Commons Sitting of 12 May 1892

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  MANCHESTER, SHEFFIELD AND LINCOLNSHIRE RAILWAY (EXTENSION TO LONDON, &c.) BILL (by Order.)
  CONSIDERATION.
  As amended, Considered.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I rise to move the insertion of the Clause which stands in my name on the Paper, and I do so at the instance of the London County Council. It is, however, desirable that I should correct a statement which I find is made in the papers issued to-day by the promoters of this Bill, in which they say that the Clause I am now moving is identical with that which was submitted in Committee on the Bill. That is an entire mistake. I should not think it respectful to the Committee to propose here a Clause which that Committee had examined and rejected, and I should hardly think it prudent, having regard to the object I have in view. This which I now submit is a materially modified proposal, so much so, in fact, that it may be said to be a new Clause; and I, therefore, ask Members of the Committee and the House generally to give an unbiased consideration to the proposal I put forward. I shall not labour the point that if the Public Health Act and the Housing Act are to be effectually administered in London we must have an ample supply of cheap trains for workmen, in order to make it practicable for those whose livelihood has to be earned in London to live in the suburbs; and to provide, in part at least, for those persons who are displaced by the clearance of insanitary areas. I may quote one sentence from a communication on this subject received from Mr. Beachcroft, the Chairman of the Housing Committee of the London County Council. Mr. Beachcroft is not a member of the Progressive Party, although he enjoys, as I am sure he deserves, the respect of all parties, and therefore I think that his authority

  679
  will be accepted even by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are most virulent assailants of the London County Council. Mr. Beachcroft writes—
  "While we are waiting for the Board of Trade, London is becoming more and more liable to insanitary conditions from overcrowding. Not only is the work of our Public Health Committee, but the action of Vestries is stopped by the fact that there is nowhere for the people, who are displaced, to go to."
  Mr. Beachcroft adds—
  "I am hopeless of doing anything unless enormously increased travelling facilities are offered immediately."
  I do not think I need add anything to insist on the importance of providing a cheap service of trains, nor do I think I need say anything upon what I think will be admitted—that there is at the present time a most deplorable deficiency in the supply. Moreover, it is admitted that this railway will run through a district in which cheap trains for workmen will be specially required. I do not know whether this will be conceded by the promoters of the Bill, but certainly it is one of the findings of the Select Committee, because they say the most ample accommodation for workmen's trains ought to be offered, but they add that the Act of 1883 is sufficient for this purpose and ought to be operative. Now, according to the Act of 1883, how does the matter stand? Prior to that year, and at that time, it had become a tolerably general practice on the part of this House to introduce into Railway Bills clauses providing that workmen's trains should be run at special rates, the usual rate being 1d. per passenger per journey; the distances travelled being six or eight miles, or even more. I need not trouble the House with cases, but I may mention that they were given in detail by Mr. Courtenay Boyle, of the Board of Trade, in reference to the Central London Railway Bill of last year. There is one case I may for a moment refer to—that of the Great Eastern Railway Company. This House placed the Great Eastern Company under very stringent terms with regard to the fares to be charged by workmen's trains; it provided that these trains should carry workmen between Liverpool Street and New Gross, Liverpool Street and Waltham-stow and Liverpool Street and
  680
  Edmonton at a penny per passenger for each journey, that is to say a penny for distances respectively of five, seven, and eight miles. I have no doubt the shareholders of the Great Eastern Company protested against that Clause as much as those interested in the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Company now protest against this Clause; but let the House notice that this very Company, which we placed under the severest conditions with regard to workmen's trains, have voluntarily gone beyond the statutory conditions we imposed, and to-day the Great Eastern is emphatically the workmen's Company—the one Company which above all others seems to regard the workmen as desirable customers. They make provision for them, and consult the needs of workmen to an extent and in a variety of ways which no other London company does. I submit, therefore, that the policy this House adopted in imposing these conditions has been amply justified in the case of the Great Eastern Company. But the promoters of this Bill say that although it would have been perfectly right before 1883 to move the insertion of such a Clause as this in a Railway Bill, the case is now altered by the passing of the Cheap Trains Act of that year. Now for a moment let me refer to the Report of the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes in 1885, because they have said something very pertinent to the argument on this point. They say—
  "Your Commissioners would here endorse the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1882 as to the conditions which should be imposed for the running of workmen's trains as opportunities may offer."
  Now what is the meaning of these words "as opportunities may offer"? Surely it is clear the meaning is that where a railway company comes to this House for new powers this House ought to seize the opportunity to place that company under terms similar to those which have been imposed upon the Great Eastern Company. So I may claim that I am, in moving this Clause, only following the course which was suggested by the Royal Commission of 1885, and this will be recognised as a good authority. Beyond this I can

  681
  claim in my support a precedent set by this House so recently as last year. I refer to the Central London Railway Act of 1891. In that Act it is provided that the Company shall run three trains daily each way morning and evening at fares not exceeding one penny for the journey, that is one penny for six miles. Now I notice that the promoters of this Bill in arguing against the Clause proposed in Committee upstairs said they would be placed in a very unfair position as compared with the Metropolitan Railway Company and the London and North-Western Company. But that was exactly the objection, or a very similar objection, raised by the promoters of the Central London Railway Bill last year. The counsel for the promoters put his case almost plaintively before the Committee. "You will be putting us," he said, "in a worse position than any other company, and what have we done to deserve it?" Well, the objection was not allowed to prevail in that case, and I see no reason why it should be permitted to prevail in this. Now, with regard to the adequacy of the Clause which the promoters say they have introduced to meet the equity of the case and the unfairness of this Clause, they say that whereas the Metropolitan Railway Company would be permitted to charge four-pence between Baker Street and Neasden, our proposal would only allow the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Company to charge twopence. The Clause in its amended form meets that objection because Neasden is beyond five miles from the London terminus and it would therefore be competent for the Company under this Clause to charge the same fare to Neasden which the Metropolitan Company are required by the Railway Commission to charge. Then it may be asked if we are allowing the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Company to charge the same fare in this case, what object will be gained by passing this Clause? A difference would arise so far as the intervening stations between Baker Street and Neasden are concerned. For instance, take the case of Willesden Green, where I am informed there is a considerable and growing working-class population. At present the return
  682
  fare between Willesden Green and Baker Street is threepence, and under this Clause the Company will not be able to charge more than twopence. I submit that threepence, having regard to the fares charged for the longer distances on other railways, is an unreasonable fare, and that twopence would be quite as much as the Railway Company ought to charge for the distance which is only about four miles. Then secondly this Clause would require that trains should be run up to a reasonable time, eight o'clock. As a matter of fact at present these trains fall considerably short of eight o'clock, and the Royal Commission in that Report to which I referred a moment ago say that at present—that is some years ago—considerable inconvenience is experienced by workmen who find themselves compelled to travel by trains carrying them to London at seven o'clock when their work only commences at eight o'clock. Thirdly, the Clause requires that the Company shall permit a passenger taking a workman's ticket to return by any third class train. I do not conceal from the House that I make this suggestion for the convenience of the workmen, but at the same time it seems to me it is equally desirable in the interest of the Company. How does the matter stand? Having brought the workman into London, the Company are bound by their contract to carry him back again; and I think it would be an advantage for the Company to carry back as many of these passengers as possible during the hours when traffic is slack, and when, as we know, trains are frequently run almost empty. I may mention that the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Company have actually adopted this enlightened policy. In the paper which has been issued by the promoters of the Bill, as well as in the arguments used before the Committee which rejected the original Clause, considerable stress is laid upon the recent decision of the Railway Commissioners in the Neasden case; but, for my own part, I think there is no particular reason to be proud of the proceedings connected with the Neasden case, because, as a matter of fact, the memorial on the subject was presented to the Board of

  683
  Trade so long ago as 1889, and three years have been required to secure the remedy.
  MR. AMBROSE: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The memorial was not presented until August last year. The memorial he is referring to was a memorial to the directors.
  *MR. PICKERSGILL; No one is better entitled to speak on the subject than the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I accept his correction. But, at all events, this case has been a matter agitated and recommended on many public occasions during a period of three years, and all this time was required, before there could be obtained what I consider a somewhat inadequate remedy. The Board of Trade disputes the duty which is laid upon the Department by the Cheap Trains Act of 1883, and the Commission of 1885 in that Report to which I have referred have some very pertinent and stringent observations with regard to the view of its duty which the Board of Trade has taken. They say that the Act mentions eight o'clock in the morning as the limit of the time for running workmen's trains, but that most of the trains were run before seven o'clock. It was contended that the powers under the Act should be exercised with great discretion, but the Commissioners go on to express their opinion that under the Act a bargain was struck between the nation and the railway companies, there being a remission of part of the passenger duty on the one part, and this provision of a certain number of workmen's trains on the other part. The Board of Trade, however, preferred not to look on this as a bargain, on the ground that the repeal of the passenger duty could be justified on public grounds, and the Board does not take the initiative in action for the protection of workmen's interests. But, as the Commissioners say, the opportunity was taken to give increased powers to the Board of Trade which it was intended should be from time to time exercised to put pressure on companies for the increase of this accommodation. The Commissioners found that the powers of the Board had not been extensively, if at all, exercised; that it was not the
  684
  custom of the Board to take the initiative; and they suggest that the Board of Trade should enter into communication with leading Trade Councils and other representative bodies of working men for the purpose of securing to the working classes the full benefit to which they are entitled, under the Act of 1883, as to hours of trains and in other respects. But I fear the Board of Trade is but a broken reed to rely upon. If the Board of Trade has acted on this suggestion, and has put itself in communication with the London Trade Councils, I am not myself aware of the fact. In these circumstances, I think I may claim the suggestion of the Commissioners as being in support of my proposal, and, at all events, it would be desirable to adopt a clause of this kind in order that this House might set up a kind of standard of fares for workmen's trains, and perhaps the Board of Trade would thereby be stimulated to bring other companies up to that standard. I submit I have made out a strong case in favour of the Clause, for, as I have said, I am following the suggestion of the Royal Commission of 1885, and I am able to claim in my support the precedent of the Central London Railway Act of last year set by this House itself. I beg, therefore, to move the new Clause of which I have given notice.
  New Clause—
  (Cheap trains for workmen.)
  "The Company shall and they are hereby required at all times after the opening of the Railway for public traffic to run cheap trains each way for artisans, mechanics, and other working people between the London terminus and all stations on the Railway within the distance of ten miles thereof. Such trains shall be run each way every morning in the week and every evening in the week (Sundays, Christmas Day, Good Friday, and Bank Holidays excepted.) Such up trains shall be timed to arrive at the London terminus at such times up to eight in the morning as the Company shall from time to time fix. The fares by such trains shall not exceed one penny as between the London terminus and any station within the distance of five miles, and shall not exceed two pence as between the London terminus and any station within a distance exceeding five miles up to ten miles, and the Company shall issue to passengers by such trains daily return tickets at double fares which tickets shall be available for return third class by any train. In case of any complaint made to the Board of Trade of the number of such trains or the hours appointed by the Company for the running of such trains

  685
  the said Board shall have power to fix and regulate the same from time to time. The liability of the Company under any claim to compensation for injury or otherwise in respect of each passenger travelling by such trains shall be limited to a sum not exceeding one hundred pounds,"—(Mr. Pickersgill,)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  SIR R. PAGET: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member through the various matters he has introduced to the attention of the House and details which, though they are of interest in themselves, raise principles which are outside the scope of the proposal we have now to decide upon. The question the House has before it is, Shall we put aside the Report of the Committee in one respect and adopt in its place a clause which is now, for the first time, brought to our notice, and the terms of which only appeared on the Paper yesterday? The hon. Member has laid great stress on this: that if the House will accept his recommendation, then we shall set up a standard of fairness for the rates for workmen's trains. He invites us upon his ex parte statement to deal with a matter involving figures and questions of finance, we being utterly unacquainted with the details of railway management and the expense of working a railway; that we should accept this proposal, and embody it in an Act as a standard for future railway legislation. Now, I venture to say that is asking the House to do more than it can reasonably be expected to undertake. May I put before the House the following argument? We, the Committee upstairs deliberately, having had witnesses before us examined and cross-examined, having had the whole case thoroughly argued out by able experts having ample acquaintance with details, came to a unanimous conclusion; and I am bound to say the materials furnished by the hon. Member do not enable the House to come to a judgment setting that unanimous opinion aside. The hon. Member has very fairly stated that his proposal now differs materially from the original recommendation of the London County Council, on whose behalf I understand he speaks.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Yes.
  SIR R. PAGET: It is so. The proposal does differ from the original excessive demand of the London County Council. He has omitted to mention that the first request of the Council was for the payment of £250,000 by the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Company on account of street improvements. Besides this, the request of the London County Council as it came before the Committee was of exactly twice the extent of that now put forward, or, in other words, the clause of the hon. Member will allow a charge of 100 per cent. more on these workmen's trains than the original demand did. But the point in question is, Are we now to accept this clause? I venture to think it is essentially a matter to decide upon details; it cannot be dealt with here; it can only be dealt with in the proper place; and when the Bill goes before the Committee of the House of Lords, there will be the opportunity to raise and decide this question. We could come to a decision here only on the most imperfect evidence. We cannot put the General Manager in the box and examine him as to the possibilities of railway management and finance; we are not a tribunal to deal with such matters of detail, which can be effectually dealt with by a small Committee with the advantages necessarily denied to us here. There is one reason, which I will put very shortly, why the proposal of the hon. Member even in its present modified form ought not to be accepted. The clause would lay down a certain fixed fare to be charged by the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Company. The line will communicate with London through Harrow, whence the distance is ten miles. There is another railway—the London and North Western Company—having connection with Harrow, with powers under the general law, whereas the hon. Member would place this new line under a special law, reducing the amount which it could earn from this traffic. Now, whether this is desirable or not, it is obvious that it would not be just towards this railway and the Metropolitan, which Company would, in some degree, also be affected,

  687
  that Company not having been heard in respect to the clause. The Company also take exception to the provision that workmen should return by any train. We had evidence from the managers that such an obligation would create such serious difficulties that they did not in all cases see how they could overcome them. This is just one of those matters of detail which can be threshed out before a Committee, but cannot in the House have the attention it deserves. One effect of this clause, also, would be to upset a decision the Railway Commission recently arrived at, a decision which dealt not only with a matter of principle, but with a particular part of the Metropolitan line, which practically will be amalgamated with this new line, or, at any rate, over which the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Company will exercise running powers. Further, the clause would introduce the anomaly of passengers travelling by the same train and class at different rates—the one travelling at the Metropolitan Company's rate, the other exercising the right this clause would give. In short, whichever way you look at it, the proposal is beset with difficulties, and I trust the House will not accept it. The Committee, having fully considered the matter, determined that it should be left to the operation of the general law, and here let me say that the general law is most simple in its application. Some of the evils of which the hon. Member has complained have no doubt arisen from the fact that the people aggrieved have not taken the trouble to use the opportunity given them or the means which the Statute has put in their power. A number of workmen have simply to meet in an informal way, draw up a formal memorial of the simplest character, present it, and the matter will be decided, the fares reduced, or the train accommodation increased. The operation of the Act is most simple. If the Act has not been effective that is because people have not resorted to it. The Committee, as I have said, fully and carefully considered this matter, and arrived at their judgment in no haste; they fully sympathised with the desire of the workmen to get the fullest benefit from the train service;
  688
  with all the advantage of ample evidence and able, argument they arrived at a unanimous opinion, and I hope and believe the House will support the decision the Committee came to, and will not accede to the proposal of the hon. Member.
  MR. LEVESON-GOWER: As a Member of the Committee, I express the hope that the House will concur in the view of the hon. Baronet who was Chairman. I confess that when Mr. Beachcroft first brought in the Clause proposed for adoption by the Committee, I personally felt inclined to view it with favour; and it was only when I saw that the Clause could not be introduced without causing great harm and injustice to the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Company and also to the Metropolitan District Railway Company that, as the Chairman has said, I agreed with my colleagues on the Committee that we could not possibly accept the Clause. I am sure the hon. Member who has moved this Clause will acquit me of any desire to thwart the London County Council in any reasonable action. When we consider the two instances the hon. Member has quoted as giving precedents for this Clause, I think we must allow that those cases are not on all fours with this. In the first place, as the hon. Member has said, the Great Eastern Company have voluntarily gone beyond the provisions in their Act requiring them to run certain workmen's trains at fixed rates, and they have done this to the great convenience of the working classes as well as to their own advantage. Surely if the Company find it to their advantage to adopt such a policy we may trust the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Company to find out that it will be to their advantage to provide workmen's trains in the same voluntary fashion. Besides this, the Census Returns show that the County of Essex is one of the most rapidly increasing in population of any in the United Kingdom. Take the Romford Division as an example—the division nearest London—the increase has been from 53,000 to 102,000. In spite of the slight decrease in the agricultural divisions, the whole county shows a considerable increase.

  689
  In the case of the Central London Company, to which the hon. Member referred, there is a grave distinction from this case. In the first place, the whole length of the Central London line is to be only six miles, whereas it is proposed under this Clause to extend the fares to ten miles. In the second place, the Central Company's line will at once run through a densely-populated district. I do not think I need dwell upon the objections to the Clause, and I hope the House will confirm the unanimous decision the Committee came to.
  MR. J. BLUNDELL MAPLE: I add the expression of my hope that the House will reject the Clause. For some time I have taken an interest in this question of workmen's trains, and the House will allow me to state that I have received a letter from the Metropolitan Railway Company signed by their General Manager, Colonel Bell, in the presence of their Chairman and the Chairman of the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Company to the following effect:—
  "On behalf of the Metropolitan Railway Company we will undertake as from the 1st proximo to adopt the following scale of fares for our workmen's trains, viz:—For distances of five miles and under, 2d.; for distances from five miles up to ten miles, 4d.; for distances from ten miles and up to 15 miles, 6d.; including the return journey in each case. Daily and weekly tickets on this basis."
  Now, this offers far better terms than the hon. Member proposes by his Clause, and it applies to the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Company, because by Clause 105 in the Bill it is provided that the Company shall in respect to workmen's trains between their London terminus and Neasden, including intermediate stations, be entitled to charge no fares higher than for the time being are chargeable and charged by the Metropolitan Railway by their workmen's trains between Baker Street and Neasden, and intermediate stations. So not only will workmen succeed in getting what is asked by the Clause from the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Company, but the rate of twopence, including the return fare for every five miles, will apply to distances up to 15 miles. I submit, therefore, the House need no
  690
  longer be occupied with the discussion of the proposed Clause.
  MR. HENEAGE: I think I shall best consult the convenience of the House by not entering upon details after the exhaustive analysis in the speech of the Chairman of the Committee, and after the Committee, upon the result of two days' examination, came to the decision that such a clause should not be introduced. I think it must be clear that it is utterly impossible to entertain the clause, considering that so very recently the rates at which workmen are to be carried on the Metropolitan line over which the Company will have to run, have been fixed by the Railway Commission. We have, then, the security of Clause 105 that the rates shall be identical, and we have the authoritative decision of the Railway Commission. Then, further, after the letter which the hon. Member for Camberwell (Mr. Maple) has just read, I do not think the House can possibly be justified in inserting the clause. The Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Company would not agree to the clause, and the arrangement just referred to will give better terms to those interested than the clause would give. Taking these matters into consideration, I do not think the House will be disposed to revise the decision of its Committee. After all, it must be remembered this is a question of finance; and it is utterly impossible for us here, even if we wished to do so, to form any opinion as to the ability of a Railway Company to carry at any given rate unless we have the evidence of managers and experts to guide us. Such evidence the Committee had, and then their decision was unanimous. If the London County Council are not satisfied with the proposal conveyed in the letter read by the hon. Member opposite, then the Council can raise the question again, and it can be fully and fairly discussed before the Committee of the other House. I think the House may now decide to support the finding of its Committee.
  MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: I think, probably, my hon. Friend (Mr. Pickersgill) may be satisfied, after hearing the letter read, that the promoters of the Bill are prepared

  691
  to concede something in the direction indicated by the clause.
  MR. BLUNDELL MAPLE: More.
  MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: I do not want to overstate the case; I only want to say that my hon. Friend is justified in the action he has taken. It is a considerable concession, and I do not suppose my hon. Friend will go to a Division. But there remains the question of running these trains up to eight o'clock. These trains run through a district rapidly growing, and already largely populated by people whose work commences not at six o'clock, but at eight o'clock in the morning. I refer to the Willesden Green district particularly. These men are employed in the large houses in the City and elsewhere; they are packers, porters, warehousemen, and so on, and I think it is only right that they should have the means of using these cheap trains at the time they are required.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I understand that the hon. Member (Mr. Pickersgill) has made some reference to the action or inaction of the Board of Trade. I think it may be of interest to state that the London County Council have made a most exhaustive and searching inquiry into the number of workmen's trains running to and from the different London termini, and matters relating thereto, and certain recommendations for improvements in these matters may be found in the Report. If I may say so, the inquiry does the Council great credit. The Report has been sent to me, and I have taken immediate steps to communicate with the railway companies; but before I express any final opinion I ought to hear what they have to say. I have no doubt that the result will be beneficial.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Although the proposal, which I understand is put forward with authority, will more than meet the demand in respect to fares, the views of the County Council are not met on the other points—the times of trains and the return journey. Having regard, however, to the concession, which I acknowledge is of a most substantial character, I beg leave to withdraw the Clause.
  Motion, and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill to be read the third time.

  STANDING COMMITTEE (LAW, &C.)
  Ordered, That the Standing Committee on Law, &c., have leave to print and circulate with the Votes the Minutes of their Proceedings and any amended Clauses of Bills committed to them.—(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
QUESTIONS.

  MACCLESFIELD SCHOOL BOARD.
  MR. BYRON REED: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the Macclesfield School Board, which possesses no day school of its own, now proposes to form central classes for the instruction of pupil teachers of voluntary schools, and to subsidise such classes from the rates; and whether the School Board has power to carry these proposals into effect?
  *THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): I am aware that the Macclesfield School Board have propounded some such scheme as that described by my hon. Friend, but the Department have no power to sanction it, and it will be for the local auditor to decide how far any application of public money to such an object is legal.

  JURORS IN COUNTY ANTRIM.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that at the Assizes recently held in Belfast 300 special jurors were summoned for the trial of two criminal cases, many of whom attended them at great inconvenience from distant parts of the county on 17th, 24th, 28th, 29th, and 30th March before being finally discharged; that upon the entire jury panel being challenged it transpired that the larger portion of those upon the jury lists for County Antrim are never called upon to serve on any jury; whether the Judge, Baron Palles, when holding that the jury were properly summoned, is correctly reported to have commented upon the state of

  693
  things in County Antrim, which, owing to the state of the law, he could not interfere with, and to have stated that the Clerk of the Crown had informed him that were all the jurors of the county to serve in rotation the list would not be exhausted for some 17 or 18 years; and whether the Government will introduce a Bill to amend the law under which such an anomaly exists in County Antrim, and thus relieve a small minority of the jurors in the county from having to perform the duties of the entire number?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): My attention has been called to the case referred to, both by the question and by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Antrim. The facts are substantially as stated. I shall be glad to consider whether it would be possible to amend the provisions of the Jury Act of 1871, so as to avoid what is in many cases undoubtedly a hardship.
  MR. SEXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the reason why Belfast, the second city in Ireland, has not jurisdiction of its own, while very small towns have distinct jurisdiction?
  MR. MADDEN: That, of course, is a separate question, which I shall be glad to consider; but the difficulty referred to arises from the practical effect of the 19th section of the Jury Act of 1871, which is at present in operation, and which does not necessitate the exhaustion of the entire list of jurors. The matter is a complicated one.

  GREENOCK PAROCHIAL BOARD.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the facts connected with the election of its Committee of Management by the Greenock Parochial Board on 17th March; whether it is true that, while the Board contains about 1,200 members, and 68 were present at the meeting, 1,547 mandates, purporting to be signed by members, were handed in in support of two competing lists of committee men; whether he is aware that, on a scrutiny, which extended over 21 sittings, and lasted to 25th April, 567 of the mandates were pronounced good
  694
  and 980 rejected, as being signed in duplicate, or by persons who were not members of the Board; whether he is aware that, after the scrutiny, the whole of the mandates were handed back to the persons who had tendered them as votes, on the ground that the Board had no right either to retain or destroy them; and whether the law of Scotland contains any provision for preventing voting frauds, through vote by mandate, being perpetrated or attempted with impunity?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,): My attention had not been called to the election of the Committee of Management of the Greenock Parochial Board on 17th March last; and I have no information as to the accuracy of the statements made in the question of the hon. Member. If he desires to obtain such information I shall be glad to get it for him; but I must point out to him that there is no reason to assume that any fraud was committed as suggested by the hon. Member, even although votes were rejected as stated in the question.
  DR. CAMERON: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that there are no means of stopping it?
  *SIR C. J. PEARSON: I said there was no reason to assume that any fraud was committed as suggested in the question, although votes were rejected as stated.
  DR. CAMERON: I shall repeat the question, and in the meantime might I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look into the question whether or not there were more votes tendered than there were members?

  MISS ROBINSON AND ARMY CHAPLAINS.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that for many years Miss Robinson has devoted herself to mission work in the Army at Portsmouth with much acceptance; if he will explain why Miss Robinson's meetings in barracks at Portsmouth have been forbidden at the request of the Chaplain, and her ladies have been refused permission to visit the hospital at Netley, and whether the Army

  695
  Chaplains are trying to stop the distribution of religious tracts in barracks; and whether he is aware that there exists at the present moment among many of the senior Chaplains great dissatisfaction with the conduct of the Chaplain General?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,): I am aware of the good work which Miss Robinson has carried on for many years at Portsmouth, and inquiries are being made with regard to the alleged interference with her meetings in barracks there. Soldiers of all denominations are treated at Netley Hospital, and the Chaplains of all denominations objected to the distribution of tracts by outside visitors on the ground that the peace and harmony now prevailing would be disturbed. The Secretary of State is not aware that there is among the Chaplains dissatisfaction with the conduct of the Chaplain General. On the contrary, the recent attacks upon him in certain newspapers have called forth spontaneous expressions of confidence in his administration from all classes of Chaplains employed under him.
  MR. MACNEILL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this Chaplain General, contrary to the Army Regulations, issued a circular to the Chaplains, in which it was stated that they must not look for any superannuation or any benefit unless they expressed their confidence in him?
  MR. BRODRICK: I am not aware of any such circular; but if the hon. Member submits a question, I will endeavour to answer it.

  THE NORTH SEA FISHERIES CONVENTION.
  MR. HENEAGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the French Government have given legislative effect to the North Sea Fisheries Convention, signed at the Hague on the 16th November, 1887, by the Representatives of all the European Maritime Powers; if not, what is the present position of other Maritime Powers in respect to grog boats sailing under the French flag in the North Sea;
  696
  and what steps, if any, have been taken to obtain the ratification of the Convention of the French Government?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): The French Government have not yet, I regret to say, seen their way to ratify the Convention. It has, however, been submitted to the Chamber; and it is hoped that in the interests of the fishermen of all the nationalities which take a part in the North Sea Fisheries, the Chamber may be able to assent to the unanimous conclusions of the Conference. Until the assent of the French Government is given, the Convention does not come into operation. The Netherlands Government, as the Government of the Power which convened the Conference, is charged with the duty of obtaining the ratification of the Convention, and I have no reason to suppose that it will not endeavour to obtain the ratification of the French Government, in order to put an end as soon as possible to the evils justly complained of and universally admitted to exist.

  DOCKYARD POLICE.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the members of the Dockyard Police, incorporated with the Metropolitan Police, living in Government quarters are entitled to their quarters free of charge without any deduction being made from their pay in respect of lodgings; and whether this applies to all the members of the Dockyard Police, or to which of them it is confined?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): The Metropolitan Police doing duty in dockyards are not entitled to their quarters free of charge; but a weekly deduction according to rank is made from the pay of those for whom quarters are provided. Certain members of the old Dockyard Police who were transferred to the Metropolitan Police in 1860 retained free quarters; but the last of these has now been reported to be unfit for further duty on medical grounds, and his papers have been submitted for pension.

  REMUNERATION OF MILITARY WARDERS.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Department if he can state what steps are being taken to place chief and other warders of Her Majesty's Military Prison Service on the same pay, allowances, and rates of pension as those in local prisons; and when any such change will be made?
  MR. BRODRICK: A scheme for assimilating the emoluments of warders in military prisons to those of warders in civil prisons is at present under consideration, and has been submitted to the Treasury.

  THE INEBRIATES ACTS COMMITTEE.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it will be competent for the Committee which he has appointed to inquire into the working of the Inebriates Acts to consider whether the penal enactments for drunkenness might not be extended, either as regards the amount of punishment for the "drunk and disorderly," or as regards the application of the law to proved cases of habitual drunkenness, even not necessarily in a public place; and, if not, whether he will extend the Reference to such Committee so as to include such considerations?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I do not think it is expedient to extend the order of Reference to the Committee to the first suggestion of my hon. Friend. I think the second suggestion will be within the province of the Committee. The order of Reference relates exclusively to the treatment of habitual drunkards.

  THE CALCULATION OF THE FEE GRANT.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the action of the Department in calculating the amount of the fee-grant on the average attendance of the whole year, and to the loss thereby incurred by certain
  698
  schools which have placed themselves under the provisions of the Elementary Education Act, 1891, before the close of their school year, but whose average attendance is largest towards the end of the year; whether the average attendance, as defined by the Act and the minutes in force at its commencement, is so limited, or is "for any period," and in this case, therefore, for the fraction of the school year during which these schools have been under the Act; whether, on the other hand, the average rate of fees permitted to be charged under Section 2, Sub-section (2), is directed to be calculated upon a whole school year, but, nevertheless, at the end of the first quarter, the Department has ruled the fee-income received to be in excess, and thus these schools have incurred a further loss, in consequence of the fee-grant being further reduced under Section 1, Sub-section (2); and whether the effect of this reduction will be to bring the fee-income of these schools below what it was before the passing of the Act?
  *SIR W. HART DYKE: Section 1 of the Act provides that the fee-grant shall be paid at the rate of 10s. a year for each child in average attendance, which is held to mean the average attendance for the school year irrespective of the date from which the school complied with the conditions of the Act, and the Department are advised that in framing regulations accordingly they acted on a correct interpretation of the Act. Upon the other point the case stands on a different footing, inasmuch as until a school year has been completed it is admitted that the Section provides no test for ascertaining with precision whether the conditions are being complied with, and the Department has therefore agreed to remit any deductions under this head, if at the end of the next school year it appears that the fees charged for the concluding months of the previous one were within the limits prescribed by the Act. I may also remind my noble Friend that the question involved in either point is of no permanent importance, as the whole difficulty is incidental to the fact that up to this date only fractional periods of a year have come under the operation of the Act.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: With regard to the calculation of the average attendance, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has consulted the law officers of the Crown as to whether his interpretation is a proper one; and if not will he do so in order to save the trouble and expense of litigation on the point?
  *SIR W. HART DYKE: We have not gone so far as to consult the law officers, but we have taken a legal opinion, in which I have perfect confidence. If necessary, I do not object to consult them.

  IRISH HOLDINGS.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the tenants of the Belville Estate, County Antrim, purchased their holdings from Lady Harberton at 17½ years' purchase in 1887, and that all applications were lodged with the Land Purchase Commissioners in 1889, and ruled as satisfactory both as to security and title, and yet the matter has not been completed; what is the cause of this delay; and when will the purchase date from?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,): The Land Commissioners report that the agreements for sales on the Estate referred to were lodged at dates ranging from October, 1889, to October, 1890. The advances were provisionally sanctioned at dates ranging from June, 1890, to April, 1891. Rulings on title were issued on 18th April, 1891. The Commissioners added that the cause of delay is that the solicitors for the vendor have not yet complied with the rulings of title or proceeded under the provision of Section 14 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887. No advance can be made until one or other of these courses has been taken.
  MR. MCCARTAN: Seeing the delay is not due to any default of the tenant, cannot the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the Land Commissioners to bring some pressure to bear?
  MR. PINKERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only two cases remain undecided under that decision, and yet that the bulk of
  700
  the tenants are prevented from purchasing, owing to the informality of these particular cases?
  MR. JACKSON: I am afraid I do not understand the point. As regards the delay, I have stated that it was on the part of the vendor's solicitors. I am not aware that we have any power to accelerate proceedings. I will suggest that one of two courses might be adopted—either by Section 14 of the Land Law Act, 1887, or by complying with the rulings of title.
  MR. MCCARTAN: Do I understand that if the landlord does not wish to carry out the sale, there are no means by which the Land Commissioners can make him do so?
  MR. JACKSON: That is a legal question.
  MR. PINKERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the tenants solicitor has been writing daily in order to get the sale effected, but that frivolous objections have been put forward by the Land Purchase Commissioners?
  MR. JACKSON: I did not say any delay had been caused by the tenants' solicitor; I said the vendor's solicitor.

  SUPPRESSION OF MEETINGS IN CORK.
  MR. SEXTON (for Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN,): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the police were upon last Sunday week, for the second time, furnished with copies of proclamations to be used in suppressing any attempt of the hon. Member for North Cork to address his constituents at Ballyclough; and by what right the police swear informations as to the date and object of particular meetings, of which no public announcement is made, and use those informations for the purpose of exercising a general right of suppressing public meetings in a district?
  MR. JACKSON: The Police Authorities, having reason to believe that private arrangements were being made to hold a meeting on the 5th inst., with the same object as that connected with a meeting fixed for the previous Sunday and suppressed—namely, the denouncing and intimidation of certain

  701
  persons who had taken evicted farms—the responsible authorities forthwith took the necessary steps to prevent such illegal meeting being held.
  MR. SEXTON: I desire to know whether the Irish Government claim the right on information with regard to a particular meeting to prevent all meetings in that district whatever their object.
  MR. JACKSON: In regard to both meetings, the Authorities acted on information as to each. I think there can be no question about what was intended to be done, because I find the Cork Examiner, in the report of a meeting which had been held, reported that the chairman, in opening the proceedings, said he thought nothing could be of greater importance than the holding of that meeting, which was called for the purpose of denouncing land grabbing. He was speaking the truth in stating that notwithstanding the force on the ground they had successfully held their meeting. The importance of that meeting could not be gainsaid, inasmuch as one of the most glaring cases of land grabbing which had occurred for a period of ten years had taken place in their midst.
  MR. SEXTON: Do the Government upon a political speech assume the character of any political meeting summoned in the district?
  MR. JACKSON: No, Sir. I am speaking of the report of a speech which was delivered after the proceedings had taken place. The opinion they had as to the holding of the meeting was, I believe, correct; indeed, it was proved to be correct by the subsequent proceedings.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Is that the kind of evidence upon which the Government are prepared to interfere in Ireland with the right of public meeting?
  MR. JACKSON: I am not confined to that evidence. I had sworn evidence before the meeting took place.

  IRISH EVICTION RETURNS.
  MR. SEXTON (for Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will assent to a Return of all evicted farms in Ireland from July, 1886, showing how many were at
  702
  that time occupied by tenants other than the parties evicted, and how many have been since taken by such new tenants?
  MR. JACKSON: I find that applications for similar Returns have never been granted, and I do not feel able to assent to the Return.
  MR. SEXTON: As the General Election is near I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not consider the propriety of affording the public some means of judging whether coercionist government has not failed in its object?
  MR. JACKSON: I have no doubt the hon. Member and his friends will keep them carefully informed on the matter.

  FRANCIS KANE'S FAIR RENT APPLICATION.
  MR. PINKERTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland with reference to the fair rent application of Francis Kane in respect of a farm held under the Trustees of the Ballycastle Charities, whether his attention has been called to the decision of the County Antrim Sub-Commission, as published in the Ballymoney Free Press of the 7th April last; whether he is aware that the Sub-Commission avowedly dismissed the application, not on its merits, but on an allegation that the tenant had failed to point out the entire holding to the visiting Commissioners, and that the tenant denies that he had failed to do so, and notwithstanding, and without any notice to him or his solicitor to appear before the Commission, the application was dismissed on the ground of "the unreasonable conduct of the tenant"; whether he will give a copy of the Report so acted upon by the Commission, and also the name of the person who made it; and whether, even now, an opportunity will be given Mr. Kane of answering the charge which was acted upon behind his back, and which he declares to be groundless?
  MR. JACKSON: I am informed that the Chairman of the Sub-Commission in announcing his decision had before him, as he then stated, the personal representation of his colleagues who had inspected the holding that the

  703
  tenant had abstained from showing the entire holding. It is open to the tenant to appeal against the decision, which I understand as a matter of fact he has entered.

  REVENUE OFFICERS AND AGRICULTURAL RETURNS.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to a letter in the Daily News of the 12th April, signed "A Revenue Officer," regarding the collection of Agricultural Returns without remuneration by Revenue officers, and stating that many competent and zealous Revenue officers have been punished or dismissed for failing in this duty; and whether he will cause such inquiry to be made into the means of collection of such statistics, or suspend the collection of these Returns by Revenue officers until provision can be made by Parliament enabling the police and overseers, as being the best qualified agents, to perform the duty efficiently?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,) (who replied): In reply to the hon. Member, I may refer him to my answer of 26th February to the hon. Member for North Roscommon. When special remuneration for the collection of these statistics ceased, a new and improved scale of salary was introduced, which was considered sufficient to cover this duty as well as all other duties demanded from Revenue officers. As regards the last part of the hon. Member's question, I would refer him to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture on 25th February.
  MR. CONYBEARE: In view of the great dissatisfaction this question is causing both to the farmers and to the Revenue officers, I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the officers have great difficulties placed in the way of collection of these Returns, because, when they step on the farmers' land, they are treated as trespassers? Being unable to obtain the Returns from the farmers, who are not compelled by law to fill up the
  704
  schedules, the officers have to fill up the Returns by guess-work. Therefore they are valueless.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I believe the President of the Board of Agriculture is, on the whole, satisfied with the preparation of these Returns. Of course, it is a question whether it would not be desirable to make the return compulsory. The matter is one of some difficulty, however.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I am not satisfied with the matter, although the right hon. Gentleman appears to be. I wish to ask whether he would have any objection to this collection being transferred to the Department of the Minister for Agriculture. As the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) is not in his place, I give notice that I will put a similar question to him when he is here.

  DR. KENNY'S SALARY.
  MR. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the letter of Dr. Redmond in the British Medical Journal of 2nd April last, on the action taken by the Local Government Board with reference to the increase of the salary of Dr. M. J. Kenny, Medical Officer, Lismore Union, of the Tullow District, on what grounds did the Local Government Board refuse to sanction the increase of £20 in Dr. Kenny's salary, which was recommended by the Dispensary Committee, after careful investigation, and unanimously approved by the Board of Guardians; whether the Guardians, for good reasons stated, requested the Local Government Board in vain to reconsider its decision; and whether, considering that it is the only district in the Union having two dispensaries, the great increase of work, and the fact that his predecessor was paid the increased salary voted by the Board of Guardians to Dr. Kenny, he will now cause the decision to be reconsidered?
  MR. JACKSON: I have seen the published letter referred to by the hon. Member. The grounds upon which the Local Government Board felt themselves unable to sanction the proposed increase of salary to the Medical Officer mentioned were stated in my

  705
  reply to a question put by the hon. Member for Waterford, W., on 5th inst. The Local Government Board have given every consideration to the matter, and it may be pointed out that of the four districts comprising the Union of Tullow, Dr. Kenny's district, is the smallest, both as regards area and population.
  DR. TANNER: Is it not a fact that the local Guardians, and everybody with opportunity for inquiry into the matter, view the case favourably? I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not request the Local Government Board to reconsider this question?
  MR. JACKSON: I have already stated that the Local Government Board have carefully considered this question.
  DR. TANNER: I will raise it on the Estimates—when they come.

  LARNE WORKHOUSE.
  MR. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to Colonel Spaight's Report on the state of Larne Workhouse, in which, among other complaints, he states that the cells for idiots were "awfully cold" during the winter, and were "most dangerous" to the patients, and also complained of the "scarcity of nurses," which was keenly felt in the infirmary; whether his attention has been called to a report in the Irish News of Thursday last of the proceedings at the last weekly meeting of the Larne Board of Guardians, wherein the Chairman is reported to have stated, regarding the last question asked on this subject, that the Clerk of the Union, in reply to the inquiry of the Local Government Board, had said "a whole lot and had given no answer at all," and moreover "that Dr. Rillen did certainly agree with the most of what Colonel Spaight complained of," and whether he will now state what were the complaints made by Colonel Spaight, and what steps have been taken to remedy the same?
  MR. JACKSON: The Local Government Inspector reported that the cells for the idiots in Larne Workhouse were wretchedly cold; but he did not describe them as "most dangerous."
  706
  He called attention to the infirmary nurse being left without sufficient assistance. The Clerk of the Union supplied the Board with all the information he was required to furnish. The Inspector also called attention to the absence of a bath in the hospital and to certain sanitary defects in the Workhouse. It is the case that the Medical Officer agreed generally with the Inspector. The Guardians have taken steps to obviate the insufficiency of assistance to the nurse and to remedy the other defects complained of, and the only question that now remains open is as regards the provision of a close range for the kitchen and the improvement of the quarters for the idiots. The Local Government Board have addressed the Guardians again on the latter point, and the letter was to have been before the Guardians yesterday.

  ULSTER FARMERS AND THE COMPULSORY SALE OF LAND.
  MR. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the report in the Northern Whig of 20th April last, of a meeting of Presbyterian farmers, presided over by Mr. Carr, J.P., at Killyleagh, County Down, on the previous day; and whether, considering that a resolution was unanimously adopted declaring it to be "absolutely necessary" to have a law passed to compel the landlords to sell to the tenants their holdings at a fair price, and having in view the strong feeling of discontent among the farmers of Ulster, he will now consider the desirability of introducing a Bill to amend the law relating to the sale of land in Ireland? I wish to supplement my question by this inquiry: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the secretary of this meeting declared himself to be a Unionist, and is reported to have said the Government must either pass a Compulsory Sale Bill for the farmers of Ulster or grant Home Rule? Which alternative is the Government prepared to take?
  MR. JACKSON: I think it must be obvious that the Government must form their own conclusions as to the necessity of passing a Compulsory Land Bill; and I am not aware of any intention

  707
  on the part of the Government to propose to Parliament a measure dealing with compulsory sale and purchase.

  ESTREATMENT OF RECOGNIZANCES AT RATHFURLAND.
  MR. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the report in the Newry Telegraph of the 2nd April last, of proceedings at Petty Sessions, Rathfurland, where it appears that two men, named Dubby Smith and Patrick McEvoy, had violated the conditions of their recognizances previously entered into; that Smith, who was bound himself in £10, and two sureties in £5 each, was merely fined in 10s., and his sureties in 5s. each, while McEvoy, who was bound in only £5, and two sureties of £2 10s. each, had his recognizances estreated, and the two sureties had to pay £2 10s. each; and whether he will explain why Smith, who had been bound over in the larger amounts, was treated so leniently, while McEvoy and his sureties were obliged to pay the full amount?
  MR. JACKSON: I am informed that the circumstances of the two cases referred to were wholly different. As regards Smith, he was convicted and fined 21s. for being drunk and disorderly during the period he was under bail. For this offence, in addition to the fine, his bail bonds were estreated to the amount stated in the question. McEvoy was committed for trial for assault and for using a knife, and admitted to bail. He absconded before the holding of the Petty Sessions, and his recognizances were accordingly estreated.

  THE ASSAULT ON LEMUEL HUGHES.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the Bench of Magistrates at the Rhyl Police Court last month in the case where two men were charged with grievously assaulting Lemuel Hughes, an old man of 70 years of age, by kicking him, after knocking him down, until he was completely dazed and almost rendered insensible, for which they were only ned 10s. each; whether he is aware
  708
  that there were twelve previous convictions against one of them, including a conviction for assaulting the police; while the other defendant had not yet paid the fine for a previous conviction; and whether he will consider the expediency of amending the law so that more severe punishments may in future be inflicted for assaults of this nature?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have received a report from the Magistrates' Clerk concerning this case, together with a copy of the evidence taken at the hearing. I gather from this information that the complainant by no means suffered to the extent mentioned in the question, and that he himself inflicted a violent blow on one of the defendants. The Magistrates inform me that before passing sentence they carefully considered the previous convictions, and that the convictions particularly referred to in this question took place nine years ago. The fine imposed on each prisoner was 10s. and 7s. 3d. costs, or, in default, 14 days' imprisonment, with hard labour. There appears to me to be no sufficient ground for interfering with the sentences in this case, nor for an amendment of the law as to punishment for assaults.

  ASSIMILATION OF UNION RETURNS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Clerk of the Union of Strabane last year published the removals in the Tyrone part of the Union and not in the East Donegal portion; and whether he will be willing to furnish a Return showing the Unions in Ireland in which the English practice as to registration of successive inhabitant occupiers is carried out?
  MR. JACKSON: I am informed that the practice is as stated. The Clerk of the Union in Donegal adopted the course stated, in consequence of an expression of opinion of the County Court Judge on the law relating to qualification by succession.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will take steps to see that a uniform practice is followed in all the Unions of Ireland?
  MR. JACKSON: I am not aware that I have any power to interfere.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman favour the assimilation of the practice in Ireland to that in England?
  MR. JACKSON: I understand it is rather a question of law and as such could have been easily decided.

  THE UNITED STATES AND NEWFOUNDLAND CONVENTION.
  MR. FRANCIS EVANS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs upon what day he will lay upon the Table the correspondence which has passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Newfoundland, respecting the proposed Convention recently agreed between the Governments of the United States and of Newfoundland?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this question. Papers will be laid as soon as the interests of the Public Service permit.
  MR. FRANCIS EVANS: Am I to understand that in a question so closely affecting the immediate welfare of the people of Newfoundland a more definite answer cannot be given by the Government?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: It would be contrary to precedent to present Papers while negotiations are in progress.
  MR. FRANCIS EVANS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have declined to assent to the Convention between the United States Government and the Government of Newfoundland?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The answer to the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. Her Majesty's Government have not been able to depart from the position which they have taken up that the negotiation of a Convention between the United States and Newfoundland must proceed pari, passu with the negotiation of an arrangement between Canada and the United States.
  MR. FRANCIS EVANS: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that the Government have declined to assent to the Convention?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: Yes, Sir, they have declined to assent on the ground I have stated.

  IRISH FISHERY HARBOUR LOANS.
  MR. MALLOCK: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the terms on which loans may be advanced for the purchase of land in Ireland under the Act of last Session, and to the terms on which it is proposed that loans may be advanced to County Councils under the Small Agricultural Holdings Bill now before Parliament, he will consider the advisability of modifying the Treasury Minute, dated 4th May, 1887, on Harbour Loans so that loans may be advanced to fishery harbours on more favourable terms than are authorised by that Minute?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: The rate at which loans can be advanced for various purposes by the State depends not only upon the rate at which the State can borrow, but on the security which can be afforded. Where there is experience that bad debts are incurred, it is necessary to fix the loans with some reference to the ultimate result to the State. The case of harbours, to which the Minute in question applied, shows generally that the rates at which money has been advanced have not been more than sufficient to insure the State against loss, even if it should ultimately be proved that they have been sufficient, which is extremely doubtful.
  MR. MALLOCK: Does that apply to loans advanced on collateral security?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: Taking all the loans together—and no loans have been advanced without some kind of security—it seems extremely doubtful whether it will not be necessary to write off something as bad debts.

  MANUFACTURE OF CORDITE.
  MR. BAUMANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any other patents of smokeless powder besides

  711
  cordite have been assigned to him as being the inventions of officers in the employ of the War Office; whether any other smokeless powder is being manufactured at any of the Government factories which, in the event of cordite not giving satisfaction, could be resorted to; on what grounds he decided that the cordite patent should no longer be secret; in what foreign countries Sir Frederick Abel and Professor Dewar have patented cordite; and whether any arrangement has been made by him with Sir Frederick Abel as to the profits of the foreign patents?
  MR. BRODRICK: Cordite is the only smokeless powder the patent for which has been assigned to the Secretary of State, and no other form of smokeless powder is in course of manufacture in the Government factories. It will be necessary to give trade firms licence to manufacture cordite under the patent, and it is not considered necessary to keep the specification any longer secret. It is not known at the War Office in what foreign countries the inventors have patented cordite, and no arrangement has been made with them as to the profits under foreign patents.

  THE EXPLOSIVES COMMITTEE.
  MR. BAUMANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War on what date the Explosives Committee was appointed; what were the terms of Reference to that Committee; and when it was dissolved?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Explosives Committee was appointed on 10th July, 1888, and was dissolved on 10th July, 1891. The Reference to the Committee was the consideration of questions relating to new explosive agents or to new applications of, or improvements in, explosive agents already known, if such questions were referred to the Committee by order of the Commander-in-Chief.

  THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON VACCINATION.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is his intention to propose legislation to give
  712
  effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Vaccination?
  THE PEESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I must ask the hon. Member to defer the question, as the Government has not had the opportunity of considering the Report of the Royal Commission.

  QUALIFICATIONS OF GUARDIANS AND VESTRYMEN.
  SIR W. PLOWDEN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, with reference to an interview reported in the Times of Wednesday, the 4th inst., which a deputation of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Unions Associations had with him, and to suggestions made by that deputation in regard to his assenting to the Second Reading of the Bills now down for consideration, dealing with the property qualification in the case of Guardians of the Poor and Vestrymen, whether he will on behalf of the Government consent to these Bills being read a second time together, and referred to a Select Committee?
  MR. RITCHIE: It is the case that a deputation urged me to assent to the Second Reading of the two Bills referred to, on the condition that they should go to a Select Committee. As to the rating qualification for Vestrymen, I do not think it can be maintained, looking to the fact that no similar qualification is required for either Town Councils or County Councils. At the same time, I think the matter is one which ought more properly to be dealt with in a District Councils Bill. The question of Guardians' qualification stands on a different footing. It cannot be considered as quite satisfactory that the amount should vary so much as it does in different Unions; and if the House consider it desirable, the Government would offer no opposition to the Bills being read a second time and referred to a Select Committee, on the understanding that they must not be held to assent to the principle of the abolition of the qualification for Guardians of the Poor, but merely that the present conditions of the qualification be inquired into.

  APPLICATION FOR A TELEGRAPH OFFICE AT CULDAFF.
  MR. MAGUIRE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether an application has been made to the Government for a telegraph office at Culdaff, County Donegal; whether the Electoral Divisions of Culdaff, Carthage, and Gleneely, in the Innishowen Union, are asked to give a guarantee to support the same; whether he is aware that the said application has been made without the knowledge or consent of the ratepayers of the said divisions, and that a memorial is being signed by the ratepayers against the giving of the said guarantee; and whether he will grant such application pending the ratepayers being afforded an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon the same at the next election for Poor Law Guardians?
  MR. JACKSON: Such an application was received from the Innishowen Board of Guardians, who are the Rural Sanitary Authority empowered to give guarantees for the cost of telegraph offices, and they resolved to guarantee the sum required by the Post Office for a telegraph station at Culdaff, Donegal. A draft agreement was sent to the Board accordingly. The Department has no official cognisance of the contributory Unions, and I have no right to question the competency of the Statutory Authority to conclude such an agreement.

  THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTORS OF IRISH FISHERIES.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask, the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of the delay in presenting the Report of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries for the year 1891, which, by the 112th section of 5 and 6 Vic, c. 106, is directed to be laid before each House of Parliament within three weeks after the commencement of the Session; and whether, since such a Return would be of manifest importance to the Select Committee on Salmon Fisheries, it will be given without further delay?
  MR. JACKSON: The Inspectors of Irish Fisheries state that the Report for the year 1891 is complete, and
  714
  directions have been given to the printers to furnish the copies for presentation to Parliament forthwith.
  DR. TANNER: What is the cause of the delay?
  MR. JACKSON: The reason is that they could not be got ready sooner.
  DR. TANNER: Is it not rather incompetence on the part of the authorities, or want of application on the part of the Chief Secretary?

  RATHVILLY TELEGRAPH STATION.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether a guarantee is invariably demanded from districts in which it is proposed to establish telegraph stations, and whether any guarantee was required for Kiltegan, County Wicklow; and, if not, why a guarantee is insisted upon for the proposed telegraph station at Rathvilly, County Carlow?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): I am sorry to say that a mistake was made in asking for a guarantee for the telegraph station at Rathvilly, and it will be established without guarantee.

  THE SHANNON FISHERMEN.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any reply has been given to the representations forwarded by the Shannon fishermen of Limerick to the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries many months ago, in which the fishermen complain of certain byelaws which they seek to have altered; and whether any investigation of the case will be made, or any public inquiry thereinto held?
  MR. JACKSON: The Inspectors of Fisheries have received a memorial from certain representative fishermen praying that a bye-law be made permitting the use of nets of greater length than is at present allowed in the River Shannon. The Inspectors propose to hold an inquiry into these matters as soon as practicable.

  REVISING BARRISTERS IN IRELAND.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will have any objection to grant a Return giving the names of the Revising Barristers appointed in 1891, the constituencies

  715
  in which their sittings were held, and the total number of days they were employed in the revision work?
  MR. JACKSON: There will be no objection on the part of the Government to grant the Return relating to Revising Barristers of the nature indicated should the hon. Member desire to move for it in the usual way.

  SALE OF LIQUORS TO CHILDREN.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to handbills issued by Mrs. E. Holterman, 54, Gold Street, Stepney, offering malt liquors for sale, and stating that "a present will be given to every child purchasing beer on Saturday, 7th May, 1892;" and whether such an offer is legal, or can be lawfully prohibited?
  MR. CONYBEARE: Before he answers that question, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question of which I have given him private notice? Is he aware of the extent to which the practice prevails amongst licensed victuallers both in London and in the provinces of enticing young children into their public-houses by giving them sweets and other bribes; and whether such practice is an infringement of the law; and, if so, will he instruct the police to take steps to bring the offenders to justice?
  MR. MATTHEWS: In answer to the first question my attention has been called to the matter, and although I am advised the offer is not illegal the Commissioner of Police has given directions for the matter to be brought to the attention of the Licensing Justices. My answer to the second question is that the Commissioner of Police is not aware that the practice prevails to any extent; but any case of the kind brought to his notice will be placed before the Licensing Authorities.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will give me the opportunity of proving cases, and also whether he can see his way to grant a Select Committee on the practice of the Act passed in 1886 dealing with this matter? I shall be prepared to supply ample evidence of the existence of the state of things to which I have referred.
  MR. MATTHEWS: If the hon. Member will forward any evidence he has to the Commissioner of Police he will act upon it.
  MR. CONYBEARE: It is impossible to obtain evidence in every case; but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be possible, considering the evidence we have, to instruct the police to open their eyes to this—I was going to say villany—but I will say this practice, and to prevent anything of the kind being done? They have the entrée to the public-houses.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  RE-DIRECTION OF LETTERS.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the Treasury Warrant has yet been issued authorising the re-direction of letters without extra charge; and whether it extends to Members of this House the right of posting from the Vote Office Parliamentary Papers as well as Bills?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I hope that the Warrant will be issued shortly. No charge is made to Members of Parliament for despatching Parliamentary Papers from the Vote or Sale Office of this House.

  RECEIVING OFFICES FOR LETTERS ON SUNDAYS.
  MR. COX: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, although in Dublin there are several receiving offices for the postage of letters for the English mail on Sunday, letters for Ireland posted in London after the evening collection on Saturday do not reach any of the provincial towns in time for delivery before Tuesday morning; and whether, considering the very great inconvenience caused thereby, and the little extra cost of having a receiving office in connection with the telegraph office at Charing Cross, he will consider the desirability of establishing one there?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Since the hon. Member put his question I have made inquiry, and as I find that a certain number of persons are necessarily employed on Sunday at the West Strand Post Office, and that letters could be received there for evening despatch as well as at the General Post Office without increasing the staff employed,

  717
  I have given directions that this shall be done, and it will take effect on Sunday next. I may mention that each letter to be forwarded in this way must bear an extra stamp of ½d. for inland letters, and 1d. for continental letters.

  THE REMOVAL OF CONSTABLES.
  MR. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the Constabulary investigation recently held at Dromara, County Down, whether he is aware that the immediate removal to another district of constables, against whom charges have been preferred, is always considered a punishment; and whether he now knows of the strong feeling in the district against the continuance of Sergeant Downey in charge of the station there; and, if so, whether he will call the attention of the Inspector General to the matter?
  MR. JACKSON: The Constabulary Authorities report that the removal to any district of constables is not regarded as a punishment, and I am not aware that there is any strong feeling in the locality against the sergeant referred to.

  THE COLLOONEY AND CLAREMORRIS LINE.
  MR. COLLERY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any final arrangement has been come to between the Treasury and the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company for the completion of the Collooney and Claremorris Line; if any hitch, as reported, has arisen in the matter; and whether, in the event of the Waterford and Limerick Company not proceeding with the work, the Government have in view any further arrangement by which the line may be completed?
  MR. JACKSON: I cannot say that there is any hitch at present, but I should say that the negotiations are not concluded.

  WALTON-ON-THAMES SCHOOL BOARD.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware of the terms upon which the
  718
  School Board of Walton-on-Thames is allowed to carry on the work of education at Hersham School; whether he is aware that by the terms of the lease the School Board is not permitted to have possession of the school premises till 10 a.m.; and whether, in the interests of education, he will use such influence as he may possess, with a view of obtaining for the School Board a revision of the terms of the lease in question?
  *SIR W. HART DYKE: The Walton, School Board holds the Hersham School under an ordinary agreement which I am not aware is productive of friction or liable to act prejudicially to edueation. Indeed, no difficulty arose until the present Board came into existence, and I am not prepared to suggest a revision of the terms of the transfer.
  MR. SUMMERS: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it a perfect arrangement?
  *SIR W. HART DYKE: It is one that works well in a great number of cases.

  THE CONVICTION OF MR. LEWIS LYONS.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a letter signed "H. Whorlow" in the Daily News of the 10th instant, relating to the trial and sentence by the Recorder of London to six months' imprisonment of Mr. Lewis Lyons for a libel published in the Yiddish language on Mr. Charles Tarling, from which it appears that Mr. Lyons, who on account of poverty employed no solicitor, only discovered when it was too late that certain forms of law were essential in order that he might, as he intended, prove justification, and was not allowed to call any witnesses, on the ground that no notice had been given of his intention to plead justification; and whether, under all the circumstances, he will inquire into the case with a view to a mitigation of the sentence?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I shall be glad if the hon. Member will be good enough to postpone this question for a few days.

  PETROLEUM STEAMERS IN THE SUEZ CANAL.
  MR. RANDELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Suez Canal Company have sanctioned Provisional Regulations which propose to permit the passage of tank steamers laden with bulk petroleum through the Suez Canal on and after the 1st July next; whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that in the opinion of the eminent petroleum experts, Sir Frederick Abel and Mr. Boverton Redwood, such proposed traffic will be fraught with danger to life and property on the Canal; and, if so, what steps, if any, do the Government propose to take to prevent such threatened danger; and will he lay a copy of such Provisional Regulations, and of the whole of the correspondence which has taken place relating to this passage of petroleum in bulk through the Suez Canal upon the Table of the House?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The Suez Canal Company have sanctioned Provisional Regulations for the passage of petroleum tank ships on and after the 1st July next. A copy of the Report of Sir Frederick Abel and Mr. Boverton Redwood has only been received to-day, and will be forwarded to the British Directors of the Suez Canal Company. Her Majesty's Government have no power to interfere with the Company in regard to the regulation of the traffic passing through the Canal so long as the Company complies with the provision of its Charter—that the flags of all nations shall receive equal treatment. There is no objection to lay the Papers asked for, but I desire to point out that the Regulations referred to appeared in the Board of Trade Journal for February, and the correspondence with the Shipping Associations, Chambers of Commerce, and others, has already been made public.

  STAMPING OF BILLS OF EXCHANGE.
  MR. HOZIER: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now, with reference to his answer of 3rd May, 1888, see his way to make arrangements for the stamping of Bills of Exchange, &c., in Glasgow?
  MR. GOSCHEN: In the answer to which the hon. Member refers, I suggested that the facilities recently granted to Liverpool might be extended to Glasgow, and this extension has been practically carried out. These facilities do not, however, include the stamping of Bills of Exchange. Such bills can only be actually stamped at the four great centres—London, Edinburgh, Dublin and Manchester; but a good stock of forms already stamped is always kept at Glasgow on sale. This is enough, I think, for all practical purposes, and I fear I cannot see my way to granting facilities to Glasgow which are possessed by no other town in the Kingdom except the four mentioned.

  H.M.S. "SULTAN."
  MR. CAREW(for Mr. JOHN REDMOND,): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what was the original cost, exclusive of armament, of H.M.S. Sultan; the sum paid on account of salvage services to that vessel up to her arrival in Portsmouth Harbour; and the probable cost of again placing the vessel in condition as an effective part of the Navy?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. FORWOOD,): The original cost of the Sultan, exclusive of armament, was £374,777. The sum paid on account of salvage services amounted to £55,260. The cost of repair of the damage sustained by the accident cannot be separated from the expenditure that may be incurred in fitting modern engines and boilers, and the estimates for this work have not yet been completed.

  GEOLOGICAL SURVEYS IN WALES AND IRELAND.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what period of time has elapsed since the last geological survey of North Wales and the County of Wicklow; was the last or any survey ever made with the view of ascertaining the probabilities of the gold-mining industry being carried on profitably, or were the surveys merely formal and general surveys; have any reports ever been obtained

  721
  by the Woods and Forests Office from any practical geologist or experts respecting such industry; and, if so, who made such reports: and when were such reports obtained, and have they been printed, and are copies available for the use of miners?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The geological survey is under the Science and Art Department, and questions with regard to it should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council. Numerous reports on the subject of the gold-mining industry in North Wales were made to the Commissioners of Woods by the late Sir Warington Smyth at various times. The Commissioners of Woods have also had before them published papers and reports by various experts, with which the hon. Member is, no doubt, acquainted. I may mention publications by Professor Ramsay in 1854, by Professor Ansted in 1858, and by Mr. Robert Hunt in 1866, and several papers of the late Mr. T. A. Readwin. Some of the information in the possession of the Commissioners of Woods with regard to gold mining in Wales and Ireland will be found in the Appendix to the Third Report of the Royal Commission on Mining Royalties.

  PROFESSOR LOFFLER'S SYSTEM OF DESTROYING MICE.
  MR. THORBURN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if his attention had been directed to the following paragraph, which recently appeared in the papers, relative to the operations of Professor Loffler to destroy mice, or voles, in Greece—namely,
  "Professor Loffler's method of counteracting the plague of field mice in Thessaly by means of a contagious virus promises to be completely successful, and the farmers who were threatened with ruin are loud in their gratitude;"
  and whether, in the inquiry promised by the Department into the mice plague in Scotland, he would give instructions to include in the inquiry Professor Loffler's system, with a view to its adoption, if found to be efficacious?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): Yes, Sir, my attention has been directed to the paragraph
  722
  in question, and I am in communication with the Foreign Office with a view to obtain any further information on the subject which may be available.

  ESTABLISHMENT OF A DISTRICT REGISTRY IN BELFAST.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he can now state what steps have been taken to establish a district registry in Belfast for the issue of writs of summons there?
  MR. MADDEN: No steps have been taken for this purpose. The Lord Chancellor has not been made aware of any great desire in regard to this matter on the part of the public or the local practitioners in Belfast.

  SUPERANNUATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to show the cases to which the Superannuation Acts Amendment (No. 2) Bill would apply, he will lay upon the Table a Memorandum showing the estimated number of persons in each of the various branches of the Civil Services who will be affected by the Bill, and the estimated financial burden arising in consequence? I also beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to how many of the seventy persons whose names are given in Return, No. 107, Session 1892, as holding the post of Resident Magistrates (Ireland), is the Superannuation Acts Amendment (No. 2) Bill expected to apply; what would be the consequent increase of financial burden on the public; and what is the reason for thus augmenting the emolument attached to the office of Resident Magistrate in Ireland?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The hon. Member for Rushcliffe has two questions upon the Paper, one addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the other to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Both questions relate to a Bill about which there was some controversy the other night. The hon.

  723
  Member asks if we will lay upon the Table a Memorandum showing the estimated number of persons in each of the various branches of the Civil Services who would be affected by the Bill, and the estimated financial burden arising in consequence. Both the Secretary to the Treasury and myself have been endeavouring to ascertain from the various Departments concerned what will be the number of persons affected by the Bill; but I do not think it will be possible to lay the Return asked for on the Table for this reason. One of the Departments to which the Bill will apply is the Post Office, in which there are no fewer than 10,000 officials. It would be necessary, in such a case as this, to trace the public career of each of those officers before the Government could make out whether or not they had previously served in another branch of the Public Service; and whether the service in the other branch made it necessary to pass this Bill, in order to give them continuous service. I think the hon. Member will see that it is not therefore possible to give the particulars asked for. But some kind of estimate can be made of the number of persons in the superior branches of the Civil Service who will be affected by this Bill, and my information is that it is in the highest degree improbable the number will exceed 50, in all probability it will be less than that. I have consulted the best authorities in the Treasury as to the amount of financial burden, and I am sure that there is no probability—I had almost said possibility—of the sum exceeding £2,000 in any one year. This is, as far as the officials—those most conversant with the question of valuation—can judge. I may say that I have made special inquiries with regard to the number of Resident Magistrates in Ireland who will be affected by the Bill. The Bill only applies to those Resident Magistrates who have previous continuous service in the Constabulary, and it does not apply to any Resident Magistrate who has previously served in India or abroad, because in those cases the service is not continuous. The number of Resident Magistrates now in the service of the Irish Government who have continuous service as Resident
  724
  Magistrates, with previous service in the Constabulary, is 22, and in many of these cases the change only means a few years' additional service. I have not made out what the financial burden on the public of this particular class of officials will be, but the burden will be slight, and there will be no difficulty in giving it if the House or the hon. Member desires it. In the last paragraph of the second question, the hon. Member asks, "What is the reason for thus augmenting the emolument attached to the office of Resident Magistrate in Ireland?" I should like to point out to the hon. Member that this Bill is not intended to increase the emoluments of anyone, but simply to carry out the deliberate intentions of Parliament as expressed in the original Superannuation Act of 1859, as repeated in every subsequent Act, and which was continuously administered by the Treasury until the Auditor General discovered a technical flaw in the Bill—namely, that persons serving under certain Acts were excluded from the benefits that they expected would accrue from their service. And as illustrating the necessity for the Bill, and the difficulty of finding out to whom it would apply, I may state that only the other day a Sheriff Substitute in Scotland was appointed Solicitor to the Inland Revenue. Neither this gentleman, the Inland Revenue, nor the Treasury knew that by taking a new appointment he forfeited all his claim to pension as a Sheriff in Scotland, and this is an illustration of all the cases that come under this Bill. I should not be in order if I argued the merits of the Bill, but I would point out that it would be impossible for any Government in any circumstances not to allow these gentlemen, when their period of service ended, to obtain the pension to which they are equitably entitled. This Bill is the simplest method of remedying an obvious injustice, and it is with that object the Government has brought it forward.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I should like to ask that the House should be furnished in some shape with a definite Memorandum as to the number of persons affected and the financial burden involved. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to remind him that

  725
  on 5th May the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that this would be a simple matter of £5,000. In these circumstances, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us some Memorandum embodying more or less what he has told us this afternoon?
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, I should like to ask him if we are to understand that the 50 cases which he said would probably be the maximum number of superior officers who will benefit under this Bill includes all the Anglo-Indian officers?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Member is labouring under a mistake. A gentleman who serves in India and earns his pension in India, and comes home and looks out for employment here, is not affected by this Bill, because his service is not continuous. It is only the man who passes straight from the Indian service to the English service without a break that obtains any benefit under it.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I should like to ask, in view of the fact that the Royal Commission sat for two or three years and investigated the whole of the pension system, and this alleged difficulty was never brought under the notice of the Commissioners and investigated, whether the right hon. Gentleman would consent to refer the subject to a Select Committee, in order that the question which has arisen may be thoroughly investigated?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not the slightest objection to the whole question being investigated by a Select Committee if such an inquiry does not mean undue delay. On the contrary, I shall be glad to have the question investigated. With regard to the historical point put to me, I think—I am not certain—that this point has been raised by the Auditor General since the Royal Commission sat.
  MR. STOREY: The right hon. Gentleman said just now that this Bill referred to persons who have continuous service. I cannot find any reference to that in the Bill.
  MR. CRAIG: I should like to ask whether in the 50 superior officers of the Civil Service the right hon. Gentleman included any officers of the Uncovenanted Service in India, and whether he is aware that three of those gentlemen might take the whole £2,000 mentioned.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have to say that undoubtedly the Bill is intended to apply, and does apply, only to continuous service, and there is no objection to adding words to make that perfectly clear. With regard to the question put by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, it is perfectly obvious that if you choose to consider a series of cases where a man is raised from a small employment to a large one, the £2,000 might conceivably be exhausted; but the same anomaly would occur in the English service. I believe, however, from the investigations I have been able to make, that the cases of continuous service in which Englishmen have been transferred to India are not less numerous than the cases in which Indian officials have been transferred to England, so that the probability is that the English Treasury will not be the loser.
  MR. CONYBEARE: May I ask whether amongst those who are to benefit under this Bill are included the 30,000 discharged soldiers who, according to the statement of the Postmaster General, may soon hope to be employed at the Post Office?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir.

  DISTRICT COUNCILS.
  MR. GULLY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce before Whitsuntide the Bill for the establishment of District Councils, referred to in Her Majesty's Speech?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It would be useless to introduce this Bill unless there was some hope of passing it into law during the course of the present Session, and unless the Government make unexpected progress with public business no such hope appears to be likely of realisation. The Bill, therefore, will not be laid upon the Table before any specified date.

  ALLEGED FORGERIES BY A POOR LAW GUARDIAN.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Edward Fitzgerald, a Guardian of the Cork Union, who was, in April last, convicted on three charges of forging and tendering proxy voting papers in his own favour in the last election of Guardians, was again, on the 6th instant, convicted on six other charges of forging the names of 13 persons to voting papers and tendering the same also in his own favour in the same election of Guardians; whether the Government intend to take steps to remove Mr. Fitzgerald from the Board of Guardians, and prosecute him for these forgeries; and whether a sworn inquiry will be held to test the legality of the election of a number of other Guardians of the Cork Union, who are alleged to have been elected by forged proxy votes?
  MR. JACKSON: The facts are as stated in the first paragraph, with the exception that the convictions number in all eight. The Local Government Board have been informed by the solicitor acting for Mr. Fitzgerald that he has lodged appeals against these convictions. Pending the hearing of these appeals, the Board are unable to express any opinion as to whether the convictions in question disqualify Mr. Fitzgerald from acting as a Guardian. Mr. Fitzgerald and two others were returned as Guardians for the South Ward. The Local Government Board have ordered an inquiry with the view of ascertaining whether the majority in any of these three cases is due to votes recorded in respect of the forged papers.

  THE ZULU BOUNDARY COMMISSION.
  MR. WEBB: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is probable that the Papers relating to the Zulu Boundary Commission will be distributed which it was intimated on 7th April were in preparation?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: I hope to present the Papers shortly.

  THE SIZE OF POST CARDS.
  MR. WEBB: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will explain why the United Kingdom Postal Union cards, which until recently were the same size as those issued by the principal European States—namely, 5 4/8 by 3 4/8 inches, have now been reduced to 5⅛ by 3 2/8, or one-seventh; whether he is aware that the German and some other Continental home cards of the value in United Kingdom money of one halfpenny, are 40 per cent. larger than ours sold at 5½. for ten; and would there be any objection to increasing the size of our Postal Union and internal cards to the sizes of those issued by other countries of equal importance?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Until recently three different rates of postage were chargeable in this country for postcards sent to places abroad—namely,. 1d., 1½d., and 2d. In carrying out the scheme of uniform postage to all places abroad, it was decided to abolish the 1½d. and 2d. postcards, and make the 1d. postcard available to all destinations; but it was found necessary to accompany this concession with a slight reduction in the weight of the cards, the payments for the transit of cards through foreign countries and colonies being made by weight. The dimensions of the inland postcards have not undergone any change for the last 20 years, but it is true that some foreign countries employ larger cards in their home service. The new cards for transmission abroad are larger than the inland cards; but the size of both has been fixed with regard to the reasonable requirements of the senders in the vast majority of cases. Both appear to give general satisfaction, and it is not intended to alter the sizes.

  SPURIOUS IRISH WOOLLEN GOODS.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware of any practice amongst certain merchants and commercial agents whereby they transfer woollen goods to Ireland, and having there stamped them with a spurious trade mark, export them to Great Britain, and there sell them as being of

  729
  genuine Irish manufacture; whether such a practice would be a violation of Section 4, Sub-section (b), of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, and an "implied warranty of sale" according to Section 17 of the same Act; and whether, if any such practices as referred to be brought under his notice, he will order a prosecution under the provisions of the above-mentioned Act?
  MR. MADDEN: If any such cases as those referred to in the question are brought to my notice, I shall be glad to consider them with a view to directing a prosecution if necessary.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I should like to ask the Government whether they will take the Budget on Monday, and a second question has reference to a notice which I think has now appeared many times on the Paper without any apparent progress being made. I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to a notice he has given of what appears to be the very desirable object of fixing the relative contributions of the three Kingdoms to the Exchequer, whether he thinks that notice can be taken to-night? I am not aware that it is one that is likely to excite any prolonged discussion.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): We shall be very glad to take the Budget on Monday, if that meets with the views of Gentlemen opposite, because I hope we shall then have finished the discussion on the Small Holdings Bill. With respect to the second question, my right hon. Friend (Mr. Goschen) asks me to say that as soon as convenient after eleven o'clock to-night he will be prepared to submit the matter referred to with a view of bringing it to a satisfactory conclusion before twelve o'clock.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: May the House understand that the Indian Councils Bill will not be taken to-night?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: If the Budget is taken on Monday, I suppose the Irish
  730
  Local Government Bill will be taken on Thursday the 19th?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know why we should not take it on Tuesday.
  MR. BRYCE: Do we understand that the fourth stage of the Local Taxation Relief (Scotland) Bill will not be taken till after the Second Reading of the Irish Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; it will not be taken till after the Irish Bill.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: With reference to the third Order of the Day, may I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange to take the discussion on it as early as ten o'clock? The matter is a very complicated one, and there will not be time properly to discuss it between eleven or a quarter past and twelve o'clock.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The subject may be a complicated one, but I think it would be rather hard to expect the House to interrupt important Business at such an early hour. I cannot, therefore, adopt that suggestion.
  MR. SEXTON: As the right hon. Gentleman is not certain that he will be able to take the Irish Bill on Tuesday, I should like to ask him what notice he will give?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that question to-morrow.
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: In view of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has seen fit to make the question for to-night not only a matter of detail, but of principle, I should like to ask him whether he will not give us more than three-quarters of an hour to discuss this question?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: While the Government have every desire to meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite, it is impossible to abstract more time than I have mentioned, and I hope the hon. Member will be content with one hour.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Could we not take it on Tuesday afternoon?

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  William Robert Bousfield, Esquire, for the Borough of Hackney (North Division).
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SMALL AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.—(No. 183.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress, 10th May.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 5.
  MR. STOREY: There are a number of Amendments put down in my name, in order to remove objections which this clause suggests. I dare say the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) has gathered that I object to the Bill as a whole, and I put down this series of Amendments with a view of mending it to some extent. I do not, however, propose to move them, and perhaps I may be permitted to say that whilst I am quite of the view that the Bill, so far as it enables County Councils to buy land and let it in small holdings, will be an advantage, I think that so far as it attempts to resuscitate the class of yeomen farmers it will be an absolute failure, and in my part of the country it will be inoperative. Feeling that, I do not know that it is any special duty of mine to endeavour to amend the clause in that direction. As I have said, in my part of the country it will be inoperative, and I shall be glad if it is, because I regard this effort to revive the yeoman farmer class as trying to set back the hands of the clock. I do not wish to express my views at length now, because I shall have an opportunity on a subsequent occasion, and I beg to withdraw the series of Amendments in my name.
  Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: The object of the Amendment I have to move is to alter the payment of the first instalment from one-fifth to fifteen per cent. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make no objection to that alteration, because in his opening speech he said that the amount he had put down represented a principle rather than the exact amount upon which the Government had decided. I am glad that the Government have stuck to
  732
  the main principle of the Bill, which is to create owners instead of tenants, or rather as well as tenants; but I think now it is our duty to make it as easy as possible for everyone to become owners. The object of fixing any sum at all to be paid down is, of course, simply to secure the bona fides of the purchaser, and to protect the ratepayers from any fear of loss. It seems to me, however, that one-fourth is a very large sum, and one which would give rise to a great deal of difficulty in many cases. Besides, there is a precedent which will, no doubt, occur to the Government—that is the case of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who in all the sales they have hitherto made have put fifteen per cent. as the sum required to be paid down; and if the right hon. Baronet (Sir H. Selwin-Ibbetson) were in his place he would be able to say that they have found the amount quite satisfactory, and that it has worked very well. I am aware that there are other Amendments on the Paper, but I do not think the difference between 20 and 25 per cent. is sufficient alteration to make, and 15 per cent. seems to me to be a fair thing between the ratepayer and the purchaser, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept it.
  Amendment proposed,
  "In page 3, line 7, to leave out the words "not less than one-fourth," and insert the words "fifteen per cent."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'not less than one-fourth' stand part of the Clause."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): The hon. Member is quite right in saying that on the introduction of the measure I did say that the amount which was put down was a question of degree rather than of principle, and I am very anxious that the views of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, which have been put forward from time to time, should receive every attention; but I am afraid I cannot go to the length that the hon. Member desires. It is necessary that the Government should look after the interests of the ratepayers; and though I am prepared, with a view to meet the wishes of the hon. Gentleman, to make a

  733
  reduction in this amount to be paid down, I cannot go beyond one-fifth, which I see is the suggestion of several hon. Gentlemen. Beyond that I cannot go; that is the utmost limit, Amendments to the extent to which I am prepared to go stand in the names of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) and the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Channing); and in order to meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and with the object of making progress in Committee, I am willing to accept one-fifth instead of one-fourth, but I cannot go beyond that.
  MR. BARCLAY: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be afraid that the tenant will have an opportunity of running away, but to my mind there is no fear of any such thing. The County Council can make an arrangement by which the first instalment shall be paid in advance, and then there would be no risk to the County Council. The most tremendous risk they can undertake is the loss of one year's rent, and I think if the instalment were paid in advance the purchaser might very well be allowed to have the land without any capital sum being paid down, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consent to accept the 15 per cent. It has been said that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners only ask 15 per cent., and why should the County Council be more exacting than the Ecclesiastical Commissioners? No doubt the instalments to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are paid more quickly than we should require, but the right hon. Gentleman must remember that if a man occupies a farm three, four, or five years and pays instalments during that time the security of the County Council is steadily increasing, and I do not see how it is possible for the County Council to lose, at all events, more than the rent for one year, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his decision.
  COLONEL EYRE: The Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who have fixed 15 per cent. as the amount to be paid down, have sold land of no less value than £350,000, and they have conducted their business with success, and have
  734
  found no reason to go back on the principle which they adopted. I think we may trust the County Council, who are a popularly-elected body, in the matter. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to adopt this Amendment.
  MR. HALDANE: There seems to be such a general agreement as to the 15 per cent., that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to meet us. If the clause passes in its present form it will make the Bill quite unworkable in many parts of Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman says it is our duty to protect the ratepayers. Surely that is the duty of the County Councils. They represent the ratepayers. Why cannot they be left to bargain with a would-be purchaser in the same way that an ordinary vendor bargains? If they found that a man who wanted land was impecunious, probably they would make him pay more than one-fourth—perhaps the whole of the purchase money, or secure it by mortgage; but, on the other hand, I do not see why they should not be allowed to accept less. If the right hon. Gentleman does not accept some further reduction, I am certain the result will be disastrous to the working of the Bill, and the Government will defeat the object they have in view.
  MR. MORTON: I should very much prefer that no money should be required from the purchaser at all, and I think the right hon. Gentleman might do something better than 20 per cent. I have a Motion on the Paper that 10 per cent. should be the amount, and I am certain that if you do not come as low as 15 per cent., you will not benefit at all the class which this Bill proposes to benefit. If the average small holder has to provide 20 per cent. of the purchase money, you will leave him nothing to start and stock his small farm. The old land companies used to ask the purchaser to deposit only about five per cent., or half-a-year's payment in advance on the ten years' scale, and they did not consider that they took an extraordinary or any risk. In these cases the County Council will retain the deeds and virtually the land until the whole of the purchase money is paid. If the

  735
  County Council, or the Parish Council as I hope it will be, use ordinary prudence, there will practically be no risk at all, and we shall prevent these people being driven out of the country or into the great towns.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I should like to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that what is fixed here is a minimum and not a maximum. As an hon. Member observed, the County Council can ask a larger sum if they think fit; if the circumstances demand more than a minimum they can ask it. Why should not the County Council be trusted to exercise their discretion the other way? If they are to be trusted there is no occasion to put in a minimum. The County Council will have to inquire into the solvency of a purchaser, and when you are dealing with these very small men and these very small amounts surely you may believe that 15 per cent. would be enough to ask as security. Under these circumstances, I think there is no danger in the minimum proposed by the hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Collings).
  MR. GURDON: I think it would be a most foolish thing if the County Councils were to allow purchasers to take land without paying down a substantial sum. A man who has no money cannot take land, because he will require money to stock his farm; but if a man has money to lay out and is solvent and prepared to pay that is a different matter, and I should like to see a lower amount fixed to be paid down. I hope the Amendment will be pressed.
  MR. CUST: The Government have already gone some way to meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen on the other side, and I hope they will not give way on this point. The right hon. Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) says this is only a question of fixing a minimum; if that is so, why not fix it at £1? But it is not a question of that kind purely, and I think the amount that has been fixed will meet all emergencies. The Member for Peterborough spoke of the very small risk to the County Council, but we have to think not only of the risk to the County Council and the
  736
  ratepayers—we must also think of the risk to that class which we desire to benefit—namely, the labouring class. We must not tempt the small holders to undertake the care of land which they have not the money nor the ability to cultivate with advantage. If we make it too easy for them, and do not take the trouble of finding out by their antecedents whether or not they are thrifty and possess a certain amount of business capacity, they will take the land, and it will be not a blessing but a curse to them. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will stick to the sum he has laid down.
  MR. HENEAGE: I am myself perfectly willing to accept the Amendment I have put on the Paper, but I think it might with advantage be the maximum as well as the minimum. I do not see why the words "not less than" should not come out, so that the one-fifth should be the statutory sum which should be asked for.
  MR. A. E. GATHORNE-HARDY: I would press on the right hon. Gentleman not to give way in this matter. It is true this is only a question of fixing a minimum, but the minimum is apt to become the maximum. It is not merely a question of trusting the County Councils; I think we have rather to protect them. If we put in too low a sum undue pressure will be put on the County Councils to take it.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: There are two reasons why I gladly support this proposal to reduce the minimum. The first is that the lower the amount of the deposit the greater will be the obligation on the County Council to see that their purchase is a sound and economic one. You have not got compulsory purchase in the Bill, and it is possible that a County Council might be pressed to buy at too high a price. The answer to that would be, "We cannot give the price asked because it will not be safe for the ratepayers, as the security of the deposit is so small." My second reason for supporting the Amendment is, if the amount is smaller it will be more likely that the holdings will be smaller, and the land will be more likely to go

  737
  in 10 or 15 acre lots instead of in 50 acre lots, and that smaller class is the one we on this side wish to see get the advantage under the Bill. We believe the smaller the deposit the more likely the County Council will be to give small holdings to the poorer and, therefore, the more deserving class.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: May I point out to my right hon. Friend that 15 per cent. would be about four years' rent, and that would be pretty good security to the County Council? I think, if my right hon. Friend could be induced to reconsider the matter in that way, he might be inclined to diminish the amount to 15 per cent., which, I think, would be enough.
  BARON DIMSDALE: I must appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to adhere to the Bill as far as possible. The Bill is one in regard to which we must show our trust in the right hon. Gentleman. I think, if we do so, he will do what is right and proper, and though I do not like the reduction to one-fifth, I would urge the right hon. Gentleman to accept that.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am bound to say I have heard nothing in this discussion to induce me to modify my opinion further than I have already done. I must remind my hon. Friend that in the Report of the Select Committee these words occur:—
  "That it is essential that the purchasers of small holdings should provide in cash a portion of the purchase money not less than one-fourth or one-fifth."
  I am not aware that my hon. Friend took any objection to that clause when it was inserted in the Report. Something has been said about the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The money would be paid in a much shorter time under the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—in thirty years, I believe—whereas under this Bill we have allowed fifty years. I would also remind my hon. Friend that, although one-fifth may be too much in those cases where the purchaser cannot find that amount, there the powers inserted in the Bill which enable the County Council to let will come into play. The man will then hold as tenant instead of owner, and over and over again it was urged on
  738
  that side of the House that the great object and desire of hon. Gentlemen was that the holdings should be let rather than that they should be sold. I cannot see that any good reason has been given for a change, and, while regretting to differ from my hon. Friend, I must adhere to the change from one-fourth to one-fifth.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I regret that the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept my Amendment. The clause in the Report gave 20 or 25 per cent. and the object of that was to secure the bona fides of the applicant, and not to state a principle. The Government have rightly made the purchase of small holdings the great principle of the Bill, and they have increased the amount of land a man may hire if he be not in a position to buy. The carrying out of the principle of the Bill will be most valuable in restoring the class of peasant proprietors, and our object should be to make that restoration as easy as possible; and I contend that 15 per cent. would abundantly protect the ratepayers from loss, because every yearly instalment would increase the security. As to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, I do not see what the shorter period of payment has to do with the question. They have taken 15 per cent. in many cases, and it has been found sufficient. Lord Wantage's Small Holdings Company only ask ten per cent., and there are many other arguments which might be put forward in favour of this percentage. I would like to point out that in the last hundred years this class have been practically deprived of their interest in the land. I am aware that the public has benefited by that, and that agriculture has been improved in every way by that process. But we cannot forget that this class as a class suffered from the operation which has been for the public good, and they have a sort of moral claim on the Legislature that it should make their restoration as easy as possible. We have precedents which have answered admirably, and I regret that the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept my Amendment. The change from 25 to 20 per cent. is something, but I think he would do right to go further.
  MR. FULLER: The only real and substantial security is unquestionably the land, and, therefore, I think we ought to encourage those who are prepared to put their labour into the land, and make it more valuable, for no rent will be got from land not well cultivated. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will look at the question in a practical manner, and will look for security to the manner in which the land is cultivated, and will not imagine that 15 or 20 per cent. is likely to meet the requirements of security. We know perfectly well that if land is badly cultivated it soon deteriorates more than 15 or 20 per cent. I hope he will seriously consider the Amendment.
  MR. GRAY: I would venture to put a little pressure on the right hon. Gentleman on this question. We want men of small means to buy or hire these small plots of land, and it is not worth while to spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar. I think we should rather let them pay 15 per cent. than call upon them for a larger sum, which in many cases would probably prevent them taking the holdings at all. I do not think the question of risk to the ratepayers is of much importance, but I do know that the main obstacle to the taking of holdings under the provisions of the Bill will be that the people have not the money. If the experiment is to be fairly tried, I think we should strain a point in the direction of the Amendment rather than be steadfast against it.
  MR. H. GARDNER: There seems to be such a division on this subject among those behind the right hon. Gentleman and such singular unanimity among those who have spoken on the subject, that, perhaps even at the eleventh hour, the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his determination. The right hon. Gentleman said that we on this side were in favour of leasing, and not of purchase. That is to a great extent true, but the reason we were so much in favour of leasing was that we considered that the very poor class are not sufficiently rich to purchase. If we ask them to purchase, it is obvious that the deposit should be as small as possible. The difference between 15 and 20 per
  740
  cent. is so small that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be persuaded to accede to the change.
  Question, "That the words 'not less than' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 7, to leave out the words "one-fourth," in order to insert the words "one-fifth."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
  Question, "That the words 'one-fourth' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question put, "That the words 'one-fifth' be there inserted."
  (5.45.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 228; Noes 173.—(Div. List, No. 124.)
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to move—
  In page 3, line 9, to leave out. Sub-section (4) and insert the following Sub-section: "(4) A portion representing not less than thirty-five per cent. of the purchase-money shall remain unpaid, and be secured by a perpetual rent-charge."
  The reason I move this Amendment is that owing to the strange wording of Sub-section (4) I confess I am not able, as it stands, to understand what it means. It appears to follow the recommendation of the Select Committee in providing for a perpetual rent-charge. But the Bill goes on to say "it shall be redeemable," which to my mind destroys all usefulness with regard to perpetual rent-charge; and, therefore, I propose the substitution of this sub-section in order to carry out in plain language the intention of the Government.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 9, to leave out Sub-section (4) and insert the following Sub-section: "(4) A portion representing not less than thirty-five per cent. of the purchase-money shall remain unpaid, and be secured by a perpetual rent-charge."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section (4) stand part of the Clause."
  MR. CHAPLIN: The hon. Member says he does not understand the effect of the clause as it stands. Perhaps, therefore, I may say exactly what the intention of the Government is with regard to this clause. Their intention is that on the completion of the purchase a certain portion of the

  741
  money—one-fourth as the Bill was originally drawn, but one-fifth as it stands now—should be paid down; that another portion should remain as a rent-charge, and that the remaining portion of the purchase-money should be paid by annual instalments. That is the scheme or framework of the Bill, and I think the hon. Member will clearly understand it. He appears to be somewhat confused by the expression in the clause of a perpetual rent-charge, which is to be redeemable in the manner directed by the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act. I can only say that the clause has been taken from that Act, and that it would have been presumptuous on my part to attempt to improve upon it. The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman deals with two questions. It deals, in the first place, with the amount that is to remain as a perpetual rent-charge; and, in the second place, it deals with the question as to whether that rent-charge is to be redeemable or not. I think it would simplify the matter very much if we came to a decision upon the first question in the first instance. Let us first settle what the amount of the rent-charge is to be; and then let us decide whether the rent-charge is to be redeemable or not. I hope I have now sufficiently explained the clause to the hon. Member, and that he clearly understands it.
  DR. CLARK: It seems to me that there are three Amendments now before us. First, there is the Motion proposed by the Government that one-fourth, or 25 per cent., of the purchase-money should remain as a rent-charge; then there is the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bordesley that 35 per cent. of the money should so remain; and there is also the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian that 40 per cent. should remain. Now, I am rather against all these Amendments, although it is very curious that the other day I moved a Motion on the subject, and got only very small support. Let me point out what the result will be if either of the two Amendments of my hon. Friends were adopted. In the North we have no land that will bear one-fourth of the amount in the shape of permanent tax. In
  742
  Lothian, where the soil is richer, the land might perhaps bear 40 per cent.; but we have no land in Caithness that will bear it. The result will be that our crofters and agriculturists will have a burden placed upon them which their land will not be able to pay. If the improvements made upon the land are to be charged, I do not see why a charge should not also be placed upon other forms of property, such as the stock of the merchant. I think we ought to differentiate between the poor soil in the North which will not be able to bear that burden and the richer soil in the South which might be able to do so. I would, therefore, rather support the Government in keeping the amount down to 25 per cent.
  MR. STOREY: I confess I do not understand my hon. Friend's statement. The lowering of the amount of money to be paid down from one-fourth to one-fifth is a diminution of the security of those who have to provide the money, the public at large. That being so, I venture to represent to the House that what we ought to aim at in the remainder of the Bill is to make the security as good as possible. I must say I have an indisposition to accept the wording of the Bill, that one-fourth of the purchase-money may be secured by a perpetual rent-charge. If the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to omit all the subsidiary words about the redemption of the rent-charge, I think it would be an improvement from my point of view. I think where the public are advancing money and giving credit to private persons for specific purposes, unless we are ready to adopt the same principle and to apply it to all other classes of persons who may apply for public money, we ought to take all the securities we can. If we adopt the principle that the public without any advantage are to give a man who wants to become a landlord the use of public money and the use of public credit, I confess I cannot see why the poor pitmen of Durham, at present unluckily on strike, should not come to the House and ask I to have money advanced to them for the purchase of coal pits on the same terms. If that proposal were made to the right hon. Gentleman it would be

  743
  difficult for him to give an answer to it which would be satisfactory either to the persons concerned or many others who are in favour of the nationalisation of all these public values. If the public lend their credit to a man and enable him to become a landowner, I think the public ought to have some fair return for it. The public being able to borrow at a small rate of interest ought to be able to lend that man the money at a slightly increased rate of interest, and with that increased rate of interest in the course of a long term of years his rent-charge would be bought out, not for the benefit of the man, but for the benefit of the public at large. There would then be a newly made landowner or landlord—and I must take the liberty of saying that I am a little surprised at the Liberal Members being so extremely anxious to multiply the number of landlords in this country—this newly made landowner would have paid down 20 per cent. of the money at first; he would have paid during the term of years another 55 per cent. of the money; so that he would remain the absolute possessor of 75 per cent. of the land; and the other 25 per cent. would belong to the public, who had enabled him to acquire the other 75 per cent. by the use of their money. It would remain to County Councils as a perpetual revenue coming to them year by year; and the extent to which men availed themselves of this arrangement, they would enable the County Councils to that extent to be under no necessity to levy rates. Whatever Amendment he accepts, I would impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity there is in the public interest of requiring the rent-charge to be perpetual.
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY,): I would suggest to the Committee that it would be much more business-like if they were to take the issues involved in this question in order, instead of confusing them. There are four issues involved in this question, and they have been all mixed up together.
  MR. HENEAGE: The whole question of what should be the amount of the rent-charge must depend entirely upon whether it is redeemable or not. If it is to be an irredeemable
  744
  rent-charge I, for one, do not think we should make it a very large amount. But, certainly, while I am in favour of it being entirely irredeemable, if the clause is to be left as it is now, I do not care very much about the amount.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I confess I am a little confused by the speeches which I have just listened to. I should like very much to know from the Government exactly what is intended by the reservation of this right of the State to a perpetual rent-charge. I am not dealing now with the question whether it should be redeemable or not, but merely with the question of what is the object of a rent-charge at all. The object of the Committee in recommending that a sum should remain in the shape of a perpetual rent-charge was twofold. In the first place, they desired by this perpetual rent-charge to give the County Councils the power to carry out the conditions of purchase, for instance, to provide against subletting and sub-division, and matters of that kind; and in the next place they intended, as the hon. Member who has just spoken desires, that whatever was to be reserved as a perpetual charge should ultimately belong to the ratepayers. I really want to know whether that is the object of the Government? As the clause reads, the ratepayers would not gain anything. Whether the charge is to be a redeemable charge or not, even if the words were struck out which make it a redeemable charge, still the ratepayers would gain nothing, because all a man has to do is to pay the lowest rate of interest upon this redeemable charge. He pays a slightly increased rate of interest upon the rest of the amount in order that it may be redeemed in 50 years; but upon the rent-charge he only pays the rate of interest which is required for such a perpetual charge. Well, as I say, I do not know what the objects of the Government are, but whether the objects of the Committee are secured by this proposal is another matter. One of these objects is the same as one of the objects of the Amendment, namely, a desire to obtain some profit for the ratepayers. But if we look only to the desirability of

  745
  giving to the County Councils power over the conditions of purchase, then it does not matter what the amount of the rent-charge is; a rent-charge of five per cent. would do as well as 95 per cent. for that purpose. If that be the sole object of the Government—and so, far as this clause is concerned, that appears to me to be the sole object—I do not think that the object would be attained by taking any amount, it matters not what, but by striking out these words which enable the rent-charge to be redeemable, because if rent-charges were redeemed, the control of the conditions would go with the redemption.
  MR. CHAPLIN: The reason why this amount was fixed as contained in the clause was to facilitate as much as possible the purchase by persons of small capital who desired to buy small holdings consistently with security to the ratepayers. In order to afford the ratepayers that security the Bill provides that a certain amount of the purchase-money is required to be paid down. It did not enter into our calculation that the clause is not framed with the view of giving any profit to the ratepayer by a redeemable rent-charge. That, I think, is an answer to the right hon. Gentleman, who seems to imagine that the retention of a rent-charge, that is to say of a rent-charge which is to be redeemable, would render the County Councils powerless to enforce the conditions of purchase. When the right hon. Gentleman rose just now I was about to make an appeal to my hon. Friend, and to ask him whether or not it would not meet his views equally well, and whether it would not be more convenient for the purposes of discussion, if he were to consent to withdraw the Amendment which stands in his name and let us take the discussion upon the three points in order; first, the amount that should remain as a rent-charge; then, when that is decided, let us settle the question as to whether it should be optional with the County Councils or obligatory upon them to insist that there should be a sum left as a rent-charge: and, in the third place, let us take the discussion upon the question whether the rent-charge is to be redeemable or not.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I think the right hon. Gentleman refers to my Amendment as it appears on the next page—Clause 5, page 3, line 9, leave out "not more than one-fourth" and insert "thirty-five per cent." But my Amendment does not touch the question which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland dealt with; that is, giving the ratepayers a profit by charging more per cent. to the purchaser than was paid to the Exchequer. I thought that certainly would be raised by a separate sub-section.
  MR. CHAPLIN: There is nothing in the Bill to prevent it.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I am, aware that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent it, but there is nothing in the Bill to favour it. To facilitate progress, and in order to adopt the course suggested, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman (Dr. Clark) wish to leave out the words "not more"?
  DR. CLARK: I wish to keep in the words "not more." In its present form the Clause is permissive. The amount to be paid as a rent-charge is not to be more than one-fourth, but it may be less than one-fourth.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member intend to make any Motion?
  DR. CLARK: No.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Then the hon. Member has no right to speak.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 9, to leave out the words "one-fourth," and insert the words "thirty-five per cent."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'one-fourth' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I understand from your ruling, Sir, that no one is entitled to move the omission of the limit, and now we are discussing the limit to be accepted. I would, therefore, suggest that 35 per cent. is not sufficient. I was led to understand that what was wanted was to retain as large an interest in the land by the County Council as possible, and that many Members on this side thought it desirable that private ownership should as far as possible be restricted. It will be restricted better by retaining

  747
  a larger quit-rent, or what we call in Scotland feu duty. And I would submit that, so far as Scotland is concerned, the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly safe in giving County Councils liberty to put what we call feu duty at a larger proportion than 35 per cent. I should like to see 75 per cent. retained, but I hope 50 per cent. may be conceded by the Government. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to meet us to some extent. I am sure we are all at one in thinking that whilst the County Councils lay upon the rates the obligation and responsibility of buying the land, the more they retain in their own hands in regard to quit-rent or feu duty, the more they will exercise control over the cultivation of the land, and the better it will be for all concerned.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: Although the withdrawal of the last Amendment has in some degree cleared the ground, yet one important point put by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham surely ought to be replied to, or, at all events, comprehended by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture, because, until he gives some declaration to the Committee as to the instalments he is to charge the tenant in respect of his rent-charge, hon. Members are quite unable to judge what amount of the capital should be secured by such a perpetual rent-charge. The right hon. Gentleman, in fact, has put no arithmetic into this Bill; he has left everything in the shape of arithmetic apparently to be settled by the County Councils in their discretion, and, unless they all turn actuaries, it is possible that most difficult calculations will come before them. Anyhow, there is no question that the Committee has not made these calculations. Although the right hon. Gentleman told us one thing—namely, that he did not want to benefit the community by this perpetual rent-charge, yet I do not see how, if he takes a concrete instance, he is to carry out his view. Suppose he secures £25 of a capital of £100 by a rent-charge, unless he knows what the tenant is to pay as yearly rent-charge in respect of that £25, how is he to make up his account
  748
  with the County Council? The County Council has to borrow the £25 at 3 per cent. It is never to get that back, because it is going to lend it for ever, and the tenant is to pay a yearly rent-charge in respect of it. Yet the right hon. Gentleman does not tell us whether that annual rent-charge will be a sum greater or less than the 3 per cent. which the County Council has to pay to the public creditor. The result is that if not more than 3 per cent. is taken from the tenant annually, the County Council's £25 will never be repaid, or, if more than 3 per cent. is taken, and the £25 are consequently repaid, then the perpetual payment, whatever it may be, from the tenant will eventually go to the community and benefit the community in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I conceive that point is entirely novel to the right hon Gentleman, although it is entirely germane to the consideration now before the Committee—which is, whether a large or a small portion of the capital value of the land should be left secured by a perpetual rent-charge upon the holding.
  MR. THOMAS H. BOLTON: The effect of this proposal will be to considerably reduce the scope of the operations of this Bill. It may, in fact, lock up one-fourth of the ten millions of money which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture proposes to use for the purpose of promoting the establishment of these small holdings. If 25 per cent. remains and is to be secured to the County Council by a perpetual rent-charge, that 25 per cent. will, of course, have passed away as the purchase money to the persons from whom the land was bought, and the result will be that 75 per cent. only will be available. I do not see what benefit this provision is to confer. It certainly must be immaterial to the purchaser, except as a mere convenience, whether he pays the capital down or has a rent-charge secured upon his property. But there is another objection. Our policy in dealing with land has been to get rid of these small rent-charges, for small rent-charges are considered an annoyance and a nuisance. That was the object of the Copyhold Enfranchisement Bill. Now

  749
  it is proposed to establish in connection with this Bill all over the country a number of small rent-charges. I hope the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) will see his way to drop this clause altogether.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think there is very much in the objection of the hon. Member (Mr. Bolton) that this proposal will reduce the operation of the Bill, because, although there has been some limit put upon the operation of the measure, that is distinctly because it is an experiment. If the experiment succeeds, I do not think any great difficulty will be felt in proceeding with it further. I want the Committee to see, what I think I see clearly now, that so far as the intending purchasers are concerned it matters very little whether the sum reserved for perpetual rent-charge is one-fourth, one-fifth, or any other fraction. I can best show the Committee what is the exact pecuniary effect of the principle by taking a concrete case. Assume that a man purchased a piece of land worth £200. In that case he has, under the existing arrangement, to pay down £40, which is one-fifth. He may then, if he and the County Council agree, leave one-fourth, or £50, as a perpetual rent-charge on the land; the £110, or what is called the residue, he will have to provide for by annual payments sufficient to pay the interest and the sinking fund. Now, on the £50 which forms the perpetual rent-charge he will only have to pay a sufficient sum to cover the interest. The pecuniary difference, therefore, to the purchaser is a difference between interest and sinking fund and between interest alone upon a sum which, in the case I have taken, is £50. In other words, it is a difference of one-half per cent. on £50, or a difference of 5s. a year. That is the whole pecuniary difference which is made by the introduction of this perpetual rent-charge. If my hon. Friend's Amendment were carried, and instead of one-fourth we had 35 per cent., or one-third, that would make a difference of perhaps a couple of shillings more—that is the whole extent of the difference between the one system and the other. I think, therefore, that as a pecuniary question it is hardly worth consideration. But
  750
  there are two grounds for the proposal which I think deserve consideration. The first is that by maintaining a rent-charge you maintain control over the holdings. I do not believe there is any other way by which you can prevent the small owners—whom you have gone out of your way to create, you have called in the aid of the locality, yon have lent them money at a low rate, and you have taken considerable risk upon yourselves—from the moment you have done all this, turning themselves from a peasant proprietary into a miserable class of landowners with small sub-lettings. Your whole object will thereby have been lost, and you will have created probably the very worst form of tenancy in the world. You are bound to take every possible precaution to prevent that, and it has not been suggested to the Committee that there is any other effective way of doing it except by creating a rent-charge, and maintaining what would then be the conditions of the lease. That, I think, is an important reason for maintaining some kind of rent-charge, although it is no reason at all for any one kind more than another. Now comes the point which has reference to the Motion. I know it is the view of my hon. Friend (Mr. Jesse Collings) that the one dread which we have in regard to peasant proprietorship in this country is that as soon as it is established the money lender will come in, that he will lend money upon these small holdings, and get the owners into his power, so that ultimately their last state will be worse than the first. There is only one way—and I do not say it is thoroughly effective—to prevent it, and that is that the County Council or the community should be the first mortgagee. If it is the first mortgagee to a sufficient extent to make a second mortgage unsafe, then the money lender will be kept out. It will not be worth his while to come in—the risk will be too great. The only money lender will be the County Council, and the objection to its having a lien will not be so great as it would be to that of a private individual. That is a very important point, and the Committee will have to consider whether a rent-charge of one-fourth is sufficient to prevent the money lender from coming

  751
  in, or whether it would be wiser to raise it to 35 or 50 per cent.
  MR. CUST: In answer to what the right hon. Gentleman has just stated, I think I am right in saying that a rent-charge would have no legal effect to prevent a second mortgage or sub-division. A much more effective way would be to direct the Registrar proposed to be set up by this Bill to refuse to accept any mortgages or to register any sub-divisions. With such a statutory declaration you would find very few persons ready to risk their money on such a title. But you cannot look upon a quit-rent as a safeguard. Where a man pays his quit-rent no earthly right will be left to the County Council to interfere to prohibit any treatment of his land the man likes to pursue. I believe the Committee would be labouring under a misapprehension to think that for any purposes a quit-rent would be a safeguard.
  MR. HALDANE: I do not quite agree with the hon. Member (Mr. Cust.) The rent-charge is secured upon the land, and, therefore, the County Council, as owners of the rent-charge, have an interest in seeing that the security is kept intact. In order to do so, they will take care that the conditions subject to which it is created, and which are defined in Clause 7, are complied with. That being so, I think the existence of a rent-charge does give security, although not a legal one. The hon. Member is perfectly right that no powers of distress will attach to the enforcement of the conditions; but the moral security is very valuable. For that reason it seems to me that this provision for a rent-charge should be enforced. Then, my right hon. Friend (Mr. J. Chamberlain) has spoken of the importance of this in connection with the provisions which are to prevent the land being diverted from the ordinary purposes for which it was granted; and perhaps the Committee will have observed that in Clause 7 it is only for ten years that the Minister for Agriculture contemplates putting the least restriction upon the use of the land. It is, therefore, doubly important that we should insist upon this provision as to rent-charge, with the view of founding Amendments
  752
  which we shall bring forward upon Clause 7.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: The discussion, I think, has got into a sort of legal vein, and perhaps I may be allowed to give what seems to me a common-sense or layman's view of the advantage of this provision. Originally, in the Bill I had, my proposal was that three-fourths should always be left unpaid, and a small quit-rent paid in perpetuity. The reason was this; the tenant, we will presume, is a man with not much money. He does not pay the amount of the purchase money, but instead of that he keeps the money, and pays a slight interest in perpetuity, and therefore the capital he keeps is put into the land for the cultivation of it. The second reason is this—I do not know whether it is a legal reason, but it is a reason that I think, will have influence. That reason is this—that the large balance of three-fourths, as I proposed—and I should like to see that proportion adopted now—being a first charge on the holding, there is little or no temptation to the money lender to lend anything further on it Take the case mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman just now—£200 worth of land, a large unpaid balance of 35 per cent., and a low interest as a quit-rent. That holding would be already mortgaged, so to speak, for £70—the first charge of £70 on it due to the Local Authorities—to that extent that land would be no good to the money lender, and to that extent the purchaser would be saved from the money lender's devices. And here I will ask the House to consider what are the notorious facts. The peasant proprietors all over the world, whether it be in France, Egypt, Ireland, or anywhere else, have failed, so far as they have failed—I am not going to admit that they have failed, but they have been embarrassed—almost solely by the action of the money lenders. I will refer the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture to the results of the Commission of 1882. He was a Member of that Commission, and, if he remembers, there was evidence that went to the uttermost height as to the effect of the money lender on the small owners. Take the Isle of Axholme in his own county; there it was shown that the great trouble of these

  753
  people was due first of all to paying a high price for the land; that obliged them to borrow the money, and from year to year they were subject to embarrassments from winch they never recovered, and from which a man never does actually recover. It is far better, if a man does get into the money lender's control, to sell the whole business and put himself out of torment at once, and pocket what he can, than that he should go on year after year in the utmost embarrassment, knowing that there can only be one end to the thing. I will pass from the evidence taken by that Royal Commission in England, and refer the right hon. Gentleman to the evidence taken by the Sub-Commissioners of that same Commission abroad. Mr. Jenkinson's Report shows that in France the small holders begged, borrowed, or did anything in order to buy more land, and therefore they became permanently embarrassed to the money lender. That is a difficulty which might not be a legal one, but I think it shows that if an unpaid balance remains and is paid off by a perpetual quit-rent—to that extent everyone will see that the holder is relieved from the money lender. There is one other reason, and it is this—that if these small holdings are created to any Large extent we shall find them passing from hand to hand in the market. Take the poorer classes of buyers. Is it not much easier for a man, a comparatively poor man, to buy a small holding with only a quit-rent on it and a small amount of purchase money, than it is if he had to pay all the purchase money down? Bear in mind that this quit-rent could never be raised upon him, and these poorer classes of purchasers would be able, in the market, to buy at a much lower price with only a quit-rent than they could if they had to pay the purchase money down. In the latter case they would have a mortgage, and they would have to go to the money lender. With regard to my hon. and learned Friend opposite, who said there was no legal safeguard for the County Council, I think he will admit that by the charge on the land already—say 50 per cent. or 35 per cent.—to that extent, at any rate, the purchasers would be safe from the money lender. But if the plan which he seems
  754
  to favour is adopted, and you allow a man to pay the whole amount of the purchase, I am advised by lawyers that that man is practically free when he sells, or if it should be sold a second or third time, I am told by lawyers that any conditions which the County Council might like to put into their sale will be inoperative after there have been one or two sales. I am told that by lawyers who are conversant with this question, and what will be the consequence? We shall see a series of holdings in this country with the power of creating life interests, rent-charges, and so on, and we shall have a squalid reproduction of all the evils of our present land system, because you will have, of necessity, the worst kind of landlords. They will sub-let and they will create rent-charges, and it will lead to all the evils of the present land system. But there is a difference in a rent-charge which is private property and which can be sold at a higher and higher charge, and a charge which is sold by the County Council or the community. Let me give a case with which the right hon. Gentleman may be acquainted. I mean the case of Minster Lovell. At the present moment, within a few miles of London, there are 60 to 90 holdings of from two to four acres each. Originally there was a perpetual quit-rent of £9 10s. Some of the holders are the original proprietors of that quit-rent. They are proprietors of the holdings subject to a quit-rent, which cannot be raised upon them, of £9 10s. for the four acres. But the great majority of them are hiring their land from landlords who have purchased those quit-rents in the open market—shopkeepers in the neighbouring towns—and they are charging the poor cultivators as much as £17 a year. That is what we want to avoid. Nothing of that sort can happen in cases where the County Council has the control of these rents. I am sorry to have detained the Committee so long, but I certainly consider that this is one of the most important matters we have had to deal with in connection with this Bill.
  MR. A. E. GATHORNE-HARDY: I am sure the hon. Member for Bordesley need not have apologised to the Committee, because everyone

  755
  knows the great interest he takes in this question. For my own part, I wish to raise a question for the consideration of the Committee. What effect will this Amendment have upon those who desire to purchase? I cannot help thinking that the person who wishes to buy a holding wishes also to have absolute ownership; and if you are going to embarrass him by imposing further conditions, I believe you will do a great deal to prevent peasant proprietors coming into the market at all. I quite agree that we are creating, in the first instance, a different class of proprietors, and that we are laying down certain conditions; but I think that those conditions should exist only as long as some portion of the purchase money has still to be paid. Two arguments have been advanced against this contention. One is the desire to enable the County Council to keep some control over the holdings. I quite agree with my hon. Friend who spoke on this side of the House that no quit-rent that could be imposed would by itself have any effect. The second argument—a very strong one—is that it is desirable to keep the land out of the hands of the moneylender. I quite agree as to that, but I would point out that until the money has been paid up the purchaser will keep out of the hands of the moneylender. The County Council has the first charge on the property, and I do not believe any money-lender could be found to advance money upon it until the whole has been paid up. I should be very sorry if the owner began to borrow money upon the property; but he would then be the absolute proprietor, and I cannot see why you should impose upon him a disability to borrow money that does not exist in the Bill. I do not believe you will keep him out of the hands of the moneylender by means of a perpetual quit-rent of one-fifth. Therefore, although I entirely sympathise with the object of the Amendment, I utterly repudiate the idea of imposing a perpetual quit-rent upon the property.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I think it would be convenient for the right hon. Gentleman to state what are the conditions of the perpetual rent-charge before it is decided what proportion
  756
  of the capital shall be represented by that rent-charge. He will see that other Amendments are to be proposed with regard to it. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider the financial quandary in which he is placing the Committee in reference to this matter. If he does not tell us what the rent-charge is to be, it will be impossible for us to judge whether it would be fair to the tenant or to the community that it should be more or that it should be less. I will try to make my meaning clear by giving a concrete example. A portion of an estate is to be purchased, for which the landlord is to be paid £100. Under the scheme of this Bill as it now stands amended, the tenant-purchaser will have to pay £20 in cash, consequently £80 will have to be provided from some public source. The County Council go to the Public Works Loan Commissioners and borrow the remainder of the money. Now, we have not been told what the tenants will have to pay on the rent-charge, or whether there will be something in it to pay off the principal, as well as to meet the yearly interest on the £80.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I have no desire to place the Committee in any quandary whatever in regard to this matter, and I am somewhat unable to comprehend the hon. Gentleman's figures. The interest payable on the rent-charge is to be a matter of agreement between the purchaser and the County Council, precisely in the same way as the interest on the annual instalments will be. The real effect of the rent-charge will be to make the conditions binding until the rent-charge has been paid off. When that has been done, the land is perfectly free, and the owner is at liberty to do what he likes with it; and I ask why should he not be so? I have been told that in past days small freeholders were greatly injured by the extortions of moneylenders. There is nothing in the rent-charge remaining on the land which will give any safeguard against moneylenders, and I think it will be agreed that we are not called upon to make any distinction between the owner whose property is small and the owner whose property is large. What I am anxious to create is a number of freeholders of free land, and I think that

  757
  object should commend itself to the Committee, and to the public beyond these doors. I consider it is only right that until the money is paid off we should insist upon the conditions we have laid down in the Bill; otherwise the County Council might run the risk of never receiving payment for their land. The Committee should recollect that if the scheme that we are proposing is a sound one, it will work well; if it is not sound no restrictions or conditions that we can impose will ultimately make it successful. I am sure that my wiser course will be to adhere to this sub-section, and, without wishing in any way to be antagonistic to my hon. Friend, that is the course I propose to adopt.
  MR. R. T. REID: I will not occupy the time of the Committee by entering into the point of difference between the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bordesley. The right hon. Gentleman wishes to create owners with unlimited power—that is to say, without any restrictions. They may buy up the rent-charge as soon as they can get the money. What some of us on this side of the House say is that we should prevent a process being carried out which has already destroyed nearly all the small holdings. The Committee have reported that the effect of the law as it now stands is to keep out small landowners and to accumulate property in large masses. That is what we wish to prevent. We do not desire to find that, as soon as the public money has been spent for the purpose of creating a large number of cultivating owners throughout the country, they will proceed to sell at what profit they can the property so created for them at a great expense. The same objection would arise with regard to sub-letting. We desire that there should be limitations or restrictions to prevent the property being so dealt with, and it is for that reason I shall go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I should like to ask what it is we are actually going to vote upon? Whether 25 or 35 per cent. is to be paid down is not very material; but whether the remaining
  758
  charge is to be redeemable or not is quite another question.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The Amendment now before the Committee is that the words "not more than one-fourth" be left out, and that "35 per cent." be inserted, which the Committee will soon be able to decide. The question that arises is whether a quit-rent is possible or not?
  MR. STOREY: I would point out that the right hon. Gentleman is not quite correct. My hon. Friend proposes to have a quit-rent all over the country.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: When the Committee have divided upon the Amendment, it can then go to the question whether the rent-charge should be terminable or not.
  Question put.
  (7.20.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 161; Noes 137.—(Div. List, No. 125.)
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: In my next Amendment I will simply ask the right hon. Gentleman to leave out the words "may if the Council think fit," in page 3, line 10, and insert the word "shall." If these words are not left out it cannot be supposed that the intention will be carried out.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 10, to leave out the words "may if the Council think fit," and insert the word "shall."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
  Amendment negatived.
  *MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: The Amendment I have now to bring forward is—
  In page 3, line 11, after the word "rent-charge," to insert the words "of such an amount as shall include the yearly interest payable by the County Council on loans, in respect of such portion of the purchase-money, and a yearly payment of not less than one per cent. to a sinking fund, which shall be established by the County Council for the purpose of the redemption of such loans."
  About an hour ago I did myself the honour of asking the right hon. Gentleman if he would give to the Committee certain information which I suggested would be most valuable, inasmuch as it would enable us to know whether the

  759
  rent-charge was to be lower or higher than would enable the County Councils to meet their obligations for interest and repayment of principal. The right hon. Gentleman did not give the information. The reason for which I asked for information was this—If the rent-charge is to be paid to the State byinstalments fully equal, to pay the interest the County Council will itself have to pay upon the loans in respect of that part of the purchase money, then I should certainly desire that the proportion of the purchase money to be secured by the rent-charge should be high; because, in that case, if there was a sufficient instalment taken yearly both to meet interest and to furnish money for a sinking fund, then, when the County Council was able to pay off the loans incurred in respect to that part of the purchase-money represented by the rent-charge, after the loan had been fully paid, the County Council would still continue to receive that perpetual rent-charge, although the debt incurred in respect to it had been wiped off. I think that was a very reasonable question for me to propound, and I venture to again submit it as essential before this Amendment can be considered. The character of the Amendment will be to insert a provision which will be an injunction to the County Council that the rent-charge which they are to exact from the tenant purchaser in perpetuity shall not only contain the interest which they are themselves to pay, but shall also contain a payment to a sinking fund by which they will be able to extinguish of the principal of the debt. In suggesting this Amendment I would impress upon the right hon. Gentleman that without it, and taking the Bill as it stands, there is nothing to prevent any County Council jobbing away the land at a peppercorn rent. Just before the election or re-election of members some of these things are done by bodies in perhaps less favoured countries than our own. I am not prepared to let the Bill confer on County Councils the indefinite power of borrowing thousands or tens of thousands of pounds and exacting only from the tenants instalments which would not even meet the interest the Council has to pay. I
  760
  would call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the special clause in the Amendment for the provision of a sinking fund, and I would point out that it will be impossible at the same time to do the two things which he states are done by this Bill. He says he does not want to put anything in the pocket of the County Council on behalf of the general community. On the other hand, the Bill provides that the County Council shall pay off their debts within fifty years. Now, if they are to pay off their own debts in fifty years, they must receive from the tenant-purchaser instalments sufficient to allow them to pay not only the yearly interest due, but to make a sinking fund to extinguish the principal of the debt in that time. If that is so, they must also have a sinking fund for that part of the purchase money to be secured by the perpetual rent-charge. Now, after the whole debt is repaid, there can be no question that they will still be in receipt of the perpetual rent-charge, and that, therefore, a sum will go into the pocket of the community. Consequently, the right hon. Gentleman is not rigidly correct in stating that the making of this rent-charge perpetual was not intended to put anything into the pocket of the County Council on behalf of the community.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 11, after the word "rent-charge," to insert the words "of such an amount as shall include the yearly interest payable by the County Council on loans, in respect of such portion of the purchase-money and a yearly payment of not less than one per cent. to a sinking fund, which shall be established by the County Council for the purpose of the redemption of such loans."—(Mr. Seymour Keay.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHAPLIN: So far as I understand the hon. Member's Amendment it appears to be open to two objections, either of which would be fatal to it. The perpetual rent-charge is to be of such an amount as shall include the yearly interest payable on the loans, and also a yearly payment of not less than one per cent. to the sinking fund. That is to say, that the yearly payment may be unlimited

  761
  —it may be anything anybody pleases. The second objection is this—that the purchaser is to find the money for the sinking fund to pay off the whole debt, and yet, having found the whole of the money and the debt being paid off, the rent-charge is to remain perpetual. The Amendment then is surely of such a character that the hon. Member cannot reasonably expect me to accept it. The hon. Member said that this Amendment would prevent County Councils from doing "jobs" of a certain description, and which he seemed to expect. In that I entirely differ with him. I have no anticipation whatever of any conduct of that description on the part of the County Councils. If ever there were such an occurrence, the remedy would be in the hands of the electors, and the guilty persons would never be re-elected. I am quite unwilling to accept the Amendment.
  *MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: From the right hon. Gentleman's first sentence, it was perfectly obvious that he does not understand the Amendment, nor the finances of his own Bill He seemed to think it was an absurdity for me to suggest that the rent-charge should amount to enough to pay the current annual interest of the County Council loans, and that it should also include an amount sufficient to gradually destroy the principal. The right hon. Gentleman was surely not altogether absent from the House when the Land Purchase Bill was before us. The terms I have used were then adopted by the Government as binding the Land Purchase Commissioners to do exactly what I am wanting the County Councils to do by this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman abstained from even reading the wording of the Amendment. He said there was something in the Amendment which rendered it possible for the County Council to charge anything they pleased. Now, I do not think there is any suggestion of the kind. I only desire the Statute to provide what amounts shall be included in the charge, namely, sufficient to meet both principal and interest, and in that I have only followed the precedent of the Land Purchase Bill and of every other Bill dealing with the lending and repayment of public money. I ask the
  762
  right hon. Gentleman to consider whether the position he should occupy, when the first financial Amendment to his Bill is submitted, is to attempt to ridicule it, or pretend that he does not grasp its meaning? The Amendment is perfectly plain. If I am compelled to detain the Committee, it is only because the right hon. Gentleman stands up and, in consequence of two or three lines appearing recondite to him, at once says it has no meaning whatever, and sits down. I want him to recognise that it has a meaning to every financial Member of the Government but himself, and has also a plain meaning to those hon. Members throughout the House who know anything of the raising of loans or cancelling of public debt. If the right hon. Gentleman will peruse the Amendment carefully, he will find that there is nothing for him to object to, or even to reply to, except one question—is he or is he not prepared to provide that the County Council shall exact from the tenant-purchasers such sums in the shape of annual rent-charge as shall not only enable the County Council yearly to discharge its obligations for interest, but shall also contain the element of a Sinking Fund, which shall enable it to pay off the debt to the Public Works Loan Commissioners in 50 years' time?
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. HENEAGE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 11, to leave out from the word "rent-charge," to the end of sub-section (4). In doing this I shall not detain the Committee, as the question involved has been threshed out. It is a question whether the perpetual rent-charge involved in this sub-section is to be redeemable or not. My object in moving this Amendment is to prevent sub-letting of the land, to enable the County Council to uphold the conditions of Clause 7, and to prevent the purchasers coming into the hands of the moneylender. It has been said that these objects cannot be maintained, but I contend otherwise, because under Clause 7 it is set forth that—not only for the 10 years, but so long as any part of the purchase-money remains unpaid—periodical payments due in respect of the purchase-money shall be

  763
  made, that the holding shall be cultivated by the owner, and shall not be used for any purpose other than agriculture, and that the holding shall not be sub-divided or let without the consent of the County Council. In addition, we have been promised a registration clause; and I believe that if the County Council have a lien upon the land, they will take care not to allow sub-letting, mortgaging, or anything prejudicial to the conditions embraced in the registration. I feel very strongly on this question, and I am opposed very much to any possibility of a holder, after a certain number of years, becoming pauperised by the money-lenders.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 11, to leave out from the word "rent-charge," to the end of sub-section (4).—(Mr. Heneage.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I hope the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) will accept this Amendment. I am bound to say this seems a wonderful sub-section. It may be clear to the legal mind, but I should think it is not clear to any other. In my opinion, it is a sub-section that will not at all carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee. If this Amendment is negatived the result will be that those who are better off than their neighbours will redeem the land-charge and then sub-let their holdings and put on a rack-rent, and all this will tend to diminish the benefits of what is really a good Act.
  MR. J. BRYN ROBERTS: It seems to me that if this Amendment is passed it will have directly the opposite effect to that which is intended. I think it would be better to let the words stand, and insert the word "not" after "shall." The clause will then read—
  "A portion representing not more than one-fourth of the purchase-money may, if the County Council think fit, be secured by a perpetual rent-charge, which shall 'not' be redeemable in manner directed by Section 45 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, with respect to rent-charges to which that section applies."
  My contention is that even if you omit the words proposed to be omitted,
  764
  instead of inserting the word "not," the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act will still apply to this clause.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this Amendment. We are going to give land to some of our labourers, and I think they should have it on the same terms as we possess ours. There is nothing more unpopular than to have these charges placed on the land. The whole tendency of present-day legislation is to sweep them away, and I cannot understand why we should legislate to create freeholders and then burden them in this fashion. I quite appreciate what the Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) said about the moneylenders. It would be unfortunate if those men were able to get the freeholders into their power, but I think that is not likely to be the case. I am sure the yeomen of England are not people you can easily get over. They are quite as capable of looking after their own property as we are, and I do not see why we should impose this charge upon them and so prevent them from obtaining the freehold of their land.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: It appears to me that the effect of this Amendment would be to create a new form of tenure of land. Speaking for myself, I do not think that would be desirable. The holdings so affected would be subject to all the restrictions and disabilities contained in Clause 7. It would be necessary that they should be cultivated by their owners for agricultural purposes alone, and they would not be allowed to subdivide or re-sell any of the land to smaller people, even after they had paid off all the purchase-money except the rent-charge. It appears to me that the Bill already goes a long way in the direction of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Heneage), because as long as the rent-charge remains unpaid the land will be subject to the restrictions of Clause 7, and a certain process involving some difficulty will have to be gone through before the owner can get rid of that charge. If the words objected to are allowed to stand in the Bill it will always be possible for the purchaser, by going to the Copyhold Commissioner,

  765
  to get rid of the rent-charge and secure his freehold. I believe that these small holders will desire to be in the same position as others possessing land, and I shall therefore oppose the Amendment.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I utterly disagree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and I hope we shall go to a division on this Amendment. We aim at creating under this Bill, by the help of the national credit, a class of men who shall themselves cultivate their holdings, and we object to having a repetition of creating such holdings every generation. If, however, this Amendment is rejected, we shall have to do the same work over and over again. The House has no right to use the national funds for the purpose of creating a class of individuals who directly they have paid their instalments for ten years may go and make a profit by selling their land to someone else, or by becoming landlords. The Select Committee have recommended that a certain rent-charge should remain the property of the community, and that the ownership should be conditional upon the bonâ fide occupation and cultivation of the land by the purchaser. I hope, therefore, we shall go to a Division upon this question, and try to prevent any need for a repetition of what we are now doing by this Bill.
  MR. HERBERT T. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture will, not accept this Amendment. I believe if this quit-rent is not made redeemable it will be the greatest obstacle to the success of this Bill. As to the question of the money-lenders I confess that that argument had some weight with me once, but I think if these small holders are to fall into the hands of these gentry they will not be prevented from doing so by any quit-rent. If you really believe this Bill is for the benefit of the country, and will create a class of landowners who will continue on the soil and restore again that class of yeomen who are gone, I do not think the House should attach conditions to their ownership which, to say the least, will not make them very grateful.
  MR. R. T. REID: I do not think some hon. Members
  766
  opposite quite understand the Report of the Select Committee. That Report is one of great ability, and it goes fully into this question, and for reasons of a most conclusive character recommends that there shall be a different class of tenure from the freeholders in regard to these new holdings. The reason why that Committee—and I am speaking from memory—recommended in substance some form of tenure of the kind proposed is this. Experience shows that there is a great tendency in land to accumulate in some parishes into a few hands, and it is most desirable to provide in some way or other that the land obtained for small holdings by means of the public funds shall be consecrated to that purpose for the future; otherwise this House may be compelled to do over and over again the same work that the right hon. Gentleman is desirous of doing now. The spirit of the Report of the Select Committee is that something should be done to make these small holdings perpetual. This is the very pith of the whole thing recommended by that Committee, as I think the Attorney General will find if he has a copy of the Report with him.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I think my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries a little exaggerates the strength of the recommendation of the Select Committee. I do not, however, propose to deal with that any further, but I should, like to say a few words on the principle of the question how before the Committee. The real question is, are you or are you not going to restrict the ownership of these small holders? The view my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin) has taken is that if we are going to create this class of proprietor the County Council should be secured so far as instalments of the purchase money are concerned, but that when the purchaser has shown his solvency and comes with his purchase-money and says, "Make me a freeholder," no restrictions ought to be imposed on his ownership. On what principle of equity or right can restrictions be imposed by the County Council which no other freeholder has imposed upon him? It is a mere incident in connection with this question whether or not there is a quit-rent. The mere existence

  767
  of such a charge will not, I think, prevent the evils which the right hon. Member opposite seemed anxious should be prevented. Certainly experience does not lead me to the same conclusion as he has arrived at. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) has several times laid down the principle, and I support him, and I believe the principle finds acceptance on both sides of the House, that if you are going to create this class of peasant proprietors you must secure to the County Councils the payment of the instalments, and see that the land is not starved and thrown back in a worthless condition on the hands of the County Council. But when a man has shown his solvency and has proved by his industry that he is without doubt the class of man which it is hoped to benefit by this Bill, then you can act differently. It will not do always to keep these small peasant proprietors in leading strings; they must not be prevented from becoming the absolute owners, and we think all that the County Council ought to do is to see that the money will be paid, and having secured that object we fail to see why all restrictions on the ownerships should not be removed. I am very much in sympathy with the Member for Bordesley in the object he wishes to attain; but I think he has shown in this matter that simplicity of character which marks everything he does. Now, I on the other hand belong to a profession which is naturally brought very closely in contact with the troubles of life, and speaking from experience I venture to say that if a man is going to borrow money no quit-rent will save him from the moneylenders. The only effect of this will be that when the money-lender finds that borrowers have a charge upon their holdings he will be all the more exacting in the terms which he imposes, and will get much higher interest. I am glad the House adopted the 20 per cent. instead of the 25 per cent. to be paid down, because that will give all the less room for the money-lender to screw. The real question is, Is it or is it not desirable that the land should be fettered by restrictions? When a man is in a position to become the actual owner of the land you ought not to impose restrictions beyond the payment of the instalments.
  768
  I care not whether yon call it rent-charge or instalment, it is merely a matter of phraseology, but I do say that when a peasant proprietor becomes the owner of the land he ought to be allowed to deal freely with it. Our idea is that this rent-charge, though it is perpetual, shall be redeemable, and that is the idea to which effect is given in the Bill. The hon. Member for Bordesley thought this was a confusion of terms, but it is nothing of the kind. It simply means that in fixing a rent-charge we do not fix it on the basis of a sinking fund. The rent-charge should be redeemable in a way which is found to work well, and we do lay it down as a principle that when the peasant proprietor has become the absolute owner he should be left unfettered and unshackled to deal with the land as he likes.
  MR. HALDANE: We on this side of the House say that the reason why we should differentiate this class of owners from any other class is that we are asked to make use of public money in order to create their position. Another reason is that we do not wish to create a class of small proprietors only; we wish to put a certain class upon the land, and to keep them there. If the plan of the Government is adopted the result will be to create a number of small holders, who may deal with the land not as agriculturists or small farmers, but may in the end become a large class of absentee landlords. These are the grounds which this Amendment raises, and upon these we feel it our duty to insist.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Will the Attorney General tell us what is the object of this Bill? I understood it was to create owners of the cultivating class, and I hold that if a man wants to get a small holding with which he can do anything he likes besides cultivate it, he should buy the holding for his own benefit outside of this Bill. I would refer the Attorney General to the fact that this is not a new kind of tenure. It exists in Holland, especially in the northern provinces, where the farmers are the most prosperous. There you find precisely this tenure with a perpetual quit-rent and considerations, and according to-the observation of those who have seen the system, the farmers in that

  769
  part of the country are, as I have said, the most prosperous in Holland. In Denmark you find a precisely similar class, and here, again, there is greater prosperity than in any other class. They consider that for all cultivating purposes they have absolute ownership; and we think that if we go outside this purpose and allow a man to speculate in land, we ought not to use the public money. Further than this, we must look after the interests of the small cultivators. The city trademan would be delighted to buy a plot of this kind, and put a profit on it, and be the rent receiver, and we want to protect the small cultivator from that. Suppose after some years there is an auction of a small holding which has been made a freehold in the way that is now proposed. How will the poorer class of cultivators have any chance of buying that? But if the holding were sold for a small amount of purchase money with an annual quit-rent, and with the condition of cultivation, the small cultivators whom we desire to put on the land will be able to secure the holdings. If you make these small cultivators the absolute owners, they will be bought out by other, people, and the object of the Bill defeated. I had no idea my right hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) was so enamoured of the present system of tenure that he should advocate it as he has done. We think that this Amendment will not at all increase the power of the money lender, and, indeed, if a man has already paid £100, say of £200, he is less likely to want to borrow the money.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I should like to call the attention of some of my friends on this side of the House to the fact that they have gone astray from old Liberal principles There is I know a hope prevailing amongst them that the County Council will be able to acquire for themselves a rent-charge which hereafter will be applicable to the relief of the rates. I think I am right in assuming that that is what they have in view. But how do they propose to attain that object? They propose to do it by taking from the small cultivating owner, the small labouring man, a portion of the interest he is to pay to the State, and to accumulate that
  770
  money in the hands of the State at the expense of the small holder. Then what is the next step? The persons who will be relieved are the ratepayers, and the rates we know ultimately come out of the pockets of the landlords. That is a fact which is perfectly well-known on both sides of this House. They do not come out of the pockets of landlords during the existence of long leases, and therefore we are anxious to get rid of long leases, but in the end they come out of the pockets of the landlords. Therefore you will be taxing the small cultivator to put money in the hands of the rich landlord, for that is the upshot of the policy. I speak for the small holder, for I know what the small holder wants, at all events in my part of the country. He wants what this Bill unfortunately will not give him—land at an easy rent. It has been objected that these small properties will fall back again into the hands of the big landlords. We are passing this Bill as an antidote to that, and we believe that this Bill will be an effective antidote. With respect to this Amendment, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will stick to his guns.
  MR. HENEAGE: The hon. Member was not present when the Amendment was moved. It does not in any way add to the cost of the purchase. The only question is whether the rent-charge should be made for ever or whether it should be redeemable by money. There is no proposal whatever in my Amendment that anything should be added to the costs of the purchaser, such costs to go into the pockets of anyone else. I admit, however, that there is a flaw in the Amendment in carrying out what I desire; and in order to raise the question more definitely, I think it would be better to withdraw this Amendment, and divide on the word "not."
  MR. CHAPLIN: I rise for the purpose of making an appeal to the Committee, and asking whether the time has not come for us to go to a division on this Amendment, which has been before us so long. The right hon. Gentleman attaches very much more importance to the point he has raised than I do, and I must say I am honestly convinced that the course the Government propose is the right course to adopt. I cannot conceive anything

  771
  more deterrent to intending purchasers than the knowledge of the fact that for all time to come their land will be subject to a charge of which they cannot get rid. Englishmen wish to be owners of their land. That may be an old sentiment, but it is perfectly true, and so far as my experience and knowledge go, by insisting on this charge you will be doing much to deter purchasers. I only wish to say one or two words in regard to the theories concerning the future of these freeholders. The Committee must remember that although it is perfectly true that there have been in years past a great number of freeholders who have come to an unfortunate end, they obtained possession of their properties in different times, and under very different conditions to those under which they would obtain them at the present day. They bought when land was dear and the prices of produce were high, and when prices fell these unfortunate people were in a condition of extreme difficulty; but they flourished so long as prices were high. If that is not so, how is it that in past years numbers of freeholders in Lincolnshire existed in prosperity till the depression came ten or fifteen years ago, when my attention was first called to the great trouble and distress they suffered? For these reasons I must, I am sorry to say, oppose the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and I should be glad if the Committee could now come to a decision upon it.
  MR. THOMAS H. BOLTON: I would remind hon. Gentlemen here that there are not only first mortgages, but second, third, and fourth mortgages, and, if you like, subsequent mortgages of estates; and, therefore, the proposition that because you have a mortgage on a property it becomes un-mortgageable is nonsense. And then, with reference to the proposition that if you have a rent-charge upon a property you make it less capable of being mortgaged, that is equally fallacious. An enormous amount of property in this country consists of leasehold property. That property invariably is subject to a ground-rent or a rent-charge; and that property, subject to a ground-rent or rent-charge, is the object of continual and repeated mortgages. An enormous proportion of the property of
  772
  London is leasehold, and all this leasehold property is continually mortgaged, all subject to ground-rent or rent-charge, and various annual payments. To talk about the existence of a rent-charge or fee farm rent, or whatever you please to call it, in connection with these small holdings, as a protection against the power of the proprietor to mortgage is absurd. The truth is that these conditions which you propose should be placed upon the small holders, so far as they have any effect, will be detrimental to them and to- the property which you propose to vest in them. We have been told that these people ought to submit to these conditions because they are not getting the land by money of their own, but by the aid of public money. Well, that is very true, but the public money is to be advanced as a matter of State policy. It is not only for individual advantage, but it is a matter of State policy. This is not the only case in which the State has come forward to encourage property for the benefit of a certain class. There have been Acts of Parliament under which public money bas been advanced for the purposes of workmen's dwellings and small holdings in towns. An hon. Gentleman, still a Member of this House, I believe, has received a very considerable amount of public money on easy terms to encourage him in erecting artizans' dwellings. If unnecessary and unreasonable conditions are insisted upon, they will work the greatest hardship upon the poorest persons—those whom you most desire to encourage. You should make the holdings as free and attractive as possible, and not put them under conditions which will deter people from taking them, or will, if they take them, place them under very great difficulties. It would be an enormous advantage to create small holdings by free purchase and sale. When the supply increases you meet the demand; it may be that a number of these holdings may be owned by small landlords, but then there will be small holdings in the market; and as there are more, there will be more properties of that kind to offer; and those who rent them will be able to get them at less rent, and, even if what the hon. Member for Bordesley anticipates does happen, still

  773
  it will not be the disadvantage that he ventures to imagine. The hon. Member seems to think there should be no inducement to the thriving tradesman in the town to lay out his money in acquiring small holdings. If the thriving industrious tradesman in the town lays out his money in this way, it will be a very good thing, because he will increase the number of small holdings and increase the supply of them. I believe there is a considerable demand for small holdings; and if landowners had the means at their disposal, there, would be a great many properties cut up. But the fact is, that it is a matter of expense, and that the return received in respect of these small holdings is not sufficient, in a financial point of view, to draw capital into the cutting up of the land. Therefore, small holdings ought to be encouraged by legislation like this. Of course, if the demand for these small holdings should fall off, then you are landed in some difficulty, but that is hardly the basis of any argument used by the hon. Member (Mr. Jesse Collings). I am very much surprised to find that hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, who always pose before the country as men in favour of "free" land—land free from all restrictions—are now proposing to create a class of property in this country subject to all sorts of objectionable restrictions—the very restrictions which they have in the past been endeavouring to get rid of. I hope, in dealing with this matter, the traditional policy of the Liberal Party will be followed rather than the new-fangled notions of some eccentric politicians who have latterly become identified with novel and exceedingly peculiar notions in connection with landowning in this country.
  SIR W. B. BARTTELOT: I give my hon. Friend the Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) every credit for having introduced this question, because I believe he seriously thinks that it would be the best way not only of helping the labourer, but also of protecting the ratepayer; but I will venture to say that that is a great fallacy when you come to deal conclusively with men of the type whom he hopes to place on that land. The first question they will ask is—"Are we to be treated in the
  774
  same way as other men are treated who are owners of land?" The answer will be "You are not." It will at once appear to them that you are not going to trust them as I think they ought to be trusted; and if you wish to prevent men from becoming occupiers or small proprietors then that is the course that you should pursue. No one who knows anything about the conditions of land at the present time will say that it is a particularly inviting time for a man to take land. I will venture to say, and I will venture to say it strongly, that if I had to advise a man with regard to a little money he had at this particular juncture, I would say: "Don't invest it in the purchase of land at this particular moment. You may depend upon it that if you do, although the land may appear to be cheap, and although you may be in a position now to think you will be able to do well, look at those who surround you and see how many of them at this present moment whom you think in good positions and with money are able to pay their rents." I will say that a man investing at this particular moment in land is more likely to lose his money than he would be to gain anything by it. I say it honestly and openly, because I know it to be a fact; and I am going a step further. Suppose this man finds himself in this difficulty; suppose that, having got a small property, he is anxious, more or less, to get rid of it. In what position is the property placed by being hampered by this restriction? It will not be in the same position for sale in the market with that restriction hanging around it as if it were absolutely free. I venture to hope my right hon. Friend will stand to what he has put in the Bill.
  MR. STOREY: The right hon. Baronet who has just spoken is, I think, under a little misapprehension. He said if you want to help the labourer you must do so and so; but what I wish to represent to him is that the precise point to be considered has nothing to do with the labourer at all. The labourer is a man who is going to be provided for under a different clause of the Bill. He is the man for whom the County Council is going to buy land, and to whom it is going to let land. But what we are considering

  775
  at the present moment is a number of persons who must be better off than any of the agricultural labourers we know in the north or anywhere. They must be better off, because those persons with whom we are dealing now are men who must lay down 20 per cent. of the purchase money of their farms, and who, after providing the money to stock them, must work them at their own expense. Now, the right hon. Baronet will admit that a man of this class cannot be a labourer, and is not a labourer, and is not meant to be a labourer. We are not discussing any question of advantage being given to labourers, because even if we were, even so base a Radical, according to my hon. Friend the Member for South Pancras, as myself would cordially join the right hon. Baronet in doing anything we could for the labourers. We do not object to that portion of the Bill, but what we are considering at the present moment is the proposal of the Bill as to these better-to-do persons. What we have got to say about that very shortly is this—that in our judgment, if you are going to use the public money for the purpose of creating a new class of landowners, common-sense says, if political exigencies do not—Surround these minnows with such restrictions by law as will prevent them from being absorbed by the Tritons around them. What is the tendency of all economic laws at the present moment, and what is our knowledge of the past? A man gets a farm, a little freehold; he lives upon it, and works upon it. By-and-by he has a son—the right hon. Gentleman spoke of Lincolnshire, but I am telling a history which could be repeated a thousand - fold in the further north—the son goes to college, gets a little better education than his father, and gets notions. He may enter into a profession; he goes back to the little ancestral home, but it is not big enough for him, and he lets the farm. Then he goes to the town, and marries a wife, probably, and has children in his turn. Those children have notions, and by-and-by the proceeds of the father's occupation, and the rent of the little farm as let, do not satisfy him. He has to mortgage it, and he changes it and changes it, and at last he comes to the time
  776
  when he has to sell, and who buys it? Not another occupying owner, whom we should be glad to see in possession. "An Amuranth an Amuranth succeeds." If after one occupying owner comes out of possession of the land another succeeded, the public would have nothing to complain of. But what the experience of the past teaches us is this. There sits the little owner, and close to him is the great landowner who does not care about the economic value of the land. What he is looking for is territorial position and political power, and he will go and buy out the little occupying owner whom we want to have in possession, and he will add Naboth's vineyard to Ahab's possessions. That may be very advantageous to the limited class, but it is undesirable in the interests of the community at large. We want to build up the ancient occupying owners of the land. And we propose a Bill—not we Radicals; it is not necessary for us to propose reforming or revolutionary Bills now-a-days; we can get it done by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. They propose a Bill, and say it is for the purpose of creating occupying owners—hard-working men who will take off their coats and dig or plough the land and be content with the fruits thereof. What we have to say to the Government is—"Gentlemen, if you are really in earnest in carrying out this proposal—if you really want a suitable proportion of the land of England to be managed and owned by occupying owners who till it themselves, surround your Bill with restrictions which will prevent the rich man from swallowing up the poor. That is the reason—I could not state it with more brevity—why I support the omission of this portion of the Clause. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment says, in effect, that unless you surround this whole scheme of yours with sufficient restrictions, economic laws will have their effect; the experience of the past will be repeated, and the large landowners around will gradually swallow up the small ones again; and thirty years hence some other Minister, as convinced as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture is now convinced, will come and re-propose this method, and will take public money

  777
  again to create occupying owners, only to learn that unless he surrounds the thing with restrictions he will never succeed. There was one objection made on the opposite side to this proposal, and that was that, in itself, it was not of value. I freely admit that. But I think the hon. Member who spoke from the Bench above me put the case very clearly and neatly and sufficiently when he said that although the Amendment in itself is insufficient for the purpose, yet, if viewed in relation to Clause 7, to which, in a week or two, we shall probably come, the Amendment is very desirable and very substantial. It is for that reason that I support the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman will not accuse me of being a supporter of his Bill. I told him frankly from the very first I was not. I think in this respect it is a huge sham. So far as it enables labourers to secure land by letting it will be valuable; but I think, as to the selling of land to occupying owners, it is a huge sham.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: No, no!
  MR. STOREY: I am sorry my hon. Friend the Member for Bordesley does not agree with me.
  MR. STOREY: He knows very well—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. STOREY: I submit that it is entirely to the question that I should reply to my hon. Friend, who disagrees with me as to the suggestion that the Bill, so far as this sub-section is concerned in the creation of peasant proprietorship, is a huge sham, because the right hon. Gentleman will not consent to omit the words which it is proposed from these Benches to omit, and thus enable the County Council to prevent the occupying owner from being ousted from the land by the great gormandising land owners in his immediate vicinity. If it is thought that a statement like that is out of Order, all I have to say is that I and my father before me have seen the old statesmen of the country—or those you call the yeomen—through their own weakness, and the strength of the great landowners one by one driven from the land which has thus come into the hands of a comparatively small number of persons. What I have to say about
  778
  this Bill is that the right hon. Gentleman may, with the help of the Liberal Party, pass this clause, and live in the hope—it can be but a vain hope—that by its means he can put thousands of persons on the land as occupying owners; but I venture to say that unless he leaves to the County Councils control over the holdings, he will see the time arrive when the whole of these small landholders will be driven again out of the possession of the land. I hope it will be realised by those who are in charge of this Bill that the objection we take to it is deep-rooted on this point. We are not opposed to the proposal to let land to the agricultural labourers; but we do object to the money belonging to the general body of ratepayers being used in order to benefit a certain number of large landowners. I, therefore, shall support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  Question put.
  (9.40.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 112; Noes 79.—(Div. List, No. 126.)
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I now beg to move—
  In page 3, after line 24, to insert (a) "The rate of interest charged by a County Council on all unpaid purchase-money shall be at the rate of one per cent. above the rate of interest paid by the County Council to the Treasury at the date of such advance; (b.) All unpaid balance of purchase-money, and all interest thereon shall be a first charge on the small holding."
  *MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I wish to call attention to the fact that I have an Amendment to move first.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It has been already rejected.
  *MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I have prepared another Amendment, which I think will be in Order. It is as follows:—
  In page 3, line 15, after the word "and," to insert the words "shall include the portion of such purchase-money as is secured by the perpetual rent-charge."
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is the same as was negatived on the last sub-section.
  *MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: With all respect I would explain that my object in dropping my former Amendment, and of proposing this one—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension if

  779
  he thinks he dropped the former one. It was negatived.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: What the hon. Member seeks—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Bordesley should confine himself to his own Amendment.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: The object of my Amendment is to secure for the County Council some return for the money which it will borrow for the purchase of small holdings. The Local Authority will only retain that margin which is due to its superior credit, and a consequent advantage is that the ratepayers would be absolutely secured from loss, and this margin of one per cent., if invested as a Sinking Fund would, in addition, in course of time recoup the Exchequer and leave the authorities in receipt of a permanent income from the holdings. No harm would be done to the purchaser, who would get the money at the lowest rate; and, further, the inhabitants would be interested in this Bill, as they would not only be indemnified against loss, but, as a locality, would also be in receipt of an income from these small holdings. The rural districts would be greatly benefited, and the ratepayers would receive nothing more than justice. I could say a good deal more in favour of the Amendment; but I am anxious not to detain the Committee, seeing that many arguments have been addressed to this particular Amendment, although it was not then before the House.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, after line 24, to insert—"(a.) The rate of interest charged by a county council on all unpaid purchase money shall be at the rate of one per cent. above the rate of interest paid by the county council to the Treasury at the date of such advance; (b.) All unpaid balance of purchase money, and all interest thereon, shall be a first charge on a small holding.'—(Mr. Jesse Colling.)'
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHAPLIN: The hon. Member is perfectly correct in saying that we have already had a considerable number of arguments advanced in support of the specific proposal contained in the Amendment. But there are three objections to the Amendment, which the hon. Member will perhaps permit me to point out. In the first place, I believe it to be unnecessary, as the
  780
  County Councils can already charge the scale of interest he specifies if they are desirous of so doing. If the hon. Member will look two or three lines ahead in the Bill he will see—
  "That the purchase money is to be repaid by half-yearly instalments with such interest as the County Council may decide;"
  so that it is clearly within their power to charge the rate of interest he lays, down. I also think it is objectionable that the County Council should be compelled by a rigid law to charge a certain interest. My hon. Friend says the ratepayers would get some benefit, but from whom? From the very people in whose interest this Bill is brought forward. And now I come to the third objection contained in the second sub-section he moves. In that sub-section he proposes that the unpaid balance shall be made a first charge. There is here a difficulty which I have endeavoured to avoid in drawing up the Bill. There may be existing charges, as for instance, for drainage or for land improvement or something of that nature, on the land which is purchased by the County Council; and it would be impossible, therefore, to over-ride those and make the first charge in this cost. In addition to these objections, I think every hon. Member will see that the County Councils are the people who must look after their own interest in this matter; and we may depend upon it that they will not advance the money until they have got good security. For these reasons I am opposed to the Amendment.
  MR. BARCLAY: I hope the House will not agree to this Amendment, which proposes that the County Council shall make a profit of 33 per cent. out of these unfortunate people. I hold that the success of this Bill depends entirely upon the small purchaser getting the holding at a reasonable price, and I believe the interests of the measure will be best served by allowing the County Councils to make the best bargain they can.
  MR. STOREY: The aim of such criticism as I have offered in connection with this Bill has been to give the Local Authorities as much control as possible. I am sure that in making these advances they will secure themselves against loss; and here I may venture to point out to the hon.

  781
  Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) that in Clause 12, Sub-section 3, he will find that the Public Works Loan Commissioners may lend money
  "at such rate of interest not less than £3 2s. 6d. per cent. as the Treasury may authorise as being in their opinion sufficient to enable such loans to be made without loss to the Exchequer."
  Now, if that be the principle, I think it cannot be denied that the Local Authority would be perfectly justified in lending the money on such terms as would enable them to escape without loss. In doing so, they would clearly have to take account of the chances that some would pay, and that some would not pay, and fix upon such a rate of interest as would cover that possibility. I think it will be found, both as to the residue and as to the rent-charge, that the County Council will take care that the money they advance shall be advanced for such interest as will not only secure them against the possibility of future loss, but also leave a small amount in pocket; and to this I hold that the ratepayers are entitled, seeing that they provide the purchasers with security of position, ownership of land, and all the possibilities of being independent. That is a point on which we differ from the right hon. Gentleman. I think my hon. Friend might safely leave this matter to the County Councils; and, speaking for the North, I know those bodies will view the security of the ratepayers as their first duty. I hope the Amendment will be negatived.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's Amendment would not be consistent with the words of the previous sub-section, and, therefore, is not in Order.
  MR. HALDANE: I beg, Sir, to move the following Amendment:—
  In page 3, after line 37, add—"(9) The County Council may repurchase a small holding or determine any existing lease thereof at any time by agreement; and they may repurchase a small holding or determine any existing lease thereof at any time compulsorily for any purpose of public improvement, or local utility, or for building purposes, or because the land is capable of being used more profitably than as a small holding; and the price to be paid on any such repurchase or determination of an existing lease of a small holding shall be based upon the value of the land as land held as a small holding, together with all unexhausted improvements made thereon, and ten per
  782
  centum for compulsory purchase, and a proper allowance for loss of fixtures, or acts of husbandry, deducting therefrom any sums due to the County Council: Provided that nothing, shall be paid by the County Council for any increased value of the small holding which has accrued since the time when it was sold or let by them, and is due to the increase or movement of the population in, or to the industrial or other developments of any town or other populous place in the neighbourhood of the small holding, and not to any improvements or acts of management made or done by the owner or lessee of the small holding or any previous owner or lessee thereof."
  We are by this Bill creating a new form of tenure which applies only to the future, and it seems to me only reasonable that the County Council shall have the power to compulsorily buy the land by paying compensation.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. CHAPLIN: I can quite understand that circumstances may arise under which it will be desirable that small holdings which have been provided should be acquired for purposes of public improvement or utility. But the County Council have the power to do so now by precisely the same method as other land can be taken by them for various purposes. I think, therefore, that the Amendment is quite unnecessary. I can con-conceive nothing more likely to make the Bill a dead letter and deter people from the purchase of small holdings than a provision giving the County Council the power to step in and take away, by giving a miserable compensation, the small holding of a man on which he has established a home for himself and his family, and to which he has been looking for the future. I can imagine nothing that will more effectively prevent the Bill coming into force.
  MR. HALDANE: I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee by a division on this matter, if as I think there is a general feeling against me. ("No, no!") In that case I will leave the matter to the Committee.
  *MR. MORTON: I consider, Sir, that the part of this Amendment which relates to the compulsory acquisition of land for public improvements is of considerable importance. As long ago as 1817 an Act was passed giving the authorities in London power to take lands for public improvements, so far as widening

  783
  or lengthening of streets is concerned, and that has been of great value. I am certain that the improvements which have been carried out in the City of London could not have been done but for that Act, because the expense of coming to Parliament each time an improvement was decided upon would have been too costly. If the hon. and learned Member would limit his Amendment to that part which refers to public improvements, I think it would be a very useful one indeed.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6 agreed to.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to move the following Amendment:—In page 4, line 5, to leave out from the word "shall," to the word "be," in line 7. The clause as it stands runs thus:—"Every small holding sold by the County Council under this Act shall for a term of ten years from the date of the sale, and thereafter so long as any part of the purchase-money remains unpaid, be held subject to the following conditions." It will be seen that the object of this Amendment is to make the conditions permanent. As the clause stands now all the conditions provided will cease after a certain time and the holders will be then able to subdivide their holdings, build on them, or do anything they like with them.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 5, to leave out from the word "shall" to the word "be," in line 7.—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: This is really a very important Amendment, and I hope the Government will carefully consider it. When we were discussing at an earlier part of the evening the necessity of applying certain conditions to the creation of these holdings, I think there was a universal feeling in the House that such conditions were necessary. But it was stated by my hon. Friend opposite that legally speaking it was not possible to secure these conditions by the establishment of a rent-charge. As I
  784
  understood him a rent-charge would not give the legal power of enforcing the conditions, but he said all that is necessary is that there shall be statutory conditions which could be otherwise enforced. Well, I need not say that the argument of my hon. Friend involves the admission that the conditions are desirable, and I certainly understood him to speak from the position of one who supported the conditions. The important conditions in this clause are that the holdings shall be cultivated by the owner, and shall not be used for any purposes other than agriculture. Now, what is going to happen under this clause as it stands? A slice is to be taken out of the landlord's estate for the purpose of creating small holdings. Ten years after this sacrifice has been made the small owner may sell his land, and a factory may be erected upon it by the persons who would have become the successors in title. That is a state of things which Sub-section (b) is intended to prevent. I think it would be intolerable that the land given up for this national purpose should hereafter be used so as to be a nuisance to the whole neighbourhood, and especially to the estate out of which it has been created. The next sub-section was that the holding should not be sub-divided or let without the consent of the County Council. Is it really the intention of the Committee to create a congested district upon the estate? because that is a possibility we should keep in view. We know it has often been said that the great danger in connection with small holdings is that when the original small holder dies his estate may be cut up into holdings too small to satisfactorily provide for the subsistence of a number of families, and that you would get a pauperised population on the ground. That is prevented by the sub-section for ten years, but why should it not be permanently impossible? If it is right for ten years it is right permanently, and the whole public purpose Parliament has in view would be lost if after ten years the holding might be cut up into an indefinite number of smaller holdings perfectly incapable of supporting the families residing upon them. The same remarks apply to the other conditions, which I am quite

  785
  sure everyone will agree are necessary to secure the comfort of the people who are hereafter to be small holders. I think that the Government having devised these very skilful and satisfactory securities against the abuse of the privileges, should make them permanent statutory conditions, and should not limit them to a period of ten years.
  MR. BARCLAY: This Amendment deals with a very important question—namely, the tenure on which these holdings are to be held. I should be extremely sorry if this Bill were to create a new class of small landlords, with all the powers possessed by the present owners. The present system has already broken down in Ireland, and though hon. Gentlemen opposite would, perhaps, not like to admit it, it is fast breaking down in England, and I hope Parliament will not sanction the creation of a new class of small landlords, which would be still more objectionable than the large landowners. There are now a number of small landlords who let on yearly tenancies or for a period of years, and I am informed that the tenants of these small landlords are in a most miserable condition, and far worse off than the tenants of the large landowners. I hope, therefore, the House will very carefully consider the conditions on which these small holdings are to be held. My proposal is that if the small holders do let, the tenants who occupy shall be placed in the position of the Irish tenants under the Irish Land Act. The objections to the present system are that the landlord can turn out the tenant at will, he can appropriate the tenant's improvements and he can raise the rent. We must place the tenants in such a position that they will be protected from the landlords, and I have on the Paper a new Sub-section which proposes that if the new landlords let their holding, it shall be let on perpetuity of tenure, that the rent shall not be occasionally raised, and that the lease shall be assignable. With these conditions I think we should achieve the object we have in view, and we should give the cultivator what he wants—perpetuity of tenure and a fixed rent.
  MR. THOMAS H. BOLTON: Most people will sympathise with
  786
  the object which the Member for West Birmingham has in view, but I hardly think he has considered the effect which these conditions will have upon the property. It is suggested that if the property is to be sold by the peasant owner the original owner and the County Council are to have rights of pre-emption. To that I object altogether. The holding is not to be used for any purpose except that of agriculture. That is all very well for the first occupier, who perhaps is an agriculturist; but his son, to whom he may leave the property, may not be an agriculturist and could not carry on the cultivation of the land. Is the owner to be debarred from leaving his holding to whomsoever he pleases? If the holder wants to let, the consent of the County Council must be obtained. I must say that though I have a good opinion of County Councils, I doubt very much whether the control of the County Council in a matter of this kind is calculated to add to the value of the land. Then we are told that there is not to be more than one dwelling house upon it. It may be a very desirable thing that there should be more than one dwelling house; but if a second is erected, the Local Authority may interfere. That, again, is not calculated to improve the value of this property, or to make it attractive as an investment. The object of the Bill is professedly to induce careful people, whom we want to benefit, to put their savings into the land—as the President of the Board of Agriculture expressed it, we want to make a ladder by which the agricultural labourer can climb into the position of a small farmer. I say that the man who cultivates must have the inducement that he can dispose of the land if he wishes with the tenant right put into it; and if you hamper him with conditions, you will discourage both investment and cultivation—if you impose all these conditions, you will tie the land up more completely than under a settlement. We have often heard from these Opposition Benches of the iniquities of settlement and restrictive covenants; and here restrictions are proposed from this side of the House which are practically more offensive than any restrictions of settlement. The small holder would be almost in a

  787
  condition of servitude to the land. All this is opposed to the principles which have influenced men on this side of the House in the past, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman, instead of extending the clause, will see his way to modify it. I can quite understand that while the County Council has money upon the land they should keep the control, but when the purchaser has paid off the County Council, it is monstrous that he should have to submit to these arbitrary and unfair restrictions.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has made a speech which can hardly refer to the Motion before the House. He attacked all the conditions of this clause and made a speech against the clause as a whole, but except in a very small part of his oration he did not deal with the Amendment at all. It seems to me that under this Bill we are creating a new tenure in land altogether, and we are creating that tenure for a special purpose—the purpose of setting up a number of small holders on the land with a beneficial effect from an agricultural point of view. It does seem to me if we are to undertake this work—good work, I believe—at the expense of the ratepayers, we are justified in saying that the land which the ratepayer provides for these small holdings for agricultural purposes shall be restricted to those purposes. If any benefit is to be got from the land, we have all along contended that the County Council ought to get it, and that is why we wished them to have power to lease or feu the land. It has been decided that they shall sell these small holdings; but I think if the holders use it for other purposes, such as building, the increased value should be for the benefit of the ratepayers, and not be handed over to the small holders who got the land for agricultural purposes. For these reasons, I shall certainly support the Amendment.
  MR. STEPHENS: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment, because I am sure it will provide more facilities to the County Council in dealing with the owners of land. If the Amendment is accepted, the clause, as amended, will offer great security to
  788
  the landowners that the land which the County Council is buying expressly for agricultural purposes will not, after a period of ten years, be turned to other purposes, such as the erection of a factory or dwellings. I think that is a fair security to offer the landlords, who will possibly part with their land to their own loss and the injury of their estates. We are going to assist the small holders with money from the State, and they must expect that some conditions will be attached to their holdings; and for that reason the proposal of the Government, especially if amended as suggested, ought to commend itself to the Committee.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I do not think my hon. Friend behind me has been in the House during the whole of the evening, or he would know that the course he recommends would be absolutely inconsistent with the very argument which we have been using in the course of the debate. We have been contending that when the money has all been paid for the holdings the land ought to be held on terms not different from those on which other freehold land is held, and ought to be free. It is quite true, as the hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. J. Collings) stated, that a great many arguments have been addressed to the Committee in reference to this: but the Committee has already discussed whether or not a certain portion of the money should always remain unpaid, and the question has been disposed of. I regard the conditions as desirable so long as any of the money is unpaid, but the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) must have misunderstood me if he gathered from what I said that I thought the conditions desirable after the money had all been paid. I want to call the attention of the Committee for one moment to some words in the Bill which I think they have overlooked. The Bill provides that the small holdings shall, for a term of ten years, at all events, be held "subject to the following conditions." Now, one of the reasons why these words were inserted was in order to prevent some speculator who is a better judge of the value of land than the owner, going to the owner and buying the land at a perhaps increased price and then using it for other than agricultural purposes.

  789
  I think this term of ten years will prevent any transaction of this kind. But I should not object to extending that term for a certain number of years, if that would meet the objections of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) pointed out that there might be cases where the property of the landlord was acquired under the Bill, and devoted afterwards to the erection of a factory, if the conditions were not permanent. But I would observe that that would be the landlord's own fault, for he is not compelled to sell land under the Bill in its present form. If he thinks it desirable to sell the land he must take the risk of the purpose for which it will be used. It appears to me that, the arguments put forward in favour of the Amendment—if they are arguments at all—are arguments which tell rather against the Bill altogether; and one of the main objections in my eyes to adopting the Amendment is that it would remove another of the great inducements to people to take advantage of the Bill, and become owners of small holdings. I contend that, as the holdings are held for a number of years under economic conditions, if they become more valuable after that term than at first, the holder, and nobody else, is fairly entitled to the increased value. If we imposed all the conditions we are asked to impose on the small holders, I am afraid we should find the Bill in such a shape that all inducement to become owners would be taken away. For these reasons I hope the Committee will not accept the Amendment.
  SIR H. DAVEY: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House. The Amendment appears to create an entirely new tenure of land. The object of all land reform in recent years has been to free land from fetters and restrictions of any kind. I understand the Amendment imposes on land sold by the County Councils under the Bill the restriction that it should only be used for one particular purpose. That is contrary to what land reformers have been struggling for ever since I have had the honour of taking part in the question of land reform; their object has been to free land from every fetter and restriction imposed on it. The
  790
  Copyhold Acts were based on the policy of freeing land from every restriction on its cultivation, the timber on it, and the uses to which it could be put. If the Amendment is accepted you will create a tenure unknown to the law. The law does not allow perpetual restrictions to be imposed on land by contracts between parties; but the effect of the Amendment will be that land dealt with under the Act will be for all time subject to the restrictions in the sub-sections of Sub-section 1. I look forward to that with great apprehension. I join with hon. Members in desiring to see land held in smaller parcels than at present; but I do not think it consonant with sound policy that the land so held should be subject to restrictions which will prevent the owner making the most beneficial use of it. For these reasons, I think the Bill is right as it stands, and that ten years is a reasonable term. To make the restrictions perpetual would be an entire mistake, and contrary to the principles which land reformers have always held.
  MR. HALDANE: For, I believe, the first time in my life, I find myself not quite in agreement with my hon. and learned Friend who has just sat down. We are proposing to create a new form of ownership through the medium of public money; to advance public funds to help individuals to become owners of land. Why should we assist them? Not merely for their own sake, but because we believe it is in the public interest; and, that being so, it is within our moral as well as our legal compass to put certain restrictions on the land we help them to obtain. We were anxious to put leasing powers in the hands of the County Council, because we thought that then the County Council would have a more complete grip on the land than by the creation of freeholds. The Government have refused to give those leasing powers; and that, surely, makes our case stronger when we come forward and say, If you do create a freehold tenure it ought not to be the old unrestricted freehold tenure, but one which will subserve the only purpose by which this Bill is justified. I agree that the restrictions of the Amendment are unknown to the law as it is at present; there is a sub-section against

  791
  sub-letting which would be treated by law as void without this clause. It would also not be competent for the County Council to impose these restrictions by contract with the holders, and if you do not take advantage of the fact that Parliament can mould the law as it pleases, you are put in a difficulty. Landlords are not compelled to part with land for the purposes of the Bill. Now, I am bound to say if I were a landlord I should hesitate very much before I parted with my land under this Bill; and I will tell the Committee why. For ten years, it is quite true, the landlord has certainly parted with his land for the purpose of creating small occupying owners; but at the end of ten years what may happen? When the landlord has parted with perhaps a good part of his estate, some nuisance may be put up, or some factory. A number of the small holdings may be got together under one owner, who may do what he pleases with the property and make himself obnoxious to the persons living in the neighbourhood. It seems to me, therefore, if you pass this clause in the form in which the Government have proposed it, you will put strong deterrents in the way of landlords calculated to prevent them from taking the course which we all desire them to take. That being so, it seems to me that we have to choose between two evils—we have to face the evil of unrestricted ownership of land, or the possibility of altering the old tenure and creating a new form of tenure. To my mind it would be much better to take the latter course. I do not think I am travelling beyond the views of my hon. Friends here when I say that we should not be satisfied with what the right hon. Gentleman has suggested. What we want done here, and what we are aiming at, is a new form of tenure which will carry out the purposes of the Bill. We are not interested in the matter at all if you are going to create a new ownership which will be unrestricted. If you do so, you may bear the responsibility; but if we are to be consulted, we want something different. It is not a matter of detail; it is a matter of principle. Upon that footing, while recognising the desire of the right hon. Gentleman to meet us where he can—and I think he has shown particularly to-night a desire to facilitate the passage
  792
  of this Bill—I am bound to say, speaking for myself, that I cannot regard the offer which he makes as one which I feel called upon to accept.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Perhaps I may be permitted to express the hope that the Committee may come to a conclusion on this point without very much further delay. The Government are under a pledge that at as early an hour as possible, they should commence the discussion of the next subject which stands on the Paper today—namely, the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the financial relations between England, Scotland, and Ireland, and that they should not delay the hour of Adjournment for that purpose; and it would be very convenient if the Committee would settle this question before that subject is proceeded with.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I think it would be in the interests of the labourers that this Amendment should be adopted. A County Council might go to a landowner, whose land lay in the neighbourhood of a village or a town, and say to him, "We want 50 acres of this land for small holdings." He might say, "If you want 50 acres of land you must go half a mile or a mile off and take it there, because you see after ten years are passed I have no guarantee that this land will not get into the hands of a speculator or a gombeen man; and they may have a lot of speculative cottages put there. If this land is to be used as building land, I, as the landlord, claim a right to reap the benefit of it; and you have no right to take it from me for the purpose of agricultural holdings, with the risk of the land being taken and covered with buildings after ten years are passed." In result, the County Council would probably be offered other land a mile distant from the village or the town instead of the particular land which would be of real benefit to the labourers or smallholders, because of its situation close to the population.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member

  793
  for Haddington in his regret that the principle of feuing or leasing has not been recognised in this Bill. But I cannot support the proposal to introduce an entirely new form of tenure by imposing these restrictions upon the land for all time; for that is really what is proposed by the Amendment. It would be contrary to the principles advocated for years by every reformer of the land laws. And it would bring about a most inconvenient state of affairs by creating a number of holdings with which it would be impossible to deal when public improvements were necessary. In the county in which I live it is impossible to foresee how soon such land may not be needed for cottages or a factory for a growing town. The impossibility of dealing with these holdings for all time owing to the imposition of these conditions would be a very great public inconvenience, and I must utter my protest against imposing such permanent conditions, although it is quite necessary to impose them for a short time.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I wish the right hon. Gentleman had given us some reason why he would not accept this Amendment. I cannot see why we should impose these restrictions for ten years more than for any other time. As we have heard, almost the chief argument on the part of those who oppose this Bill altogether is that it deals unfairly with other classes. Why, they ask, not give the same advantages to the miner and the tradesman, as well as to the cultivator? The answer is, because we want the land cultivated. It is for the public good to have a number of cultivators, to make the land produce more than it does, and articles of a different kind from those it does; and in that respect the trade of the cultivator is different from any other trade. But the right hon. Gentleman seems himself to take away that argument, for he is really allowing and encouraging land speculation at the expense of a public fund. I maintain we have no right to do that. As to the argument that this is a new tenure, of course it is a new case—the acquisition of land for one purpose, and one purpose only; that is, cultivation. That being so, we have a right to have such conditions imposed, even if the old
  794
  tenure were satisfactory. If this land speculation is beneficial, why put in the ten years at all? Why not say to a man, "It is quite true we have advanced you money at wonderful terms which you could not have got from any private source; it is quite true we intended it for the public good, but you are at liberty at the earliest moment possible to put it to any other purpose you choose for your own particular benefit, and not for the benefit of the community"? Why not say that? If the object in putting in ten years is to secure that the land should be cultivated, then the argument holds good at the end of ten years. I am really at a loss to conceive why the right hon. Gentleman, after having brought in a Bill to create a peasant proprietary, a yeoman proprietorship, for the cultivation of the land, and for all those purposes connected with cultivation which we have heard so much about, will positively invite a class of people—for they will spring up under his invitation—who will acquire land at the public expense, and then use it for their own private speculation. Really, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some better reason why he cannot accept this Amendment. ("Divide, divide!")
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg to move that you report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

MOTIONS.
  FINANCIAL RELATIONS (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND).

    SELECT COMMITTEE.
    (11.5.) Motion made, and Question proposed,—
    "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the financial relations between England, Scotland, and Ireland, and to report—

    (1.) The amount and proportion of Revenue contributed to the Exchequer by the people of England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively;

    795

    (2.) The amount and proportion of Revenue which under recent legislation is paid to Local Authorities in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively;

    (3.) The amount and proportion of moneys expended out of the Exchequer (a) upon civil and local government services for the special use of; and (b) upon collection of revenue in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively;

    (4.) The amount and proportion of State Loans outstanding, and of State Liabilities incurred for local purposes in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively;

    (5.) How far the financial relations established by the sums so contributed, paid, advanced, or promised, or by any other existing conditions, are equitable, having regard to the resources and population of England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

    MR. SAMUEL EVANS: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes on at such a late period of the evening, and I am afraid I shall have to trespass on the time and attention of the House, some little time at any rate, in order to lay before the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the House the reasons why we say he ought to adopt the Amendment which is down in my name. The appointment of this Committee has been delayed now for a considerable time, I think for two years. The reason for that is that Amendments have been placed down by us; and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we put these Amendments down not in order to delay the Committee and prevent an inquiry being extended to Scotland, Ireland, and England, but because we had a very deep interest in the extension of the inquiry to that other portion of the United Kingdom which up to now has been left outside the purview of the Committee. I should have preferred that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have given some reasons why the Committee should not inquire into the case of Wales as it is inquiring into the case of the other portions of the United Kingdom, because we take our stand first of all upon this—that the onus of proving the propriety of exclusion of that part of the United Kingdom, generally called the Principality of Wales, lies upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, rather than that the onus of proving the right of the inclusion of Wales should lie upon us. I suppose the answer of the
    796
    Chancellor of the Exchequer—if I may anticipate for a moment—is that up to the present Wales has not been treated separate financial entity of the United Kingdom. We do not say that it should be, nor is it necessary to go to that extent in our deliberations on the operations of this Committee. What we ask is that, inasmuch as the Government have thought fit, at the request of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), to appoint a Committee to consider the financial relations of the various parts of the United Kingdom, we should not be excluded, but that inquiry should be made into the facts as they concern us, as the inquiry will be made into the facts affecting the other portions. But inasmuch as I am driven, by the course which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has thought fit to pursue, to prove to the House that Wales should be included, I shall submit to the House two reasons why we are entitled to be considered upon this Committee. In the first place I shall endeavour to prove that the inclusion of Wales as a separate portion of the United Kingdom is a feasible matter, that there are no insuperable practical difficulties in the way, and that there will not be a very great increase in cost or expense by the inclusion of the Principality. And if I go further and show, as I think I shall be able to show, that Wales is not treated fairly or equitably in the matter of these financial relations with England, I think we shall have made out a case—and a very strong case—in favour of this inquiry being extended. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may be able to dispute the figures which we produce here to-day, and if I may make one answer to any argument which he may use upon that point, it is this: that I do not think, in order to establish our case for the inquiry, it is necessary for us at all to prove that we are unfairly or inequitably treated at the present time. It is one of the objects of this Committee to inquire into the question whether Scotland or Ireland or England is equitably or inequitably treated in the matter of finance. But I think I shall be able to produce such figures as we are able to collect from the Returns which are separately made now, to show that in various matters

    797
    we are unfairly and inequitably treated. Upon the first point I will endeavour to show that there is no very great difficulty in the way of getting the necessary particulars to inquire into the financial position of Wales any more than there is in ascertaining the financial relations of Scotland or Ireland. For the convenience of the House, I shall take the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer head by head. The first head is this—the Committee are to inquire and to report as to the amount and proportion of Revenue contributed to the Exchequer by the people of England, Scotland, and Ireland. Now, the Revenue of this country is derived from several sources, the principal of which are Customs, Excise, Stamps, Land Tax, House Duty, and Income Tax. I will go shortly through some of these the most important heads of Revenue, in order to show that particulars can be easily and without cost obtained with reference to Wales as well as to other portions of the United Kingdom. Take the head of Customs. The chief sources of revenue under this head are derivable from cocoa, chicory and coffee, dried fruits, foreign spirits, tea, tobacco, and wine. Referring, as I shall have to do a good many times, to a Return which was presented to this House on the 10th July, 1891—a very valuable Treasury Minute, No. 329 of the Returns of 1891—I find various particulars with regard to this matter. For instance, I find that although it is impossible now to say exactly what the proportion of revenue derivable in respect of cocoa, chicory and coffee, and dried fruits is from Scotland, Ireland, and from England, the Treasury say that for Treasury purposes it will be sufficiently accurate to take the receipts of revenue in respect of those matters and apportion them according to population. If that is so, of course it is merely an arithmetical problem, which can be worked out in two or three minutes, to ascertain how much revenue is derivable from Wales in respect of those articles which I have named. The next important item of Customs is foreign spirits. Now, with reference to that the Treasury say that since July last permits are necessary for conveying spirits from one place to
    798
    another in the country. Therefore, they say, that for six months they are able to tell the proportion of foreign spirits consumed in various parts of the United Kingdom, and they say it is sufficient for the purposes of accuracy to base the revenue from foreign spirits as calculated by the Treasury officials for that six months. Therefore, upon the head of foreign spirits, the Treasury have, through the Inland Revenue officers, sufficient information to tell us what proportion of foreign spirits are consumed—they have that information by means of these permits—in Wales. Therefore, upon that head, as well as upon the other sub-heads which I have mentioned, they can give the necessary particulars. The other is the very large item of tea. It appears it is impossible to find out what is the exact proportion, as between England, Scotland, and Ireland, of revenue derivable from tea. The authorities say that the average consumption of tea is very much the same over all portions of the United Kingdom, and that it may be taken according to population. They say that 4·91 pounds of tea per head was consumed all over the United Kingdom in 1889. Therefore, from that source you can say, by means of an arithmetical problem, what portion of the Customs Revenue derivable from tea is derivable from Wales. With reference to tobacco, they say there is some difficulty on account of the raw leaf being sent to Ireland to be manufactured there. But they come to the same conclusion with reference to the consumption of tobacco as with reference to tea. They say that for all practical purposes the consumption is the same all over the United Kingdom—about 4s. 8d. per head per annum. With regard to wine, which is the last item of Customs with which I shall deal, that raises some difficulty. They say that arises from the fact that the duty is collected on the alcoholic strength of wine, and that it is very difficult to say for any part of the United Kingdom how much that duty may be. But they have a very rough and ready method. They average the rates of duty, and they apply the average rates to the quantities conveyed from one part of the country to the other. Therefore, for practical purposes, you can ascertain

    799
    the necessary particulars with regard to wines. I shall not go into other sources of revenue, but I think I have shown that on all subheads of Customs you can ascertain sufficiently accurately for all practical purposes the amount of revenue derivable from Wales just as you can from Scotland and from Ireland. The next head of revenue is Excise. The subheads in this are four: British spirits, Beer, Licences, and Railway Passenger Duty. With reference to British spirits, I think you can have the same information as with reference to foreign spirits from the permits which the Excise authorities require. And I believe you can have accurate information with regard to the consumption of beer from your collectors of Inland Revenue all over the country. The revenue derivable from licences is divisible into two parts. The first is a small portion of this revenue which goes for Imperial purposes. With that I need not deal because the same considerations apply to England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales. It is not necessary with reference to the Imperial portion of the revenue derivable from licences to have any inquiry into the relations of the different parts of the Kingdom. The second part has reference to local taxation. I wish to inform the House on this head that there are already sufficient particulars in the various Returns to be found in the Library of this House. The amounts of revenue derivable from licences, are entered according to Counties, and therefore we can see what is the amount which goes to the relief of local taxation. I take it that there would be no difficulty in getting the Railway Companies to show how much of the Passenger Duty is payable in Wales and how much in England. With regard to Excise, the record made of domicile on the payment of Death Duties will render it possible to state the proportion paid by the Principality; whilst as to general stamps, the Treasury has struck a percentage which is sufficient to indicate the amount paid within the metropolitan area in respect of the expenditure of persons who reside in other parts of the country. Of Land Tax and House Tax, every penny paid by Wales can be traced. Different considerations apply
    800
    to different schedules of the Income Tax and some present difficulties, but they are not insurmountable. As to income derived from national and municipal securities, the Treasury has some data upon which to distinguish incomes derivable within the metropolitan area; and for trades and professions the Returns are made by counties. Of non-tax revenue from the Post Office, the Telegraph Service, and Crown Lands, the amount derived from Wales can be easily distinguished. The same is true of the miscellaneous items. The Returns of Imperial Revenue paid to Local Authorities are already made in counties. As to the amount of money expended upon Civil and Local Government Services, the sub-head does not in my opinion deal with those items of expenditure which are Imperial, but merely has reference to the expenditure in localities, and so inquiry as to how much is incurred in reference to Wales will be very much simplified. As the expenditure on the collection of Revenue is a certain per centage, the amount of money expended upon the collection of Revenue in Wales can also be ascertained. With regard to the amount and proportion of State loans outstanding, and of State liabilities incurred for local purposes, these have been incurred chiefly in reference to Ireland. Wales has not been able to extract any money for this purpose, and therefore the inquiry as to Wales will take no time. From the information which we have been able to extract with difficulty, it appears that Wales is very badly treated in respect to taxation, contribution and expenditure of Revenue, having regard to the population of the country. No doubt there is a difference in the principles various Members would like to apply to the question of the resources of the people; but some little idea is given by the Treasury on page 26 of the Minute which they say may be a guide to the Committee in its deliberations. Having regard to the resources of the people, the Committee might inquire into, first, the Probate Duty payable in the Principality, and as I have dwelt on that I need now say no more upon it. Then the Committee should have regard to the Income Tax payable; and I hope the House will

    801
    allow me to show, by a few figures, that the resources of the people of Wales are not so great as are the resources of England, and that the wealth of Wales is small in comparison with the larger country. Of course this cuts two ways. The Chancellor of the Exchequer I know will say that if the contribution of Wales to the Exchequer under the head of Income Tax is small, then, of course, Wales ought to expect less in something like the same proportion in the way of subventions. This is not the time to go fully into that matter, but I do not think—and I am prepared to combat the principle on the proper occasion—I do not think it is right to say that a country is only to cost the Imperial Exchequer in proportion to the poverty of that country. I am afraid I do not make myself understood on this point. If a country is poor you have no right to say you will give it less on that account in aid of local taxation, for the need must be greater. Now, on the question, Is Wales poor? let us take a year's Return of the Income Tax. I take figures from Returns which will be found in the Library, and I give the results shortly under the various Schedules. Taking the year 1883 and last year, I find that, under Schedule A of the Income Tax, England, without Monmouth, contributed in 1883 per head £6 4s. 2d. per annum, while Wales, including Monmouth, contributed £4 8s. 1d., a difference of £1 16s. per head. Strange to say, under Schedule B, Income Tax on the rental of agricultural lands, the contribution of Wales is very much more per head of population than the contribution from England; and here, digressing for a moment, let me say the figures establish very clearly the correctness of the contention of my hon. Friend in proposing the Second Reading of the Land Bill for Wales a few days ago that rents are very much higher in Wales than in other portions of the United Kingdom. Under Schedule B, on rentals and agricultural lands, Wales contributed very much more per head than England did, for England contributed £1 16s. 7d., Wales £2 5s. 6d. These, I venture to submit, are very startling figures, and require the careful attention of a deliberative assembly. I need not trouble
    802
    the House with the figures under Schedule C and I come to Schedule D, Income Tax derived from trades and professions, and held by us to fairly gauge the comparative wealth of a country. Here the result is remarkable. Under Schedule D England contributes the sum of £9 11s. per head, but Wales only £4 7s. 8d., less than one-half what England contributes.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): Will the hon. Gentleman say where he derives these figures from?
    MR. S. EVANS: From Return 25 of the year 1884–85, from Volume 45, No. 269, of that year. I see that these figures have startled even the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Pardon me; I am not startled at all. I only wished to know how the hon. Member arrives at his proportion per head.
    MR. S. EVANS: It is a simple question of arithmetic. I have gone carefully into the figures, and have no hesitation in saying my results are correct. The proportion per head is, as I have said, England, £9 11s.; Wales, £4 7s. 8d., or, in other words, to put it plainly in respect of Income Tax, under Schedules A, B, and D, taken together, England contributed 8s. 1d., at the rate of 6½d. in the £1, and Wales paid 4s. 2d., or about one-half of England's contribution, in the year I refer to. Then I will give very shortly the last figures I have from Return 39 of the year 1892. The result is practically the same. This Return, dealing with the financial year 1889–90, shows per head of population—Schedule A, England, £5 14s. 10¾d.; Wales, £4 6s. 9¾d. Schedule B, England, £1 8s. 3¾d., for incomes from agricultural lands; Wales, £2 1s. 2d. Schedule D, England, £10 1s. 3½d.; Wales, £4 18s. 1d. Given shortly, the result is that, in respect of Income Tax, England contributed at the rate of 6d. in the £1 in the year 1889–90, 7s. 5d. per head, and Wales 3s. 11¾d. per head. These figures have an important bearing on the consideration of the question of the comparative resources and contributions to revenue in the two countries. Then we can ascertain from another source the comparative resources of the two

    803
    countries. The gross rental of England, including the Metropolis, is £6·31 per head of the population, and the rateable value £5·27 per head; whereas the gross rental of Wales is only £5·13 per head, and the rateable value £4·43. Hero exactly the same contrast is shown as in the Income Tax Returns. That is as far as I have gone in the estimate of the resources of the two countries, and now let me say a word on the amounts of Treasury subventions paid from the Exchequer in aid of the poor rates. The amount per head of the poor rate paid in Wales is higher than in England. In the Principality the proportion is 10s. 11¼d. per head, in England it is 10s. 3¾d. per head. The Treasury subventions in aid in the year 1888–89 were to England, total £803,668, to Wales £36,624. Now these figures are very difficult to follow, but the House may be interested to know how they work out per head of population. You have in England assistance from the Treasury at the rate of 7¼d. per head, and in Wales 5¼d. per head, a difference of twopence on every head of population. I have the figures in reference to the licence duties collected, but I will not go into these, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer may say the amount goes back in aid of local taxation, and the figures should be discarded as having no reference to this present matter; but I will give the figures in respect to the share of Probate Duty under the Act of 1888. I take the financial year ending 31st March, 1890. The total amount of England's share of the Probate Duty was £1,742,226, that of Wales £69,295. This share of the Probate Duty was given back in aid of local taxation notwithstanding certain arguments of ours to the contrary based upon the proportion of grants made in times gone by. But, without going into that matter, let me give the figures per head. England gets as her share of the Probate Duty 1s. 3½d., Wales 9¾d. I have not been able to verify my surmise in reference to this matter; but I think I am right in saying that Wales generally contributes almost as largely in respect to Probate Duty as England does, and, if so, is it not monstrously unfair that we should have only 9¾d. per head as our share, and that England should get 6d.
    804
    per head more? In the following year, 1891, England had for her share of the Probate Duty £1,857,071, and Wales £73,863; in other words, England received 1s. 4¼d. per head, Wales 11½d. The difference is not so great as in the year before, but is still considerable. In other words, if we were entitled to this Probate Duty according to population, which I think is the right principle, we should receive exactly 1s. 4d. per head, and should have been in receipt last year of £101,260, while we actually received £73,863. If we are right in our claim as to what we ought to have had as our share of the Probate Duty, there was a deficit last year of £27,397. We should have this amount annually to meet our wants for intermediate education and our Universities if the Probate Duty were more justly distributed. And now I apply the test of the Beer Duty, the additional duty laid on the country in 1890, 91, and I take the figures from Return 373 of 1891. The share England had of the new tax was £712,054, and Wales had £28,321. England received per head 6¼d. and Wales a fraction over 4¼d.—that is to say, 33 per cent. more went to England than to Wales in proportion to population. One observation I may make on this point. We must admit, and we do so with a blush, that the contribution of Wales in respect to the Beer Duty and Spirit Duty has in late years been quite equal in proportion to population to the contribution from England. If that is so, then it is wrong that we should have only 4¼d. per head of this, while England receives 6¼d. On a fair distribution we should be entitled to 6⅛d. per head, amounting to £38,760 for last year, while we actually received £28,321 under the head of Beer and Spirit Duties, having lost £10,440. Having gone through these figures, let me in a few words give a résumé of the result. In the first place, if a Committee were appointed to inquire into the financial relations of the different parts of the Kingdom, Wales should not be excluded. I have shown that the facts as regards Wales can be ascertained without much difficulty and at very little extra expense. If it had been—which it was not, for the object of the Committee is

    805
    inquiry—necessary for me to show that Wales has been inequitably treated in past financial arrangements, I think, having regard to the resources of the two countries, that that could be established. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has up to now been adamant in excluding Wales from this inquiry. I am told that the Committee can do little in the short time remaining for the present Parliament; but I do ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that in this first appointment of the Committee Wales shall be included. The onus of proving the exclusion of Wales lies with him.
    Amendment proposed, in line 2, after the word "England," to insert the word "Wales."
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Wales' be there inserted."
    MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Member has left me about as much time for my reply to him as he has occupied with his preliminaries and the résumé at the end of his speech. I am sure he will not think me wanting in courtesy to him if I condense my remarks into the briefest possible space. Pleasantly and plausibly the hon. Member has spoken, and he has made out the best case his materials would admit of; but in the same pleasant and plausible way he has slurred over all difficulties and made light of most serious objections to his proposal. The hon. Member says—and I might rest my case on that—that the onus of proof with regard to the exclusion of Wales lies with the Government, and those who oppose his Amendment. Now, I say distinctly the onus of showing why Wales should be separately treated lies with the hon. Gentleman. He did not offer in his long and interesting statement one single argument why Wales should be treated differently from any other part of the country. Wales is excluded from the inquiry, says the hon. Gentleman; but Wales is not excluded. Wales stands in the inquiry side by side with England, as she has stood by the side of England throughout the Whole of her fiscal history, in all her fiscal arrangements. I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman can think there is greater cause for treating Wales separately than there
    806
    is for treating Lancashire separately or Yorkshire separately, or, as an hon. Member opposite suggests, for treating Ulster separately from the rest of Ireland. (An hon. MEMBER: Or London.) Yes; it would be quite as reasonable a proposal to treat the Metropolis separately, and when treating London separately there would be an equal claim for treating Glasgow separately from Scotland and Belfast from Ireland. Then we might have an inquiry, which should range over all counties, to determine which are the richer counties and which the poorer, and which contributes more and which less to the Imperial Revenue; and when we have done that, when we have arrived at the result, when we have the information if we could get it, what then is to be done? Are we to have a separate fiscal system for each county? How would it be possible to raise our taxation or analyse our expenditure if every comparatively small division should have a right to claim to be separately treated? If Wales has a grievance, is it more severe than that of any of the poorer counties in England, Scotland, or Ireland? Is it possible to adjust taxation and expenditure throughout the United Kingdom in such a manner that each county or group of counties shall contribute equally to and receive equally from the Imperial Exchequer? You cannot do this; you would destroy the whole unity of our fiscal system. I will not follow the hon. Member through his discussion of the means of meeting the difficulties of collecting the information which he desires. I do not deny that it might be possible to procure much interesting information on a good many of the points suggested by the hon. Gentleman. I do not deny that as regards some articles of consumption—I make full admission, and say as regards the main articles of consumption taxed—it would be possible to arrive at some result; but when we come to the Income Tax, the difficulties will be much greater. The hon. Member has tried to minimise those difficulties to a scarcely justifiable extent. I do not see how the hon. Member knows how much per head is paid for Income Tax in Wales, for the way in which Schedule D is assessed

    807
    makes it difficult to localise it so distinctly as to say precisely how much is paid in each part of the country.
    MR. SAMUEL EVANS: The Returns are given county by county.
    *MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, I am aware that the counties are given in which Income Tax is paid, but that does not represent the amount arising in each county. For instance, a wealthy man dies at Bristol, but he has property scattered all over the Kingdom. I do not see how the tax can be localised. From want of time I cannot follow the hon. Member through his speech. (An hon. MEMBER! Adjourn.) No, if we adjourn I do not know when we can resume. We cannot agree to accept Wales in this inquiry as a separate financial entity in our fiscal system. On this broad ground I must resist the Amendment, and I hope, now that the hon. Member has had the opportunity of making his excellent speech, he will not further stand in the way of the appointment of this Committee, whose labours may result, I hope, in the collection of much interesting information and furnish valuable materials for the study of future Chancellors of the Exchequer.
    MR. THOMAS ELLIS: I think no case was ever made out more clearly and irresistibly than that made by my hon. Friend to-night, and I will venture to say no Minister ever made so poor a reply as the right hon. Gentleman has just made. At every turn my hon. Friend supported his case with figures.
    It being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  DUBLIN BARRACKS IMPROVEMENT (re-committed) BILL.—(No. 218.)
  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The Instruction of which the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) has given notice is not in order, inasmuch as it involves a public charge.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: With all submission, Sir, permit to say that I distinctly, in the terms of my notice, guarded myself from anything involving a public charge, and on a true construction I think the Motion will be found not to do so. My Motion runs in this form—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert provisions to enable the Dublin Corporation to establish the amount expended by them on the Wellington Barracks, and also enabling the Secretary of State to recoup the same to the ratepayers of Dublin."
  It will be observed that this does not involve a charge—it simply enables the Corporation to establish the amount expended, and enables the Secretary of State to make proposals to recoup the same. It does not say that he shall do so.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I am afraid the hon. and learned Member's explanation does not make the Instruction the more in order. The Secretary of State can only recoup the ratepayers of Dublin from the public funds.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: May I ask you, Sir, if I would be in order in moving the Instruction down as far as the word "barracks," leaving out the last line and a half so that the Corporation may establish the amount they have expended? We have a fair claim in the Main Drainage Scheme as a kind of set off for this amount.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member may proceed so far.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: I do not object to the Bill, and do not raise any objection to the Government acquiring the building for barracks; but my objection is to the Government appropriating the building, built and intended for a prison, to military purposes, without giving any compensation to the ratepayers of Dublin. I will make a suggestion. I do not want to violently press this Amendment. I move it to raise this point. Why are the barrack extensions necessary now? Because typhoid fever prevails in the city in the neighbourhood of the Liffey. You have in the case of the Royal Barracks, expended hundreds, probably thousands, of pounds, and why? Because of the unsanitary state of the barracks due to the pestilential condition

  809
  of the Liffey. Very good. Now you have got a barracks free of all charge to the State, without the cost of a shilling to the State. Very good. There is now before the Government a proposition for the main drainage of the City of Dublin, and nobody will benefit more from the carrying out of that scheme than the troops in Dublin. In your Royal Barracks your soldiers die from the position of the building, near what is little better than an open sewer, and the stench of it goes up to the detriment of soldiers and civilians in the city. I do not think that it is an unfair thing that we, through the Corporation, should establish what is the value of these new barracks to Her Majesty's Government, and that the value should be contributed by the Government towards the drainage of the city. Next to the soldiers, who would benefit most from this improvement? Dublin Castle, every man in which must feel the effects of the condition of the Liffey. Who next? The Judges and Law Officers of the Government, for the Four Courts are on the banks of the river. This is in no sense a Party question. I venture to think that we on this occasion will have the support of the Conservative Members in making this reasonable claim. I must say it is not a handsome thing for the Government, simply by discontinuing the place as a prison, saying it is no longer necessary to appropriate it for military purposes, instead of devoting the site to public purposes as is done in England. When you abolished Millbank as a prison what did you do?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. and learned Member is now speaking to the Amendment as a whole. He is arguing in favour of compensation being given from the Imperial Exchequer, and such a proposal, as I have informed the hon. and learned Gentleman, would not be in order.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: That very elastic fund, the Church Surplus, might be used, and that would involve no charge on the Exchequer; but so long as the Liffey is improved I do not care from what fund the expense of drainage comes. But I do not intend to go any further into the matter. I put the suggestion before the Government, and I say it is not a reasonable
  810
  thing that the Government having got hold of this building for the purpose of a prison should divert it to a wholly different purpose, and that it is only reasonable that the Corporation, on behalf of the ratepayers, should have the opportunity of establishing the amount expended. I move the Instruction down to the word "barracks."
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert provisions to enable the Dublin Corporation to establish the amount expended by them on the Wellington Barracks."—(Mr. Timothy Healy.)
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,): The hon. and learned Member, in his desire to do justice to the Corporation of Dublin, has not considered the circumstances under which the prison was originally handed over.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: It was not handed over—it was seized.
  *MR. BRODRICK: The hon. and learned Gentleman was not, I think, in Parliament at the time, in 1877, when the Act was passed, I think I may truly say, with the object of relieving to a large extent Corporations and Grand Juries of a heavy charge for the maintenance of prisons, and the Richmond Prison came under the category. That relief was accepted at the time and the transfer to the Prisons Board was felt to be a great advantage to the ratepayers. For ten years the building was used as a local prison and administered by the Prisons Board. Under Section 31 the Prisons Board had power to abolish the Prison if they found it unnecessary to continue it, and to apply it to certain other purposes under which section the building was used as a barrack. As the hon. and learned Member knows, great difficulty was found in securing barrack accommodation in Dublin. The Royal Barracks, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has rightly observed, were in a bad, insanitary state, and it has been found necessary to reduce the accommodation there by one-third, and accommodation had to be immediately found for the soldiers removed. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, a very large sum has been spent, and is being spent,

  811
  in building new barracks in Dublin; and we propose by this Bill to adapt Richmond Prison for further accommodation. I do not think that any purpose will be served by calculating the sum expended by the Corporation for wholly different purposes, and under circumstances provided for in the Act. I do not see how we can go behind the Act which provided for the transfer; the interest of the Corporation terminated with the transfer. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will not think it necessary to press this Instruction. Questions in relation to the Bill have been fairly considered by the Committee upstairs, from whose deliberations the hon. and learned Gentleman was absent. No petitions were presented against the Bill, and it is absolutely necessary that new buildings should be erected. It is not possible for the hon. and learned Gentleman to move the latter part of his Instruction, and I cannot see how it is possible to introduce the Instruction he has now proposed into the Bill nor what purpose it will serve.
  MR. SEXTON: I do not find that the hon. Gentleman has made out any case against the Instruction in its limited terms, though undoubtedly in its original form it would propose a public charge. But as submitted in its amended form it is simply that the amount expended by the Corporation in the erection of the building now known as Wellington Barracks should be ascertained. The convenience of this course will be apparent, if at any future time the claim of the Corporation to be recouped for this expenditure should be recognised. The Act of 1877 is no bar to any such Instruction. No doubt by that Act Local Bodies were relieved of the burden of maintaining the prison as part of the general arrangement of items as between local rates and the Exchequer. The local rates were relieved, but the cost of maintenance was thrown upon the Imperial taxpayers, the persons who contributed to the local rates contributed to the Imperial taxation, the burden was renewed in another form. This question of the amount expended by the Government on the barrack is different from the
  812
  amount expended as upon a prison. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, as a member of the Corporation, that the Corporation never assented to the idea that the passing of the Act of 1877 disposed of their equitable and undeniable claim to be recouped the amount expended on the prison. I am sorry the Government refuse to allow this opportunity to be availed of to ascertain the amount expended, for undoubtedly it will be the duty of those interested to press this question from time to time, and endeavour to secure an equitable settlement. If my hon. Friend presses his Motion now, I am sure every Irishman will support him.
  MR. COMMINS: I think a little further debate will show that the Dublin Corporation have a good claim. As bearing upon the question, I may mention the transfer of Kirkdale Prison near Liverpool. In the same way this prison was taken over from the Justices as Richmond Prison was taken from the Corporation of Dublin; but then the Treasury gave the Grand Jury of Lancashire £14,000 for Kirkdale Prison. This illustrates the question whether the Treasury ought to pay the Corporation of Dublin. I think the Local Authority in Lancashire had no better claim. In any case I do not see why there should be an objection to ascertain the amount expended on the building.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I have allowed the discussion to proceed, seeing that the Instruction in terms indicated, the object as being to provide that the Dublin Corporation should show the amount expended upon the building. The last section of the Instruction given notice of I have ruled out of order, as involving a charge upon the Exchequer; but I now see, and it is evident from the speeches that have been delivered, that the same objection applies to the earlier part of the Instruction. With the interpretation put upon it, I am bound to say that the Instruction is not in order.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: I beg to move that Progress be reported.

  813
  I can assure the Government that so far as I am concerned they will have no chance of getting the Bill through as an unopposed measure unless we get some satisfaction for the citizens of Dublin for the robbery, for that is what it amounts to, of this building. I was anxious that the Bill should go through. I think it is reasonable that the troops in Dublin should have a better chance of life than they have in the Royal Barracks; but as my hon. Friend has reminded us, in other instances when a building has been taken by the State compensation has been given to the Local Authority. Why should we in Dublin be robbed more than the people in Lancashire?
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Timothy Healy.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I may say that what has been done has been strictly in accordance with the Act. I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman will deny that. I understand his desire is to obtain information as to the cost which has been incurred by the Corporation on the building as a prison. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will move for a Return giving the information, I am sure my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office will carefully consider the Motion with a view to giving the information if it is possible to do so.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: I do not like to oppose a Bill which is recognised as necessary for the health of the troops, but I should like to have something more definite than a mere suggestion. The right hon. Gentleman has thrown out the hope of a Return, but that is a small matter. Will the right hon. Gentleman go a step further and say that if he finds that Kirkdale is a precedent for giving compensation to a Local Authority, and this is a similar case, then the precedent shall be followed? The building might be used as a museum, it might be turned into a play-house, it might be used in many ways if not converted into barracks.
  814
  I think we are quite entitled to ask that if precedent justifies it we should have the benefit in Dublin.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If any precedent can be shown under the Act referred to I shall be very glad to examine it.
  MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman said that if a Return is moved for he will consider it, but I think we are entitled to hear in unmistakable terms that the Return will be granted. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there will be no trouble about getting the information, for the City and County of Dublin have unquestionable records, of the amount expended by the Corporation in the erection of the prison. This will enable him to say that the Return will be granted.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have not the least objection to granting the Return. The difficulty is that what the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to get at is what has been the amount expended by the Dublin Corporation upon the prison, and it is not in our power to say if the Corporation can and will furnish that. We will endeavour to supply the Return.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: There is an alternative in case of any failure in obtaining the information from one source, and that is that the Government should say what has been the gain to the Department—what is the value of the building for military purposes. On the undertaking that the Government will endeavour to supply the information, I have no objection to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Preamble agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment.
  MR. BRODRICK: There seems to be no objection to the Bill, perhaps the House will now allow the third reading to be taken?
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: As the Irish Members allow the Bill to go through, I hope that we shall be treated in the same spirit when next we raise the question.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a third time, and passed.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER [MILNATHORT WATER] BILL.—(No. 280.)
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; to be read the third time To-morrow.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.—(No. 271.)
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 272.)
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; to be read the third time To-morrow.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.—(No. 273.)
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS BILL. (No. 255.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  BARGE OWNERS, &C, LIABILITY BILL. (NO. 211.)
  Read a second time, and committed to the Select Committee on Watermen's and Lightermen's Company Bill.
  Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented three clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.—(Mr. Causton.)

  RECREATION GROUNDS BILL. (No. 201.)
  Read a second time, and committed for Thursday next.
  MOTIONS.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 7) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Long, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Havant, Tamworth, Warwick, and Wallsend, Willington Quay and Howton Joint Hospital Districts, and to the Upper Stour Valley Main Sewerage District, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long and Mr. Ritchie.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 339.]

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 8) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Long, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Urban Sanitary Districts of Burnley, Paignton, and Penzance, and to the Rural Sanitary Districts of the Blything and Hendon Unions, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long and Mr. Ritchie.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 340.]

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Long, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Urban Sanitary Districts of Bradford (Yorks.), Halifax, Rawmarsh, Sheffield, and Shipley, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long and Mr. Ritchie.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 341.]

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (POOR LAW) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Long, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board under the provisions of "The Poor Law Amendment Act, 1867," relating to the Hundred of Mutford and Lothingland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long and Mr. Ritchie.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 342.]

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 8) BILL.
    On Motion of The Attorney General for Ireland, Bill to confirm four Provisional Orders made by the Local Government Board for Ireland, under "The Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878," relating to the purchase of lands for waterworks for the Towns of Athlone, Castletown, Berehaven, Cookstown, and Skibbereen, ordered to be brought in by The Attorney General for Ireland and Mr. Jackson.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 343.]

    PRIMOGENITURE ABOLITION BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. M'Cartan, Bill to amend the Law relating to the devolution of Real Estate, ordered to be brought in by Mr. M'Cartan, Sir T. Esmonde, Mr. Knox, Dr. Tanner, and Mr. Pinkerton.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 344.]
    House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.