendment, but I cannot consent to the withdrawal of the Instruction as it stands. I think it would be an undesirable course to send the Bill to a Select Committee without any Instruction at all.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question again proposed.
    SIR J. LUBBOCK: I may remind the House that London, was expressly excluded from the Act of last Session, and under these circumstances the County Council did not take as much interest in it as they would have done otherwise. Under these circumstances, it is desirable that they should have an opportunity of suggesting to the Committee the reasons which, in their judgment, render some modifications desirable in the case of London.
    MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for North Kensington propose to withdraw the Instruction?
    SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: Yes, Sir. [Cries of "No!"]
    The House divided:—Ayes 99; Noes 83.—(Div. List, No. 69.)
    Ordered "That it bean Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill is referred to consider the advisability of amending the Bill so that its provisions may be in accordance with Part 2 of 'The Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890.'"

  QUESTIONS.

    LABOUR STATISTICS.
    MR. PARKER SMITH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is preparing any fresh Return similar to "Labour Statistics, Returns of Expenditure by Working Men," presented in 1889; and, if not, whether, considering the probability that information will be more readily obtained since the former Return has made clear the objects of the inquiry, and considering the importance of the information which would be given by such a Return if including a sufficient number of instances, he will give orders for the preparation of such a Return?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: The subject to which the hon. Member refers has not been lost sight of, and I hope that a continuation in a more complete form of the Return in question may be prepared at no distant date. But the Department is so pressed with work at the present time that I do not feel able at the moment to give any distinct pledge in the matter.

    LETTER DELIVERY IN UPPER HOLLOWAY.
    MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that letters from Ireland reaching Euston at 6.15 a.m. are not delivered in Upper Holloway till between 12 and 1 p.m.; and whether he will take steps to secure their delivery by the early morning delivery?
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,: It is the case that in Upper Holloway, as in all the more remote London suburbs, the letters reaching Euston Station by the Irish Mail at 6.15 a.m. are not received in time to be included in the first delivery commencing at about 7.30 a.m. The letters are not sufficiently numerous to warrant a separate delivery, but I will inquire whether it may not be practicable to make the second delivery take place earlier than it does at present.

    THE VACCINATION COMMISSION.
    MR. DE LISLE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if the Royal Commission upon the working of the compulsory Vaccination Acts have come to any definite conclusions; and whether there is any hope that their Report will be submitted to the consideration of Parliament during the present Session?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: I have been in communication with the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the working of these Acts, but there is no hope that their Report will be presented to Parliament this Session.

    THE ADMIRALTY DEPARTMENT.
    MR. SEAGER HUNT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there are in the Admiralty Department any vacancies in the higher grade of the Second Division of clerks to which, under the Order in Council of 21st March, 1890, promotion should be made; and, if so, why the vacancies have not been filled?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,: There is a vacancy in the higher grade caused by the non-promotion of a Second Division clerk who has
    1828
    reached the £250 limit. The question of filling that vacancy is now under consideration, and the fittest man will be selected.

    PRESS AND PRIVATE TELEGRAMS.
    MR. JAMES MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to a statement in the Journalist newspaper, in which attention is called to the inconvenience of the present practice of the Postal Telegraph Department in using one system of counting messages for the Press, and another for private messages; for instance, "thirty four" is charged as one word, and 34 as two, although the transmission of the one word involves the use of 28 telegraphic signs, and of the two figures only 10 signs; "1890" is charged as four words, but "eighteen ninety" as two, although 27 telegraphic signs are required for the two words, and only 20 for the figures; whether his attention has been called to the saving of official time which would result from an abolition of the higher charges for telegraphing figures as compared with words; and whether he will consider the advisability of doing away with a regulation of which Press correspondents complain, and causes some loss to the State?
    MR. RAIKES: Before the introduction of the rate of a halfpenny a word for ordinary telegrams, the regulations governing the charge for figures in those telegrams and in Press telegrams were the same, every figure being counted and charged for as a separate word. At the same time, all addresses were sent free. When the halfpenny rate came into operation, the addresses of ordinary telegrams were no longer sent free; and, chiefly as a concession to those who had to send telegrams to houses bearing numbers composed of several figures, it was decided to charge for five figures as a single word. But in the case of Press telegrams the addresses were still sent free, and as many as 75 words of text during the day and 100 words during the night could still be sent for a shilling, whilst a copy of a telegram of the same number of words was telegraphed to any separate town for a charge of 2d. No change, then, having here been made, there appeared to be no ground for a

    1829
    concession in the case of Press telegrams, which, were already the subject of such enormous privileges.

    THE PLATTERS ROCKS.
    MR. THOMAS LEWIS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government has yet decided as to the removal of the Platters Rocks, at Holyhead Harbour, which, according to the answer given last Spring, was then under consideration; if so, what conclusion have they come to; and, if not, when are they likely to decide the matters finally?
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The matter to which the hon. Member refers is still under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, but there are considerable difficulties in the way which have not yet been overcome.

    THE ARCHBISHOP'S THRONE.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the Archbishop's Throne which was presented to Canterbury Cathedral by Archbishop Tenison, and which was supposed to have been lost, has been found, and set up in the Library of the Cathedral, instead of being restored to its original position; and whether he will, on behalf of the Department of Science and Art, apply to the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury for the loan of this beautiful and interesting work, in order that it may be preserved in the Kensington Museum, and placed in a position where it can be seen by the public?
    THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend for recurring to this subject, and will make inquiries at once as to how far it may be possible to act upon his suggestion.

    THE STRIKE AT CARDIFF.
    SIR EDWARD REED: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the workmen on strike at Cardiff, complaining of the conduct of the Stipendiary Magistrate in cases arising out of the labour dispute; whether he is aware
    1830
    that the Stipendiary Magistrate of Cardiff is the brother of Sir William Thomas Lewis, with whom the Cardiff workmen are chiefly at strife; and whether it would be possible to make some temporary arrangement by which another Magistrate might be appointed to whom the administration of justice as between the workmen and their antagonists could be entrusted? I also beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can inform the House how many cases arising out of the Cardiff strike have been heard by the Stipendiary Magistrate at Cardiff since the 30th of January, stating the number of acquittals, convictions, and committals for trial respectively that have resulted there from?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: I am informed by the Stipendiary that the only knowledge he has of the resolution is derived from a local newspaper, from which it appears that a man who had been committed for trial that day presided at a meeting of men on strike, and passed a resolution condemning the Magistrate in terms too vague to admit of a definite reply. The Stipendiary is the brother of Sir William Lewis, but he is not aware that the workmen are chiefly at strife with the latter, most of the cases tried by him having arisen from labour disputes in which the Dock Company, of which Sir W. Lewis is manager, is not directly concerned. I have no reason to believe that the conduct of the Stipendiary has been otherwise than strictly impartial and in accordance with the rules of law. His decisions are subject to review by superior tribunals, and the administration of justice can be safely left in his hands. Since January 30, 37 cases arising out of the strikes have been heard by the Stipendiary; 19 persons have been committed for trial, 17 of whom have been allowed bail; 10 have been convicted, one of whom has appealed; three have been bound over to be of good behaviour, and five have been acquitted.

    ARMENIA.
    MR. LEVESON GOWER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there are at the present time a large number of Armenians imprisoned

    1831
    in various parts of Turkey as political suspects; and whether, if this be the case, they are aware of the nature of the specific charges, if any, upon which these men are respectively imprisoned?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,: In January 1,876 prisoners were set free at Constantinople. They were mostly individuals whose trial had not been completed. In the same month a number of Armenians were arrested at Erzeroum on charges of sedition. In February information was received of arrests of Armenians in the Adana Vilayet suspected of belonging to a Revolutionary Committee. There are also reports of arrests of Armenians at Marash, Hadjin, and Koyan. Her Majesty's Government are not aware of the specific charges on which the several individuals are imprisoned.
    MR. LEVESON GOWER: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Her Majesty's Government are in possession of any information throwing light upon the statement in the Constantinople correspondence of the Daily News of February 24th, to the effect that the Turkish Government is forming; with great celerity in Armenia six regiments, composed of Kurds and Circassians, and that the military commander of Van has issued a large supply of Martini rifles to the Kurds of that Province, who are said to be patrolling the country; and whether, having regard to the serious nature of such a statement if correct, the Government will, if without recent information upon these points, take steps to obtain it with as little delay as possible?
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: No such information has been received, but inquiry will be made as to whether there is any foundation for the report.

    THE CALAIS-BRINDISI MAILS.
    MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has any record of the number of bags of mails sent from this country across France and Italy, from Calais to Brindisi, and of the number of bags of mails received in this country by the Calais-Brindisi route in the year 1880; and whether he has any record of the number of bags of
    1832
    mails so sent from and received in this country in the year 1890; and, if not, whether he will apply to the Railway Companies for information on the subject?
    MR. RAIKES: According to the records of my Department, the number of bags of mails of the description referred to in the hon. Member's question was as follows:—Mails despatched—1880, 23,567; 1890, 45,725. Mails received—1880, 8,722; 1890, 18,431.

    POSTAGE TO THE AUSTRALIAN COLONIES.
    MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, now that the postage on letters sent from the United Kingdom to Australasia has been reduced from 5d. to 2½d. per half-ounce, it is intended to maintain the charge of 2d. for a postcard (only one halfpenny less than a letter) sent from this country to the Australasian Colonies?
    MR. RAIKES: The 2d. rate was fixed for postcards from Australasia to the United Kingdom at the Postal Conference, which was held at Adelaide last year, and it would have been inconvenient to adopt a different rate in the opposite direction. The postage, therefore, remains for the present at 2d. in both directions.

    INDIAN POSTCARDS.
    MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether now that the postage on letters sent from the United Kingdom to India has been reduced from 5d. to 2½d. per half-ounce, it is intended to maintain the charge of 2d. for a postcard sent from this country to India and Ceylon; and whether he is aware that the Ceylon Post Office charges 1d. for a postcard, which can be sent to the United Kingdom or to any other part of the world, and that the charge for a postcard from France to India or Ceylon is also 1d.?
    MR. RAIKES: In view of the circumstances adverted to in my previous answer, I think it will be the better course not to deal separately with the Indian postcards. I do not, however, deny that the facts mentioned by the hon. Member appear to constitute some valid reason for effecting a change in the present rate when a favourable occasion occurs.

    POTTERY WORKMEN IN GLASGOW.
    MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the case of the proprietors of Campbellfield Pottery, Glasgow, who some 11 weeks ago intimated a reduction of wages, and, the same not being acquiesced in by the workmen, gave notice to quit not only to these workmen, but to such members of their family as were employed in the pottery; whether he is aware that the day the workmen received their notice to quit the foreman of the pottery stated that, if the workmen did not agree to the masters' terms, they would not get work in any other pottery in Glasgow; whether the places of these workmen have been filled up by the employment of other workmen; whether the workmen so dismissed applied at other potteries requiring workmen, but were informed that no employment would be given to any workman who had been dismissed from Campbellfield Pottery; whether it is lawful for masters to conspire or to combine together not to employ certain workmen who have been dismissed from employment, and whose places have been filled up by the employment of other workmen, and with whom no trade dispute can be said to exist; and whether he will take steps to enforce the Criminal Law on the subject?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Sir C. PEARSON,: No, Sir; the Lord Advocate's attention has not been called to this case. If any one conceives that a criminal offence has been committed and desires the Lord Advocate's consideration of it, his proper course is to lodge information with the authorities in the usual way.

    MIDNIGHT INTERMENT.
    MR. BRUNNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in the Manchester Guardian, of the 21st instant, headed "Disgraceful Scene at a Midnight Interment," which states, that on the occasion of the funeral, at midnight, of the late Colonel Richard Dyott, some time a Member of this House, the public houses
    1834
    in the district had been granted an extra hour's extension; that during the ceremony there was a scene of wild excitement; that there was a rush of some thousands to gain admission to the church; that 40 members of the county police force were present; that the doors of the edifice were closed to prevent the place from being stormed; and that in the mêlée a Police Inspector had one of his fingers nearly bitten off; whether he will ask for a Report from the Chairman of the Local Bench upon the circumstances; and whether he will instruct the Magistrates as to the impropriety of extending the hours for the sale of intoxicating liquors on such an occasion?
    MR. COGHILLhad the following question on the Paper: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention had been called to the following paragraph in the Globe newspaper, of Saturday, 21st February, under the heading "Midnight Funeral of an ex-M.P.:"
    "The public houses in the district (Lichfieldr had been granted an extra Hour's extension fo the occasion, and the vast assembly viewed the affair as some fête day. Directly the coffin was conveyed into the church there was a rush by some thousands to gain admittance. Some members of the county police force made an endeavour to keep back the crowd, and for some time intense excitement prevailed. Eventually the doors of the edifice were closed in order to prevent the place being stormed. In the mêlée; one of the Police Inspectors had a finger nearly bitten off. It was long after midnight ere the crowd dispersed, but no further disorder occurred;"
    and whether he will communicate with the Magistrates of Lichfield as to the impropriety of granting an extra hour's extension to the public houses on that occasion?
    MR. MATTHEWS: I will answer this question and that of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme at the same time. It is not the fact that the public-houses of the district had all been granted an extension. One hotel only, opposite the church, was allowed an hour's extension for the accommodation of persons coming from a distance to see a very unusual ceremony. Everything was quiet and orderly at this hotel. The Chief Constable informs me that the accounts of what took place have been mush exaggerated. There was a rush of persons to gain admittance when the

    1835
    procession passed into the church, and it was necessary to close the doors. Beyond this there was no disorder, and all passed off quietly. The Magistrates inform me that in granting the extension to one house they considered the convenience of the public, and that they were justified in so doing. I see no reason to doubt the propriety of the way in which they used their discretion on this occasion.

    WOOLWICH AND SANDHURST EXAMINATIONS.
    SIR H. ROSCOE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that it has been stated that, in the competitive examinations for admission to Woolwich and Sandhurst conducted by the Civil Service Commissioners, the maximum number of marks allotted to the various subjects are, in effect, not adhered to; whether he is aware that public attention has recently been, drawn to this by the conference of head masters, in regard to Woolwich, in the following terms:—
    "The mark assigned as the maximum for subjects nominally of equal value is very illusory. It is not the maximum assigned but the average mark attainable that decides the choice of subjects, and at present the proportional weight assigned to different subjects is very unequal. For example, it will be found that during the last five or six years the average percentages of the maximum obtained by successful candidates are 34·06 in Latin, 29·15 in Greek, 38·7 in French. 35·8 in German, 28·65 in Experimental Science;"
    and whether, if these statements are correct, he will undertake that in future the highest mark attainable in each subject shall be raised to the allotted maximum of that subject, as is usual in other examinations, so that the relative value of the several subjects shall remain that indicated in the regulations?
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,: The Civil Service Commissioners, who conduct the examinations for Woolwich and Sandhurst, inform me that the highest number of marks allotted to any subject is, and always has been, attainable by the candidates. Every care is taken by the examiners to mark answers on all subjects in the same ratio to absolute accuracy, though the process presents great difficulty. It has been found, however, that
    1836
    the average knowledge of some subjects exceeds that of others; and, without expressing any opinion as to the accuracy of the figures quoted from the head masters, it may be admitted that Greek and physical science have been at the bottom of the list as regards proficiency. The percentage of the maximum obtained in experimental science is, nevertheless, gradually advancing. During the last five years its average has equalled that for Latin, and last year the percentage exceeded it.

    THE CONSTRUCTION OF LIGHT RAILWAYS IN IRELAND.
    MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that great disappointment and discontent have arisen in connection with the construction of light railways in Ireland, owing to the fact that employment is given entirely at the discretion of engineers and gangers, who are strangers to the localities in which the works are proceeding, and who have not the local knowledge requisite to enable them to distribute employment so as to-effect the purpose of alleviating distress; whether any provision has been made by which contractors are bound, in employing men, to give the preference to those most in need; whether any such provision will be made in future contracts; and whether, in order to secure the employment of the poor by system, instead of, as at present, by mere chance only, the Government would arrange that employment should be given upon lists made up by local officials who have knowledge of the condition of the poor, such lists to be revised by the local clergy?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I do not think the hon. Member has been rightly informed as to the feelings with which the light railway construction has been received in Ireland. It would be impossible, and, in my judgment, most inexpedient even if possible, to limit the control of the engineers and contractors over the men they are employing. Neither should I think of interfering with their choice of gangers. My own belief is that gangers not connected with the locality and having no localties and interests are

    1837
    much more likely to be impartial than residents in the district from which the workmen are drawn. The advice of local officials, based as it is upon their own observation and upon information obtained from local clergy and others, has been largely acted upon, I am glad to think, by the contractors. But it would be unwise to bind them to take lists made up by local officials who have knowledge of the condition of the poor. In several of the contracts the contractors have bound themselves to execute works involving as much unskilled labour as possible, and to employ, as far as practicable, able-bodied persons living in the district in which the works are being constructed. The Reports I have received from the various lines indicate that the persons employed are in the main drawn from the class requiring relief.

    GOLD MINING ROYALTIES.
    MR. W. PRITCHARD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the names of the five mines which have paid royalties on gold obtained in Wales since 1885, and what are the respective amounts of royalties which have been paid by them; which of such mines are on private lands, and which are on Crown lands; what amount of money has been paid to the Woods and Forests Office since 1885, for dead rents and for solicitors' fees and charges respectively, for the 447 leases and licences to work for gold and silver in Wales since 1885; what is the minimum and what the maximum charge for dead rent on Crown lands and private lands respectively; and what is the minimum and what the maximum charge of the solicitor to the Woods and Forests for a lease to work for gold or silver on Crown lands and private lands respectively?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: I will give the hon. Member the names of the mines so far as I am able to pronounce them. The names of the five mines and the royalties paid by them since 1885 are as follows:—Morgan Gold Mine, £1,574 4s. 3d.; Tynllwyn Gold Mine, 9s. 6d.; Castell Carn-dochan Gold Mine, £3 9s. 7d.; Gesel-cwm-Bach (parish of Llanelltyd), 2s. 10d.; Moel lspri (parish of Llanelltyd),
    1838
    4s. 4d. The first, third, and fifth of these mines are on private lands. As regards the third paragraph of the hon. Member's question, the payments for dead rents amount to £1,626, and those for solicitors' fees and charges to £1,528. The charge for dead rent depends upon circumstances, and the Commissioner of Woods does not bind himself to either a minimum or a maximum charge. The minimum charge for leases is £4; the maximum charge depends upon circumstances, but does not exceed that authorised under the Solicitors' Remuneration Act, 1881.
    MR. W. PRITCHARD MORGAN: I should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Woods and Forests Commissioners charge as high as £25 or £30 for a nominal lease granted to a man to work gold on his own land?
    MR. GOSCHEN: I am not able to give the information without notice. The hon. Member has not moved for the correspondence about the Morgan Mine; but if he moves I will lay it on the Table as I proposed on the 5th instant.
    MR. FENWICK: Would not more mines be worked but for the excessive royalties charged by the Crown?
    MR. GOSCHEN: That is a very interesting question. It is quite probable that if a less royalty were charged the persons who would otherwise pay the royalty would be able to sell their rights for a higher price to a company to work the mine. The result would be that the taxpayers would lose, while the particular person to whom the lease was given would be able to gain something better out of it. That has been the case in one or two instances.
    MR. W. PRITCHARD MORGAN: I should like to know whether, out of the 447 leases granted by the Crown, only these five have been worked at all?
    MR. GOSCHEN: I have given the hon. Member all the information with which I have been supplied.
    MR. W. PRITCHARD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer charges a royalty of 5 per cent, on gold obtained in Ireland; and whether he is prepared to recommend a reduction of such royalties, in conformity with the

    1839
    expressed desire of Her Majesty's Government to foster and encourage industries in Ireland, and in order to encourage those desirous of developing the mineral resources of Ireland?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This is not a matter which has engaged my attention; but if the hon. Member will give me such information as will lead me to believe that there are gold mines in Ireland. I will undertake to look into the matter.
    MR. J. O'CONNOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in comparison with its area, there has been a larger quantity of gold found in Ireland than in any other country in Europe; that from the discovery of gold in Wicklow in 1796 down to the destruction of the mines in 1798 the amount of gold produced equalled £10,000, and that during the first half of this century £100,000—
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is entering into an historical statement.
    MR. SEXTON: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman deems it necessary to still maintain the royalties if he really doubts the existence of gold in Ireland?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: A question as to royalty should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but what I am doubtful about is whether there are any gold mines in Ireland which would be worked if the royalty were abolished.
    MR. J. O'CONNOR: Let me ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will bring this matter, say, before the Lord Lieutenant, with a view to reducing the royalties?
    MR. W. PRITCHARD MORGAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Cork has lately expended many thousands of pounds for the purpose of opening gold mines in Ireland, and is it not the fact that other persons have obtained leases from the Crown?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know to which of the hon. Members for Cork the hon. Member refers. I have not heard that any of the hon. Members for Cork have spent thousands of pounds in order to seek for gold.

    EMIGRATION TO BRAZIL.
    MR. DE LISLE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have received reports of the prospects of British subjects emigrating to Brazil, and have they taken any steps to make known to the public the true state of the case?
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: Her Majesty's Government are informed that inducements are being held out to people in this country to emigrate to Brazil, and 333 are reported to have sailed between the 1st of January and the 21st inst. I am informed by the Emigration Information Office that constant inquiries are being made about free emigration to the southern districts of Brazil. We are not in possession of trustworthy information as to the prospects of British immigrants in those provinces. Last month Her Majesty's Minister was directed to report upon the subject, and some days ago a telegram, was sent to hasten his reply. As regards the districts north of Rio, we are informed that they are very unsuitable for British immigrants, whether agricultural labourers or artisans, who would probably experience disappointment and endless sufferings. A few domestic servants might find employment with European families, but their number must be inconsiderable. It should be understood that the British Consuls cannot give relief in money to distressed immigrants, and that in cases of dispute with their employers they will be dealt with according to local laws, which will be very different to those to which they have been accustomed. All the information possessed by the Foreign Office has been sent to the Board of Trade and Emigrants' Inquiry Office, by whom cautionary notices have been inserted in the newspapers; but I shall be glad if my hon. Friend's question may be the means of inducing all persons to make full inquiry before emigrating to Brazil, whether as farmers or labourers.

    MAGISTRATES' CLERKS AND SOLICITORS.
    MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his

    1841
    attention has been called to the statement made recently at the Liverpool Assizes by Mr. Justice Wills, to the effect that the practice of Magistrates' Clerks acting as prosecuting solicitors in cases where they have a direct interest in the number of convictions, is an "abominable system;" and whether he will consider the advisability of legislating to prohibit this practice, and to provide for Justices' Clerks salaries not having any definite proportion to the number of convictions in their Courts?
    MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir. I have seen the statement of the learned Judge. The practice condemned by him is that of Clerks to the Justices acting as prosecuting solicitors in the cases of persons as to whose committal they have at an earlier stage advised the Justices. If they afterwards prosecute at Sessions or Assizes, and thereby earn the allowance for costs, it may be alleged that they have an interest in obtaining as many committals as possible. But their salaries as Clerks to the Justices are not affected by the number of convictions. The practice is, no doubt, theoretically indefensible, and I will consult the Attorney General on the question whether it produces any practical evils calling for legislation.

    PRISON STOREKEEPERS AND CLERKS.
    MR. LAWSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received through the Prison Commissioners the Petition of the Storekeepers and Clerks in prisons; and, if so, whether he will assent to their request to include such officers in the Second Division Scheme?
    MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir; I have received such Petitions. There are strong reasons against including these officers in the Second Division Scheme, and their inclusion was not contemplated by the Treasury Minute referred to in their Petitions. The whole question of the pay and status of the clerical establishment of the prisons have recently been the subject of a careful and exhaustive inquiry, and I am not disposed to re-open the settlement which was arrived at after much consideration at the end of last year, and under which substantial advantages are given to this branch of the Service.

    TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION AT SAWTRY.
    MR. FELLOWES: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has again been called to the very serious loss and inconvenience experienced by the inhabitants of Sawtry (Hunts), and the adjoining parishes of Glatton, Connington, and the Giddings, owing to the absence of telegraphic communication; whether he is aware that the inhabitants of these parishes, about 2,300 in number, have to send three miles, and in some cases four miles, to the telegraph office at Stilton; and whether, taking into consideration that the main wires run along the North Road, within a quarter of a mile of Sawtry, he will now consent to the establishment of a telegraph office in that parish?
    MR. RAIKES: Since my hon. Friend wrote to me in July last my attention has not again been called to the question of the extension of the telegraphs to Sawtry. In answer to a question which he put to me in this House about 18 months ago, I explained that the main wires could not be made available for serving a telegraph office at Sawtry. I shall be very glad to have further inquiry made, but I fear that, unless the circumstances have altogether changed, it will only be possible to establish a telegraph office at Sawtry if the residents are prepared to enter into a guarantee. Perhaps I may take this opportunity of explaining to my hon. Friend and the House that in cases of telegraphic extension the Postmaster General has no option or alternative as to the course which he is bound by Treasury regulations to follow, and this is only one of many purely administrative matters in which his discretion is absolutely superseded by the control of the Treasury.
    MR. FELLOWES: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will bring before the Treasury the question of the great difficulty experienced in finding in poor country parishes a sufficient guarantee; and whether he will allow the receipts from telegrams coming in to go towards the guarantee fund, in the same way as the receipts from telegrams going out are allowed?
    MR. RAIKES: I shall be very happy to make the representation to the Treasury; but I do not know with what success it will meet.

    SPHERES OF INFLUENCE IN AFRICA.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Commissioners charged by the British and French Governments with the delimitation of the boundaries of the British and French spheres of influence in Africa under the Anglo-French Agreement have begun their work, and what progress they have made?
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Commissioners have met, and are making progress.

    IRISH CONSTABULARY FORCE FUND.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the money subscribed to the Constabulary Force Fund by a Constabulary pensioner, on retirement as a pensioner, is lost to him; whether pensioners are compelled to subscribe as long as they live; whether compensation is based upon actual time of service; and whether any Resident Magistrates have been compensated, or have received money, from this Fund; and, if so, to what amount?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hardly understand the inquiry in the first paragraph of the question. I may say, however, that it is altogether optional with a pensioner from the Royal Irish Constabulary whether he will continue a subscriber to the Constabulary Force Fund. A married man continuing a subscriber secures for his family the same claim as they had against the Fund while he was actively serving. Pensioners are not compelled to subscribe. Married pensioners, however, almost invariably do so. On the other hand, men retiring from the force unmarried, or without families surviving, do not subscribe, as they have no family to be benefited. The scale regulating gratuities from the Fund is based upon the total amount of salary and pension received, and consequently upon the contribution paid to the Fund by the subscriber. My answer is, of course, confined to the case
    1844
    of persons appointed to the Royal Irish Constabulary prior to the Act of 1883. As regards the last paragraph, I understand that prior to 1836 there existed a small body of Police Magistrates who belonged to the Force and subscribed to the Fund, which they continued to do after the title and status of their appointment was changed to Resident Magistrates. In such cases their families received the usual regulation gratuities from the Fund. But no Resident Magistrate appointed for the first time under the Act of 1836 has received any compensation or money from this Fund.

    RELIEF WORKS AT GARRICK.
    SIR T. ESMONDE, in the absence of Mr. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the relief works to which he recently referred as instituted for the benefit of the inhabitants of the parish of Ardara county Donegal, are seven miles distant from that parish; whether he is aware that an engineer named Gahan, who is employed in the Government relief works at Garrick, visited the parish of Ardara about a fortnight ago with a view to the making of the roads by the Government in the neighbourhood for the purpose of relief, but that hitherto no step in this direction has been taken; and whether, having regard to the fact that the fulfilment of his promise made at Ardara, that the Government would cut a road through the hill of Glengrish, would give employment to between 200 and 300 people in the neighbourhood of Ardara, and, to the destitute condition of the people of this neighbourhood, any measures are to be taken for their immediate sustenance and relief?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me further notice of the question.

    KENSINGTON AND PADDINGTON SUBWAY.
    MR. BAUMANN: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that certain persons, on behalf of the promoters of the Kensington and Paddington Subway Bill, have already begun to peg out portions of Kensington Gardens; whether this has been done with his authority; and whether, in

    1845
    view of the fact that the Bill has not yet passed either the Committee stage or the Third Reading in this House, he will order the promoters to suspend all further operations, and to cease interfering with the public enjoyment of the gardens?
    MR. COBB: I should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the plans and sections show that the proposed railway will cross Kensington Gardens in an open cutting, which will afterwards be covered over?
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,: The Kensington and Paddington Subway Bill has passed a Second Reading in this House, and it will now be for a Select Committee to examine in detail the arguments for and against the measures. As to those general questions, I do not desire to express any opinion one way or the other. But I must be prepared to inform the Committee, should it otherwise approve of the scheme, to what extent the construction of the line would involve any interference with the amenities of the park. With that view I called upon the promoters to indicate the line which they intended to take by the usual method of placing a few temporary pegs here and there in the ground. I may say that to their first proposal I objected, and I am now about to consider an alternative route. I do not believe that the placing of these pegs in the ground has in any degree interfered with the enjoyment of the gardens by the public. The case stands thus: The promoters must, if they can, satisfy the Committee in order to get their Bill; and they must, I suppose, satisfy the public in order to get their money; and my hon. Friend may rest assured that, until they have achieved these two purposes, they will not be allowed to begin operations in Kensington Gardens. I may add that, if all objections were overcome, and the Bill were passed by the Committee and afterwards by the House, the assent of the Crown would still be required. In answer to the supplementary question, I have to say that the course that it is proposed to take is to construct the railway in sections, so that only a small part of the gardens at a time would be interfered
    1846
    with. Of course, the whole question is one of the balance of conveniences for the public.
    SIR H. ROSCOE: May I ask whether arrangements have been made for working the line by electricity or by cable, or whether it is merely intended to construct a subway for foot passengers as far as the Albert Hall?
    MR. PLUNKET: Objections were raised by the Science and Art Department to the proposal that it should be an electrical railway passing under their premises; and so the promoters have agreed to work by cable instead of by electricity. So far, that difficulty has been overcome. The idea is that there should be a subway connecting the South Kensington Railway Station with the Albert Hall and Paddington by way of the Kensington Gardens. Through the Gardens the subway would consist of two tubes, and nothing of it would be visible. The most serious permanent alteration that would be involved would be the destruction of a certain number of trees.
    SIR H. ROSCOE: Has the right hon. Gentleman been informed that the running of cars in the subway will materially interfere with the scientific instruction given in the Normal School of Science and in the large school connected with the City and Guilds of London Institute? Does he know that arrangements have been made by which the construction can be carried on without interfering with the work in the schools?
    MR. PLUNKET: My impression is that all these objections have been overcome by the promotors.
    MR. PICTON: When the right hon. Gentleman stated that the assent of the Crown would be necessary, did he mean anything more than the Royal assent which must be given to every Bill?
    MR. PLUNKET: Yes, Sir; Kensington Gardens are Crown property.

    INFLAMMABLE LIQUIDS BILL.
    SIR E. BIRKBECK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the very strong feeling expressed by shopkeepers and dealers in petroleum lamp oil in country towns and villages against the proposals

    1847
    contained in the Inflammable Liquids Bill; and whether he will agree to exempt small towns and villages from coming under the provisions of the Bill as far as petroleum lamp oil is concerned?
    MR. H. GARDNER: May I further ask whether it is not a fact that petroleum oil affords the light principally used in rural districts by the poorer classes?
    MR. MATTHEWS: The oil is, I believe, largely used by the poorer classes. I have seen a large number of printed circulars directed against this Bill; but these representations seem to proceed upon a considerable misapprehension as to the provisions and effect of the measure and wholly ignore the appeals made to the Government by public and local bodies of great importance, protesting against the danger arising from the existing state of the law. As to the exemption suggested by my hon. Friend I am unable to say at present whether it could be safely permitted; but I think that such a question might properly engage the attention of a Select Committee when the Bill reaches that stage. I venture, however, to remind my hon. Friend of the disastrous fire at Sutton in 1886 when five lives were lost.

    ISSUE OF BANK NOTES.
    MR. ATKINSON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state his intentions in respect to changes as to existing issues of bank notes this Session?
    MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Member will have observed that in my recent utterances with regard to banking matters I made no special reference to the existing issues of bank notes by banks other than the Bank of England, but I can make no reply to my hon. Friend which will in any way fetter the freedom of action of the Government or of the House.

    MINING ROYALTIES.
    MR. W. PRITCHARD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether the same prerogative pertains to the Crown with reference to the gold and silver contained in Her Majesty's possessions outside as in Great Britain; if the prerogative does exist, is it the intention of the Government to insist
    1848
    upon the payment of royalties outside as in Great Britain; and if the prerogative does not exist, how and by what statute or law has the prerogative outside Great Britain been abrogated or modified?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,: The Prerogative of the Crown is the same in all parts of Her Majesty's dominions. The exercise of it as gold and silver is modified as regards New South Wales and Queensland by the Act 18 & 19 Vic., c. 54 sec. 2; as to Victoria by the Act 18 and 19 Vic., c. 55, sec. 2; and as to Western Australia by the Act of last year, 53 & 54 Vic., c. 26, sec. 3. These sections vest in the Legislatures of the several colonies named, the entire management and control of the waste lands of the Crown and the proceeds thereof, including all royalties, mines, and minerals. I trust that this information, as showing the course that has been taken in Australia, will satisfy the hon. Member.
    MR. W. PRITCHARD MORGAN: No, Sir; quite the contrary. What I desire to know is whether the general words in the Acts of Parliament referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman have vested in the Colonial Legislature and in the Colonial Governments the gold and silver in the colonies?
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I do not think the hon. Gentleman really followed my answer. I mentioned the statutes where the rights of the Crown have been interfered with. In cases in which no Statutes have been passed the rights will still remain with the Crown.

    THE MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
    MR. PICKARD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now arrange a day for the Debate on the Second Reading of the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: The consideration of that Order cannot be taken until after the 18th of March, nor can I advance it. Under these circumstances, and as there is a reasonable probability that the Order may be reached by that time, I cannot say that I am yet in a position to give a day for the discussion.
    MR. PICKARD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say if he would be able to fix a day should the Order not be reached on the 18th of March?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I am afraid that to enter into such an engagement would merely be an invitation to prolong the Debate on the previous Order. It would be better for the hon. Gentleman to use his influence with other hon. Members to secure an opportunity.

    OVERCHARGES ON INDIAN STORES.
    MR. BURT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will state the decision of the arbitrator to whom the matter was referred, re the dispute between the War Office and the India Office as to alleged overcharges, extending through a series of years on stores supplied to the Government of India; and whether he will lay upon the Table a memorandum giving particulars of the arbitration?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I can assure the hon. Member that the matter has not been lost sight of, but it involves greater difficulties than at first sight appeared. The arbitrator (Lord Cranbrook) has not yet been able to come to a decision.

    FINANCIAL RELATIONS BETWEEN ENGLAND AND IRELAND.
    SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is in a position to state when the Committee of Inquiry into the Financial Relations between Ireland and Great Britain will commence its investigations?
    MR. GOSCHEN: I am anxious to push this matter forward with Irish Members. I do not know whether they are yet prepared to resume the discussion, and I did not like to ask them whether they were. If I am to take this question as an indication that there now exists a desire to go forward with this Committee, I will immediately take measures to have it reappointed, with such changes in the constitution of the Committee as circumstances may demand. I would propose, as March was by far the busiest month with me, and I should be unable to give continued attendance, that the Committee should be appointed, and that one meeting should be held, and that there should be placed before the Committee the information we have collected. I would then propose to postpone for a month the
    1850
    meeting of the Committee, when we should be able to give further information—in fact, the results of the second year, 1890–91, to compare with the year 1889–90. If that course commends itself to hon. Members I shall be glad to follow it.
    MR. SEXTON: I thank the right hon. Gentleman, and concur in the general view of the circumstances ho has expressed. May I suggest to him that it would make the proceedings of the Committee more useful if he would allow an interval between the circulation of the Return and the first meeting of the Committee?
    MR. GOSCHEN: Certainly, it will be convenient that some time should elapse, but, of course, I cannot have the Papers circulated until I know who are to be the members of the Committee. Though to a great extent the composition of the Committee may be the same, it does not follow that the members will be the same.
    SIR J. M'KENNA: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would be prepared to add some additional Irish Members to the Committee?
    MR. GOSCHEN: The composition of the Committee was very carefully considered at the time it was nominated and agreed to on both sides, and I do not think I could assent to making such a change.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to have the names submitted to the House without delay?
    MR. GOSCHEN: So far as it lies in my hands, yes.

    THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON LABOUR.
    MR. J. O'CONNOR: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he will be in a position to state what arrangements he intends to make for the representation of Irish interests on the Royal Commission to inquire into the labour question?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I think it would be more convenient that I should make a complete statement when I communicate to the House the terms of reference and the names of the Commissioners.
    MR. SEXTON: Do we understand that the terms of reference will be

    1851
    communicated before the Commission is appointed?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: As to that I cannot give an absolute answer.

    FACTORY INSPECTORS.
    MR.H. BYRON REED: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for the Home Department a question of which I have given him private notice: whether he will lay on the Table the new regulations as to the examination and appointment of Factory Inspectors referred to in Debate last night?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,: The fullest publicity has been and continues to be given to these regulations, which of necessity are communicated to all applicants for Inspectorships. If my hon. Friend wishes to give them even further publicity, and to obtain it at the expense of presentation to Parliament, his Motion for that purpose would not be opposed by the Government.

    ARRANGEMENT OF BUSINESS.
    SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury when it is the intention of the Government to introduce the Small Holdings Bill mentioned in the Queen's Speech?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: Certainly.
    SIR WALTER FOSTER: I think the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my question. I asked when, and not whether, the Bill would be introduced.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: Well, I think the House has quite sufficient work on its hands just now, and I do not see any advantage in mentioning a possible date.
    SIR J. COLOMB: Will my right hon. Friend say what business will be taken on Monday?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not without hope of being allowed to take the Money Vote for the Army to-night. The time now is exceedingly short before Easter, which falls much earlier this year. Therefore, we shall have to devote
    1852
    increasing attention to the Estimates. At any rate, the Navy Estimates must stand first for Monday.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: And after Monday what is the intention? What Estimates will be taken on Thursday?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: We must take the necessary Votes as rapidly as possible, the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the necessity. After the Navy Vote and the necessary Vote for the Army we shall proceed with the Supplementary Estimates. Supply, not Bills, will be the business next week.
    MR. ESSLEMONT: May I ask whether it is intended to adjourn for the Easter holidays on the 24th March?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not able to say. We must discharge the necessary business before the adjournment.
    MR. SEXTON: I suppose we may conclude that the Irish Land Purchase Bill will not be taken before Easter?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I do not say that it will not be possible, but the hon. Gentleman may rest assured that it will not be taken until the Supply necessary before Easter is taken.
    MR. SEXTON: Reasonable notice will be given as to when it is to be taken?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: Certainly, Sir.

    PAUPERS, INDOOR (MEMBERS OF BENEFIT SOCIETIES).
    Return ordered—
    "Of the Paupers in the Workhouses of England and Wales, on the 31st day of March, 1891, who, having been members of a Benefit Society, had then from any cause ceased to be members (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 444, of Session 1881)."—(Viscount Lymington.)

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    SUPPLY.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "Tahat Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  TAXATION OF LAND.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. PROVAND: I rise to bring before the House the subject upon which I have given notice, and to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper. This Motion deals with a question of continual Parliamentary interest. Taxation is the one subject that is sure to come up for consideration every year; indeed, I may go a little further, and say that although many taxation questions will in time be discussed and disposed of, that of the taxation of land is the one question which is certain to remain to be dealt with in every Parliament throughout a very long future. The Motion sets out that land pays at present too little taxation. The owner should be liable to be taxed on what the land is worth, and not merely on what it rents for, and for this purpose it would require to be assessed separately when it is in any way occupied. This change would largely increase the taxation paid by land, and this increase would form a fund by means of which other taxes which press on food, industry, and commerce could be repealed. Therefore the Motion, if carried, would involve a considerable re-adjustment of the incidence of taxation. As land is taxed both for local and Imperial purposes, I must take the sum of Imperial and local taxation together, and begin by showing in round figures the principal amounts of our present taxation and the sources from which we obtain it. Taken together our local and Imperial taxation amounts to about £105,000,000 per annum, and the following are the chief sources from which this was collected in 1889, which is the last year for which the figures have been published. Food was taxed to the extent of nearly £5,500,000, intoxicants £30,000,000, stamps £13,000,000, Income Tax £13,000,000, House Duty £2,000,000, Land Tax £1,000,000, and tobacco £9,000,000, and the local taxation may be taken as £30,000,000, making, with some smaller sums, in round figures a total of about £105,000,000. The reduction in the Tea and Currant Duties made last year will reduce the taxation on food for this year to between
    1854
    £3,000,000 and £4,000,000, but the other sources of taxation will not be much altered except on intoxicants, which will show an increase, I am sorry to say, over last year. Now, the first question is—How much of this gigantic total of £105,000,000 is paid by the landowners? They contribute in six different ways—by Land Tax, by Rates, by Stamps on Deeds, by the Estate Duty, by Succession Duty, and by Income Tax under Schedule A, but all these sources taken together do not contribute probably more than £5,000,000 to the total taxation.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's,: And the rates?
    MR. PROVAND: In England rates are paid by the occupiers; in Ireland and Scotland they are paid half by occupiers, half by owners. Therefore, leaving out the £30,000,000 derived from drink, as being an article on which there is no intention of decreasing the duty, and the £9,000,000 paid by tobacco, the rest of our taxation during the present year will be derived, say, from food about £3,500,000; from landowners about 5,000,000, leaving nearly £60,000,000 to be paid by occupiers of farms and houses, and by the community in many ways and forms, making altogether an enormous direct or indirect taxation falling on industry. I am now stating these sums in round figures. It is impossible that I can go into the details in the time at my command; and besides that, the exact proportions could not be worked out except by a person having access to figures, which, so far as I know, are not made public. But even if there were discrepancies in the figures I give, this would not affect the principles for which I am contending. Whether one set of figures given is slightly over or under what someone else may say they are, or even prove them to be, will not affect the case. Everyone knows how easy it is to manipulate figures to practically misrepresent an issue. Now, I have shown how little of our taxation falls on the landowners, and indeed the Chancellor of the Exchequer has repeatedly admitted that there are great inequalities to be rectified between the taxation which falls on land and on personalty, but he has said in recent times that rates for local purposes should not be paid by landowners, nor should the Death Duties

    1855
    be made the same on realty as on personalty unless and until the assessment of land to Income Tax was put on the same footing as on other property. I invite him to do so; but I do not expect this invitation will be accepted, as landowners know that any alteration that could legitimately be made in the way land is assessed to the Income Tax would be a very small sum indeed compared with what they would in such case require to pay in local rates and Death Duties. So much, therefore, for my first point—that land pays too small a share of our taxation, and that the burden ought to be increased. Let me now deal with part of the £60,000,000 or so of taxation which is paid by or falls, either directly or indirectly, on food and industry. Even if national necessities, such as a time of war, required any tax to be placed on food, the percentage which is now charged would be out of all reason. The articles which pay duty are tea, coffee, dried fruits, and some other things which, taken all round, are increased in price to the consumer by at least 50 per cent. on account of the duties. But there is another unanswerable reason against any tax whatever being placed on food, and that is, that food is raw material, and it is indispensable that we should obtain it at the least possible cost. The last thing on which there should be any tax is food, and no reasonable defence can be offered for taxing it while we have vast amounts of other property which escapes taxation almost altogether. Something like £30,000,000 a year out of the total of £60,000,000 is collected by rates, which, except in Ireland and Scotland, are paid by occupiers, and the whole of this is paid out of their wages, or out of the businesses which they carry on, and is, therefore, a direct tax upon their industry. Income Tax brings in £13,000,000, and the profits of industry pay the whole amount except what is charged to landowners under Schedule A; and out of £13,000,000 realised from stamps, landowners contribute only a little for deeds used in the sale or purchase of land and for Succession Duties. Except in these cases the whole of the Stamp Duties are charges on trade and commerce. An example of a direct tax on our commerce is the stamp charged on
    1856
    marine insurance policies. This forms an addition to the cost of the merchandise we export and import. Every merchant's in voice for goods contains the charge for marine insurance, and includes this tax, and £140,000 a year is by this means brought into the Exchequer, and everything shipped for sale abroad or imported for sale at home is made dearer by the amount of this duty. £45,000 is collected by the tax on life insurance policies; that is to say, those persons who are thrifty and prudent are taxed because they are so. The question of cheaper railway fares has been repeatedly before this House of late, yet we charge the Railway Companies £330,000 a year for passenger duty. If this were remitted it would enable the companies to do something towards providing the cheaper suburban rates which it is admitted on all hands must be brought about if the workers in large cities are to be able to get backwards and forwards from their homes to their employment. The Carriage Tax which brings in nearly £500,000 a year is another indefensible charge upon industry, although, perhaps a municipal impost on carriages for police purposes might be conceded. Even the briefest examination of the sources of our taxation must convey to the mind of anybody that they have been carefully sought out by successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, moved by the determination that whoever was taxed landowners at least, to a large extent, should go free. There are many taxes which ought at once to be taken off the Statute Book for the sufficient reason that they are unjust. They bring very little money into the National Exchequer and must require a small army of clerks to look after the collection of them. Many kinds of businesses are still taxed, for which there is neither reason nor justification. Why, for example, should a house agent be charged a licence to carry on his business? Why should a solicitor have to pay from £3 to £9 per annum to be permitted to practise his profession? The State does nothing whatever for these men; their businesses are not monopolies. Any person may be a solicitor who will take the trouble to pass the required examinations. These taxes are what remain of a great many of the same kind that were formerly in existence. Calico printers,

    1857
    starch makers, wire drawers, tanners, glass makers, and numerous other trades and businesses could not at one time be carried on unless permission was first purchased from the State by payment of a tax. It is impossible to defend such charges, and we still keep on the Statute Book a number of small charges from which we can get no adequate return. Bat perhaps the high-water mark of injustice as well as meanness is reached on the part of the Government in the profit of something like £90,000 a year which they make out of the Patent Office. It is notorious that, as a rule, inventors are poor men; indeed, in innumerable instances they make and keep themselves poor by struggling to invent, yet this class which does a great deal for us in the extreme competition in which we are engaged with all foreign countries, hampered as we are by their fiscal arrangements—this very class, which should be exempt, at least, from paying a profit to the State, are required to contribute to our Revenue about £90,000 per annum. We have quite recently in this House voted large sums for technical education in order that our youth may be adequately trained to design and to invent, as it is continually brought before us that on many of these points our continental neighbours are better prepared than we are; but as soon as they are old enough to utilise the training provided for them, and to design or invent, we only permit them to do so provided they contribute to the Revenue a profit, after the expenses are paid, of about £90,000 a year. I do not think it would be possible to discover any tax more unreasonable, more likely to discourage skill and industry, or which would be more profitable to give up. I have now given a sufficient number of illustrations of how a large proportion of our national income falls upon food and industry, and it would be wiser to discontinue such taxes, which have the direct effect of hampering our commerce. Land should be assessed on its value, and the assessment should be separate from that of any buildings that may be on it. I recognise the great differences between rural and urban land. The former has a creative power which requires the continual application of labour and capital, while urban land has only an earning power
    1858
    which is entirely derived from the presence of population in its neighbourhood, without the application of either labour or capital on the part of the owner. Rural land is, in fact, in many places, to a large extent, a manufactured article. The methods of valuation for purposes of taxation would, therefore, no doubt be different, and the allowances for improvements in the case of rural land would have to be dealt with; but in the case of urban land there is no such difficulty, and the separate valuation of it, apart from buildings, would be easy. This matter has already been dealt with by a Committee of the London County Council, which took evidence—
    "(a) As to the practicability of separating and recording the value of London land apart from that of buildings or improvements.
    (b) As to the method of affecting such separation; and
    (c) As to the steps necessary to be taken in order to ensure the adoption and practical operation of such method, and they found that the separate assessment and record of the separate value of the land was easy and practicable."
    The subject has also been dealt with by two Municipal Committees in the City of Glasgow, who have both found it will be a simple matter to value and assess land, apart from buildings, and a Special Committee in Glasgow, to which this question was referred, recommended that a copy of their findings should be sent to all Assessing Bodies in Scotland with a request that they will co-operate in petitioning Parliament in favour of legislation on the lines indicated in their Report. The House will therefore see that this point has already been dealt with in London and Glasgow, and there is not the smallest doubt that it will be rapidly taken up by other cities. To carry out this separate assessment of land, and to make the tax payable by the owner, no change in our law is necessary. A new Land Tax, if an increase of taxation took this form, would be on the same footing as the existing one, the law respecting which I quote from the 28th Report of the Inland Revenue Department, in which it says—
    "Land Tax is payable whether the property be occupied or not. The law applicable to Land Tax makes no provision for voids or loss of rent; it is a charge upon the owner, and if the occupier pays it in the first instance he is entitled to deduct it on payment of his rent."
    SIR RICHARD PAGET: Will the hon. Member quote from the same Report the origin of that tax?
    MR.PROVAND: I should be delighted to do so if I had the time to spare. The next point is who should be assessed, and authorities are all agreed that the occupier should be charged in the first instance, and the way in which he would recover the part for which he was not liable is stated with admirable clearness by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in his hook on Local Taxation, published in 1872, and from which I take the liberty to quote. He said—
    "Power being given to the occupier to deduct from his rent the proportion of the rates to which the owner may be made liable, and provision being made to render persons having superior or intermediate interests liable to proportionate deductions from the amount received by them, as in the case of the Income Tax with a like prohibition against agreement in contravention of the law."
    That is what the right hon. Gentleman wrote in 1872, and, of course, it is quite as applicable now as then. That the landowner should be prohibited from contracting himself out of the tax will be necessary, otherwise we should find ourselves in our present position; that is to say, it would be paid by the occupiers, and in effect be an increase of rent. Now, Sir, in advocating an increase in the taxation of land, I am not proposing anything which is new. The right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced the Succession Duty, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1888, and again in 1889, increased the charges on land by raising the Succession Duty in the former year, and by creating what is called the Estate Duty in the latter year. The points to which public attention have been mainly directed are that land, when vacant, pays no rates, and when occupied the rates are paid in England by the occupier. This is an old standing injustice, and, in 1871, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then President of the Local Government Board, introduced a Local Government Bill, and, in doing so, he said.—
    "Justice and public policy require that the owner shall pay a certain portion of the taxes."
    1860
    And further on he said—
    "The Government have decided that such an anomalous state of things shall no longer exist, and a provision rendering void any engagements by which owners contract themselves out of the payment of local taxation is made in this Bill."
    But that Bill did not pass, and the injustice continues to this time. Now, Sir, justice and public policy are as powerful reasons to-day as they were 20 years ago in favour of the landowner being required to pay more taxes and also against his being permitted to contract himself out of their payment. I may mention that, with the exception of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, the Government of that day—that is, in 1871—now occupy the Front Bench below me. A landowner could not contract himself out of an Imperial tax, nor should he be allowed to do so in the case of a local tax. Landowners have been enriched enormously by the expenditure of rates paid by the occupiers; and although the case against the country landowner is not so strong, because not so general, on this point as against the town landowner, nevertheless the evil exists to a very large extent. I have said that there would be some differences in the methods applicable to increasing or imposing fresh taxation on rural land from urban land, and although land in towns is that which most stands in need of attention, nevertheless the fact of land being enormously increased in value by the expenditure of the occupier's money is in many cases as noticeable in the country as in the towns. Time will not permit me to give more than one example of how this injustice is worked in a country place. In the North of England there is a manor of about 2,800 acres, the lord of which has paid throughout the last 20 years less than £4 in rates. In the meantime, the Local Authorities have spent, or are spending, £40,000 in draining, reading, and lighting the neighbourhood, the whole of which forms a tax upon the occupiers and their successors. The value of the land has been enormously increased by this expenditure without

    1861
    the owner having contributed anything whatever except less than the sum of £4 on rates. When we come to the towns the cases are numerous and notorious. Every city furnishes examples of the whole community being taxed, their industry mortgaged, probably for generations to come, largely for the benefit of those who own the land. We have an example within a short distance of this House in the land lying to the east of Victoria Railway Station. It is not so long since this was a marsh. It is now closely covered with houses which have become the property of the owner of the land without any outlay on his part whatever of either money or industry. Some idea may be formed of the rate at which value is being created in this way when I mention that the Local Authorities expended more than £67,000,000 sterling during the last year, and they are building up a local debt secured on the rates which now amounts to £230,000,000. Most of this money has been, and is now being, expended on such objects as to directly increase the value of land, and yet the landowners, except in Ireland and Scotland, do not contribute one farthing in towns, and only sometimes in rural parts, towards this expenditure. It is laid out in making roads and streets, in lighting, paving, draining, and sanitary improvements of every kind, all of which add to the value of the land, and yet towards this landowners, who appropriate the value, pay only partially. In the work on Local Taxation, published in 1872 by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, he says on this point—
    "The result of the present state of things has been that many great improvements in the Metropolis, in Liverpool, Manchester, and other large towns, have been made during the last 10 years exclusively at the cost of the occupiers without the landlords contributing a single shilling towards the expense."
    Still more unjust to the community even than not separately taxing occupied land is allowing vacant land to be untaxed. Land can, therefore, be held by the owner without outlay of any kind. Meantime the improvements are going on round about, and increasing the value of his property until, finally, he lets it on
    1862
    building lease perhaps to secure a still greater value to himself in the future, or sells it at a price far beyond what it would have been worth if he had not been able to hold it while the community were taxing themselves to add to its value. There are many reasons which could be urged against vacant land being untaxed. It is a direct premium to its being kept out of use, and it is also, in effect, making the community find the capital without interest for the owner to hold it from sale. This great public injustice has been repeatedly noticed and reported against by Local Bodies, and in 1885 the Royal Commission which sat on the Housing of the Working Classes reported in favour of land available for building being taxed at, say, 4 per cent, on its selling value. This was done on account of the notorious examples brought before them of landowners deliberately keeping their land out of the market and parting with it only in small quantities so as to raise the value beyond even the natural price which land would command by its advantages of position. They also notice in this Report that this increased value to the land was not a recompense for any industry or expenditure on the part of the landlords, but was the natural result of the industry and activity of the townspeople themselves. Many other Reports might be quoted in a similar sense, but these would be merely cumulative testimony in reference to an evil which I am sure no Member of this House will venture to defend. In the Report of the Land Valuation Committee of the London County Council, they mention that in Kensington the value of vacant land is about £1,700,000 sterling, which is practically not rated at all, the rates not being worth considering; and land in parts of Kensington is now worth from 7 to 8 times more than it was 25 years ago. In some of the central, and also in all the outlying districts of London, land is kept vacant while it is annually increasing in value without in most cases contributing a farthing to the local requirements. This part of the case against land is unanswerable. Every reason which can be adduced is in favour of it being taxed on its value and not being exempt from taxation which, when

    1863
    imposed for local purposes, is directly the means by which its value is increased in the market. I have now dealt with the several points in the Motion. Firstly, that land is taxed too little, and this was stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself in his speech made in 1871, when he also showed how much more land pays in other countries than in ours. I quote his words and figures—
    "The amount paid by land alone in England is 5½ per cent.; in Holland land alone pays 9 per cent., in Austria 17½ per cent., in France 18½ per cent., in Belgium 20½ per cent., and in Hungary 32½ per cent. What do these facts prove? They prove that, as regards Imperial taxation, land in this country is in an infinitely better position than land in any other European State."
    Also that there will be no difficulty in imposing fresh taxation, as any new tax might follow the law which regulates the existing Land Tax. Nor would there be any difficulty in assessing and collecting a separate tax, as the Reports of the Committees of the London County Council and of the Glasgow Municipal Council say that an assessment on the value of land separate from that of the houses covering it is practically easy. The method of collecting the tax would be that recommended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself in his Draft Report on Local Taxation which I have read to the House. And now, Sir, I submit that I have made a perfectly sound case for an increase of the taxation to be paid by landowners and also for that which is implied by the Motion, an equivalent reduction of taxes which are now charged on food and industry. The Government have recently taken up the labour question. After all, this is a branch of the labour question, and perhaps the most important branch which is at present under consideration. There is a popular idea that a working man pays no taxes unless he drinks or smokes. This is a delusion. He not only pays on his food; but leaving that entirely aside, he pays a larger percentage of his income on local taxation than any other class of the community. Workmen's houses are rated at about 20 to 25 per cent. of their annual value, and a workman usually pays 20 to 25 per cent. of his wages in rent. Taking him, therefore, at an average of 25s. per week,
    1864
    which is a high average, his rent would be about 5s., on which he would pay from 1s. to 1s. 3d. for rates, either through his landlord in rent or direct himself, and this represents from 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. on his income, which is a larger percentage than is paid by any other class; and, besides this, it must not be forgotten that it is a much greater strain to pay 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. on a very small income than it would be to pay the same proportion on a very large one. It is the working classes on whom local taxation falls heaviest, and when local burdens are largely shared by the landowner, as they ought to be, the working classes will get the benefit in lower rents. I have repeatedly mentioned and quoted the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and my reason for doing so is because there is no man in this House who knows so much about this subject as he does, and also because he is the only person to whom we can look for assistance. He has the stewardship of our national finances, and the local finances are controlled by this House under his initiative. And I desire to enforce my appeal by the statement that while he has been in power for four years, during three of which he has had large surpluses, he has discriminated in favour of the land and added to land taxation only about £200,000, while he has added more than four times that amount to personalty by the new Estate Duty alone, which he brought in two years ago. We have yet to see what he has added to the taxation of land by the Estate Duty. Twenty years ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us in this House that justice and public policy required that landowners should pay more taxes than they did then; and as almost nothing has been done since to make them pay more the case is now infinitely stronger, and justice and public policy call louder than ever for an equitable readjustment of taxation. On the one hand, landowners pay a mere trifling increase of taxes; while, on the other hand, hundreds of millions of pounds have meantime been raised from rates or borrowed by Local Authorities, nearly the whole of which have been spent in improvements, which have largely gone to enrich landowners.

    1865
    This is no exaggeration. In 1871 it was intended to divide the rates between the occupier and landlord in England and Wales in the same way as they are divided in Ireland and Scotland. That was not done. What has happened since then? During the intervening 20 years nearly £500,000,000 sterling have been raised by rates in England and Wales; and if the law had been changed in 1871, £250,000,000 of this would have fallen upon the landowners. They are, therefore, now this amount in pocket, besides having become possessed of all the increment of the land which has resulted from the local expenditure of the most of this enormous sum of money. But even this does not express all the advantage which has been given to them since 1871, for, besides the rates that have been raised and expended, the Local Authorities in England and Wales have borrowed in the meantime something like £100,000,000 of money, which has also been expanded in local enterprises and improvements which have added to the value of land. If, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right when he said that the state of things then existing was unjust and against public policy, there are far stronger reasons in existence now in favour of this opinion than there were when he expressed it. I think, therefore, I may confidently appeal to him to give his early and earnest consideration to the great injustice which is being done to the community by permitting the landowners to escape their share of the public burdens. We are sure to hear more on this subject in the early future, both in this House and in the constituencies, and it is certain to be brought prominently before their notice in view of the coming General Election. As the Government is setting its house in order against that possibly evil day, I hope it will take this question into consideration, and deal with it at least on as fair a basis as was intended by the Government of 1871. If they will not do so, they may be assured the country will take notice of their refusal to remedy this notorious injustice, and will deal with them accordingly when the General Election gives the people an opportunity of doing so. I beg to
    1866
    move the Resolution down to the word "increased" in the third line.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the proportion of taxation which falls upon and is payable by land and its rentals is insufficient and ought to be increased,"—(Mr. Provand,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. J. STUART: I rise to second the Resolution, and I shall do so very shortly indeed. I must express my gratification that my hon. Friend has omitted the latter portion of his Resolution, and has therefore enabled the House to vote upon a clear issue, instead of an issue complicated by a variety of subjects not necessarily involved the one in the other. I will not endeavour to follow the complicated line of reasoning so ably pursued by my hon. Friend, because I only intend to deal with a few large lines of argument. I take it that it is admitted on all sides of the House, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as well as by gentlemen on this side, that, so far as Imperial taxation is concerned, land in this country pays considerably less than land in any other countries, and that the percentage paid by land in this country towards Imperial purposes is less than the percentage paid by any other class of property. I think it is admitted on all hands that the amount paid by houses and land in England towards Imperial taxation is very different from what is the case in other countries. In England it is 10½ per cent., as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, while in France it is 29 per cent., and in Hungary 38 per cent. To form any proper conception of the burden borne by land we must take into consideration what is paid to local as well as to Imperial purposes. In this connection land is divided into two categories —land in towns, and arable or cultivable land. The cases of these two differ considerably, and what I want to urge on the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the House is that there is no doubt what

    1867
    ever that land in towns pays very little indeed to local purposes. In our great towns the burden of the rates falls principally upon the occupier. The burden upon land in so far as Imperial taxation is concerned, is very slight, and in towns the burden on land with regard to local purposes is also slight. I admit that in the case of agricultural land, the burden of local rates falls more upon the land, but I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to show the House what is the total amount of local burdens upon any agricultural district, and I very much doubt whether he will find in the figures connected therewith any sufficient size of figures to compensate for the deficiency of the other charges on land. I now come to the question whether the owner or the occupier is the person who really pays in the agricultural districts. I admit that the owner pays more in the agricultural districts than in the towns; but here there are two points to consider; the first is the real incidence of local taxation in such cases, and the next is the apparent incidence of local taxation in such cases. I wonder why it is that the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has expressed such sentiments as those which we remember him to have uttered in the past, has remained in a position of such authority in this House for so long a period, and has taken no steps to carry out that division of rates as between owner and occupier to which in previous years he pledged himself. The reason for this division as argued for by hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, is that they think that the burden is borne by the occupier, while hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House think that in the agricultural districts all, or a great part of the burden, is borne by the owner. There never was a worse tax than that which has the obloquy of being borne by two persons, when we know that two persons cannot bear it. There is no doubt that some of the local taxation falls on the shoulders of each, and if that be so, I say it is better that it should be put half on each than that all should be placed on one individual. Doubtless it will tend to distribute itself with a certain amount of fairness, but at the same time rates have a
    1868
    tendency to stick where they are placed, and if we want to do justice it is better for the House to endeavour to right these things, than to let them remain as they are. Now, I want to clear up the point at issue in this discussion as to the apparent and the real incidence of the rates, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will be prepared before long to carry out the sentiments which he himself has been one of the great advocates for spreading through the country—the sentiments embodied in the principle of the division of rates between the owner and occupier. I am very far from thinking that a. mere division of a nominal character would settle the true incidence of taxation on land and other things that are taxed; but I believe that the division is more nominal than real, though at the same time I think the question will admit of a large amount of argument. So much for this part of the question. Now, I want to tell the House why it is that I do not desire to detain it long on the present occasion. The mover of the Resolution has dealt with the subject necessarily and mainly from the point of view connected with agricultural land. I have no hesitation in saying that the argument is much stronger in respect of land and houses, for sometimes they are joined together, and sometimes it is. attempted to separate them. The argument is certainly much stronger in regard to the towns than in regard to the country. Indeed, it is because of its immense strength in regard to the towns that I have risen to support the Resolution; but I do not now intend to enter into that part of the argument. I may here state that the Liberal representatives of the Metropolis have consulted together on this matter. We have in the first place framed a Resolution in reference to the local taxation of the Metropolis, for the discussion of which we have secured this day fortnight, arid therefore it would be an unnecessary detention of the House, and would tend to somewhat complicate the argument if we were to go at any length into the question as connected with the Metropolis. At the same time, as it might otherwise be thought that we are unsympathetic with regard to this Resolution, I have ventured,

    1869
    on behalf of my hon. Friends, to second the Motion in order that I might explain the reason why we defer a portion of the Debate. The question, as far as it relates to the Metropolitan aspect of the taxation of land, is a very specific and definite one, and I trust we shall be able to obtain from the House a vote in respect of a Resolution which we can put much more definitely from our point of view than in the case of the present proposal. Before I sit down I want to urge upon the House another point with regard to the taxation of land. Passing from the larger and wider view of the question I would endeavour to impress on the House the necessity there is for dealing with the questions arising on the taxation of land, question by question as they present themselves, with more equity than you at present adopt in respect to other taxation. Take the reform introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I allude to the additional Death Duty which he has lately placed upon properties of upwards of £10,000. How does the right hon. Gentleman deal with the case of land and personalty? In the case of personalty, if there is an estate of upwards of £10,000 he imposes an additional percentage upon it, however it is subdivided; but when it comes to the case of land, even if the estate should be valued at £100,000 and be divided into portions of less than £10,000 each, he does not put on a single penny of additional taxation. Now, why is this distinction drawn? In the next place I go to the anomaly the right hon. Gentleman endeavoured somewhat to correct the other day. I allude to the anomaly which existed in the Death Duty in its connection with the Succession Duty on the one hand, and with the Probate and Legacy Duty on the other. I will not enter into that question, but on the facts before the House it appears that whereas something like £8,000,000 a year is got from the Death Duty there is less than £1,000,000 a year got from the Succession Duty, and that which is got is paid upon easier terms. Why is it that there is this great discrepancy? I know the answer will be similar to that which was given to the Commission which was appointed in the time of Edward III. to ascertain what was the cause of the Goodwin
    1870
    Sands. As the Commissioners went nearer and nearer to the Goodwin Sands, they were always told that there was some old gentleman who could tell them when they got there, and when at last they did get there, the old gentleman said the cause of the Goodwin Sands was Tenterden church steeple. That is a very old story to quote; but what it all comes to in the present instance is this: That whenever we find a certain anomaly in our taxation or rating which lets off land much more easily than other property, we are always told that the reason is to be found in the local taxation of agricultural land. That is the Tenterden steeple of hon. Members opposite. I have now pointed out one or two anomalies in taxation which, if removed, would tend greatly to do away with a good deal of the misapprehension which exists on this subject. That misapprehension does exist, will, I think, be readily admitted. If I were to complicate this discussion by going into the Metropolitan question, I should be able to show, as we will endeavour to show a fortnight hence, the extraordinary unfairness on land in general, and on the Metropolitan district in particular, of the incidence of taxation of land as connected with other forms of property included in this Resolution.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,: I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down into the question of Goodwin Sands or Tenterden steeple, but perhaps the House will allow me, as the representative of the Agricultural Department in the Government, to offer some observations in reply to the two speeches on the Motion which is now before us, and which deals with the question of taxation on land. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution explained the different items under which land was taxed at present, but I own I was unable to follow the argument by which the hon. Gentleman arrived at the conclusion that £5,000,000 a year was all that was paid by taxation on land. The hon. Member left out of account altogether the burden of rates. for he roundly declared that rates fell

    1871
    upon the occupier alone, and were in no way paid by the land. The occupier pays a certain sum for the use of the land, and in that sum are included rates as well as taxes. The effect on the owner is that if the rates are high he gets less rent; and if they are low he gets more rent, and I maintain that it would not be difficult to show that ultimately the whole burden of the rates falls upon the owner of the land and on nobody else. In that contention I am to some extent supported by the Seconder of the Resolution, who appears to differ very considerably from my hon. Friend the Mover. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce legislation for the purpose of dividing the rates between owner and occupier. That was a reform which was recommended many years ago by a Commission, presided over by the Duke of Richmond, of which I was a member, and it is a reform Her Majesty's Government are perfectly ready to give, provided a fitting representation is given to owners of land as well as occupiers. I admit it is true, as stated by the hon. Member, that land in foreign countries pays more taxes than land in this country, but he cannot omit from his consideration the question of local taxation. The Motion which has been read over from the Chair, has been wisely, I think, curtailed. The House will observe that although it deals with the question of taxation on land, the hon. Member dealt with the question of urban as well as rural land, and I think it will simplify matters greatly if I deal with the question of urban and rural land separately. Take urban land to begin with. What is the grievance of the hon. Gentleman? He based his case, as I understood him to say, on the Report of the Committee for the Housing of the Working Classes, and he also directed his arguments to the question of taxation of vacant land. I am quite prepared to make this admission, that the case of urban land differs very widely from that of rural land, yet I think it is one with regard to which the hon. Member entirely failed to make out his case. I should require very much more conclusive arguments than those which the hon. Member has adduced before I could accept his views. I will content
    1872
    myself by opposing the Motion on three grounds. In the first place the grievance, whatever it is, whether it be great or whether it be small, is limited, I think the hon. Member said, to £1,700,000, and in its very nature it must be more or less temporary in its character. In the second place, the whole of this subject, unless I am mistaken, is now under the consideration of a Committee sitting at this moment on Town Holdings. But there is a much more serious ground, I think, than either of these, on which the Motion might be opposed, and that is that, if the land were to be taxed—as the hon. Gentleman, I think, pointed out was his intention—upon its capital value, instead of upon the income, it would be an entire departure from the principles of taxation upon property which have been accepted in this country up to the present time. It would be manifestly unfair and undesirable to apply this principle to one-third of property only, and we should require very much more conclusive arguments and complete evidence than has been laid before us before we could accept a proposal of that kind. I come now, Sir, to the question of rural land, and here I must say that I think the case is conclusive against the views of the hon. Gentleman. He says the taxation of the land and of its rentals is insufficient, and, therefore, ought to be increased. I confess, to begin with, that I have some difficulty in understanding precisely what it is that the hon. Gentleman means. Insufficient compared with what? Does he mean it is insufficient as compared with the taxation levied upon other kinds of property, or with the taxation upon land in foreign countries? He argued the question at considerable length, and, if he will permit me, I will reply to those observations. In the first place, although he pointed out that in countries which he named, and in others which he did not name, land is much more heavily taxed than in this country, and in which I agree with him; yet he failed to point out one very good reason for this, namely, that in some of those countries there is probably little, if anything, else but land which can be taxed. Again, I would point out that in nearly all of those countries there is a system

    1873
    of heavy protective duties, and whatever may be the effect of a protective system upon the position of a country as a whole—a subject I am not concerned to argue now—it undoubtedly has the effect of very materially enhancing the price of the produce of the land, and, therefore, upon that ground the landowners in those countries may justly and equitably be called upon to pay more taxation in respect of their land than is the case in England. But there is another reply to the argument of the hon. Member on that point, which I venture to think is infinitely more telling than either of those I have adduced. How much of our taxation in this country is needed for purposes which are not required in the countries to which I have referred; or, if they are needed, only in a comparatively minor degree? How much of our taxation is required for the purposes of our trade and commerce, and for the maintenance of our Empire in all parts of the world? What country in these respects can compare with us for a moment, and why should the land for all these great purposes be exceptionally taxed? The mere statement of the question carries with it its own answer, and supplies a complete refutation of the hon. Member's argument, which is based on the difference of taxation on land as between this and foreign countries. Well, Sir, can a more favourable comparison be made on any other ground—say as compared with taxation upon other kinds of property—in this country. Both hon. Gentlemen have pointed to the Death Duties, and complained of the inequalities as regards personal property. While I admit that concessions have been made of late years in local taxation, I can point, in reply, to the incidence of the Income Tax and the unfairness with which, according to our view, it falls upon land. I could quote, if it were necessary for me to do so, the opinions of most distinguished authorities on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, in 1853, after a most elaborate argument and dissection of the whole of this question, proved to demonstration the case which I support in respect of land, so far at all events as this, that he maintained that an Income Tax of 7d. on
    1874
    other kinds of property in reality was equal to a tax of 9d. upon land. That is a grievance which has remained un-removed until this day; what was true then is absolutely true at the present moment. Then, again, the Land Tax in its earliest inception was undoubtedly a tax on personalty as well; it was a tax on all kinds of property. Very much like local rates, after many years it became gradually disused, as far as regards other kinds of property, and ultimately fell wholly upon the land. As far as the history of the Land Tax is concerned it will not bear investigation for a moment, and coupling it with the grievance justly felt with regard to Income Tax, I maintain, if there be any question of altering the taxation on land at present, we claim, and claim, I think, with full justice, and we could adduce arguments to make good our claims, that we are entitled to a decrease rather than an increase of taxation on land. Well, Sir, if our present taxation is not sufficient as compared either with foreign countries or with taxation on other kinds of property in this, in what other way can the hon. Member make good this proposition? "Taxation," said the hon. Member, "upon land is insufficient, and ought to be increased." Well, that is the view of another person, Mr. Henry George, of whom we have heard a good deal lately. I do not know how far hon. Members share the views of that very distinguished individual, but all I know is this, that no amount of taxation of land in the world would ever be sufficient or satisfactory in the eyes of Mr. George, if any taxation was raised in any other way whatever. This is not a matter to be settled off hand by Motion on a Friday afternoon in the House of Commons. Authorities of the highest position, and differing entirely in their political views, have expressed opinions on this subject varying in toto from those expressed by both hon. Members. In the year 1872 my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made this statement—
    "There can be no more difficult or complicated question than that which is mentioned in determining the equitable proportion of taxation which real property ought to bear as compared either with land or with the consuming classes. It is not a question of statistics only; it is a political question."

    1875
    I recollect well the late Professor Thorold Rogers wrote on this subject, and I ask permission to quote his work, because he was a man of advanced and even of extreme opinions. Yet his views are diametrically opposed to those of hon. Members opposite. In his work on taxation he says—
    "Now, I am ready enough to admit that there are some local taxes which should not fall on real estate. The only special taxes which are justly levied on landowners, and in justice should be directly levied upon them, are those which are essential to beneficial ownership on the employment of real estate."
    I think the hon. Member would find it hard to have an addition to the Land Tax at the present moment for beneficial ownership.
    MR. PROVAND: May I be permitted to explain? I did not propose any new Land Tax.
    MR. CHAPLIN: In that case I mistook the hon. Member.
    MR. PROVAND: I only spoke in favour of increasing the taxes on land. I did not go into the particular way in which it should be done; but, I recommended towards the conclusion of my remarks that the Government should do that which was proposed by the Government of 1871—divide the rates between the landowner and the occupier.
    MR. CHAPLIN: I regret that I should have misunderstood the hon. Member. I have already intimated that the Government do not object to the proposal to divide the rates between the owners and occupiers; but, certainly I understood the hon. Gentleman in his speech, to intimate the opinion that a new Land Tax should be proposed, and I thought that all the more remarkable because I knew the hon. Member must know perfectly well that nearly half the old Land Tax has been redeemed already. In the latter half of the hon. Member's Motion, as it appears upon the Paper, he proposes that an amount of taxation corresponding to that with which he wishes further to burden the land shall be taken off food, commerce, and industry. I have often observed that the taxation of food was a very favourite topic with hon. Members on that side of the House; but, as a matter of fact, during the last decade
    1876
    the only taxes which have been left upon food are the duties on tea, coffee, cocoa, chicory, and dried fruit. These amounted in 1879–80 to 5·5 per cent. of our gross revenue receipts; in 1884–85 they reached 6·1 per cent.; but in the current year, taking the receipts for 1889–90 as a basis for calculation, they have fallen under the beneficent reign of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen), to 3·8. per cent. Hon. Members opposite, then, have no ground whatever to complain of the present Government in connection with taxes upon food. The great bulk of our indirect taxation at the present moment is raised from intoxicants. Except with regard to them, I know not where any reductions can be made. Is it seriously proposed by the hon. Member that the taxes on intoxicants shall be reduced, and that an amount of taxation corresponding with the reduction shall be put on the landed estate? I think I have said enough with regard to food, but I must be permitted to say a word with regard to the question of industry dealt with by the hon. Member. He says we are to reduce taxation falling upon industry. Are we to understand that the hon. Member alleges seriously that agriculture is not an industry of this country? It is not only that, but it is an industry in one branch of which, at all events, many of the gentlemen sitting around the hon. Member are constantly professing their great interest. In these days we are all, I believe, unanimous in our desire to encourage and to increase the number of that class which Mr. Bright once described as men who "till the land and own the land they till." There is actually a Bill before the House, introduced by the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division (Mr. Jesse Collings), having for its object the increase of that class, and my right hon. Friend the leader of the House has only this evening given the assurance that the Government are going to deal with the subject if time should permit. For my part, I should rejoice if it were possible to carry a Bill for this purpose during the present Session. But what encouragement are the Mover of this Resolution and his supporters giving to the people to invest their hard-earned

    1877
    savings in the purchase of land for small holdings? Will they be encouraged to purchase with threats of this kind hanging over their heads? I declare I can conceive no proposal more calculated to defeat, to render useless, and absolutely inoperative every measure that may be passed, and every effort that may be made in this House to advance the interests of the class of small agriculturists. Agriculture is something more than one of the industries of this country; it is its chief, its greatest and its foremost industry. Of late years, unhappily, we have fallen upon evil times, we have passed through a cycle of agricultural trouble and depression such as probably no man living has ever known before; but now, thank God, there is reason to hope that we have seen the worst; and I must say it speaks well for the pluck, the courage, and the mettle of our agriculturists and farmers that on the appearance of the first glimmer of sunshine they have thrown themselves heart and soul into their work, and are doing their utmost to recover and, if possible, to repair the past. What that past has been, and what the difficulties through which the agricultural industry, which some hon. Members now seek to tax afresh, has gone, the House can judge for itself when I remind them that the decline in the annual value of land, as assessed for Income Tax, during the last decade has been no less than £400,000. And this is the moment which the hon. Member selects. This is the moment which he considers to be appropriate and auspicious for putting forward his doctrinaire schemes, in order I suppose, to assist and encourage agriculturists in the work they are endeavouring to perform, and the only possible result of which can be to bring ruin on thousands of individuals, and to add largely to that amount of land in this country which unhappily has gone out of cultivation and has ceased to be useful and profitable already. I think I have said enough in reply to the hon. Gentleman, and I do not wish to detain the House longer. On the part of the Government, I have to say we will have none of his proposals. Parliament, I am persuaded, will not sanction them, I am satisfied the country, does not desire them, and I hope the House of Commons will reject what, under all
    1878
    the circumstances, appears to me to be a most singularly ill-timed and injurious proposal.
    MR. W.E.GLADSTONE: I shall endeavour to imitate the right hon. Gentleman in keeping the remarks which I have to make within a very moderate compass, and, to begin with, I shall express my concurrence with the right hon. Gentleman upon two points. In the first place, I am prepared without pity or scruple to deliver over Mr. Henry George to the right hon. Gentleman's tender mercies. There are persons who view the proposals of Mr. George as proposals of a very enlightened character, and who very much resent the use of hard words respecting him. I shall carefully eschew hard words; but I will say that, so far as my examination or knowledge of his proposals goes, I find it extremely difficult, and, indeed, for myself altogether impossible, to exclude them or extricate them from the category of those plans to which hard words no doubt are commonly applied. In the second place, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that those connected with the agriculture of this country have behaved well in the crisis through which they have been called upon to pass. I think that the farmers of this country—though they are accused of occasional grumbling, which, however, is the privilege of every Englishman—I think that they have borne what they have had to bear with very great firmness and courage, and that they have applied themselves with remarkable energy and spirit upon the first revival of hope in connection with the condition of agriculture to make the best of their great and noble pursuit. I am bound also to say—although I think sometimes that the landlords of this country are a great deal too much given to complain—that during these times of reduction of rent—a fact established by the Income Tax Returns—they have, on the whole, borne that reduction with patience and resignation and in a spirit which befits a great class of Englishmen. At this point I am afraid my concurrence with the right hon. Gentleman ceases, and I fear that my view of his speech is one that he will he very far indeed from approving. But it

    1879
    is an important speech, because we must bear in mind not only that the right hon. Gentleman represents the Department of Agriculture, but that he has been chosen on this occasion as the organ of the Government to express the views of the Government. I thank my hon. Friend for having simplified the issue, but I wish to take particular notice of certain declarations made by the right hon. Gentleman. In the first place, I notice one declaration—that the effect of protection is undoubtedly very largely to increase the prices of agricultural produce. That is an important declaration coming from the Government when applied to the history of this country.
    MR. CHAPLIN: I said in many of the countries in which it has been tried.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that Protection in one country tends to increase the prices of agricultural produce, but that in another country it does not? Why, Sir, if it has increased the price of agricultural produce in foreign countries, I think I am justified in saying that would have been the case in this country; and I am sorry to say that it stands upon record that for many generations, when the landed class was in almost exclusive and absolute possession of the two Houses of Parliament, they maintained a rigid system of Protection to raise the prices of commodities in which they dealt themselves, and when finally the proposal was made to abolish that system of Protection they offered to it the most desperate resistance, and they drove from their ranks that most illustrious man whose name will ever remain honourably associated with the emancipation of trade and commerce in this country. Now, that is an awkward admission on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, but when he came to criticise the speech of the Mover of this Motion with respect to rates he made a declaration, which I carefully recorded by the aid of my pencil, and which I think ought to be engraved not only upon a fly sheet of paper that will find its way to the waste-paper basket or the fire, but which ought to be recorded upon the living tablets of the hearts of the House of Commons and of the people of this
    1880
    country. The right hon. Gentleman contests, with a great deal of truth, the doctrine of my hon. Friend that the rates are paid entirely by the occupier of the land in this country. No doubt they are paid immediately by the occupier of the land, and the immediate benefit of a reduction of the rate goes to the occupier, as the burden of an increase goes to the occupier also. But the right hon. Gentleman evidently referred to the ultimate incidence of the rate, and he stated in terms, quite unreservedly, that if the rates were so much more the rent was so much less, and that the whole rate in the last resort was paid, not by the occupier, but by the owner. That is a very important declaration, and one that ought to be borne in mind not only in the present Debate, but in future Debates which will infallibly arise on this question; because now we have it on record from the speech of the Minister who has been selected to declare the deliberate voice of the Government that the rates are paid by the owner of the land in the last resort. Consequently, there stare us in the face these facts—that about three years ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a present of £5,000,000 from the Consolidated Fund to the rates. He also added last year another £1,000,000 out of the abundance of his riches, and when he did not know what to do with that plethora of wealth with which he was oppressed. That £6,000,000 was given by one who is not the youngest Member of this House, and who had not been just sent up by his constituents, but by one who had had great experience, and who, with that experience, made this present to the land at the expense of the Consolidated Fund—which is made up by the labour quite as much as by the property of the country. He made that present to the landowners.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I beg my right hon. Friend's pardon. When my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin) spoke of the land, he pointedly distinguished between the urban case and the agricultural case. He did not state that the owner in towns stood in the same position as the owner in the country. The right hon. Gentleman also errs in his memory. It was £3,000,000, not £5,000,000.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Oh, yes, I beg pardon; I admit that correction. I spoke of the whole, but it was not all given by my right hon. Friend, for a portion was given by his predecessor. I quite admit that that explanation is one which it becomes the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give. I am not quite certain, however, why it was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer found it necessary to explain the speech of his right hon. Friend. It is an unusual incident of Parliamentary discussion, and I do not know whether it is part of the principles of the present Government or whether it has any connection with the maintenance of the Union. I am quite aware that there is a distinction to be drawn between urban and rural land in respect of the incidence of the rates, and that in the case of urban land it is very much more difficult to lay down an absolute and positive doctrine. I did not hear the President of the Board of Agriculture draw that distinction.
    MR. CHAPLIN: Pardon me; I stated that the two were absolutely separate from each other. I dealt first with the question of urban land, and then, in the later part of the speech, I spoke of rural land.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: That is quite true but I did not hear him draw a distinction between them with respect to the incidence of the rates. I quite admit that the distinction ought to be drawn, though I am prepared to admit, in the case of the urban land—although the process may be much more difficult to trace, and though it may not be absolutely clear as to its ultimate form—that in that case also the landlord obtains in the long run the bulk of the remission. But when I spoke of those £6,000,000 I did not intend to convey that the whole of those £6,000,000 were given to the owners of the land. They were given to the whole of the rates in the three countries, and not in England alone. But this fact stands—that as to all that portion of the £6,000,000 which
    1882
    went to the relief of rates falling upon rural land, it is in the long run a sheer, unmixed, undiluted gift to the landlord. That is the statement which I wish to place on record, and a most important statement it is. There is a point I want to notice in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, because he did me the honour to refer to a speech made by me in 1853 on the subject of the Income Tax, and he has founded upon that reference to my speech a case of grievance for the land. He says that there is a grievance for the land under the Income Tax, and that I proved it by showing that, according to the best computation I could make, the 7d. in the £1 in Schedule A, taking the case of householders or rural land, was equal really to 9d. in the £1 under any other Schedule. It is perfectly true that I used that argument, and though it is not capable of being stated in a precise or mathematical form, I believe the substance of it is sound. But what was the purpose of that argument, and in what circumstances was it made? It was made in a Debate when the House of Commons was very largely set upon constituting a difference of taxation between the different Schedules of the Income Tax. The Liberal Party was very largely of opinion that if realty were charged at 7d., income proceeding from such sources as those of Schedule D ought to be charged at a lower rate; and not only so, but a Conservative Government adopted that doctrine. The Government of Lord Derby, by the mouth of Mr. Disraeli, had had immediately before a proposal submitted to Parliament to reduce the tax under Schedule D to 5d., while the tax under Schedule A was to remain at 7d. It was in answer to that proposal, it was to induce the House of Commons to give up that plan, which opened the door to a large and complicated subject, that I pointed out to the House what was the truth—that as far as Schedule A is concerned, in comparison with Schedule D, the land undoubtedly pays more, especially in England, than 7d. in the £1. In Scotland it is not less than 7d. in the £1, but still it is less than in England, because in Scotland the landowner does not execute the repairs to the same extent, and likewise because there is an allowance made to the Scotch

    1883
    landlord on account of the public burdens. In Ireland the landlord enjoys a happy exemption indeed, for he falls back on the Poor Law valuation, and, as he has nothing to do with repairs and improvements, he really pays less than 7d. Those were the circumstances in which I endeavoured to show that the land under Schedule A pays more than 7d. in the £1, and that the burden is greater than it is commonly supposed to be. My right hon. Friend (Sir W. Harcourt) reminds me that it might be urged that that has been redressed by the contribution. If we are to speak of that I would say that, in my opinion, it has been a great deal more than redressed by the contribution. But I was about to refer for a few moments to what was done by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect to the remission of rates. In respect to that remission of rates he made a change in the Succession Duties, and that change in the Succession Duties was supposed to redress and equalise the balance in the interests of personalty as against realty, after the great gift made from the rates. The £5,000,000—now £6,000,000—having been given from the rates, what my right hon. Friend then proposed by way of an equivalent was to lay a tax which, so far as all personalty was concerned, would have been comparatively of a very insignificant character, reckoned in hundreds of thousands and not in millions at all; and, so far as land was concerned, was even less than insignificant, if possible. I believe my right hon. Friend raised the rates on lineal succession to 1½ per cent, from 1 per cent., and made a very considerable increase on successions not lineal. But it is always to be borne in mind in dealing with Succession Duty that in the case of land the great bulk of successions are lineal, and the consanguinity scale operates in a totally different manner in the case of lauded property from that in which it operates in the case of personal property. The fact is this, that—I am not now speaking of rural land alone—while realty has received an enormous boon at the expense of the Consolidated Fund, a boon of which the whole, in the case of rural land, goes to the landlord, and of which a large part, if not the whole, in the
    1884
    case of land not rural goes to the landlord—while that boon has been given to the landlords of the country, rural and urban, at the charge of the Consolidated Fund, a compensation has been administered to the Consolidated Fund in return, which is, I believe I am right in saying, an affair of a few hundreds of thousands of pounds. In these circumstances, what is the position of the Government? Are we permitted to hope that the Government will do something more to redress the balance, something which will bring the change in the Succession Duties to a point, if not equal, yet, at all events, more nearly approaching to the enormous boon that the owners of property have received? No, Sir; the Chancellor of the Exchequer long ago told us that he had nothing more to offer, that he could hold out no further expectation; and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture has to-night not only given emphasis to that doctrine, but has told us, and told us on behalf of the Government, that it is the rural landlords who have a grievance, that they already pay too much, that they, if they chose, might make out a case for relief from the House of Commons, and come before Parliament as a claimant. That, we are to understand, is the position taken up by Her Majesty's Government in the face of the industry and labour of this country. These, I think, are very important declarations and deserve to be recorded and carefully borne in mind. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to restrain himself a little, perhaps, in order to keep fully abreast of his right hon. Colleague. On a great variety of subjects he has shown a wonderful suppleness and elasticity, of which in former years he was not at all suspected, when rigid doctrines and very liberal doctrines had possession of his breast. How that may be I know not, but this I know: that the question between the rates and the Consolidated Fund is not a settled question, that no proper equivalent, no fair and proper consideration, has been given to the Consolidated Fund by a readjustment of taxation in respect of that enormous boon which has been handed over to the rates, and that a further and larger change than has yet

    1885
    been made in the Death Duties is, in my opinion, a matter of absolute necessity, on the plainest ground of justice, before Parliament will have fully vindicated its character as the just distributor of benefit and burden among the several classes of the community. It is not necessary for me now to enter at large into that question. I will only say there is one other question, in which, perhaps, the Consolidated Fund has a less interest, but which appears to me to be embraced within the scope of the Motion as it now stands—it is that which is commonly known under the phrase of the taxation of ground-rents. It appears to me beyond all doubt that under our present system ground-rents enjoy undue exemption; and in the Metropolis, in particular, the owner of property has long enjoyed, at the expense of the ratepayers, privileges which are really unjust. I do not now speak of the manner in which these difficulties should be dealt with, but, undoubtedly, this is a matter as to which the people of London do look to Parliament to effect a material change and improvement in their condition, and as to which I think, on grounds of justice and high policy, it will be important to make a change. I will not trouble the House farther on these enormously important points. I think the speech of my hon. Friend the Mover of the Resolution contained a great deal of important elucidation which will be of value in the country. The House will see that this, after all, is the only way of keeping alive a protest which it is the duty of the Liberal Party to make upon the subject of the present distribution of the taxation of the country. Depend upon it the time will come when these efforts will bear their fruit, and when, after due and fair consideration of all claims on all sides, an endeavour will be made to bring the taxation of the country, as between property and labour and as between real and other property, into a state as near exact justice as human infirmity will permit.
    SIR R. PAGET: The remedy suggested by the Mover of the Resolution is that there should be a large extension of the Land Tax as at present levied. I wish to call the attention of
    1886
    the hon. Gentleman to one sentence in the same Report of the Inland Revenue Commissioners from which he quoted, which deals with the question of the Land Tax. I will give one paragraph of the Report showing what was the early inception of the tax, which is as follows:—
    "Nothing can be more certain though it is but little known, than that the so-called Land Tax was in effect a Property and Income Tax, and moreover that personal estate was quite as much the object of the charge as land."
    There we have the historical statement of the original imposition of the Land Tax; it was a tax upon property and personal estate. How is it that it now touches land alone? Personalty has, it seems, escaped by some of those mysterious means by which owners of personal property do occasionally contrive to evade their responsibilities. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has made merry at the expense of the President of the Board of Agriculture, and has pinned him down to the statement that the ultimate burden of rates in rural districts falls on the owner and not on the occupier. But I thought that that was one of the things long since settled, and about which there can now be no dispute. If that statement requires any qualification whatever it is this—that every occupier has to bear the additional burden of increased rates that occurs during the time of his tenancy. Still, on the other hand, the occupier gets the advantage if the rates are diminished during his tenancy. Subject to that very small qualification it is plain that the ultimate burden of the rates in rural districts does fall on the owner, and is a burden upon his property. Any relief to that burden is I admit distinctly ultimately a relief to the owner, but the whole burden of the argument that has been adduced in this House time after time is this—that if the figures of taxation were calmly summed up they could only lead to the one conclusion that readjustment of taxation was necessary in order to establish an equilibrium.

    1887
    Of the points which have been touched on I wish specially to mention one—that every step taken, either by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or those who have preceded him in that office, has been based on figures which cannot be confuted—figures by which we are distinctly told that one class of property—personal property—is increasing in value in England by leaps and bounds, while another great class of property—that in land, especially in rural land—is steadily diminishing. Those are facts which cannot be denied, and the circumstances of the case clearly show that a re-adjustment is both right and reasonable. We are sometimes told that all these things are to be explained away by what is called the doctrine of hereditary burdens. It is claimed that those taxes are hereditary burdens, and are, therefore, no burdens at all; but that argument seems to me to be disposed of by the reductio ad absurdum. How long is it necessary that a burden should rest on the land before it becomes hereditary? Is it possible to contend that the burdens connected with expenditure on elementary education are in any respect hereditary burdens? Or will anyone urge that the burden of police maintenance is an hereditary one? For the imposition of compulsory education and the institution of the Police Force have taken place within the memory of all of us here. It is to be regretted that the Mover of the Resolution has spoken throughout under the influence of a complete fallacy as to the ultimate burden of rates, which has not been shared by the Seconder or by any other Member of the House—indeed, one half of the argument of the Mover of the Resolution has been admirably met by the Seconder. I regard it also as a misfortune that we have been brought down here to debate a great number of separate issues which have been presented to us at considerable length. I should like to hear one clear Debate on one point alone, namely, as to the comparative burdens of personal estate and land and house property. I repeat, it is capable of absolute proof that if houses and land are compared with personal property the burdens upon them would be found to be infinitely greater. I will go further and say that if we
    1888
    split up real property into the two great divisions of land and houses and compare them, it will be found that in respect of State subventions houses have very largely the advantage. In the recent adjustments of taxation made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer it is clear that houses have benefitted more than land. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby shakes his head, but I think it might be proved by figures. I quite grant that in the Metropolis the amount of the subvention has not been to the same extent as it has been in the case of boroughs or rural districts, but there is another point to be considered—the Metropolis it must be remembered has £150,000 towards the expenses of the superannuation of the police; and that sum was largely in excess of any share which would have accrued to it if the whole £300,000 given for that object had been divided equally among all the districts. The question is an intricate one, but I again maintain it is capable of absolute proof that the contention of the landowners is a reasonable one. On their behalf I ask for and court a most complete inquiry. They only want equality of taxation; they want no kind of favour from any Member or any Party in the House; they want nothing more than an absolute re-adjustment on the basis of equality and justice.
    DR. CLARK: The argument which has been put forward is that the present Land Tax was, in its origin, a tax upon both real and personal property, and those who represent agriculture are asking that the Land Tax shall be reduced. But may I point out that there is, from an historical standpoint, still stronger reason for increasing it. Why was the Land Tax of William and Mary passed? Because the first Parliament, after the Restoration, abolished all other burdens on land, such as scutage and socage, and in place thereof placed the burdens on industry. Until that time the bulk of the cost of keeping up the Crown had been on land, but the Restoration Parliament placed the tax equally on personal and real property.

    1889
    But it is forgotten sometimes that the Land Tax was stereotyped at the then value of the land—that is to say, on a valuation made 200 years ago. If the Land Tax were paid at the present value of the land, instead of giving the owners a subvention of £2,000,000 a year, the taxpayers would be receiving £40,000,000 a year from the land. I hold what probably in this House are unpopular views on this matter. I am one of a small minority here, and possibly a minority also in the country, but still a growing party, who wish to put taxation not upon rental but upon land value. We do not mean by that merely the agricultural value of land, but the value increased by the buildings upon the land. In towns or on agricultural land near towns yon could place millions upon the taxation of land values, and by the time you have placed upon land round about London some 16,000,000, I believe you will be only reducing the value of the land to the position in which owners of agricultural land are at present. I repudiate the idea that landlords represent the agricultural interest. They might as well claim to be miners as agriculturists. They might claim to be miners because they let the mines to people who work them and make money out of them. I do not want to prolong the Debate, because I know there is an understanding that we shall take a Division before dinner time. The argument advanced by the Minister for Agriculture and the hon. Baronet the Member for the Wells Division simply proves that a series of rights accompanied the possession of land, and were given on condition of the performance of certain duties, but owners have practically repudiated these duties upon which the tenure of the land was given while they retain the land. The present system tends to place the heavier burden on the land least able to bear it. It has been suggested that small owners under the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) if they think there is going to be an increase of land taxation will not buy; but I think there is every indication to those who
    1890
    follow the progress of opinion among the Liberal Party, and may desire to purchase allotments and small holdings, that they need not be deterred from doing so by the suggestion that their burdens as landholders will be increased, because the taxation that is aimed at, as the Minister for Agriculture well knows, is not the taxation of agricultural values, but the taxation of land values in and near towns, which present a splendid field for a future Radical Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    (7.35.) The House divided:—Ayes 128; Noes 77.—(Div. List, No. 70.)
    Main Question again proposed.

    BOARDS OF ARBITRATION FOR TRADE DISPUTES.
    MR. MORTON: I am aware that I cannot take a Division upon the Motion of which I have given notice, and which is in the following terms:
    "That it is desirable to appoint Boards of Arbitration for the settlement of trade disputes throughout the United Kingdom, which for that purpose shall be divided into such districts as Parliament may determine; the Arbitration Boards to be composed equally of the representatives of capital and labour, and to be presided over by a Chairman who shall be appointed by the Crown, and shall have no vote except a casting vote; the reference to such Arbitration to be with the consent of both the disputing parties; and the award to be final and binding on both parties."
    Under the circumstances, it may be thought just as well that I should not move this. We shall be told, of course, that there is to be a Royal Commission to consider among other things the question which I have made the subject of my Resolution; and, therefore, it may be thought by some hon. Members that it is not necessary or right to discuss the matter now; but, so far as I can see and understand the position, that affords an additional reason why we should discuss the question at the present time. I do not say that the Government or the Tory party wish to shelve this question until after the next General Election; but certainly the effect of their proposal of a Royal Commission will, to a large extent, lead to the

    1891
    shelving of a question which, in my opinion, ought to be considered by the House of Commons at the present time. For my part, I do not see much use in an Inquiry by Royal Commission; for practically all the questions we wish to have considered are, with one exception, ripe for discussion in the House now. The one exception is the question of an eight hours day for all trades throughout the country. That question is not in a position to be settled now. In regard to the mining industry the miners have quite made up their minds, and I do not see that the question at all need be entrusted to a Royal Commission. Then in regard to the settlement of labour disputes generally, surely matters are quite ripe for legislation on this question if they are ever going to be. As to this Royal Commission, of course I cannot say how it is going to be constituted, but I do not think it will be of any use at all unless at least half of its members are working men or the representatives of working men. If the Government do as they did the other day in the appointment of the Committee on the railway hours and nominate only one working-men's representative in proportion to 23 others then the Commission will not be much good so far as the assent of the working-men to its proposals is concerned, and without such assent I do not see that the proposals can with advantage be carried into legislative effect. To attempt to force a settlement upon the working classes against their wish is bound to be unsuccessful now that they are able to exercise a powerful influence by their votes at elections. My Resolution is intended particularly to deal with strikes, the most important of the matters in relation to labour questions with which we have to deal. Nearly every strike is caused by the insufficiency of the wages paid, and the refusal of employers to consider the dispute with the representatives of the workmen. A most important strike occurred among the dock labourers in the Metropolis in 1889, and I will endeavour to show what the effect of that strike has been, and if I can show that the effect has been bad on the general interest of the country, I shall have gone a long way to prove my case.
    1892
    (7.49.) Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. MORTON: I was proceede about to consider the cost in connection with the dock labourers strike in London. We are told in that very excellent Board of Trade Report on the strikes and lockouts of 1889, that the cost was two millions of money directly, and probably there was a loss of another million indirectly. Then a little later we had the dispute between the South Metropolitan Gas Company and their men which cost the Gas Company £75,000 and, of course, it also cost the working classes a very large sum. Then, we are told in this Report, that during 1889 there were 1,145 strikes, more than half of which were caused by disputes as to wages. Then in 1890 we come to the matter which especially induced me to put my notice down—the strike of the rail way men in Scotland at the close of last year. Trade was so much disturbed by this strike that it is almost impossible to calculate what the loss was. I think we might mention millions, but certainly to the companies and to the men the loss wasvery large indeed. Then there is another strike now going on, and which we hope may be satisfactorily settled, but still it means great loss to the parties concerned. There can be no question that the loss to trade and to workmen by these strikes is very great indeed. The noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), speaking last Saturday, said "a strike may be more disastrous than a civil war," and he went on to observe that there was no endeavour on the part of employers to settle these disputes without a strike. He said:—
    "We observe that a certain section of the Tory Press, representing, I fear, a certain section of the Tory Party, thinks it necessary whenever a strike occurs to take the side of the employer to imme diately denounce the labourers for resorting to extreme measures; to egg on the employers to resort to extreme measures against the men."
    Well, I suppose the noble Lord sitting on the other side of the House probably knows the opinion among the Tory Party. But the question is, how can these labour disputes, when they arise, be settled without having recourse to strikes?

    1893
    I am aware that my proposal is not a new one, that it has been considered by many before I put the Motion down, and there has been a certain amount of success attending it. My proposal is to appoint Boards of Arbitration for the settlement of these disputes, composed equally of representatives of capital and labour. Now, the first difficulty we meet with is that, although a great many workmen are in favour of settling these disputes before they come to strikes, still there is a difficulty in some people's minds about Parliament having anything to do with these matters. I find in the Report of the Trades Congress held at Dundee in 1889 that the members of the Congress were in favour of—
    "Joint Boards of employers and workmen as being well calculated to result in a better understanding between them, and to effect the settlement of important questions affecting the interests of both."
    And the Resolution went on to urge Trade Councils and other representatives of workmen to put this matter before the Chambers of Commerce and other bodies of employers with a view to the formation of such Boards, and they indicate the advantage of such boards by reference to the result of the dockers' strike. Now, I gather from the Report of the proceedings that, while the Congress were in favour of questions being submitted to Joint Boards composed equally of employers and workmen, the difficulty that occurred to them and the objection they felt to Parliamentary action was that they thought that re-reference to arbitration might be made compulsory. My Resolution does not carry compulsion, and, in fact, at the end the Resolution reads—
    "The reference to such arbitration to be with the consent of both the disputing parties."
    So there would be no compulsion to submit the matter to arbitration. Why I urge Parliamentary action is not so much on account of the workmen, for I believe they are quite prepared to do something of this kind, but because, having the Scotch railway dispute in my mind, I think employers do not seem willing, if they can possibly avoid it, to
    1894
    adopt any sort of arbitration whatever. It, therefore, may be necessary before we can get anything done in the matter that there should be Parliamentary action, not for the purpose of compelling either party to go before these Boards, but there being Boards of this sort composed fairly of the representatives of each party there would be immense responsibility attaching te either party refusing to accept this means of arriving; at a fair settlement of the dispute. The noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill), in that speech to which I have already referred, made a suggestion which somewhat resembles mine, that there should be—
    "State Boards of Arbitration, to which both parties can refer their differences, and which, even if they have no other sanction behind them, will, if properly composed, have behind them the powerful sanction of public opinion."
    Well, although under my proposal the parties to the Scotch Railway dispute would not have been compelled to submit to arbitration, the party refusing such reference would be made responsible by public opinion for what might follow.
    (8.0.) Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR MORTON: If you wish to get these things settled it can only be done by dealing fairly with both parties. If you could have Boards of Conciliation or other Boards before whom disputants would be willing to go, so much the better. But, as a matter of fact, it appears that disputants do not go before the Courts of Arbitration or Conciliation provided for under existing legislation. No doubt there are a great many disputes which ought to be settled without having recourse to strikes. This Return on Strikes and Lock-outs shows that more than 50 per cent. of the strikes have been settled in favour of the working men, especially in those cases where an increase of wages has been asked for, thus showing that the men have not been wrong in asking an increase. Something has been done in this direction, but, to my mind, not enough. In connection with the 1,145 strikes which occurred in the year 1889, 714 were settled by arbitration, or a good

    1895
    deal more than half. Another important reason, to my mind, why there should be some attempt made by the Government and the Unions and Parliament to settle this question is that so many men are concerned. We are told that the number of men concerned in the strikes in 1889 was 334,484, and it is obvious that such an enormous number of men being thrown out of work must have caused a terrible amount of misery; therefore, there is good reason for asking Parliament not to wait for two or three years, but to endeavour to do something at once. I am not all alone in my idea that the question of wages should be considered by these Boards. I find that only the other day the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst), speaking at Chatham, said the workmen were entitled to
    "Shorter hours, better wages, and more leisure to cultivate their souls and their intellects."
    We, therefore, have another opinion from the other side of the House, that there is some reason why working men should ask for an increase of wages, a reduction of hours, and various other ameliorations. Of course, in connection with this question, I am aware that some employers think that they can put down combinations and unions altogether, or that they can put such restrictions upon them as to render it impossible for them to exist. Well, I think these people are wrong. Such efforts certainly have not been attended with very much success in the past. I do not think it is possible to put down combinations, nor do I think it would be wise for us to attempt to do so. I find that the Under Secretary for India on the occasion I have referred to said "any attempt to place restrictions on combination would be swept away." He is quite right. He took care on that occasion to say he was not speaking for the Government, and, therefore, I do not put him forward as speaking for the Government, but his, at any rate, is a Tory or Conservative opinion. He went on to say—
    "A great improvement had been effected in the condition of the working classes during the last 50 years by the Trade Unions, who had been instrumental beyond any other institutions in preventing strikes."
    1896
    I mention that because, as I have said before, I believe the difficulty we have to deal with is not with the working men nor with the combinations, but with the employers, backed up by the Government and Parliament, and other influences for putting down the workmen and keeping them down. So strongly did the Under Secretary for India feel on this subject that
    "He urged the creation of a Ministry or Industry and some Government Department to look after the interests of the working classes.'
    It may be necessary, or it may not be necessary, to have such a Ministry; but this shows there is a strong feeling amongst some hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House that the time has arrived for doing something in this matter. Even the Corporation of the City of London has been attempting to do something, though not specially in connection with disputes between masters and workmen. I am glad to think that the Corporation of the City are trying to do something. Whatever opinion some people may entertain of the Corporation there is no doubt that in the great dockers' strike the Lord Mayor—Sir James Whitehead—did noble work, together with Cardinal Manning and other gentlemen, in trying to bring about a settlement. Finally, a settlement was arrived at. For hundreds of years there have been attempts—and successful attempts—to settle commercial disputes and disputes between masters and men by Courts of Arbitration or Conciliation. In France, according to statistics prepared by the French Government in 1841, there were 62 Courts, and in 1880 132 for the settlement of disputes between masters and men. These Courts settled 39,429 disputes which occurred during the year 1880, and I find that 59 per cent. of these disputes related to wages. When we find that so many of such cases are settled satisfactorily to both parties by Courts of Arbitration which, I believe, are composed partly of workmen and of employers, it is a proof that we might anticipate success if we had similar Courts in this country. I am told, though I have no actual data, that in at least one of the States of the United States they have compulsory Courts of Arbitration. I

    1897
    have already said I do not think we are far enough, advanced in this country at present to have compulsory Courts, but, of course, the time may come when we may get as far as that. In the meantime, the greatest difficulty is that the men themselves are against compulsion in any way whatever. In the words of a learned Recorder—
    "The only remedy for these strikes would be the appointment of some tribunal, say, on the lines of the Railway Commission, to arbitrate as to hours between master and man."
    These, again, would seem to require the assistance of some representative body or Committee, as well of employers as of employed. I will not take up further time by endeavouring to show that it is possible to have Courts of Arbitration that might be of some use. Strikes are bad for everybody, and it is our duty as far as we can to get rid of them and put an end to them in a manner that shall be satisfactory to both parties. I suggest in my Resolution that we should have Arbitration Boards composed equally of representatives of labour and capital. There would be some difficulty in defining the limits of the districts, and in deciding upon the constituency which should appoint the Boards both for the men and employers; but if we got so far as to decide on having these Boards, I have no doubt that the men, through their unions and combinations, would easily be able to appoint representatives. There would be no difficulty in appointing people to represent them, or in getting together a Board of Arbitration, who would fairly and honestly represent both parties in the dispute. There is another difficulty. I have suggested that the Chairman of this body should be appointed by the Crown. There would be difficulties raised as to who should be Chairman to preside over the sittings, and as, after all, someone would have to be appointed, I do not know that my suggestion is not as good as any other. I have no doubt
    1898
    the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would make a very good Chairman for a Board of this sort. I have no doubt both masters and men could depend on his acting honestly and fairly in their interests, and hearing everything that was to be said on both sides. I know he could not always do the work, and that, therefore, other gentlemen would have to be found. I have no doubt that if we made up our minds that something of this sort was to be done there would be no difficulty in finding gentlemen of independent means who would be trusted by both parties to act as Chairmen of these Boards. I do not propose that the Chairman should have a vote, except a casting vote; but I am satisfied, from my experience amongst working men, that the occasions on which he would have to use such a vote would be very rare indeed. If a dozen representatives, six on each side, sat down to consider a dispute previous to a strike, and before there was much bad feeling among the parties, they would, as a rule, come to some agreement without calling on the Chairman to exercise his casting vote. You could not very well compel men to go into an arbitration unless they were consenting parties. If you did your Court would not last very long, and, instead of settling labour disputes, you would go very near to bringing about a revolution. The award, however, when given, should be binding on both parties. Appeals are allowed in some places; but it would not be easy to say to whom an appeal should be allowed. I have no doubt it would be considered by some people a harsh thing to make the award of arbitrators binding; but I do not think much weight should be attached to that view. We have Courts of Arbitration now, and there is not much difficulty in carrying out their decisions, because, after all, the

    1899
    parties know that somebody has to give way in the end. If either party, however, objected to the award being final, there might be found a Court which would consider, if not all the points of the reference to the arbitrators, at all events certain practical questions. I am sorry I have detained the House so long, but I do think this is a most important matter, and I do not think the Government have acted wisely in sending the question to a Royal Commission. Unfortunately, as far as I can gather, it generally takes two or three years before a Royal Commission reports, and then you frequently have a Majority Report and a Minority Report, so that, except for the information you have gathered, you are very much where you began. Therefore, I should have been better satisfied if the Government had attempted to deal with this question of strikes at once. The railway hours question has been referred to a Committee; but if that question is ripe for consideration by a Committee, and is likely to be dealt with during the present Session, it appears to me that the question of strikes is still more ripe. It may be said that, as a Royal Commission is going to be appointed, it is unnecessary or unwise of me to say anything on the subject at present. That is not my view of the matter at all. I think the question ought to be considered by this House, even only for the sake of discussing it and giving the Royal Commissioners more information regarding it than they have at present. In conclusion, I may say I shall be very glad indeed, as far as I am personally concerned, if in my humble way I can do anything at all to settle these disputes amongst workmen and masters. I shall be only too pleased to do all I can. I am personally aware, on account of my profession, of the difficulties which arise on the question; but I can say that, as far as the men are concerned, there is, as a rule, very little difficulty in getting them to settle matters, the difficulty being more generally with the masters. I should like the Government to appoint on the Royal Commission a large number of
    1900
    what are called working men's representatives—not necessarily Members of this House—and I would press very strongly upon Her Majesty's Ministers the necessity of considering this part of the question.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: I fully admit the importance of the question to which the hon. Member's remarks have been directed, and no one can more strongly desire than I do an increase in any way of the means for a peaceful solution of questions between employers and employed. But I am surprised that an hon. Member who has occupied something like three-quarters of an hour in explaining his opinions on the subject and asking for legislation should be entirely ignorant of the fact that Parliament has passed several Statutes to carry out the object he has in view. I think it would be better if the hon. Member would attempt to inform himself on the question before he makes any further attempt to inform others. I am surprised also that the hon. Member has not felt, in view of the almost empty state of the House, that he was wrong in bringing this subject forward now. When my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury announced the other day that the Government would appoint a Royal Commission the hon. Member for Whit by (Mr. E. W. Beckett), who had a Motion on the Paper similar to that of the hon. Member, saw at once that it was not desirable to press it. It is perfectly obvious that the House of Commons does not desire to discuss this question now, but is content to leave it to be dealt with by the Royal Commission.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House was adjourned at half after Eight o'clock till Monday next.