Commons Sitting of 5 April 1892

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
QUESTIONS.

  THE PROCURATOR FISCAL AT TOBERMORY.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the answer given by his predecessor, on 16th May, 1890, to the question of the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow, in reference to Procurators Fiscal acting against crofters before the Crofter Commission Courts, Mr. William Sproat, Procurator Fiscal at Tobermory, therein specially referred to, acts for the landlord of the Penmore estate in Mull against crofters named Maclean; whether it has been brought to his notice that the said Mr. Sproat, in at least two letters in connection with the Maclean case, uses paper with the engraved heading "Procurator Fiscal's Office, Tobermory;" and whether he will take more effective steps in this case?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,: I am informed that the Procurator Fiscal at Tobermory has acted as agent for the Penmore estate for upwards of 40 years, and that in the early part of May, 1890, he appeared before the Crofter Commission in the

  675
  case now under appeal referred to in the question. Mr. Sproat is not restricted from carrying on private practice, and is, therefore, quite within his right in so doing. Having regard, however, to the opinion expressed by my predecessor in July, 1889, in which I fully concur, I shall communicate with the Sheriff on the subject. As regards the second part of the question, I am informed by Mr. Sproat that it is not his practice to use such letter paper in connection with his civil business, but it is quite possible that from inadvertence he may have done so.

  CIVIL COURTS AND THE CROFTER COMMISSION.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the practice by the Civil Courts of reversing the decisions of the Crofter Commissioners on the point as to who is a crofter under the Act is increasing; whether he is aware that the Sheriff Substitute at Tobermory set aside the decision of the Crofter Commissioners in the cases of Archibald Henderson, James Henderson, and Peter Livingstone, at Camuslane of Ardnamurchan, giving them reduced rents and wiping off considerable arrears decreed against them, whereby they are liable to poinding and eviction; and whether he will consider the advisability of taking steps to prevent appeals to Civil Courts in matters declared final by the Crofters' Act?
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: I am not aware that there is any practice on the part of the Civil Courts of reversing decisions of the Crofters' Commission, or of entertaining appeals from that Commission. As indicated in my answer given to the hon. Member on 29th February last, the Crofters' Act does not debar a Civil Court from determining whether a person is a crofter when that question arises in the exercise of its ordinary jurisdiction. Whether the case referred to in the question was one of that nature or not I am unable to say, but I am in course of obtaining further information.

  CIVIL SERVICE VOLUNTEERS AT EASTER.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the
  676
  Secretary to the Treasury if, having regard to the importance of the Civil Service setting an example to private employers in granting a little extra leave privilege to those who serve the country in the Volunteer Force, the various heads of departments will be authorised to allow, so far as the exigencies of the Public Service permit, Civil Servants who are Volunteers to be with their regiments as required by the War Office on the Saturday before Easter without deduction of annual leave, by combining in that week the usual Saturday half-holiday and that in the succeeding or some other week?
  A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. MAXWELL,(who replied) said: As the services of these gentlemen are required by one employer, the State, in two different capacities, the Treasury do not think it possible to lay down such a general rule as the hon. Member desires; but the various heads of departments will no doubt do their best, subject to the exigencies of the Public Service, to give reasonable facilities to Civil Servants who are Volunteers to enable them to be with their regiments on the Saturday before Easter.

  WRECK OF THE "HOLMROOK."
  SIR E. GREY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the wreck of the steamer Holmrook, off Holy Island, Northumberland, on the night of Saturday, the 26th, when eleven men were drowned, and also to the presentment of the Coroner's jury, to the effect that a lighthouse ought to be constructed at Emmanuel Head, on Holy Island; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the needs of the case?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: My attention has been called to the circumstances of the case to which the hon. Member refers. I am advised that in reasonably clear weather the position referred to is covered by the St. Abb's Head light to the north and the Farn Islands lights to the south. The outlying dangers of Holy Island are some nine miles distant from the latter lights, which have a range

  677
  of 14 and 15 miles. From the deposition of the survivor of the Holmrook, it appears that the weather at the time was densely thick with snow. I do not think any useful purpose would be served by holding a formal inquiry in reference to this case, which, so far as I have gathered, appears to have been one of reckless navigation.

  THE POLICE AT DRUMOND, COUNTY MONAGHAN.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork) (for Mr. T. M. HEALY,: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether for years past a police hut, containing a sergeant and three constables, has been maintained on a farm at Drumond, Ballytrain, County Monaghan, from which a Protestant farmer named Dandy was evicted over ten years ago; whether there has been any outrages to justify this; and, if so, what were the outrages, and when did they occur; whether he is aware that the sole occupant of the place now is a single young woman, and do the Executive maintain that she requires four policemen to protect her; at whose expense is this done, at whose request, and will it be continued; will he state why the sergeant from this hut habitually parades up and down outside the Catholic chapel during Divine Service, although himself a Protestant, and not brought there on protection duty, and why the same parade was kept up during a recent mission; is the local Protestant church similarly paraded; and as the Catholic congregation resent this action towards themselves, would the Government explain whether there is any greater reason for it at this chapel than at other Catholic places of worship in Ireland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,: The Constabulary Authorities report that the police hut referred to was established in November, 1886, owing to the then lawless condition of the neighbourhood. Meetings had been held for the purpose of intimidating the tenant of the farm referred to, and to induce him to surrender the farm. The only occupant at present is the sister of the tenant. The action of the sergeant is
  678
  for the purpose of preventing illegal meetings of the local branch of the National League, which has been suppressed. The Constabulary Authorities contemplate the establishment of a permanent police station in the district.
  MR. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman has not answerd the fifth paragraph of the question.
  MR. JACKSON: The meetings of the League were held in a hall facing the chapel, and it is with a view of detecting attempts to hold illegal meetings that the sergeant has been placed on duty there from time to time. There is no intention to interfere in any way with the chapel.
  MR. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman has not said a single word about Sundays. The question relates to Divine Service.
  MR. JACKSON: I presume the answer covers that point. Meetings having been held in the hall facing the chapel is the reason for the action of the sergeant.
  MR. M. HEALY: Is it suggested that illegal meetings are attempted during the hours of Divine Service?
  MR. JACKSON: That I do not know.

  MEDICAL OFFICER IN THE LISMORE UNION.
  MR. WEBB: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he explain why the Local Government Board of Ireland have refused to sanction the increase of salary of £20 (from £100 to £120) per annum of Dr. Kenny, medical officer of the Tallow District, in the Lismore Union; is he aware that his district is the only one in the Union having two dispensaries, and that the number of tickets have greatly increased within the last few years; and in view of the fact that his predecessor enjoyed a salary of £120 per annum, and that he has been in the Poor Law service eleven years, and that the representatives of the ratepayers, who would have to pay half the additional salary, have repeatedly urged his claims to an increase, the Chief Secretary will suggest to the Local Government Board to re-consider their decision?
  MR. JACKSON: The Local Government Board have felt it necessary to decline to sanction increases of salary except where the medical officer has had long service in the district, and where other circumstances exist which render an addition to the salary specially called for, such as a marked increase in the work since the date of the officer's appointment. The medical officer mentioned has been only some five years in his present district, nor did the Local Government Board as the result of their inquiry find that there were any other special circumstances in his case.
  MR. SEXTON: As the predecessor of the present medical officer received the salary the Board refuses to sanction now, and as the work has increased very much, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make further inquiry?
  MR. JACKSON: I know nothing about the circumstances of his predecessor; but, as I understand, the present medical officer has been in office only five years, and since his appointment there has been no increase of work.
  DR. TANNER: Is it a fact that representatives of the ratepayers have unanimously in meeting recommended that the claim of the medical officer to an increase in salary should be acceded to?
  MR. JACKSON: I do not know.
  MR. WEBB: I will call attention to this matter in Committee of Supply.

  THE ACHILL VIADUCT, COUNTY MAYO.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps have been taken by the Board of Works to ascertain the cost of the extra work executed by the contractor in the building of the Achill Viaduct, County Mayo, owing to their alteration and enlargement of the original plans and specifications, the substitution of steel for iron, &c.; whether he is aware that the Grand Jury of Mayo have already paid their portion of the extra cost; and whether, seeing that the contractor holds a certificate from Mr. Peddie, engineer in charge, showing that the amount of work claimed for has been done, something can be done to compensate
  680
  the contractor for the outlay—namely, £2,700?
  SIR H. MAXWELL(who replied) said: The hon. Member will hardly expect me to repeat the answer given to a similar question on 10th March last year by my right hon. Friend the then Financial Secretary, but I have no further information now to give.
  MR. SEXTON: It is contested whether the contractor has been compensated, that is the point I wish to elucidate. Are the Treasury or the Board of Works intending to make any inquiry?
  SIR H. MAXWELL: The contractor was appointed not by the Board of Works but by the Grand Jury of County Mayo.

  TELEGRAPHIC FACILITIES AT KILIMORE, COUNTY GALWAY.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware of the great inconvenience felt by the inhabitants of the market town of Kilimore, County Galway, owing to the want of a telegraph office there; and whether he will make inquiry as to the desirability of having the telegraph service extended to Kilimore?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir J. FERGUSSON,: I will cause inquiry to be made, and will let the hon. Member know the result.

  CATTLE DISEASE IN NORTH ESSEX AND KENT.
  MR. ROUND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can see his way to relax the restrictions now placed upon certain petty sessional divisions in North Essex, either by limiting the area of the district now scheduled as infected, or by permitting licences to be given in special cases for the removal of stock (in those petty sessional divisions where there has been no outbreak of disease) into adjoining petty sessional divisions or to the Metropolitan market?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,: I regret to say that foot-and-mouth disease is still in existence in the Saffron Walden

  681
  district, and under the circumstances it is quite out of my power to make any relaxation in the rules, though I hope before a very long period it may be possible to do so.
  MR. H. T. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to relax any of the restrictions on the removal of cattle in the County of Kent?
  MR. CHAPLIN: No; I answered that question in the negative the other day. There has been a further outbreak of disease only a few days ago.

  CONTINENTAL ANARCHISTS.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the reported expulsion of 40, or more, reputed Anarchists from the territories of the French Republic, and to the fact that, as the frontiers of Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and Belgium are closed to them by the administrative laws of those nations, and also, to a great extent, the ports of the United States, by the Acts of Congress forbidding the immigration of undesirable aliens and artizan competitors, the United Kingdom is practically the only refuge for the rejected of Europe; and whether, having regard to their increasing numbers, he proposes to take any steps for the legislative reinforcement of the powers of the Executive in the matter? In putting this question to my right hon. Friend, I wish also to ask him if his attention has been called to the reported arrest yesterday of a Frenchman and a Portuguese with bombs upon them at the very door of the Spanish Parliament, and to the Report for 1886 of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Explosives detailing dynamite outrages in this country, or the Continent, and in America, and recommending that "as the law has signally failed it should be declared by international agreement that these attempts, like piracy, are crimes against humanity?"
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: I have no information which leads me to believe that the French Republic has
  682
  expelled, or is about to expel, from its territory members of the criminal classes. If there were any probability of such action on their part, and diplomatic remonstrance were not effectual to prevent it, Her Majesty's Government would not hesitate to ask Parliament for such further powers as might appear necessary. With reference to the second question added this morning, I have seen in the newspapers that a Frenchman and a Portuguese have been arrested under the circumstances mentioned. With regard to the quotation, however, from the Report of the Inspectors for 1886, I should point out that the Inspectors are not giving their own opinion, but quoting from a pamphlet written by an American citizen who felt warmly on the subject of dynamite outrages.

  THE PRISONER O'LEARY IN MOUNTJOY PRISON.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Thomas O'Leary, now incarcerated in Mountjoy Prison, was, after his probationary term of nine months, placed to work in the shoemakers' shop; whether it is the usual practice to give prisoners, after probation, employment in the open air; and, if so, why was the custom departed from in the case of O'Leary; whether the shoemakers' shop in Mountjoy Prison is in an unhealthy situation in the basement, badly ventilated, with water-closets inside; whether O'Leary's health has suffered in consequence of being compelled to work in this shop for years without change; whether it is usual for prisoners to be changed from one class of work to another on their own application; has O'Leary made application to the Prison Authorities for a change of employment in the open air; and has his request been refused; and, if so, why?
  MR. JACKSON: The General Prisons Board report that the facts are as stated in the first paragraph. The practice is not as stated in the second paragraph, inasmuch as prisoners who have a taste for trades are in their own interest taught such trades during and after probation. Prisoners acting as shoemakers and tailors receive one hour's exercise in the open air daily

  683
  and a longer period on Sundays. This custom has been followed in O'Leary's case. The shoemakers' shop at Mountjoy is not unhealthily situated. The medical officer reports that it is well ventilated, well lighted, well heated, and that sanitary matters connected with it are carefully attended to. The prisoner has in no way suffered as alleged. On the contrary, the medical officer reports that he is in robust health. The reply to the fifth paragraph is in the affirmative. As regards Paragraphs 6 and 7, the Prisons Board report that this convict's applications for employment at outdoor labour have been several times granted.

  PLEURO-PNEUMONIA AND SWINE FEVER.
  SIR E. GREY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether any case of pleuro-pneumonia now exists in Great Britain; and whether he is yet prepared to introduce a Bill, as urged upon him by a deputation from the Central and Associated Chambers of Agriculture and Farmers' Club in February last, to provide means for dealing with swine fever similar to those adopted in the case of pleuropneumonia?
  MR. CHAPLIN: No case of pleuropneumonia exists that we know of, because we have ordered the slaughter of all animals showing signs of the disease, and of those animals which have been in contact with diseased animals. It would be premature, however, to say the disease has disappeared; there have been three or four cases discovered in the present year. As to the second part of the question, is would be quite beyond the resources of the Department to attempt to deal with swine fever until we have arrested the spread of foot-and-mouth disease, to which all the energy of the Department is directed at the present time.

  ARBITRATION TREATIES WITH FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of both Houses of the American Congress having authorised the President to conclude a Treaty of Arbitration
  684
  with any other Power, it is intended by Her Majesty's Government to enter into communication with the American Government, with a view to the negotiation of such a Treaty between Great Britain and the United States?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,: On the 2nd August, 1883, the right hon. Member for Midlothian was invited by the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division to reply to a question almost identically the same as that of the hon. Member for Northampton. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman is reported to have replied, "We are not prepared to do anything of the sort." Her Majesty's Government, although holding the same opinion as that which was held by the Government of the right hon. Member for Midlothian, do not desire to give quite such an abrupt statement of their views. Her Majesty's Government have shown that they are not averse to referring to arbitration several matters of dispute which have arisen between themselves and foreign Governments; but there are questions, such as those involving the title of the British Crown to territory or other Sovereign rights, which Her Majesty's Government could not pledge themselves beforehand in all cases to refer to arbitration.

  PRINCIPAL CLERKSHIP, CUSTOMS STATISTICAL DEPARTMENT.
  MR. NORRIS(on behalf of Mr. DARLING,: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when it is intended to fill up the vacant principal clerkship in the Statistical Department of Her Majesty's Customs?
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL(who replied) said: This vacancy has occurred in the ordinary course, and the Board of Customs will fill it up in the exercise of their discretion. I can give no date.

  DISTRIBUTION OF TAXATION GRANT IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. HUNTER: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, before the Committee stage of the Education and Local Taxation (Scotland)

  685
  Bill, he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing how much each county or burgh in Scotland will receive of £100,000, if it is distributed according to valuation, and how much such county or burgh would receive if the money were distributed according to the population as ascertained by the Census of 1891?
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: There is no objection to giving the information asked for. If the hon. Member will be good enough to move for the Return, I shall use every endeavour to have it presented before the Committee stage.

  THE IRISH AND AMERICAN MAIL SERVICE.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether it has been conceded by the Post Office that the interval between receiving and posting given at Cork on arrival of mails (less than an hour) is insufficient and unsatisfactory; whether the acceleration of the service which the Great Southern and Western Railway Company of Ireland are willing to carry out has been settled on terms acknowledged by the Post Office to be reasonable and moderate, and whether the only opposition to the conclusion of the acceleration of the Cork and American mails has been from the Treasury, who state they could not authorise the expenditure at the present time; whether this expenditure has been recommended by the Post Office to the Treasury; and why and for what reason, under existing circumstances, this Irish and American benefit, having been recommended by the Post Office, is opposed by the Treasury?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The hon. Member's statement is substantially accurate.
  DR. TANNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last paragraph, as to whether there is a conflict between the Treasury and the Post Office?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The hon. Gentleman has put down a question to the Treasury on precisely the same subject, and I prefer to leave it to the Treasury to answer.
  DR. TANNER: I ask if there is a conflict between the Post Office and the Treasury? I shall call attention to the matter on the Estimates.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Postmaster General what is the difference between the delivery and time given for answering mails in Cork and Belfast; and whether the Great Southern and Western Railway Company have offered any advantages to secure quicker delivery and return?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Between the time fixed for beginning the delivery of the English letters at Cork and the time for closing the letter box for outward mail there is an interval of 1 hr. 20 min. At Belfast the interval is five hours.
  DR. TANNER: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to reply to the second paragraph.
  MR. SEXTON: For what sum of money have the Great Southern and Western Railway Company agreed to carry out this improved service?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I do not think I can answer that offhand. I have said that it was a question of money.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Has the right hon. Gentleman abandoned his efforts to induce the Treasury to come to his view on the matter.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: It is well understood that Her Majesty's Government acts as a whole, and if it has not been thought proper to increase the subsidy to the Railway Company for the service it must be taken to be the decision of the Government generally.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: If the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to improve the service in some way what was the object of entering into negotiations with the Great Southern and Western Railway at all?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: We did not initiate negotiations, but we desire to improve the service as much as possible.
  DR. TANNER: Have the Railway Company been offered any advantages to secure a quicker delivery and return?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: They are treated in the same way as any other Railway Company carrying mails, and

  687
  we are prepared to give them the same advantages. We made them no offer, but they made one to us.
  DR. TANNER: What is the character of these advantages?
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: May I ask if it is a fact that the Post Office have approached the Great Southern and Western Railway Company with the object of improving the service, and that negotiations have taken place between them with the object of improving the mail service, and what is the basis of these negotiations? Was it not the payment of an increased sum to the Company?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: That is the purport of what I have already stated.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will explain why the Treasury has refused to authorise increased expenditure for conveyance of American mails viâa Dublin and Queenstown; and whether, said expenditure has been recommended by another Government Department?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to answer this question? I think I have only seen the question to-day, and have not been able to examine into it. On the question generally I can only repeat the words of my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General, that the Government look into these matters as a whole, and it would be most inconvenient that any differences of opinion in a Department should be made a matter of political discussion. The Government acted on the whole case, and the decision of the Treasury or Post Office, as it might be, is final.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman supplement the defective information of the Postmaster General by telling us what sum is now paid to the Railway Company, and for what increased sum they will grant an improved service?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I have only seen the question on the Paper to-day, and cannot answer that question.
  MR. SEXTON: I shall ask it again on Thursday.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Can the Postmaster General say why, if the Government acted in this matter as a whole, and the Post Office entered into
  688
  negotiations with the Railway Company with a view of increasing the subsidy to the Company, that when the Railway Company acceded to their demand the Treasury refused to carry out what the Post Office proposed?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I suppose they negotiated like anybody else would, and that when too much was asked the negotiations were broken off.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Postmaster General said that the demand of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company was most moderate?
  MR. WEBSTER: I rise to a point of Order. I should like to know if hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have a right to ask six supplementary questions to every question they have on the Paper?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I should like to reply to the question of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. M. Healy). It is quite true that when I had a meeting with the representatives of the Railway Company and others on this question I said that, in my opinion, if the service was to be paid for the demand of the Railway Company was moderate, but whether it could be done or not was a matter for consideration.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: This is a very important matter. What I want to know is this: what was the object of the Post Office in approaching the Great Southern and Western Railway at all if, when that Company acceded to their views and asked what is admittedly a most moderate sum, they turned round and said that the Company should have nothing?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I did not approach them, they approached me.

  THE EMPLOYEES AT HAULBOWLINE DOCKYARD.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty how many dockyard employees are now working at Haulbowline; what is the nature of their employment; and whether any skilled dockyard artificers are now employed at Haulbowline?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put the question down

  689
  for Friday. He only put it down last night, and I have not had time to get the information.

  GOLD AND SILVER MINING ROYALTIES.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of the Government to reduce the royalties on gold and silver in Wales and in Ireland in private lands to the same amount as the royalties have lately been reduced in the case of one mine in private lands in Wales; and, if not, why not?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: I have already stated that under similar circumstances similar treatment will be given to mines in Wales and Ireland, but that the case of each mine must be considered separately.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate that people are likely to open mines unless they know the terms beforehand?
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Is the difference between the royalty in Ireland and Wales 5 per cent. and 1 per cent. respectively?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I do not know at this moment whether in the case of Ireland 5 per cent. is charged. Any change in the royalty would apply equally in Wales and Ireland. The sliding scale has been offered in Ireland. It is quite possible that mines in Ireland have not been worked, and that, therefore, no concession has been asked for.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it has not been represented to him by the mining authorities that the sliding scale in metalliferous mines is utterly impracticable and unworkable?

  TELEGRAPH EXTENSION IN RURAL DISTRICTS.
  MR. THORBURN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General when he expects to introduce the Bill for extending to Scotland the provisions of an Act, now in force in England, whereby Local Authorities may assess for the purpose of meeting any deficiency arising out of guarantees
  690
  given to the Post Office in connection with telegraph extension in rural districts?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Instructions have been given for the preparation of a Bill for this purpose, and I hope shortly to be able to introduce it.

  THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON WESTMINSTER ABBEY.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can state what action the Government proposes to take with respect to the Report of the Royal Commission on Westminster Abbey, and especially with reference to the recommendation as to the demolition of the houses in Old Palace Yard, which it is alleged would be the cause of danger to the Abbey in the event of fire?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,: The Government have not yet arrived at any decision as to the alternative sites suggested by the Royal Commission for a Memorial Chapel. With reference to the houses at Poet's Corner and in Old Palace Yard, I have been in communication with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who are the ground landlords of the houses in question, and I am in communication with the Dean and Chapter of the Abbey. The leases of these houses will expire at periods varying from one to twelve years from the present time, and I think it is obvious that, whatever plan may be ultimately adopted, the leases should not be renewed.

  THE NEW POST OFFICE AT LONGFORD.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY (for Mr. T. M. HEALY): I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will state what is the cause of the delay in the erection of the new post office at Longford?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The delay has been unavoidable, but it is hoped that the scheme will soon be matured.

  THE PROMOTION LIST OF THE WATERFORD COUNTY POLICE.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY (for Mr. T. M. HEALY): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many Roman Catholics and how many Protestants are on the

  691
  Waterford County Inspectors' Promotion List; how many of each religion were, by a recent circular order to District Inspectors by the County Inspector, found disqualified; how many of these found disqualified by the present County Inspector were found eligible by his predecessors in office; and how many Roman Catholic and Protestant sergeants are now "under supervision," awaiting the Report of their District Inspectors at the expiration of three months?
  MR. JACKSON: The Inspector General reports that the present County Inspector for Waterford has just taken over the county, and that on doing so he went through the promotion list of his predecessor, and in no case was the name of any man removed whom his predecessor thought eligible for promotion. The question of religion forms no element in promotion, which must depend solely on individual fitness.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last paragraph.
  MR. JACKSON: I said that religion forms no element in promotion, and I think it very undesirable to give that information.

  THE WEARING OF THE SHAMROCK.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR (for Mr. P. O'BRIEN,: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the name and length of service of the Lieutenant who ordered Frederick Dwyer to take the shamrock out of his cap at Devonport on St. Patrick's Day last; what was the date upon which Commander Neville reduced Dwyer's sentence from fourteen to seven days; was it as a result of any communication from the Admiralty; and whether, in consideration of the circumstances which led to Dwyer's disobedience, he will see that this occurrence shall not be recorded against him, or in any way interfere with his chances of promotion?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The officer in question was Lieutenant Edward P. Powell, who has seniority as Lieutenant of 16th April, 1878. Dwyer's sentence was reduced on the 20th March, but entirely independent of any intervention by the Admiralty. The man's Christian name is Patrick and not Frederick
  692
  as previously stated. His conduct since he joined the Service in 1889 is noted as very good, and if he continues to behave in other respects as he has done in the past, his act of disobedience will not be recorded against him.

  THE LIGHT ON THE CLOCK TOWER.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR (for Mr. P. O'BRIEN): I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that the signal light on the House of Commons cannot be seen at all from some parts of London, and is very imperfectly visible from many points owing to its position on one side of the tower; and whether he proposes to remedy this defect by placing a powerful electric light on the summit of the tower so as to be visible from all points?
  MR. PLUNKET: This is the first complaint I have received as to the insufficiency of the signal light on the Clock Tower, and I believe that under ordinary conditions of the atmosphere the light is well seen in those parts of the town to which it is at present directed. There are times when London fogs are very dense at which neither this light nor any other could be of much service. If I were satisfied that any considerable number of Members of Parliament are deprived of the advantage of seeing the light, or of the sometimes keener pleasure of seeing it extinguished, that would be a reason, if the expense were not thought too heavy by the Treasury, for endeavouring to spread the light more widely. As to whether that could best be done by gas or electric light is a question on which I believe a good deal can be said on both sides.
  DR. TANNER: Is it not a fact that there would be very little increase in the cost if the light were put at the top of the Tower, so that it could be seen South as well as West?
  MR. PLUNKET: I cannot answer that question without further investigation; but I think there would be a considerable increase of cost.

  THE LIMERICK FISHERY BOARD.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR (for Mr. P. O'BRIEN): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the number of elected

  693
  members on the Limerick Fishery Board, and what is the number of ex officio members; what are the qualifications of membership for each class, and what is the system of election to the Board; has the present Chairman of the Board, the Hon. Gaston Maunsel, any financial interest in the fisheries; has it come to his knowledge that grave dissatisfaction exists amongst the working fishermen with the Board, and that the Inspectors of Fisheries have been memorialised to investigate the condition of the fisheries; whether he can say if an inquiry will be held; and, if so, when; whether there are vacancies in the districts entitled to elect members to the Board; and whether he will see that elections are proceeded with at once?
  MR. JACKSON: 1. There are 24 persons elected every three years to act as Conservators for the Limerick Fishery district. 2. The number of ex officio Conservators varies from year to year, as the number of persons possessing the requisite qualifications fluctuates. 3. The qualifications for an elected Conservator are:—(A). That he shall reside or possess real property in the electoral division of the district for which he is elected. (B). That he shall be duly elected at a properly convened meeting of persons entitled to vote. These persons are those who shall have paid licence duty for the current year within the electoral division only for which the meeting is held. The qualifications for an ex officio Conservator are that he shall possess a several fishery as owner, lessee, or occupier, valued under the Acts for the relief of the poor at £100 a year or upwards—provided that when a fishery so rated shall be held by several persons, one person alone shall act as Conservator; or that he shall be a Magistrate paying licence duty, and be the owner of land abutting on a river. 4. The system of election to the Board is as follows:—The existing Board of Conservators fix, and publish notice of, the date, hour, and place, for the meeting of the electors in each electoral division for the election of the proper number of Conservators for the same. Two weeks' notice thereof is to be given by handbills and advertisements in two or more newspapers circulating
  694
  in the district. The meeting for election commences at the hour and on the day named in the notice. Votes are not received after three o'clock p.m. on that day. The persons entitled to vote are those who have paid licence duty for the current year. Such persons shall choose a Chairman, who presides and receives the votes of the electors. All persons produce their licences for the current year at the time of voting. Such persons can give votes according to the following scale:—If the licence duty paid by them shall not amount to £2, one vote; shall amount to £2 and not exceed £5, two votes; shall amount to £5 and not exceed £10, three votes; shall exceed £10, four votes. The chairman declares the persons who shall have received the greatest number of votes to be the elected Conservators, and certifies same. 5. The Inspectors have no information as to whether or not the Hon. Gaston Maunsel has any financial interest in the fisheries. 6. The Inspectors understand from reports in the Press that some friction exists between certain fishermen and members of the Limerick Board.

  THE BENGAL MUNICIPAL ACT.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal intends to introduce into the Bengal Legislative Council a Bill to amend the existing Bengal Municipal Act; whether he is aware that the statement to the effect that this was intended has caused widespread alarm throughout the Province as being subversive of the principle of local self-government introduced by successive Viceroys in the Viceregal Legislative Council, and that meetings have been held at Hugli, Howra, Searsole, Bankura and other places protesting against the Bill; and whether in view of the strong and unanimous feeling expressed, the Secretary of State will ascertain the intentions of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal and of the Government of India with reference to the Bill, and lay them before this House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. CURZON,: The proposed legislation to amend the Bengal Muni-

  695
  cipal Act has not yet reached a stage when the Secretary of State would be in possession of official information, but he understands from the newspapers that the question of amending the Bengal Municipal Act is under consideration. So far as the Secretary of State is aware, the contemplated amendment of the Municipal Act is in no way aimed at the principle of local self-government and affords no grounds for alarm. The draft of the Bill has been sent to various Municipal and other Public Bodies for criticism, and these criticisms will receive full and careful consideration before any Bill is introduced in the Bengal Legislative Council. The rules for the conduct of business in the Legislative Councils provide for full publicity, and the Secretary of State sees no reason to take the special steps suggested by the hon. Member.

  LEGAL COSTS IN THE RECOVERY OF INCOME TAX.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is competent for the Board of Inland Revenue to demand legal costs "expended out of pocket in connection with the recovery of income tax," where such claim was improperly made and has been waived?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I presume that the hon. Member refers to cases where a person has neglected either to pay the income tax to which he was assessed by the Income Tax Commissioners or to appeal to them in the manner laid down by law for the reduction of the amount. In such a case the Income Tax Commissioners report the matter to the Board of Inland Revenue, and the Board first apply for payment, and then, if their application is unsuccessful, instruct their Solicitor to take the necessary steps to recover the amount. But it occasionally happens that in the course of the proceedings the defendant is able to satisfy the Board that if he had appealed to the Income Tax Commissioners in the proper manner he would have obtained relief, and in such a case the Board relieve him from the payment of the tax upon condition that he refunds
  696
  the actual expenditure to which they have been put by the proceedings. As this expenditure was directly due to his neglect to appeal in the first instance, I think that the course followed by the Board is perfectly justifiable in point of equity.

  WEST AFRICA—THE COLONIAL POLICE FORCE.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in possession of any further information respecting the repulse lately suffered by the Colonial Police Forces before Tambi, in West Africa; and whether it is true, as stated by the Central News, that the Government is organising a fresh expedition against the place?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,: Despatches on the subject reached the Colonial Office this morning, but they only describe the attack that took place on Tambi. The acting Governor proposed to renew the attack with the aid of the native contingent as I stated on the 23rd ult. It will necessarily take some little time to make the necessary arrangements, and no further news has yet been received. The only European killed was Captain Robinson.

  THE CHICAGO EXHIBITION.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether it is likely that the Chicago Exhibition Commissioners will consider, at an early date, the advisability of modifying their present intention of charging for space at the World's Fair, Chicago; how soon will the Commissioners make their views known with regard to the distinctive management of Irish products; and will they consider the propriety and convenience of establishing an official committee, with offices in Dublin?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,: The Commissioners have no announcement to make on the subject at present. The question is one which will have to remain more or less uncertain until the exhibits have come in. With regard to

  697
  the proposed distinctive management of the Irish products the Commissioners have nothing to make known, but they are considering the advisability of establishing a special department in Dublin to deal with the Irish exhibits. I may point out to the hon. Member that the proper person to give information on the matter is the secretary to the Commission.
  SIR J. PULESTON: Has anything yet been decided with reference to the proposal that the total amount to be granted for the purpose of the exhibition should be increased?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I hope so. The application for such an increase was forwarded by the Commissioners to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: How soon does the right hon. Gentleman expect to know the decision of the Government?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: There is a meeting of the Commission to-morrow at five o'clock at which the matter will come up for consideration, but whether any reply has yet been received from the Treasury in regard to the matter I do not know.

  THE TRUCK ACTS.
  MR. CREMER: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether, in the absence of any written agreement, an employer has any legal right to deduct from his workpeople the rent of the houses in which they live; and whether such deduction is not a violation of the Truck Acts?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: There is no violation of the Truck Acts in deducting the rent of premises occupied by workpeople if they are the property of the master, whether the agreement is in writing or otherwise. By Clause 23 of the Act of 1831, and Clause 5 of the Act of 1887, the rent of such premises is expressly reserved from the operation of the Truck Acts.

  PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS.
  MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the very great importance of the Local Veto (Scotland) Bill, he will use the influence of the Government towards allowing the House to take it into consideration?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Government have no influence to enable them to alter the order of private Members' business.
  MR. DALZIEL: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Mover of the first Order to-morrow, the Eating of Machinery Bill, is an hon. Member upon whom the Government are in a position to bring influence to bear.

MOTION.

  PARLIAMENT (ELECTION AND DISSOLUTION).
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg, Sir, to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Return for which I have asked in Notice No. 4 will be granted as an unopposed Return?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I see no objection to the Return, though I do not see what useful purpose it will serve.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Then, Mr. Speaker, I move for a
  "Return of the dates on which each Parliament was Elected and Dissolved since the passing of the Septennial Act, together with the periods that elapsed in each case between the Dissolution and the Meeting of the new Parliament."
  Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR) SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Special Report from the Select Committee on Railway Servants (Hours of Labour) read, as followeth:—

  SPECIAL REPORT.
  The Select Committee on Railway Servants (Hours of Labour) have agreed to the following Special Report:—
  "Your Committee, having considered a letter dated 21st February, 1892, from Mr. Harford, General Secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, and printed in Appendix A., alleging that certain witnesses who had given evidence before them during the last Session of Parliament had been dismissed from their employment in consequence of the

  699
  evidence they gave, and that other witnesses would be thereby deterred from giving evidence to your Committee, thought it their duty to inquire into the said allegations. Your Committee thereupon examined the following witnesses, who have been reduced or dismissed, namely, John Hood, Edward Kingstone, Alfred Thomas, and Henry Spink, and further took evidence upon the same subject from James Humphreys, John Conacher, Samuel Williamson, John Stokes, James Frederick Buckley, James Thompson, William Birt, John Henry Nettleship, Charles Alfred Randall, Mark Negus, and George Charles Taverner, whose evidence is appended to this Report."
  Your Committee report:—
  "(1.) That the aforesaid allegations in reference to the witnesses Edward King-stone, Alfred Thomas, and Henry Spink, were unfounded.
  (2.) That the witness John Hood was, by a resolution of the Directors of the Cambrian Railway Company, at a meeting held on the 6th day of August last, dismissed from the service of the Company, mainly in consequence of charges arising out of the evidence given by him before your Committee, and laid before the Directors by John Conacher, then manager of the said Railway; and further, that James Frederick Buckley, John William Maclure (a Member of this House), and William Bailey Hawkins, Directors of the said Company, and the said John Conacher, did, at a meeting at Crewe on the 30th September, 1891, held in consequence of an application by the said John Hood for the re-hearing of his case, at which the said John Hood was present, call him to account, and censure him for the evidence he gave before your Committee, in a manner calculated to deter other Railway Servants from giving evidence before your Committee.
  Your Committee have not deemed it to be part of their duty to express any opinion as to how far the conduct of the said John Hood and the irregularities disclosed by his evidence as well as the character of his evidence, were calculated properly to forfeit the confidence of the Directors of the Cambrian Company.
  24th March, 1892."
  Special Report considered.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: It is now my duty, in accordance with precedent, to move—
  "That Mr. John William Maclure do attend this House in his place on Thursday next,
  700
  that Mr. James Frederick Buckley, Mr. William Bailey Hawkins, and Mr. John Conacher do attend this House upon Thursday next, at Three of the clock."
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I beg to be allowed to second the Motion.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: As a question of Order, Mr. Speaker, I beg to suggest that we ought to take this Report into consideration and come to some decision upon it before we summon people to the Bar of this House, because they may well ask what they are summoned here for. It is an arbitrary and absolute power that we have, and I think we ought not to exercise it except against those who have committed a breach of the Privileges of this House; and although we have taken this Report, and it has been laid on the Table of the House, we have not affirmed the principle that these persons named in this Report have committed any breach of the Privileges of this House. I ask you, therefore, whether there is not a link in the chain wanting, and whether we ought not to take this Report into consideration, and go further, and say that So-and-So—the persons named—have committed a breach of the Privileges of this House; and after this we shall be in a proper position to summon them to the Bar of the House. I suppose this House can do anything; but I think it is, if I may use the expression, a strong order for this House to summon to the Bar three citizens who are not told what they have been guilty of.
  MR. SPEAKER: The House is asked to act, I imagine, on the Special Report of the Committee who have specially inquired into the allegations which were made before them of intimidation of witnesses. These gentlemen are asked to appear at the Bar of this House in order to state anything they may have to say in their defence, or in mitigation or excuse. After hearing these gentlemen the House will decide whether what they have said is any mitigation or excuse of the offences charged against them, and will decide what action they think it right to take, and will instruct me accordingly.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: I venture to call your attention to the fact that the Committee have not come to

  701
  any decision on the point. The Committee have said that So-and-So have done certain things calculated to deter witnesses from giving evidence before the Committee. I say that this is not a breach of the Privileges of this House, because the Committee left it expressly to this House to affirm that principle; and I venture again respectfully to, ask you whether we are in Order in summoning to the Bar of this House persons of whom we have not said yet that they have committed a breach of the Privileges of this House?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will observe that the Committee have not decided that any breach of Privilege has been committed, but only that action has been taken by certain gentlemen which is calculated, in their opinion, to intimidate witnesses. It is upon that allegation that the House would like to hear the gentlemen who are referred to in the Report in order to know whether they can say anything in excuse or mitigation of the allegation which is charged against them. I do not think that any injustice can be done to any gentleman by asking them to attend at the Bar of this House.
  Motion agreed to.
  Ordered, That John William Maclure do attend this House in his place upon Thursday next.
  Ordered, That Mr. James Frederick Buckley, Mr. William Bailey Hawkins, and Mr. John Conacher do attend this House upon Thursday next, at Three of the clock.—(Sir M. Hicks Beach.)

  SMALL AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.—(No. 183.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 4th April.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I move, in page 1, line 7, to leave out from "If," to "this Act," in line 10. The words which I propose to leave out are these:—
  "If the council of any county are of opinion that there is such a demand for small holdings for the labouring population in their county as justifies them in putting in operation this part of this Act."
  This Amendment must be taken in connection with a subsequent Amendment which I propose to move—in line
  702
  10, after the word "council," to insert "of any county." If, therefore, the Amendment is carried, the clause will run: "The council of any county may," &c. These words as they now stand either have no meaning and are mere surplusage, or they have a meaning. If they have a meaning, I venture to think that there will be a certain ambiguity as to what that meaning is, because how can a Council form any opinion? The words obviously refer to the 1st sub-section of Clause 4, in which it is stated that
  "Any county council may, and every county council not being a council of a county borough shall appoint a committee to consider,"
  &c. As the words stand now it is possible for any County Council to state beforehand whether it will, or whether it will not, adopt the Act. That is the meaning of which these words would be susceptible, and it is in order to avoid any ambiguity of that kind that I propose to leave them out.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 7, to leave out from the word "If," to the words "this Act," in line 10.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I have listened with attention to the arguments of the hon. Gentleman, but I fail to see that there is any objection to affirming in Clause 1 the principle on which the Bill is founded, although that general principle finds expression in Clause 4. I presume the House will agree with me that the Act should only be put in force where it is required, and I see no reason why that principle should not be affirmed in Clause 1.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: There are two ways in which the County Council may affirm its opinion, but there is no necessity for the County Council, previous to any demand for land taking place, affirming the opinion whether it should put the Act in force in any particular county. It would be time enough for the County Council to affirm the opinion when an actual specific demand for particular land is sent up to it.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: There is a clear contradiction between these Clauses 1 and 4; and although the First Lord of the Treasury wishes them to be left unchanged, I think if he endeavoured to reconcile them he would find it beyond his powers. Clause 4 contemplates that County Councils shall, in the first instance, whether they like it or not, appoint a committee, and that committee is to institute an inquiry, upon which, apparently, the object of Clause 1 will be carried out. I desire to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the extraordinary phraseology of this clause, and ask him what it means. I have no doubt he has seen the speech of the Lord Chancellor in Birmingham on Saturday night, in which, in very severe terms, his Lordship commented on the phraseology of the Bills sent up by this House, and suggested that it is the lay Members of this House who are responsible for the extraordinary language which some of those Bills contain. I will not presume that this language has proceeded from a lay mind, but I think we may fairly ask the right hon. Gentleman to put a meaning upon that clause: "If the council of any county are of opinion." I do not know how a Council can be of opinion. I know how an individual can be of opinion, and I know how a Council can resolve, but I always thought that the way in which a body, whether House of Commons or Board or Council, expresses its judgment is by resolution. I can understand if we are told that they are to resolve. Then we find that the demand is to be made by the labouring population, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to define labouring population. We know that he is a large landowner in Lincolnshire, and that no man works harder than he does in his capacity of President of the Board of Agriculture, and in that sense of the word he labours. I suppose, however, that the meaning is to exclude from this Act those persons who do not earn their living in the form of weekly wages. But the judicial mind and the legislative mind are in perpetual conflict; and a great deal of litigation is brought about by people seeking to give to Acts
  704
  a meaning which Parliament never intended, and endeavouring to make Acts do what Parliament never contemplated. I would ask, does this Bill include the fishermen of Lincolnshire, the cotton spinners of Lancashire, and the miners of Staffordshire, or is it confined to the agricultural population? A part of this clause appears to me to be mere surplusage, and if it means agricultural labourer why should it not say so? I do not see how men, such as blacksmiths, village carpenters, or the classes mentioned last night, are to have a community of interest with the labouring agricultural population who are earning weekly wages; and, therefore, I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that Clause 1 and Clause 4 are in absolute conflict, and that they must have been inserted in the Bill upon two different sets of instructions, one contemplating one state of things and the other another state of things. And I submit to him that the vagueness and incertitude about the meaning of the words put into this clause will tend, amongst other things introduced into the Bill, to nullify the measure altogether.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of a judicial mind in connection with the language of this clause. It appears to me to be perfectly clear to almost any layman in the world. The right hon. Gentleman has taken exception to the clause as it is drafted, and said he had never heard of such a phrase as "in the opinion of the Council," and did not know how a County Council could express an opinion. I ask him, then, "How can this House be of opinion?" And yet it is one of the commonest forms of expression employed in Motions in this House. It is used week after week and day after day. "That this House is of opinion" is one of our commonest forms of expression. That is a sufficient answer, I think, to the objection of the right hon. Gentleman. Then he talks about the labouring population and asks are they to include such men as blacksmiths, village carpenters, and the classes mentioned last night, or does it only include persons who are agricultural labourers alone? Certainly

  705
  it is intended to include a far wider circle than that. According to our reading of this clause it includes all the classes to whom he has referred; and let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that in every agricultural district and village, during the period of harvest at all events, all the mechanics, blacksmiths, and village tradesmen, are engaged in agricultural work. Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows enough of the country to be aware of that fact. Harvest-time is the busiest time in the year, and during that time the whole agricultural population are engaged very often; but let it not be understood that the application of this clause is to be limited to that class. The words in the clause which cause such dissatisfaction to the right hon. Gentleman have been taken out of the Allotments Act. In that Act it was provided that the labouring population should be provided with allotments, and I never heard a whisper of complaint against it upon that ground. It appears to me, therefore, that the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman is hypercritical altogether. With regard to Clause 4, I think I can convict the right hon. Gentleman of inaccuracy. Under that clause it is the duty of the County Council to appoint a Committee to consider whether the circumstances of the county justify the Council in putting into operation this part of the Act; and when a petition is presented to them it becomes the duty of the County Council to make inquiry into the whole of the circumstances with the view of putting the Act into operation. As regards the Amendment which the hon. Member has moved, it seems to me to be open to this objection, that if these words were omitted, then the position would be this: that even if there were going to be no demand whatever for the provision of small holdings, so far as the labouring population were concerned, the County Councils would have to proceed notwithstanding. It appears to me that the language used in the Bill is the ordinary language of Acts of Parliament, so far as I am acquainted with them, and is in accordance with the precedent of the Allotments Act. I am bound to say that the Amendment is
  706
  altogether unnecessary, and that the observations of the right hon. Gentleman are not altogether well-founded.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I think, in the case of the Allotments Bill, the Minister who had charge of the Bill expressed the opinion that the words "labouring population" did not include anything but agricultural labourers. If I remember rightly that was the explanation he gave when we endeavoured to introduce other words.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: As I suppose I am the Minister referred to by the hon. Member, I feel bound to state that no such opinion was expressed by me. It always seemed to me that the "labouring population" would include artizans belonging to the towns.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: At that time I recollect distinctly it was stated that the words "labouring population" would not include such men as the village blacksmith and the village carpenter.
  SIR W. FOSTER: The Allotments Act of 1887 in some of its clauses was worded in the same way as this Bill in saying that the Local Authority is of opinion, but there the important words are added "after inquiry." In this case the right hon. Gentleman contemplates, I apprehend, that the County Council is to come to an opinion without any previous inquiry, and in that respect I think this Bill is inferior in its wording to the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman's colleague sitting on the same Bench. The County Council may have an academic discussion on these points as to the general desirability of small holdings in particular parts of the country; and later on, after inquiry, they may find that their opinion is wrong. It would be more logical and more conducive to the effective operation of the Act, if the right hon. Gentlemen allowed their opinion to be formed after a public inquiry of some kind has been made.
  MR. E. T. REID: I cannot agree with the complaints that have been made with regard to the words used in this clause.

  707
  It seems to me that the language is perfectly clear. There is a subsequent Amendment dealing with the insertion in the clause of the words "labouring population." It seems to me that when we are dealing with land up to 50 acres that really not only the labouring population strictly so called should be included, but it would be desirable to include also tenants or freeholders.
  MR. H. T. KNATCHBULL HUGESSEN: This Bill is intended to benefit not only the agricultural labourers but some others who combine other occupations with that of agricultural labour, and it would be a great pity if by any possible ambiguity they should be excluded.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! There is a subsequent Amendment dealing with the question of the exclusion of the words "for the labouring population," and the hon. Member is not in order in discussing the matter now.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: First of all a Committee is to be appointed before the Act can be put in force; and, secondly, there is a Committee proposed in Sub-section 2, Clause 4, which contains some safeguards which in my opinion are altogether sufficient and adequate without previous inquiry. Neither the right hon. Gentleman nor any other hon. Member has suggested that these words are necessary, and, therefore, considering that there is no necessity for their insertion, I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman should not consent to their omission.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I rise, in the words of the Minister of Agriculture, to try to pour oil on the troubled waters. I consider that the benefit of this clause should be open to all, and, therefore, I am against leaving out these words. I am also in favour of taking out the words "labouring population," because the great good of this Bill—if it is to be of any good—will be to small farmers, who might not come quite under the definition "labouring population." I would venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should insert the words "after inquiry" after Coun-
  708
  cil, which would be following the precedent of the Allotments Act, and that he should take out the word "may" and put in "shall."
  MR. H. GARDNER: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether my interpretation of the Bill is correct. I wish to know whether Clause 1 contemplates the case that the County Council may take the initiative in putting the Act into operation; and, if so, whether Clause 4 is not somewhat contradictory in its terms?
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. OLDROYD: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, after "county," to insert "or of any borough." I wish first of all to assure the right hon. Gentleman that this Amendment is not inspired by any avowed or by any concealed opposition to the Bill of which he is in charge, nor is there any intention in any way to thwart or cripple the operation of the Bill. But what I simply desire is this: that the Town Council of a non-county borough shall have the same power in the administration of this Bill as under its present framing is accorded to the county borough and County Council. This is a simple modification of the proposed administration of the Bill, and one which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept. During the discussion on the Instruction to the Committee last night there seemed to be a consensus of opinion that the County Councils were on the whole too massive and too distant a Body to consider with detailed accuracy all the questions that might arise in the consideration of the operation of this Act; and I think the right hon. Gentleman himself from his reply in that Debate did not say that the Parish Councils or District Councils would be less calculated faithfully to discharge their duties under this Act than the County Councils. But his objection to the Instruction was this—that the Parish Councils or District Councils were not in existence, and that the creation of such an authority to deal with this Bill might be fatal to the measure itself. But in the case of the Amendment

  709
  which I propose that argument does not apply, because we have in the Councils of the non-county boroughs already an authority established which, in the general opinion of this House, it is agreed is an authority which may safely be trusted with the carrying out of this Act. I think it will not be disputed that the duties which are imposed on these Bodies already are far more weighty and more responsible than the duties which will be entailed by the administration of this Bill. I would submit that the capacity of Town Councils for carrying out the work in their boroughs is recognised by Parliament, and additional duties are constantly being put upon them in recent years. Public libraries have been authorised to be constituted and managed by Town Councils; and even in this Parliament, under the Technical Instruction Act, additional powers were given as to rating for that purpose, and so on. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board will remember, in the case of the Allotments Act, the Town Councils were constituted the sole authority for the administration of that Act in their own districts. The right hon. Gentleman need have no fear as to the general willingness of Corporations to undertake and discharge this important duty. Some two years ago, in a discussion on the Allotments Act, it was pointed out to the House that in the matter of the provision of allotments the Town Councils or the boroughs had faithfully discharged their duties, and had shown no reluctance whatever to carry out the Allotments Act in their districts. It would be very hard indeed if those boroughs, more especially such as are of an agricultural character which have already provided free libraries and made ample provision for allotments, should be told by Parliament, "Notwithstanding the fact that you have administered the Act well and faithfully, we have no confidence in you. We distrust you, and would not leave to you the responsibility of carrying out this Act." I contend that the Town Council is the only proper authority for dealing with this Bill. It cannot be gainsaid that
  710
  Town Councils have a better local knowledge than any other authority for the purpose of this Bill; they know what boroughs are adapted for the purposes of these small holdings; they know the needs of the people, and what is most important; they have a knowledge of the individuals concerned. The persons who are authorised to administer this Act should have personal knowledge of the applicants, and should confer the advantages of small holdings only upon those who by their thrift and industry are well-known in their districts as being worthy to receive them. It may be argued that the rateable value of these boroughs would be very small, and that the limit which the right hon. Gentleman has fixed as the amount of purchase-money for these small holdings might militate against the extensive operation of the Act; but the right hon. Gentleman himself says that this measure is simply an experimental one; and if it be found that in the smaller boroughs the limit is too small, that amount can be extended by the County Councils themselves. Speaking to-day on behalf of these smaller boroughs, I may say that a very strong feeling exists in them, not against the Bill itself, but against the interference of County Councils in the administration of the affairs of boroughs which could be equally well carried on, if not better, within their own limits. This objection to the Bill is, I consider, a reasonable one; and it would be unworthy of those who have so long enjoyed such privileges if they were to silently acquiesce in the proposals of the Bill, which would have the effect of introducing an alien authority. I do not wish to magnify the friction which, more or less, exists between the smaller boroughs and the rural parts of the county, but we should not shut our eyes to the fact that this interference may possibly culminate in a very considerable amount of friction. The right hon. Gentleman seems, by the provisions of the Bill itself, to contemplate that a possible loss may arise out of it, and he has accordingly introduced certain restrictions to which I have already referred. Let me deal with two alternatives that may ensue after the passing of this Bill. Firstly

  711
  there may possibly be a great rush for these small holdings; and if that be the case, I should like to know what would be the feeling in those boroughs of an urban character, which would be brought under the penalty of subscribing to the deficiency that may arise? In the other case the rural boroughs might complain that this loss had arisen in consequence of the laxness of the County Councils in administering the Act, and contend fairly that they would themselves have been able to provide against such a deficiency occurring. The right hon. Gentleman will admit that there will be ample opportunity for the administration of the Act in the smaller boroughs, and it would be only equitable and fair that those boroughs should have the administration of it left in their hands. There seems to be an idea that the County Councils might possibly be able to administer the Act more carefully, because, under Clause 4, they are instructed to proceed by Committee, and that on petition inquiry is to be held. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that in the case of these smaller boroughs there would be no need of proceeding in this dilatory method, because the members of the Council would not only know how far the district is affected, but would be able to select those men who are best fitted to carry out the Act. I trust, therefore, that, in the interests of Local Government and in support of the franchise rights which boroughs now enjoy, all the friends of sound Local Government will support the Amendment I have now the honour of moving. In the interests of the Bill itself, I think my Amendment might be fairly agreed to, because there would then be a larger number of authorities empowered to administer the Act, which would be some guarantee for its success. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept it, proposed as it is in no unfriendly or Party spirit, and that he will thus prevent another blow being struck at those Local Authorities whose interests ought not to be jeopardised by their being forbidden to carry out this Bill.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 7, after the word "county," to insert the words "or of any borough."—(Mr. Oldroyd)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I think it is desirable to say what I have to say upon the subject now rather than to do it hereafter upon similar Amendments which stand on the Paper in my own name. The view which the hon. Member has just put before the House is that which is entertained very strongly by the Municipal Corporations' Association of the United Kingdom, which represents the whole of the boroughs, both county and borough. So strong and general is the feeling in favour of the Amendment in this non-political Association that, when the subject was discussed, a resolution was passed unanimously asking that they should be all put on the same footing under the Bill. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will accept this as a fact—that the Amendment is not put before the House in any hostile spirit. Speaking on behalf of the boroughs, I believe that the feeling in them is one of great satisfaction, both with regard to the Bill itself and the manner in which it has been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman. But the present question is really a most important one; it affects the integrity of the borough life of this country. I do not forget what has been said in this House, and at no distant day the general question may have to be again discussed. For the present, however, I content myself with saying that the feeling which still exists on the subject was strongly and well expressed in the discussion on the Allotments Bill, and experience has added to the conviction that the existing system is not advantageous in the interests of either one class of boroughs or of the other. The President of the Local Government Board on the occasion of the Allotments Bill recognised the right of boroughs to autonomy in dealing with such matters; he recognised their knowledge, their experience, and their interest in manag-

  713
  ing their own affairs, and the result has been that that Act is now working well and is giving satisfaction both in boroughs and counties. There are many points connected with small holdings which can best be considered locally, such as the situation and quality of the land, its adaptability for small holdings, the efficiency of the men who are going to cultivate it, and the methods of cultivation. These and various other matters must be considered, whilst it must also be borne in mind that it is certainly not desirable to stereotype too much any particular method of agriculture over the whole area of a county, especially those of very large area I hope that in connection with these small holdings means will be found of quickening experiments on a small scale in agriculture, and therefore the local aspect of the methods of cultivation must not be lost sight of. Now, Sir, the old chartered boroughs which have done so much good work in the past desire to apply this measure for themselves. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture said recently that the only popularly Elective Bodies at present are the County Councils. Sir, I can hardly agree with that. The County Councils, well as they have done much of their work, are affairs of yesterday compared with many of the chartered boroughs, which have existed for centuries; and if the right hon. Gentleman supposes that the old boroughs will contentedly accept delegated powers to carry out matters confided to them by the County Councils he is very greatly mistaken. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the County Councils alone possess the necessary borrowing powers, but these words are ambiguous, and they appear to me to be somewhat misapplied. The borrowing powers of the boroughs are ample to meet the case. It is quite true that there is in the Bill a limitation of the amount chargeable on the borough rates to one penny in the pound, and I grant that in the case of some of the smaller boroughs there might be a difficulty in raising the requisite funds. Similar difficulty would, however, certainly not be experienced by those boroughs
  714
  whose population fell short by a few thousands of that of the county boroughs. The penny limitation will, I venture to say, be found disadvantageous to the working of the Act, and might well be increased for furthering that truly conservative work, the rooting to the soil of the men who till the soil. But, Sir, if there is to be a centralised authority there must be some check on the want of information and knowledge possessed by that body. On the other hand, if the services of men of long experience and local knowledge are obtained there will be no need of the penny limitation, which is one of the leading features of this Bill. If you decentralise and give to the old experienced boroughs a power of management over their own affairs there will be no need of this limitation. This provision, again, will operate most unfairly. A borough may or may not desire to have small holdings. If it does desire to have small holdings the Act will be carried out; and if it does not desire to have small holdings, why should it be taxed for the purposes of others at a distanee? We all know of boroughs with corporate land which is let out for small holdings, land which has been managed for centuries by these boroughs, not always well, but now much better than before. A borough in such a position does not desire to exercise those powers. I take one borough in which the success of small holdings is one of the most notable and commendable features of the history of Local Government—I mean the borough of Nottingham, which has 180 acres of land that the Corporation years ago let out in allotments, thus initiating the system of small holdings. These people supply the best produce in the Midlands, and the holdings give occupation and pleasure to a large number of persons. Now, Sir, if a town possesses land and has power to do this work without expense, is it right to impose taxation upon it for the benefit of another locality in which it has not the slightest interest? The main point I want to impress upon the Committee is this—do not let us make the Local Government Act into a

  715
  centralising measure. That is at variance with its principle, which must be maintained; we must not make the Act a means of centralisation, but of localisation; and to that end the Amendment will be conducive.
  MR. STORY-MASKELYNE: This subject of the boroughs and their relation to this Bill is a very important one, and I should like to see the principle carried further than is proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury. All the arguments which have been used are applicable to the urban districts and to the smaller towns. There are a large number of towns with from 10,000 to 15,000 inhabitants to whom this Bill will come home more closely, as regards their immediate interests, than to the large boroughs whose case we have been discussing. It is for the rural boroughs that I plead, and if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture concedes anything in this direction he will open his arms to and include those boroughs. They are showing a deep interest in the Bill, and are anxious to share in its advantages. For example, in Swindon, which is in my constituency and which is one of the most thriving towns in England, the people are looking forward to this Bill in the hope that the Town Council may be able to deal with land in the same way as the County Council will be empowered to do. It is quite true that if you abstract from the rating area of the county those important places you have a smaller rating area. But after all a penny is not a very large tax on the county, and if you doubled that penny you would not make up the loss by abstracting the boroughs from the rating area. I do feel strongly the argument in favour of decentralisation, and if you do not make the area too small, decentralisation will be found to be the key to the working of these principles which are coming on the tapis, and with which we are now beginning to deal. We must not be jealous of the Local Authorities which are every day growing in power and in importance. They are centres of education, units of intelligence around which the county is crystallised; and I hope the right hon.
  716
  Gentleman will show his sympathy with that decentralising idea and will recognise in some form the appeals made to him from various quarters of the House in no Party spirit on behalf of those boroughs, and in the interests of the legislation we are seeking to pass.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,: I quite recognise the desire of those representing the boroughs that they should be included in this Bill, and I can assure hon. Gentlemen that it is not because of any feeling of jealousy or unfriendliness towards those particular localities or Borough Authorities that they have not been included. I accept very gratefully the welcome assurances of my hon. Friend that this Amendment is not dictated by any feeling of hostility to the Bill but rather with a view to promote and strengthen it. At the same time my first duty on this occasion is to guard against any addition being made to the Bill which would in my opinion be likely to retard rather than advance its operation; and I will state to the Committee some of the reasons why, in my humble judgment, the Amendment should be rejected. In the first place, it appears to me that in an enormous number of cases if the boroughs were to be the authori empowered to acquire the land, present rate of a penny in the pound would be altogether insufficient, and the holdings would be so small as to be absolutely useless. I have only to run over the non-county boroughs, and I find borough after borough with an assessable rental of £9,000, £4,000, £3,000 and so on. The borrowing powers of these boroughs would be absolutely useless for the purpose of securing small holdings. They might borrow from £400 to £1,000, but it must be obvious to the Committee that under the present limited rate that we propose these sums would be wholly and totally inadequate for the purposes of this measure. If that is so, the Committee must recollect that while the boroughs would do no good to themselves they would detract from the powers of the County Council to make provision for small

  717
  holdings. Surely these are considerations requiring the serious attention of the Committee, and they are sufficient to exonerate me from any charge or even from any suspicion of having unduly or unfairly overlooked the interests of the boroughs, and of having been guided by any considerations other than those which are the genuine interests of the measure. It is certainly not because we cannot trust them. I am as sensible as anybody can be of the admirable way in which the work is performed by these Corporations. Then the hon. Member who proposed this Amendment laid great stress upon the greater knowledge of local circumstances which would necessarily be possessed by the boroughs. That is quite true; they have greater local knowledge than the County Councils. But the County Councils are expressly empowered, and indeed compelled under the clauses of the Bill, to make a local inquiry, and there can be no difficulty whatever in the County Council acquiring sufficiently accurate local knowledge to enable them at all events to acquire land in the most satisfactory manner. Now I hope the hon. Gentleman who proposed the Amendment, and my hon. Friend below the Gangway who asks us to make this concession, will observe that it has been practically admitted that if this concession is made and the Amendment added to the Bill it would necessarily involve an addition to the present rate of 1d. per £1. That is a step to which I could not consent, and upon which I am obliged to take my stand, because the amount of money is as much as we would be justified in raising in the first instance. As the Bill stands some ten or eleven millions of money may be borrowed; and surely that is a sum which is as large as we are justified in throwing upon the rates for the purpose of what is avowedly and admittedly an experiment. The hon. Member says it would inflict a blow upon the boroughs. But I would do nothing to inflict a blow upon the boroughs; nothing could be further from my intention than that, and I repudiate very strongly such an interpretation of the Bill and say it would have
  718
  no effect whatever of that kind. The hon. Member below the Gangway talked of the difficulty in agricultural districts of applying local restrictions, all of which would be much better done by the authorities on the spot, and he also referred to the case of those boroughs which have lands which are managed by them already. My hon. Friend forgets that for all purposes, except the actual acquisition of land, there are provisions in the Bill already delegating such management to the Local Authorities. I should be quite prepared, after we are done with the consideration of that part of the question, to consider the extension of those powers of delegation; but in every other single respect, except the acquisition of land, I am bound to say I still adhere to the opinion that the powers of the boroughs are adequate and sufficient. The hon. Member pointed out that it might operate unfairly upon some particular boroughs, and asked, Why should a borough that does not want to buy small holdings of its own be compelled to undergo taxation for other localities which do desire to do so? But the argument goes a step further; it affects the whole Bill, and, if it were carried out to its logical conclusion, we should be able to do nothing whatever in this matter, because the further question to be asked is, Why should any individual be rated for the purposes of this Bill who has not got a small holding himself merely because other people have got small holdings? That is an argument which goes to the very root of the whole matter. For the reasons I have stated to the Committee, I think they will see that we have, in adopting the course we have taken, acted not without good reason. We have done it because we believe the Bill is far more likely to have a good effect, drawn as it is at present, than if we accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member. He talks about matters to which, perhaps, he may not have given so much attention as we have done, and I hope the Committee will support the Government in their Resolution.
  MR. ROWNTREE: I regret the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board

  719
  of Trade is not here to appeal to on this matter. I should be very reluctant to support any Amendment which would be calculated to retard the progress of this Bill, and I believe the acceptance of this Amendment would most distinctly promote the purposes which this Bill has in view. And this is no sentimental difficulty on the part of the towns. Even if it were a matter of strong sentiment, I think there is very much to be said for it. We should do all we can to promote a feeling of honest pride and interest in the self-government of the smaller communities of our country. This is a matter by which, if this Bill is passed into law, 260 self-Governing Bodies in England will be made liable to additional burdens under the County Authorities. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture says, "Why is this to be distinguished from making one individual liable for the burdens entailed on others?" Surely everybody will agree that there is a very wide distinction in this matter. We are continually told that we of the towns are very lavish in our expenditure and that our rates seem to be of very considerable amount. No doubt it is perfectly true that the rates of boroughs are large, and we are all of course compelled, by sanitary measures, by educational measures, and in other ways, to call largely upon our ratepayers. But is it quite a just answer to say that ratepayers who are at present subject to rates of something like 6s. in the £1 are to be made liable to a further burden of 1d. in the £1 in order to provide small holdings in agricultural districts which are rated at 1s., 2s., or 2s. 6d. in the £1, those districts being perhaps 30, 40, 50, or 60 miles away from the town? You are by this Bill inviting the County Authority to come into the municipal area to purchase land, to sell land, to build houses, and to lay down conditions for the building of those houses, and all that without necessarily implying any negotiations whatsoever, or any communication whatsoever with the Governing Body of that municipal area. I venture very respectfully to put to the Committee the considera-
  720
  tion that that position of things cannot possibly promote the easy and smooth working of this measure. Further than that, will the Committee consider how very many of our boroughs have very large districts of land within their municipal area? And I may confidently suggest that we are much more likely to give effect to the provisions of this Bill if power is entrusted to the boroughs than if it is handed over to the County Councils 40 or 50 miles away. I regret that the noble Lord who represents Colchester (Lord Brooke) is not present in the House, for he could have given us some information on this matter. But in the absence of the noble Lord, I would simply say that I have a letter from the Chief Magistrate of Colchester pointing out that they have 11,000 acres within their municipal area, and no less than 64 agricultural villages in the Municipality. I believe no gentleman who knows the facts will at all suggest that the Corporation of Colchester have in any way whatsoever been lacking in the attention which they ought to have given to the well-being of these agricultural villages, but that, on the contrary, they have done very much for the well-being of the people. Why should this House by this Bill say the Corporation of Colchester, with a rateable value of £150,000, is to be put to one side and told that the County Council is to see to the extent of the small holdings within their municipal area? That is a very strong attack upon the self-government which such boroughs prize so highly, and which has answered its purpose so well. But there are other towns which have larger areas even than Colchester. Why should not these boroughs be able to put this Bill in force within their own areas for the benefit of their own people, and why should it be needful that some County electors within their borough should have to forward a petition to the County Council, asking them to send a roving Commission to ascertain the wants of the population under their own self-government, which has been working satisfactorily generation after generation? Take the case of the borough of Scarborough, which I have

  721
  the honour to represent. If it is thought desirable for our town to endeavour to increase its estate, to add small holdings to the allotments which we have already, or to make experiments for the disposal of our sewage or refuse, why should we, a borough with a rateable sum of £180,000 and 33,000 of a population, have to send an humble request to the County Council of the North Riding, 50 miles away, asking them if they will be so good as to come and look into the circumstances of our borough? I venture to think it is most undesirable that we should have to do so. I do trust that the Government will consider this matter further. We do not wish to raise the general question, but I would earnestly appeal to this Committee to do nothing to impede the working of this Bill in the areas of towns, but to enable us to work together for the object which I believe this Committee has in view.
  SIR. W. BARTTELOT: I can only say, if my right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill had allowed this question to pass, and said he would accept this Amendment, difficulties would have immediately arisen with regard to the various people who would have been left out in the cold if you had admitted the boroughs. My experience of boroughs is that they conduct their business exceedingly well, and in a manner that does them unqualified credit; but there are certain things which we are bound to do, although we may regret them. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has put forward a strong case with regard to Scarborough with its £180,000 of rateable value. But before that he passed rather a slighting remark upon we poor unfortunate agricultural people, who have to pay 3s. or 4s., or even more, in the £1, when we are not making one single farthing out of the land we hold. I am stating the absolute truth. If people would look into these balances and accounts and make a fair statement of what is the amount that is made upon the present prices of agricultural produce, I venture to say they would be astounded at the present position in which many are placed.
  722
  The local rates we are called upon to pay are enormous, and the difficulty we have in finding the money to meet them is exceedingly great. I objected most strongly when my right hon. Friend placed 1d. upon real property. I think that those who have personal property might be called upon to pay their full share with regard to this rate. We only show our heartiness in the cause which we desire to support, but we say this should be taken out of the Consolidated Fund and not put upon the rates. If you are to look at the boroughs, and those whose rateable values are excessively small—and they are very numerous—you should also look at some of those towns which are managed by other Local Bodies, and see how much higher their rateable values and how much larger their populations are. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon pointed out, you would never have them satisfied until they were taken out of that category and placed in the same position as county boroughs are placed in by the Bill, and as it is now sought by this Amendment to place all other boroughs in. There is another question. It has been said they have no representation. I would like to point out that the larger the town the greater the representation it has upon the County Council. And I will venture to say in any County Council the voices of the towns will be heard, as they have been heard during the last three years, more strongly than the voices of the county, and they will point out what it is they require, and those requirements will have the careful consideration of those who deal with the questions which are brought forward. I would only say, further, that I am delighted to find that my hon. Friend stands firm to his guns, because I am quite certain the most mischievous thing that could have been done would have been to give encouragement to this Motion. I venture to think that those boroughs which are below the mark must wait till they are above the mark; and when they are above the mark and become counties, they will receive the benefit of all those things which have been pointed out. If my right hon.

  723
  Friend should think it necessary to extend the delegation of powers to rural Local Authorities, I hope he will be careful, especially with regard to rating, as to how any power is delegated to any small authority.
  MR. R. T. REID: The position of the non-municipal boroughs is that they are kept within the purview of the County Council so that they may contribute to the rate. As the rate is limited there will not be sufficient money to provide for the wants of all places, and if there be a conflict between a rural borough, five or six miles in the country, and a thriving, prosperous town as to which shall have holdings provided, does anyone suppose the rural borough will have any chance at all? Practically, boroughs kept in the county for this purpose will have none of the benefit, but will have to pay their full share of the burden. The right hon. Gentleman says that for the purpose of this Bill we must tax many people for the benefit which only one will receive. I agree that is so, but I think he will hear more of that in the Debate, because some of us hold that it is wholly unwarrantable and unjustifiable, except on the condition that some equivalent is given to the others.
  MR. WYNDHAM: As the Representative of a populous but non-county borough, I listened eagerly to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, in the hope of being able to reconcile my constituents to his refusal of the object which they all desire. But my task will, I fear, prove a hard one. The non-county boroughs view with jealousy every fresh sphere of action from which they are excluded, and now that the question of small holdings is receiving the attention of Parliament they are anxious to manage their own affairs in that matter, and not to have the County Council placed above them in everything. My right hon. Friend has based his refusal solely on financial grounds; he says that the non-county boroughs will not have enough funds to do the work for themselves, while withdrawing them from the county would cripple the County Council. The distinction between county and non-county boroughs is purely arbi-
  724
  trary; it is based on population, and not on financial grounds, and the non-county boroughs will say, "How much more does the independence of the county boroughs limit the funds at the disposal of the Government for their scheme, as they have greater wealth, and can use it or not as they choose?" I do not know if my right hon. Friend sees his way to make any change in the direction of lowering the population limit, so as not to make the non-county boroughs which are able to deal with the question subservient to the County Council. If he would make a concession in that direction the Representatives of non-county boroughs would have an easier task before them. But if he should hold that any such step would cripple the financial basis of his scheme, I am so anxious for its success that I would accept his view in the matter in preference to my own.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: This matter has been argued mainly from the point of view of the large non-county boroughs, but there are many small boroughs of 3,000 or 4,000 inhabitants, which are packed with agricultural labourers, and what is their position? At present any one of these labourers can go to the County Council and ask for land, and the County Council may make inquiry with the view to putting the Bill in force, so benefiting the people it is intended to benefit. The Amendment proposes to take this class of people and say that they shall only benefit to the extent of the rating power of their own borough. That is putting the agricultural community outside the Act altogether. I hope, therefore, less importance will be given to the large non-county boroughs, which, after all, are not injured in any way, and that attention will be given to the wants of the labourers and others who are packed in these small boroughs. The hon. Member for Islington does not say a word about Local Board districts which have sometimes populations of 30,000 or 40,000. A similar Amendment was moved to the Allotment Bill of 1890 by the hon. Member for Finsbury, and great stress has been laid on the fact

  725
  that it was accepted by the President of the Local Government Board on that occasion. But it was accepted with great reluctance under the pressure of hon. Members who represented small boroughs. He knew it was damaging to the Bill. The hon. Member opposite said it acted very well; it acts very badly and inflicts a grievance on the labourers in these small boroughs in this way: where a Sanitary Authority will not put the Act in operation the labourers can appeal to the County Council, who will compel the Sanitary Authority; but in these small agricultural boroughs where the Local Authority has declined to put the Act in force the labourers have no remedy. I think that should be sufficient to sustain the right hon. Gentleman in his determination to keep the Bill as it is, and I heartily trust that in the interests of the labourers he will do so.
  MR. A. ACLAND: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman how the Bill is going to work if he does not accept some provision of this kind? The hon. Member for Islington is quite right when he says it raises important Local Government questions. The feeling of many of these boroughs and Local Board districts of 30,000 and 40,000 inhabitants as to the working of the Technical Education Act is a growing one. In the West Riding the money was given to the County Council for the purposes of the Act, and they keep it in their pocket and the boroughs have not been able to get it out. If in the West Riding the right hon. Gentleman withdraws boroughs of 30,000 and 40,000 and Local Board districts of 10,000 or 15,000 there would still be left sufficient agricultural areas equal to many in the South-west and centre of England. These boroughs and districts would then have a fair chance of saying whether they would rate themselves on behalf of the labourers. But if he leaves within the county a borough, like my own, of 40,000 and two Local Board districts of 10,000 each, none much interested in small holdings but all deeply interested in having no penny rate, he will not give the agricultural part of the West Riding a fair
  726
  chance of working the Bill at all. The right hon. Gentleman should consider from the point of view of the West Riding and Lancashire whether he will not withdraw some of these large boroughs.
  MR. M'LAREN: It seems to me that under the Bill as it stands the non-county boroughs and large Local Board districts will have to pay a very heavy share of the rates which are liable to be levied to make good deficiencies under the Act, and at the same time cannot hope to reap any benefit. I think they should have exemption. The case is not so strong for the Local Boards, as if they feel aggrieved they can take steps to become municipal boroughs, and I should be sorry to see the Bill complicated by leaving out Local Board districts over a certain population. Non-county boroughs will have to pay without getting any appreciable benefit, and I think that is a material injury which the Bill proposes to inflict upon them. The Corporation of the place I represent feels very strongly on the matter, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will consider the arguments which have been put before him.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: The tone of the Debate has rather disappointed some of us who desired to see the power of the County Councils extended. When the Local Government Bill was introduced it was proposed to exempt from the county only the large boroughs of 100,000 inhabitants, but the President of the Local Government Board had to give way to similar pressure to that being exercised now, and extend the exemption to 50,000. Since that time, whenever a measure has been brought before the House dealing with a question in any way affecting the powers of the County Councils, there has been an attempt to exempt municipal boroughs from the jurisdiction of the County Councils. That is altogether destructive of the principle on which the County Council Act rests. The desire was to relieve Parliament of such work as could be done by representative local assemblies; and it was hoped that the County Councils would be very much strengthened with that object. Now it is pro-

  727
  posed to exempt boroughs from the control of County Councils in relation to the provision of small holdings. Under these circumstances, do not let it be said that hon. Gentlemen opposite are the opponents of local self-government. The proposal comes from, and is supported by, many Members on this side, and arises entirely from the action of hon. Gentlemen representing small Municipalities. Many of these Municipalities control what are practically mere villages, while larger populations, represented by District Boards, would have to accept the control of the County Councils. If you exempt these Municipalities, you must exempt Local Board districts also, and so deprive the County Councils of a great deal of their power and usefulness; creating a patchwork system destructive of efficiency. I rose to point out that the proposal to exempt non-county boroughs is a retrograde step in Local Government. Our object should be to strengthen the County Councils and give them fuller power, and at the same time to create other Local Bodies, such as District Councils, and to revise the parish assembly, so that there can be co-operation between these bodies, the final control resting with the County Council—the greater representative body—in order that there may be uniformity and satisfactory financial arrangements, which would be fair to all parties. The proposal now before us is so retrograde that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept it.
  MR. AINSLIE: I rose to say very much what the hon. Gentleman just said. In the discussion on the Local Government Bill, the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Gully) desired to have his city among the county boroughs. At that time I rose—anxious for my large County of Lancaster—to protest against the frittering away of the county proper. If the principle sought by this Amendment were carried into effect, our counties would present a patchwork which I think would be almost unrecognisable by a schoolboy fresh from his maps. I think the Committee will do wrong if they accept this Amend-
  728
  ment, and I rise to protest in the name of my Division of the County of Lancaster, which has not got one of these boroughs in it.
  MR. MORTON: We have just listened to two Tory speeches, one from each side of the House, and I gather from the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Bolton) that he is in favour of centralisation and therefore opposed to Parish Councils. I happen to represent one of these non-county boroughs which is in favour of the proposal embodied in the Amendment, and it appears to me that the time has arrived when the Minister for Agriculture might give way on this matter, which is not a Party question. I think this is a matter which the non-county boroughs might be left to manage for themselves, because, as a rule, they manage their business very well. In my own city we have a bishop, a cathedral, and a river, and we manage these things very well, and I think we could also manage the business imposed by this Bill. I trust the President of the Board of Agriculture will not waste the time of the House any longer, but will give way now with good grace, for he will have to give way in the end.
  SIR W. FOSTER: I should like to suggest, as there is a large amount of feeling in favour of populous places being taken out and allowed to act by themselves, that some kind of compromise is desirable. I quite agree with the hon. Member for Bordesley that there are many small boroughs where agricultural labourers live which ought not to be excluded from the operations of the County Council, for in these places we consider that the County Council is the most suitable body to administer this Act. But in the larger places of 10,000, 15,000, or 20,000 inhabitants I think the Local Authorities might be safely left to act for themselves. If the right hon. Gentleman would put a limit of 20,000 or 25,000, though I would prefer it at 10,000, he would meet the views of many Members on both sides of the House.
  VISCOUNT GRIMSTON: I should like to point out that if the County Councils were pre-

  729
  vented from drawing some portion of the rate from these small boroughs they would not be prepared to place the population of these boroughs under the operation of this Bill. That would be a check on one of the first principles of the Bill, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will adhere to the Bill in its entirety.
  (4.56.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 174; Noes 210.—(Div. List, No. 69.)
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, after "is," to leave out "Act," in line 10, and to insert—
  "In any parish or parishes within such county, a demand for small holdings."
  The object of this Amendment and of another Amendment which stands in my name further down on the Paper is to enter a sort of qualified protest against the form in which the Bill is drawn, and which might lead County Councils to buy land in large blocks in some parts of the county with the view of an experiment being carried out there rather than to localise the experiment by making the small purchasers of land in a greater number of parishes or areas in the county. The two Amendments that stand in my name amount to this: that where a County Council is satisfied that there is a desire for small holdings in any specific parish or parishes in a county, that then the procedure of the Act will be set in motion in order to provide within such parish or within adjoining parishes, or at any rate within reach of those who locally require the lands, that their purchases should be directed to supply that local demand and local requirements; and that the County Councils should not by the form of the Bill be led to enter on an experiment in one or two parts of the county by buying a large block of land. I do not know that I should be justified in discussing an Amendment of this nature at any length; but I wish to move it in order to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman such a statement of his intention with regard to the distribution of the money in large areas as will indicate whether, if this particular Amendment cannot be accepted, he will himself deal
  730
  with the question which I wish to raise—namely, where there are local wants that these local wants shall, as far as possible, be supplied locally, and that the action of the County Councils shall be directed to the local provision of land rather than to one or more experiments of blocks of land. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 7, after the word "is," to leave out the words to "Act," in line 10, and to insert—
  "In any parish or parishes within such county, a demand for small holdings."—(Mr. Channing.)
  MR. CHAPLIN: The effect of the hon. Member's Amendment if adopted would be to limit the powers of the County Councils for the acquisition of land to the parish or parishes in which the persons who applied for it resided or to which they belonged. Well, I do not understand why we are to limit the powers of the County Councils in this direction. The County Councils, no doubt, will attend to local requirements, and it must be assumed that this is one of the main and chief objects of the Bill; and I think there is no reason to suppose that the County Councils will not perform their duty, so that there is no reason for excluding the power from the County Councils of taking land in other parts of the county. The Amendment proposed by the hon. Member is a distinct limitation of the power of obtaining small holdings for people who want them. We must assume that the County Councils are composed of men of business who thoroughly understand the work they have to do; and I cannot see anything more unsatisfactory or more prejudicial to the general scope of the Bill than to limit it in this direction. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not persevere with his Amendment.
  MR. CHANNING: I will not press the Amendment to a Division, or press it further. I beg to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse), in page 1, line 8, to leave

  731
  out "for the labouring population." I am able to say that if the Bill be confined to the labouring population a very worthy and deserving class of people would be shut out from its benefits by the retention of these words. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment to leave out "for the labouring population."
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 8, to leave out the words "for the labouring population."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. BARCLAY: The scope of the Bill is obviously limited by the idea that it is to be exceptionally advantageous to the agricultural labourers. I think the object of the Bill is to profit as much as possible every person in the community. In this view I think it unwise to limit the scope of the Bill. We should give the County Councils as free a hand as possible. To limit the Bill to the labouring population would, I think, be found to have a prejudicial effect. In the first place, I should like to know what is meant by the labouring population? Is the village blacksmith, the wheelwright, or small shopkeeper going to have any right to acquire this land? In my opinion, no disadvantage could arise from allowing these people to acquire holdings. I have a further Amendment very much on the same lines, and I shall deal with it if this one is not accepted. In the meantime, I think it would be wise of the Government to accept this Amendment.
  MR. H. T. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I hope the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment. It would be a great pity if any ambiguity in regard, to the labouring population should possibly go out, because in my opinion there are many persons, besides those who are distinctly agricultural labourers, who will benefit by this Act. If we leave out these words we may no doubt give an opportunity for undesirable persons probably to get possession of holdings, and even rich men may come in and get land which was not intended for them, but for the agricultural labourers
  732
  and other persons; but I think the Act will contain sufficient safeguards against that. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.
  MR. CHAPLIN: If we were to omit the words "for the labouring population" from this part of the Bill the effect of it would be this: that although there may be no demand whatever on the part of anyone belonging to what may be called the labouring population, the County Council would, nevertheless, still have to put the Act into operation. The only way in which the class of persons for whom these holdings are to be provided is limited at all is explained in the two last lines of the clause. The limitations upon the people who are to have these holdings are described in these words: They are to be resident in the county; they are to desire to buy; and they are themselves to cultivate the holding. Now, while we think it necessary to have this limitation, it is entirely wrong to suppose that the blacksmith, or the village carpenter, or the artisan, or anybody else would be excluded. Indeed, if that were the case I should be the first person to move their addition. I have no desire in the least that they should be excluded. On the contrary, I think that naturally and necessarily they must be included in the operation of the Bill. Not only is it the intention of the Bill, but I am quite sure it is the effect of the Bill.
  SIR H. JAMES: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to point out that, as the Bill stands, while the demand is to come from the labourers, the occupation is to be general. How are you to make the labourers make the demand for the blacksmith? And if the labourers do not make the demand the blacksmith will not get the land. I assure the Committee that is so. Why should we not say if the demand is to be general, then the applications should be general? You would then make the drafting of the Bill quite logical.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I always understood that this Bill was mainly intended for the benefit of the labouring

  733
  population, but that it was not meant to be applied exclusively to agricultural labourers. The right hon. Gentleman, I understand, practically admits that. Might I suggest that he should put in the words "and others" after "labouring population"? (Laughter.) The right hon. Gentleman laughs, but I may remind him that in the Glebe Lands Act the words "cottagers, labourers, and others," were inserted, thereby indicating that the Act should be applied to some others. I think the object of the Bill is for the benefit of the labouring classes in the main, yet I think that other classes, such as shopkeepers and others, have a perfect right to derive benefit from the Act.
  VISCOUNT GRIMSTON: This Bill, I think, obviously includes blacksmiths and others of that description; and the obvious object of the Bill is to put on the land such persons as are capable of using it being benefited by it. I think the Bill ought to contain the words as they now stand.
  MR. HALLEY STEWART: In the small towns and boroughs there is a large population of clerks, about whom no one has yet said a word. Take the law clerks, for instance. Why should not the law clerks in boroughs, and the clerks engaged in shops, and the shop assistants be included in this Bill? They are amongst the labouring population; and I venture to think that the curates in some instances might also be included as belonging to the labouring population. I hope all these limitations will be removed so as to provide for the inclusion of all these classes if it is thought necessary.
  MR. WHITBREAD: I think the intention of this measure is clearly that the agricultural labourer is to have the first chance. I will not go into the question of whether clerks or curates should have a share in the land; but I say that the labouring population have the first claim. It is to prevent them from floating into the towns that Parliament has embarked upon this sort of legislation; it is to meet their needs, and they have the first claim. I want to known what sort of a claim the labouring population are going to get out of
  734
  the money at the disposal of the right hon. Gentleman. I should like to know what the right hon. Gentleman is going to get out of his penny on the average valuation of the agricultural districts. It is the labourers who have the first charge, the most urgent claim, and therefore I desire to keep these words in the Bill. If you can satisfy their claim, and still have money to purchase land to give to other classes, I do not at all object to the Bill being changed in that sense; but I think the right hon. Gentleman should hold fast to these words.
  MR. STEPHENS: I hope the words "for the labouring population" which have been introduced into the Bill for the purpose of carrying out its main object, which is to retain the labouring population in the rural districts will be allowed to remain. My hope to-day is that we may be able to create a peasant class by lifting the labourers out of the terribly dependent position in which they are now situated. Hitherto they have had no resources, but if they had a small amount of land upon which they could fill up their time, it would be a source of benefit to them and a relief to the farmers who employ them. By devoting their spare time to the cultivation of their acre of land they would be able to get a considerable produce, but the moment they went beyond that limit and kept a horse they would be taking a hazardous step, for the cost of keeping a horse is equal to the whole income of the family of an agricultural labourer. Therefore I think it extremely important to retain the words "labouring population."
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: It is obvious that the words "labouring population" restrict the benefits of the Act to actual working-men. Now what actual working man has sufficient capital to enable him to pay one-fourth of the price of a small holding? There are very few such men in existence. The right hon. Gentleman announced, when he introduced the Bill, that it was intended to create small freeholders. But how are you to create small freeholders unless you extend the operation of the clause to those

  735
  who have the money to pay for the holding?
  MR. HALDANE: There are nearly three Parties in this House who would deal differently with this matter. There are those who would restrict the operation of the Bill and make it too fine; there are those who do not wish to restrict it at all; and there are also the Government who dc not wish to be judged by the Bill, and who have introduced words into it that are not wanted. I think the drafting of the measure would be considerably improved if the words in question were left out. The Government evidently do not mean to restrict the application of the Bill to the labouring class.
  MR. CHAPLIN: The matter is not one of vital importance, it is only one of detail. The words it is proposed to strike out would not exclude from the benefit of the Bill any class which hon. Government opposite would like to include. If I had had the slightest idea that they would have done so, I would either have accepted the Amendment, or I would myself have moved to omit them. The words are only intended to generally indicate the class for whom the Bill is intended, namely, the labouring population of the country. If there had been no demand for the Bill on the part of that population it would not have been brought in. The class intended to be benefited is mentioned in the 4th clause of the Bill, and I hope the words will be allowed to remain.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The right hon. Gentleman was rather severe on me this evening for presuming to question the accuracy with which the Bill has been drawn. We have got into a position, as the hon. Member for Haddington has observed, in which there are three parties in the House who attach different meanings to the words in question. The right hon. Gentleman asks us, in the interest of saving time, to pass them over although their precise meaning is not understood by the great portion of the Members of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has said that his intention is that no class should be ex-
  736
  cluded from the benefit of this Act. Why are these words to be introduced if they mean nothing? Judges will not look at the pious intentions of the Legislature; they will take the words which they find in the Bill. The County Council is to decide, first, whether there is a demand for small holdings for the labouring population. Now, if that means anything, it means that they are to decide whether the labouring population demand small holdings for themselves. The clause does not go on to indicate, as you would expect, that they shall enable the labourers to acquire them if they require them. It has been stated that it will enable everybody to acquire them. Now that is what we want. Then why leave the words in? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will re-consider this matter, and decide to leave them out for they have no meaning whatever.
  MR. ROBY: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to insert in the twelfth line of the clause the words "farm labourers and other persons," which I believe would cover the classes intended to be covered, and, would remove ambiguity.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I have not heard any answer given to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture can have weighed what that right hon. Member put so clearly. We all agree that the labourers should first and foremost benefit from the Bill, but others should not be excluded who desire to occupy land for cultivation.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I scarcely think it will be necessary to go to a Division in regard to a matter of such small importance. Either these words mean something or they mean nothing. If they mean nothing there can be no objection to striking them out; if they mean anything, then I strongly object to them, and I would request the right hon. Gentleman to leave them out. Of course this is a Bill for the benefit of the labouring population; it is also a Bill for multiplying small holdings, and

  737
  we are anxious that it should be a great social reform. Whether the small holder is a blacksmith, a small shopkeeper, or a labourer does not affect the matter in the slightest degree; therefore, I should exceedingly regret if anything were done, either intentionally or inadvertently which in the slightest degree would restrict the classes to whom small holdings should be given.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am very anxious to meet the views of the Committee in this matter. I will assent to the insertion of the words "and others," after to the labouring population," which have been suggested.
  MR. ASQUITH: It is well known to all persons who are connected with the legal profession, or who are engaged in Courts of Law, that there are no two words in the English language which have given more trouble to the Judges than the words and others." They may mean persons of the same class, or persons of a different class. If they mean persons of the same class they are utterly uncalled for. If they mean persons of a different class then a Judicial Body has to discover some class to which they might possibly apply. I trust the Government will re-consider the desirability of inserting words which might be appropriate enough in dealing with the Preamble of the Bill, but which otherwise must obscure its meaning and defeat the intentions of Parliament.
  MR. CHAPLIN: As the meaning of the words does not seem to be satisfactory to the Committee, and as I have never attached any importance to them, will assent to the Amendment as it stands on the Paper.
  (5.50.) Question put, and negatived.
  SIR W. FOSTER: I beg, Sir, to propose in page 1, line 10, to leave out the word "may" and to insert the word "shall," and I do so with the view of bringing this measure into closer harmony with the Allotments Act. The clause as it stands gives a double permissiveness. If the Council are of opinion, after deliberate inquiry, that it may be necessary, they may proceed to create these small holdings. I propose that the word "may" should be altered to the word "shall," which
  738
  is the word in the Allotments Acts. I believe the Bill would be improved by the alteration that I suggest.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 10, to leave out the word "may" and insert the word "shall."—(Sir W. Foster.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. CHAPLIN: This Amendment would involve the question of compulsory powers.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken. The substitution of "shall" for "may" does not at all involve the granting of the compulsory powers dealt with in a subsequent Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman said last night that "may" and "shall" are interchangeable terms involving the same meaning. We merely appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to carry out his own dictum. The word "shall" inserted here simply means that a county, as soon as they have decided that they are justified in putting the Act in force, shall go on to provide suitable land.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,: The real question is what construction would be put upon the word "shall." There are Acts in which "may" is read "shall." These are Acts in which a public duty is involved and some latitude given. If this word "shall" is here inserted, County Councils having only a limited power of purchasing a certain amouut of land must buy. If it does not involve the question of compulsion the word "may" is the proper word, because that will leave the matter to the discretion of the County Councils. This is not a case in which on a question of construction the word "may" would be read as "shall."
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I cannot think that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture is right in saying that this involves compulsion. The words immediately after the word "may" are, "subject to the provisions of this Act." If the words are voluntary and not compulsory, the word "shall" would not have a compulsory effect so far as the sale of land on the part of

  739
  the owner of land is concerned. If you leave the word "may" there, though the County Councils could by voluntary arrangement with the owner acquire land, yet they may not do so. There is nothing more absurd than the legal decisions of the Courts of Law as between the words "may" and "shall." The matter ought not to be left in a condition of ambiguity. It is said that this Amendment does not leave it open to the County Council to take land which it may acquire voluntarily. Therefore, I wish to clear up the idea that this involves compulsion.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I really think the ambiguity would be increased if the word "shall" was inserted. The section is to enable County Councils to acquire land "subiect to the provisions" of the Act. I admit that the word "shall" would not involve compulsion. All that is required to make the section read properly are enabling words, and the word "shall" would require to be followed by the words "if possible."
  MR. LLEWELLYN: The words as they stand are clear enough.
  SIR W. FOSTER: I should like to withdraw the Amendment in the interests of the progress of business.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR W. FOSTER: I shall now, Sir, move an Amendment, providing that the Council may acquire land either by voluntary agreement or compulsorily. If this experiment is not to be foredoomed to failure, we should take every step that is possible to insure that land is acquired under such conditions as will enable the Council to sell or let it to the agricultural population on easy terms. If the land is to be obtained at an advantageous price there must be compulsion. I do not want to harrass the landlord, for compulsory powers in the background would be seldom used. If compulsion is not in the Bill the land will not be obtainable at a fair price. The experience of the Allotments Act is not favourable and encouraging to the attempt to acquire land voluntarily. Small holdings must, moreover, be diffused throughout the country. They must not all be placed in one locality. Therefore, if you have
  740
  one landowner willing to sell to the extent of the financial powers of the county, others may not be so minded and the land will not be, as it ought to be, distributed all over the county. Again, landlords may refuse to sell and the Act may thus be rendered nugatory by the action of a few owners. Further, the expense attaching to proceeding under agreement as in the Allotments Act is great. As much as £90 an acre has been paid of the average. It is a prohibitive price that would bring about the failure of this Bill. The rates, moreover, must not be burdened by the purchase of a large quantity of unsuitable land, because in such a case as the purchase a large parcels of land from owners unwilling to sell suitable portions along much of the land would require to be sold at a considerable loss. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture said he was a convert on the question of the application of the principle of compulsion to allotments. I hope he will be a convert in connection with the Bill before us. The people in the country are agitating for the insertion of compulsory powers in this Bill believing that an Act with compulsory powers would do something to arrear the depopulation that is not going on in the rural district. Having attended Conferences in various parts of the country, I have been very much impressed by the earnestness with which a stand has been taken on behalf of the labouring population for compulsory powers to be put into the Bill. The teaching of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham and the hon. Member for Bordesley has taken deep root in the minds of the people in the rural districts, and I believe no legislation of this kind was give them what they want—access the land on easy and fair terms—unless that legislation contains the principle of compulsory purchase.
  Amendment proposed, in page line 10, after the word "may," insert the words "either by voluntary agreement or compulsorily."—(Sir W. Foster.)
  Question proposed, "That the words be there inserted."
  MR. BARCLAY: I do not believe it would be possible for any man to make a living with farming land bought by compulsory purchase. It is all very well to say the compulsory price is 10 per cent. over the fair price; but those who have acquired land by compulsory purchase will agree with me in saying that the increase in almost every case over the fair price is from 25 to 50 per cent. Hon. Members must recollect that it is desirable to have land in the neighbourhood of villages and towns, and valuators do take into account the possibility of such land becoming building land. The additional price due to compulsory purchase does not make so much difference to a labourer who is working on only a fourth or an eighth of an acre of land; but when you come to 20 or 50 acres, the excessive price due to compulsory purchase would more than swallow up any profit made upon the land. I do not think compulsion would have the same effect in the case of the sale of small holdings as in the case of allotments. For instance, the sale of land by allotment is rather a retail business which the landlord does not care to be troubled with unless he is compelled to do so. The success of this Bill depends entirely upon the landlords being as willing sellers as the County Council would be willing buyers. It is of essential importance to the success of this Bill that the land shall be bought cheap, and, in very many counties in England already, land can be bought at an extremely low figure. Within a few miles of London you can buy land for £10 an acre which would be suitable for these smallholdings. In such cases this Bill would have a beneficial effect, not only with respect to the labourers, but also with respect to every other person in the community. I do not think we would be doing any service to the agricultural labourers if we induced them to take land acquired under compulsory terms. I would impress upon Members of the House that the increase of the value of the land to the agricultural labourer depends more upon the climate and situation with reference to the market
  742
  than on considerations as to the quality of the soil. I cannot speak so much for England, but I know that in Scotland the holdings might be as large as 30, 40, or 60 acres. But if it is attempted to purchase such holdings upon compulsory terms, then it must be impracticable for the cultivators of those holdings to live upon them. Under the economic conditions now in force, the low prices of agricultural produce, and the steady increase of wages, it looks as if only the finest land in England will be worth an economic rent. I would certainly deprecate strongly the insertion of compulsory powers in this Bill.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I would ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to resist the demand for compulsion. I would remind the House that a Committee of the House reported that if you had compulsion you would be doing a great injury in many cases to landowners. But I think you would be doing a great injury to small farmers when any land is wanted. I do not think land which is now sold at £10 an acre will be land which the labourers will want. They know that the land is no good, for people cannot make anything out of it. What they want is the best land they can get, and it would be very hard upon the farmer that you should compulsorily take away the best portion of his farm, especially when that farm is near a village. I would remind the Committee that farmers themselves feel very strongly on the subject. This morning I attended a meeting of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and a resolution was unanimously passed against giving these compulsory powers. Although I am all in favour of small holdings, and hope and believe we shall be able to get them by the voluntary sale of land, I hope the Committee will not sacrifice the small farmers and small owners by taking away the best portion of their farms in order to make these small holdings.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I could not put the argument for compulsion in any words of my own which are half as good as the words the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) used at one of his Agricultural Congresses only the other day. The right hon. Gentleman, when he finds himself face to face with those agricultural labourers, is transformed into something so Radical and so Liberal that I have to take his words in preference to any I can use myself. I quote the words of the right hon. Gentleman from the report in the Birmingham Post. He said—
  "Of course, there were exceptional people who would be unreasonable, and it was to meet these exceptional cases that the principle of compulsion was inserted in those Acts" (the Allotments Acts).
  Now, then, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain to the House, if there are unreasonable people who render compulsion necessary under Allotments Acts, why will not there be unreasonable people who will ultimately oblige you to have compulsion in Small Holdings Acts? Where there are good landlords who are willing to provide allotments and small holdings it does not matter one bit whether you put compulsion in or not. It is to meet the case of the unreasonable people who you yourself admit do exist—who, if they offer to provide land at all, do it grudgingly and under necessity, and who take care sometimes that it shall be a mile from the village and population, often stony, bad, and utterly useless land for the purposes intended—it is to meet these cases that we propose compulsion. I tell you the Bill is useless without. I appeal to the landlords on the other side of the House. Compulsion will not hurt them; but if they want this Act to be a reality and a real benefit and blessing to the working classes and no mere sham, let it be applied universally all over the country, and for that purpose do give power to compel those unwilling and unreasonable men described by the Minister for Agriculture to do what reasonable and willing men do of their own accord. Another
  744
  argument in favour of compulsion is that you are not only concerned with the argument between good land and bad land—you want particular fields because of their particular position. The part of the whole Bill I am most interested in is the power given under Clause 3 (Sub-section 2) to County Councils to let five or ten acres of land to respectable labourers near to their homes, and almost everything depends upon the accessibility of the land. If you do not grant compulsory powers your Act will not be a universal Act, and there will be scores of parishes in England in which the County Council may be willing, and the labourers may be willing, and in which the land needs cultivation, but in which the land that is wanted and which is suitable and convenient will not be obtainable. Are you going to meet us with regard to these compulsory powers? We know the General Election is close at hand, and if you refuse we intend, to the best of our ability, to put before the labourers the fact that this reservation which you insist on inserting renders the Act useless, for practical purposes, to the men whom you are pretending to serve.
  MR. CHAPLIN: The hon. Member who has just sat down has quoted some words of mine which I used some time ago, and has asked me the question how it is, if people were to be coerced in respect to allotments—that coercion having been approved of by myself—that they are not to be coerced when it is a question of small holdings? The hon. Member, I am glad to find, appears to have paid great attention to the speeches which I have recently delivered. And if the hon. Member, who knows so well what I said at all these meetings, had not carefully refrained from stating to the House the explanations which I gave upon this very point upon each of the occasions when I addressed those meetings, I should have been saved the trouble of repeating them to the House upon the present occasion. Compulsion was included in the provisions of the Allotments Acts with my entire approval, though not with my sanction,

  745
  because I was not at that time a Member of the Government. But I cordially supported it because allotments were proved and ascertained to be for the public good, and of that I had not the shadow of a doubt for a moment. With regard to the provision of small holdings, I do not think there is any Member of the House at present who will be bold enough to say more than this: that they are an experiment, and that the Bill which is now upon the Table of the House contains proposals which must be regarded as an experiment, but which we all hope, and think there is reason to expect, may succeed. There is that complete difference between the two cases which, if there were nothing else to be said, would be, in my opinion, quite sufficient to justify the distinction in the action of the Government in the one case and also in the other. There is another reason in addition: that the power of compulsion at the present moment is absolutely unnecessary. I stated on the First Reading of the Bill, though the hon. Member appears altogether to have forgotten it, that the quantity of land in the market for sale at the present moment was something remarkable, and that the difficulty was rather on the part of the owners of land to find a market for their land than to induce them to sell it. I had some figures given to me only yesterday, coming from a single firm, dealing with this question. I have mislaid them at the present moment, but I recollect them sufficiently well to state them generally to the House. This is a firm who, during the last three years, sold some 67,000 acres of land in England alone out of 375,000 which they had at their disposal, but for which they were unable to find purchasers. If you take the number of eminent firms who have land at their disposal and multiply the number of acres which they succeed in selling, in the same proportion, you will find that there is in the market at the present time waiting for purchasers an amount of land which makes the idea of compulsion entirely unnecessary and even ridiculous. The hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) pointed out that close to London,
  746
  within 40 or 50 miles of the Metropolis, there were thousands of acres of land which could be sold and purchased at £10 per acre at the present moment. That is quite true; but, as far as I am acquainted with that land, it is not of a character which I should purchase myself. But the hon. Gentleman, who is a much better practical farmer than I am, and who knows a great deal more on the subject of the cultivation of the soil, said it was land that, so far as he was concerned, he would be very glad to buy. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment gave as one of his principal reasons for compulsion that he was anxious to see the land obtained at the cheapest possible price, by which I understood him to mean obtained at something less than a fair market price.
  SIR W. FOSTER: No, no!
  MR. CHAPLIN: Then what on earth is the object of compulsion when so many acres are waiting for purchase?
  SIR W. FOSTER: I mentioned that land at £90 an acre was too high, and that was the price paid by voluntary agreement. We want compulsion in the background, not for the purpose of using it but to prevent the advent of a new purchaser in the market having the usual result of raising the price.
  MR. CHAPLIN: That is to lower the price by the force of compulsion.
  SIR W. FOSTER: To prevent the rise.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Well; that appears to me to be just the same thing. I understand that it is the view of the hon. Member that the land ought to be cheap because it is required for a great national object. Granted that it is for a national object, should not the burden of this fall upon the nation and not upon a limited class of the nation, the owners of land? That is my view, and therein I differ from the hon. Gentleman in the view of compulsion. Compulsory measures, instead of bringing cheap land, so far as experience goes, means dear land. When the

  747
  St. Faith's case is given as an instance, the hon. Member says—"Do not be afraid of that; we will soon insert other clauses which will prevent all losses from compulsion in future." That is to say, he is going to take from landowners the protection given by Parliament which they at present enjoy—("No, no!")—wherever land is taken by compulsion by what may even be the arbitrary, unfair action of a Local Authority. There is another practical objection to the introduction of this. It is quite certain, whatever else happens, that the new holders when they embark in their career will have very considerable difficulties to face, many troubles to get over in regard to which they will be very glad to receive assistance from neighbours and friends, and with the application of the principle of compulsion there will be a certainty of a great deal of friction between classes on the land. It is certain that when an owner has land taken from him under compulsion he will feel considerably aggrieved, and I question very much if it will tend to encourage that assistance what is now given by farmers to their poorer neighbours. I know many instances of this, and one especial instance I recollect in relation to the small holdings in East Lincolnshire. Visiting the spot where I have property of my own, accompanied by an old tenant-farmer, I was struck with the manner in which he was looked up to by the small holders whose land adjoined his. Over and over again did he afford assistance at times of trouble and difficulty. When his horses were not at work he would lend a team to plough their land, and in many ways he rendered the greatest possible assistance to the occupiers of small holdings. The first effect of compulsion will be to destroy all this kind of good feeling among the various classes, and I believe, instead of advancing the success of this measure, it will do much to retard the prosperity of the small holders. I could, say much more on the subject, but I do not desire to do so now, for I think the Committee will be prepared to come to a decision on this question.
  MR. HALDANE: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken if he thinks this question of compulsion can be disposed of with so little discussion. This is one of the most important questions arising on the Bill. The question of whether we do or do not accept compulsion goes to the essence of the difference of parties on this subject. Let us see what is the argument the right hon. Gentleman has presented. First of all he comes forward as an advocate of this small holding measure, but as an advocate with little faith. He regards it as an experiment, and he has no great hopes of its success. We do not advocate this as an experiment merely. It may be difficult to develop a prosperous system of small holdings; it may take time, the plan may not work out at once, but we do look to this measure with a desire that in its framework it shall have an educating effect on the class of agricultural labourers that never yet has legislation had. It is not merely the possession of a small holding; we look to the possibility of raising the whole class of labourers, and because of the facilities this measure may offer for that purpose we lay much stress upon it. The right hon. Gentleman objects that the principle of compulsion will create friction among classes, but have we not had the principle applied for many years for public purposes? Legislation has sanctioned the compulsory acquisition of land by Railway Companies, and it is recognised that for public purposes it is not only desirable but natural that there should be this power of compulsory purchase. Then it is said that in the case of Railway Companies there is the protection of Parliament for landowners, and in the case of allotments there is the indirect protection of the Provisional Order system. Now, we do not propose to place all landowners at the mercy of a County Council or any other body. We propose compulsory purchase by a cheaper means. It is true that the Lands Clauses Act provides a machinery which is costly and clumsy, but which at the same time does afford protection to land-

  749
  owners. Nobody, so far as I am aware, has suggested that County Councils should have unlimited power to take the best part of an estate or the prettiest piece of a park; what is suggested is that there should be a power of compulsory purchase to be put in motion under the sanction of a competent authority, whether of Parliament, as in the case of a Railway Company, or in the case of small holdings under the sanction of the County Court Judge, who, with the aid of an Assessor, would be a suitable tribunal. At all events there is nothing in the point that we propose to place unlimited power with the County Council without check or protection. Then the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to another argument; he said we want land cheap, and that is desirable, but that sale under compulsion makes land dear. That is an argument put forward by the hon. Member for Forfar, and repeated on either side. I suppose there is something in it. But I am utterly unable to understand why, because you have compulsory power, you should pay more for land; surely you can take it by voluntary agreement if voluntary agreement gets it more cheaply than compulsion. Though the compulsory clause be introduced in the Bill it will not be the exclusive method; it will be only an alternative method, and I believe in 99 cases out of 100 in the future the compulsory clause would not be resorted to. But our experience of the St. Faith's case and others with which we are painfully familiar shows us how desirable it is in the interest of the working of the Bill that a compulsory clause should be included. With such a clause landlords will be more willing to treat, and in the natural course of things a great deal of land near villages and small towns will be made available for holdings. There is a great deal of such land in the country not wanted for building purposes and which never will be used for building, and yet under the name of accommodation land it is only sold to small cultivators at an unreasonable rate. It is just there should be this power of compulsory purchase at fair market value for the purpose of small holdings, and that County
  750
  Councils should not be at the mercy of extortionate landowners.
  SIR F. MILNER: It seems to me that a certain number of hon. Gentlemen opposite regard the word "compulsion" with the same veneration as that with which a certain pious old lady looked on the blessed word "Mesopotamia." For my own part, I cannot see how it will be possible to insert compulsory clauses in this Bill without causing the greatest amount of friction, irritation, and injustice. Take such an instance as that of an owner of 100 acres of grass land attached to his house near a village. This land is his only means of subsistence; he keeps cows on the land and goes in for dairying, his wife making butter and cheese. Half-a-dozen village Ahabs cast longing eyes on the land, and, setting some patent Parish Council machinery in motion, compel the owner to sell the land for small holdings, and that man's means of livelihood and maintenance of his family is gone. It is obvious that in such cases the greatest amount of injustice may be inflicted. No one can be more anxious than I am, that this Bill should be a real Bill for the benefit of the agricultural classes, and I am certain that it will be found that owners of land will be quite ready to co-operate as they have done in relation to the Allotments Act. There is no need to introduce the friction and irritation compulsion must cause. I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture takes a firm attitude on the question, and I hope the majority against the proposal will be sufficiently large to knock on the head all idea of compulsion in reference to this Bill.
  (6.48.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Whitbread.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

  TAXES (REGULATION OF REMU- NERATION) BILL.—(No. 219.)

    SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate [31st March].
    DR. TANNER: I hope the attempt will not be made at such a time as this to rush a Bill of this kind through without explanation. The main business of the Sitting is concluded, and I must remonstrate against the Government taking advantage of an unexpected couple of minutes to smuggle a Bill through its Second Reading. Though I have read the Bill I cannot say I have given sufficient study to its provisions in which I know many Members take a keen interest.
    MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member objects the Debate stands over.
    A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. MAXWELL, Wigton): I may mention that the Bill has been the subject of consultation between Members of either side who are interested, and it has been agreed there need be no opposition at this stage.
    Debate further adjourned till Thursday.

  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolution [1st April] reported.
  SUPPLY—REPORT.
    CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1892–3.

      CLASS I.
      "That a sum, not exceeding £29,850, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1893, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces and Marlborough House."
      Resolution agreed to.

  MAGISTRATES IN POLICE BURGHS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 108.)

    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

    EAST INDIA (UNCOVENANTED SERVICE).
    Address for—
    "Return of Correspondence between the Secretary of State for India and the Government of India in relation to the Resolution of the Government of India of 4th December, 1891, regarding the Uncovenanted Service."—(Mr. King.)

    PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND) (EXPENDITURE, &c.).
    Return ordered—
    "Of the amount expended up to the 31st day of December 1891 on each work undertaken under the Act of 1883, 46 and 47 Vic. c. 26, for the building of Piers and Harbours; the amount of loans granted for each work; the amounts repaid out of each loan for same; the amount available out of that fund at that date; and if any work remains unfinished, the name of work, the amount of the original estimate; the amounts of grants, contributions, or loans made to provide for such estimate out of the £250,000; and the amounts since expended and still required to complete such work, and from what source it is intended to provide these latter amounts."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to,—Poor Law (Ireland) Amendment Bill, without any Amendment; Labourers (Ireland) Allotments Bill, with Amendments.
  MOTION.

    MINING EASEMENTS BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Atherley-Jones, Bill to provide for the establishment of Judicial Bents in respect of Mining Easements, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Atherley-Jones, Mr. Alfred Pease, Mr. John Wilson, Mr. Joicey, and Mr. Fenwick.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 260.]

  EVENING SITTING.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at five minutes after Nine o'clock.