Commons Sitting of 13 May 1892

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

  SWAZILAND AND THE TRANSVAAL REPUBLIC.
  MR. AINSLIE(for Mr. ISAACS,): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies is there any truth in the statements made by the Colonial Press that notwithstanding the undertakings in the various Conventions of 1881, 1884, and 1890, made with the South African Republic, each containing a declaration that the Swazis should remain independent, and in view of the necessity of further repressing the sale of female slaves still carried on in Swaziland, Her Majesty's Government have made a promise to the President of the South African Republic to cede Swaziland to that Republic before the expiration of the Convention of 1890; is he aware that about six millions sterling of British capital have been invested in Swaziland on the strength of the statement made in the House of Lords on the 4th August, 1890, that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to hand over Swaziland to the South African Republic; and is he also aware that Mr. Cecil Rhodes, Prime Minister of the Cape of Good Hope, has proposed to obtain the consent of the South African Republic to join a Customs Union of all the South African Colonies and States in exchange for Swaziland?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,): Her Majesty's Government have made no promise to the President of the South African Republic to cede Swaziland to that Republic. The Secretary of State is not aware of the amount of British capital, if any, which has been invested in Swaziland since August, 1890. As regards the last paragraph of the question, the Secretary of State has no knowledge of any such proposal.

  EXCISE OFFICERS EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. KELLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the supervisors of Inland Revenue, who are generally between 45 and 56 years of age at the time, have, in order to obtain promotion to the position of Inspectors, to submit themselves to competitive examinations lasting three days, six hours each day, and consisting of the writing out
  822
  of statements in the nature of essays; whether at such an examination recently held at the Custom House in Dublin, the late supervisor of Middle-ton, County Cork, who was 52 years of age, after having been for a short time in the examination room, fell dead in one of the corridors attached to it, and left a widow and family; whether it is necessary to subject this class of public servants, at such a period of their lives, to competitive examinations, in order to ascertain their fitness for promotion to Inspectorships, or whether there is any other method; and whether, in such latter event, he will consider the desirability of abolishing a system which involves competitive examinations of the kind five years only, in some cases, before the compulsory retirement, on the ground of age, of those who have to submit themselves to them as the only means of obtaining promotion?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. GORST,): The examination is a pass and not a competitive one. The essays which have to be written are on subjects connected with the official duties of the candidates. The unfortunate death alluded to in the second paragraph was the result of natural causes, and in no way connected with the examination. The system has been in force for 50 years with satisfactory results. It is acceptable to the members of the Department generally, and I cannot suggest any improvement upon it.

  COUNTY GALWAY INFIRMARY.
  MR. PINKERTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state at what date the County Galway Infirmary Bill will be introduced, in pursuance of public notice given in December, 1891, and in accordance with the Report of the Commission of Inquiry appointed by the Lord Lieutenant; if he is aware that through that advertisement no steps were taken to elect a surgeon in the usual way, and, as a consequence, an election is now impossible owing to the death of a governor this year, which renders the number of qualified electors below that of an official quorum, and leaves the Infirmary derelict at the present moment; and

  823
  whether he is aware that, in support of the proposition that the Bill should be passed as an unopposed measure, resolutions were passed by the Grand Jury of the county, the Town Commissioners, and by the citizens of Galway, at a public meeting convened by the Lord Bishop?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,): The hon. Member will probably have noticed that I have put down a Motion to bring in the Bill to-day. The only thing I can say in regard to the question is, that no steps were taken to elect a surgeon in the usual way not because of any advertisement. The appointment was not made in consequence of the impossibility of making a quorum.

  THE MCKINLEY TARIFF.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON(for Mr. P. STANHOPE,): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office have requested and received from Her Majesty's Minister at Washington, as promised in answer to a question put in this House on 9th April of last year, a Report showing the effect of the McKinley Tariff Act upon the wages, employment, and cost of the necessaries of life of the working classes in the United States of America?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): Her Majesty's Minister at Washington informed us last year that the Commissioner of Labour, Mr. Wright, a gentleman of high reputation for fairness and intelligence, had been directed by the Senate to report,
  "On the effect of the tariff laws of the United States upon imports and exports, the growth, development, production, and prices of agricultural and manufactured articles, and upon wages, domestic and foreign."
  Under these circumstances it was not thought necessary to call upon Sir J. Pauncefote for another Report. Mr. Wright's Report was only presented to the Senate yesterday, but as soon as it is received here a copy of it will be placed in the Library.

  THE TUBERCULOSIS COMMISSION.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis may be expected to issue its Report?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I am informed that it is hoped that all the experiments will be completed by the autumn, but then some time must elapse before the whole of the information obtained by the Commission can be fully examined and reported on.

  SILVER CURRENCY CONFERENCE.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the delegates appointed to represent Her Majesty's Government at the Conference invited by the United States "to consider by what means, if any, the use of silver can be increased in the currency system of the nations," will be permitted to treat the adoption by this country of a legal fixed ratio between gold and silver as an open question?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I think I may inform the hon. Member that it would be contrary to precedent and also to expediency that a premature declaration should be made as to instructions to be given to delegates at any Conference appointed to represent this country. I am unable to inform the hon. Member what instructions will be given, and I may further add Her Majesty's Government have not yet themselves considered the precise terms of the instructions.
  MR. PICTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly say when I might with propriety ask the question? When the instructions have been given, will he allow the question to be asked?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I think the hon. Member will find that in the past the practice has been observed not to make known the instructions to delegates while the Conference is sitting. Suppose negotiations were going on and our delegates were instructed to obtain some particular solution, the realisation of this solution might be compromised if

  825
  those taking part in the Conference knew precisely the instructions given to our delegates. Confidence must be reposed in Her Majesty's Government, the House, of course, being at liberty to disallow any arrangements that may be come to.

  CONVICTIONS FOR DRUNKENNESS.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consent to amend the Return of the hon. Member for South Oxfordshire (Mr. Francis Parker) on convictions for drunkenness, by adding a column to be filled in by the number of convictions in each locality of publicans for supplying intoxicating liquor to drunken persons, or permitting drunkenness on their premises?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,) (who replied): The Return of the hon. Member for South Oxfordshire has been ordered and could not conveniently be extended in the way desired. Moreover, the information which the hon. Member speaks of in his question appears already in the annual volume of judicial statistics. In the volume for 1890, issued last year, he will find this information on pages 25 and 32.
  MR. SUMMERS: Do the statistics make distinction between districts?
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: They show by districts in counties and boroughs the number of persons proceeded against, but of convictions they show only the totals. I may say the whole question of the form of these judicial statistics is under consideration, and the subject raised in the question of the hon. Member will not be lost sight of.

  RENT-CHARGE OF SMALL HOLDINGS.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAYhad notice of the following question:—To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, as the perpetual rent-charge payable by a tenant purchaser under Clause 5 of the Small Agricultural Holdings Bill is to be only of an amount to include the yearly interests which the County Councils
  826
  have to pay on the corresponding debt which they have incurred, but is not to include any yearly contribution to a Sinking Fund in repayment of the principal of such debt, from what source are the County Councils to provide the sum needful to repay the whole of the principal of the debt within 50 years, as provided by Clause 12 of the Bill; and if the said perpetual rent-charge is to include a yearly contribution to a Sinking Fund for the gradual repayment of the principal of the debt, what will be done with that yearly contribution after the whole of the debt incurred in respect of the sale of a holding has been paid off?
  MR. SPEAKER: The question of the hon. Member for Elgin is not in Order, inasmuch as it is of an argumentative character, having reference to a Bill now before the House and actually in progress in Committee.

  LABOURERS IN THE ROYAL PARKS.
  MR. JAMES STUART: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works what reply he is prepared to give to the memorial addressed to him from workmen employed in his Department in St. James's and Hyde Parks and in Kensington Gardens, praying that wages, hours of employment, and holidays may be granted to them on similar terms to those granted to the employees of the London County Council?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): The memorial from workmen employed in St. James's and Hyde Parks and Kensington Gardens referred to in the question is receiving my careful consideration, and I am making inquiries on the subject; but the hon. Member is doubtless aware that only two years ago we added £1,000 to the Estimates for the purpose of improving the pay of labourers employed in the Royal Parks. When I have been able to reply to the memorialists I shall be happy to answer his question.

  ALIEN IMMIGRATION.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now in a position to fix a day upon which the Government will place the House in

  827
  possession of the results of their consideration of the question of alien immigration into this country?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): A Bill on this subject is in charge of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I believe he will be in a position to introduce it soon.

  THE EIGHT HOURS BILL.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM; I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can fix a day for the discussion of the Eight Hours Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid it will hardly be possible to find time for the discussion of this measure, which, however, I the less regret, as a very full discussion on the same subject, though in a less comprehensive form, took place in the House a short time since on the question of eight hours for mining labour.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman might it not be possible for him to find some time—I will not say a day—after the Whitsuntide Recess?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot give any promise. If once we begin to give way in favour of any particular Bill we shall day after day have other appeals from other hon. Members in favour of measures in which they may be interested, and it would be impossible for the Government to attempt to distinguish between the relative value and importance of the different claims put forward.

  INFANTS (BETTING AND LOANS) ACT.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Attorney General if he is aware that, since the passing of the Infants (Betting and Loans) Act, numerous advertisements have appeared in the newspapers, inviting the persons to whom they are addressed to borrow money from the advertisers, and that many of these advertisements are directly addressed to minors, clerks, and reversioners; and whether it is an offence under the Act for any person to send, or cause to be sent, to infants newspapers containing such advertisements?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I am not aware of the circumstances mentioned in the first paragraph of the hon. Gentleman's question. I cannot say whether the sending of a newspaper containing such advertisements as the hon. Gentleman refers to is an offence. That would depend upon the circumstances of the case.

  THE NEW COINAGE.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is true, as stated by the Staffordshire Evening Post, that—
  "The reforms so persistently advocated in some quarters of stamping the value of all coins upon them has not been adopted in the new designs which the Coinage Committee have recommended for adoption";
  if so, what are the coins on which it is proposed to omit any expression of value?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I do not think it would be quite fair to disclose the recommendation of the Coinage Committee on one point before the Report generally is ready for publication. That Report is in an advanced state, and very soon it will be possible to lay it on the Table. So far as I am acquainted with the views of the Committee on the question of indicating the value on coins, I feel sure they will commend themselves to practical persons of banking experience. There are three bankers on the Committee, who no doubt will give the fullest attention to the question of having the value indicated on coins where confusion is likely to occur.

  GUNBOATS FOR LAKE NYASSA.
  SIR A. BORTHWICK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing the great influence that the presence and movement of the two torpedo vessels on the Zambesi belonging to the Navy has exercised in maintaining order and assisting in the stopping of the slave trade, it would be possible to transfer those vessels to Lake Nyassa where their operation could be even more useful?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, but there are great difficulties in giving effect to his wishes in the way he suggests. The gunboats maintained for service on the Zambesi are only adapted for river work; they cannot be taken to pieces and carried overland; moreover, their services cannot yet be dispensed with on the Zambesi. The Government have, however, decided to build two gunboats specially for service on Lake Nyassa; orders have been given for their construction, and arrangements have been made for sending them out as soon as the depth of water in the river permits of their ascent, which will be early in the autumn. The presence of these vessels on the Lake will, we are confident, be of material assistance in arresting the slave trade at one of its sources.

  SPANISH IMPORT TARIFF.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the United Kingdom, under existing Treaties with Spain, is entitled to its imports into that country coming under the Most Favoured Nation Clause until 30th June of the present year; whether the tariff on linen yarns imported into Spain from Austria-Hungary is equal to 27·42 pesetas for Nos. 1 to 20, and whether a Circular issued by the Director General of Customs in Madrid on 11th April last ordered that such numbers of linen yarns must pay 45 pesetas, not only in future, but retrospectively on all imported since 1st February last and which had been cleared at the lower rate of duty, whereas the notice which appeared in the Gazette of 10th February last stated that
  "The Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between Spain and Austria-Hungary of 3rd June, 1880, is prolonged and shall remain in force until 30th June, 1892, except as regards spirits and alcohols,"
  and in a telegram sent by the Minister of Finance at Madrid on 1st February to the Collectors of Customs at Barcelona and other Spanish ports it is stated that goods from Austria-Hungary should enjoy the tariff annexed to its Treaty, subsequent to
  830
  which up to 11th April British yarns were admitted at the same rate; whether it has been brought to the knowledge of the Government that British merchants, acting on the notice in the Gazette and the telegram of the Spanish Minister of Finance, entered into contracts and transactions which have involved serious inconvenience and loss, consequent on the sudden and retrospective increase of the duty on linen yarns imported from this country into Spain since 1st February; and whether, in the circumstances, Her Majesty's Government will endeavour to obtain compensation from the Government of Spain for the injury British merchants have suffered, or will press for the admission of British linen yarns until 30th June at the Austria-Hungary tariff rate, in accordance with the Gazette notice and the instructions of the Minister of Finance in February last?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The answers to the first and third paragraphs are in the affirmative. As to the series of questions contained in the second paragraph, the Spanish Government state that the special rates for linen yarns, stipulated for in the Austro-Hungarian Treaty of 1880, ceased to exist on the 14th March, 1887, at the termination of the period agreed upon for the duration of those special rates. The general tariff for linen yarns then came into force and remained in force until the 1st February, 1892 when the present tariff became operative. Her Majesty's Government have not found themselves able to accept the contention of the Spanish Government, and they have consequently adopted the second alternative suggested in the last paragraph of the hon. Member's question.

  LONDON STREET ACCIDENTS.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state what was the number of accidents occurring in the streets of the Metropolis during the year 1891; whether there was any increase or decrease on the number recorded during the year 1890; and how many accidents resulted in death and how many in personal injuries?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): The total number of street accidents during the year 1891 was 5,784, being an increase of 56 as compared with the total number in 1890. The number of fatal accidents in 1891 was 147, being an increase of three as compared with the number in 1890.
  MR. COGHILL: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to diminish the number of accidents since his attention was called to the matter a year ago?
  MR. MATTHEWS: It is not easy to take any steps to efficiently diminish the dangers that must necessarily attend such crowded streets as we have in London. The number of points at which the police do their best to check and regulate the traffic have been increased during late years.

  POLYNESIAN LABOUR IN QUEENSLAND.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies a question of which I have given private notice. Is it true, as reported in a Times telegram to-day, that the Royal Assent has been given to the Bill lately passed by the Queensland Government for the resuscitation of the traffic with Kanaka, which has been called the "White Slave Trade"?
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: I have seen the telegram, which is substantially correct. A telegram has also been received through the Agent General of Queensland, which I will read—
  "Governor of Queensland out of reach of telegraphic communication. Act has been assented to. Merely repeals prohibition of issue of licences after '90. Present regulations remain in force until amended. Revised regulations, still more stringent, ready. Will be issued immediately on Governor's return. Government fully recognise necessity stringent regulations. Fully determined to prevent infringement. Many return Islanders waiting passage to Islands. It is proposed to issue recruiting licences under conditions of revised regulation to ships taking them. Sugar industry already shows great revival. Matter of importance to afford every facility for supply of labour as soon as possible."
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: Considering the deep interest taken in the country on this question, will the right
  832
  hon. Gentleman not telegraph for these revised regulations, and have them laid on the Table of the House?
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: I cannot promise to do that. The hon. Member will see from the Paper which I shall shortly present that, as I have already stated, immigration has for the last five years been carried on without any complaint. Before licences can be issued, the regulations are to be made still more stringent. Under these circumstances, and having regard to the assurances contained in the telegram I have read, Her Majesty's Government do not entertain any doubt as to the efficiency of the safeguards proposed by the Queensland Government.
  MR. PICTON: The right hon. Gentleman has not stated whether or not the Royal Assent has been given. He said the Governor's assent had been given. I suppose that can be overridden by the Royal Prerogative? Has the final assent of the Crown been given?
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The Bill has become law; and unless it is disallowed, it is in force.
  DR. CLARK: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the High Commissioner of the Pacific will look after the recruiting? Will the recruiting outside of British dominions come within the cognisance of our Agent?
  *BARON H. DE WORMS: I think the explanation I have given to the House is satisfactory. I have no reason to doubt for a moment the sincerity of the assurance given us by the Queensland Government.

  THE ISSUE OF WRITS AT BELFAST.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, with reference to the establishment of a District Registry for the issue of writs of summons in Belfast, whether the conference of the Judges, as promised before the Recess, has yet been held on the subject; and whether he is aware that the Belfast Chamber of Commerce, and all other mercantile bodies in Belfast, desire the immediate establishment of such a registry there?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): I am informed by the Lord Chancellor that he has conferred with the Judges on this subject, and so far as they are aware there is no practical inconvenience under the present system. He has not received any communication from any body in Belfast, either mercantile or legal. Of course, if the Lord Chancellor does receive such a communication he will give it his careful consideration, and it may be necessary afterwards to communicate with the Treasury on the matter.
  MR. SEXTON: Has not the Lord Chancellor received a communication from the Belfast Chamber of Commerce on the subject?
  MR. MADDEN: So far as I am aware, the Lord Chancellor has not received such a communication. If he did, it would of course be a communication of great importance, and would receive his very careful attention.
  MR. MCCARTAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that copies of the resolution passed by the Chamber of Commerce were sent to hon. Members of this House; is it not a fact that in England there are eighty district registries; and does the right hon. Gentleman know there is great inconvenience in Belfast owing to the absence of a registry, as at present it takes three days after the issue of a summons before service can be obtained?
  MR. MADDEN: The Lord Chancellor did not express any opinion on the merits of the question, but he is giving the matter his careful consideration. I may point out that the Lord Chancellor is not a Member of the House.
  MR. MACNEILL: He was a Member.

  THE COLONISATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA.
  MR. SETON-KARR; I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Imperial Government have arranged to advance £150,000 to the Government of British Columbia for the purposes of colonisation in that country; if so, at what rate of interest, on what security, and for what
  834
  period; in what sums and at what dates will the said principal sum be advanced; what will be the constitution of the authority to be appointed to carry out the details of the work; from what part or parts of the United Kingdom will the families to be colonised be chosen, and when is it proposed to commence to send them out; on what principle will such families or persons be chosen, and by whom; and is the work to be carried out entirely under Government supervision, or will the organisation of any private commercial company be utilised in any way for this purpose?
  MR. GOSCHEN: We have been informed by the Government of British Columbia that an Act has been passed by the Legislature of that Province to authorise the acceptance of the offer made by Her Majesty's Government of an advance of £150,000 for the purpose of crofter colonisation in that country. It is proposed that this sum should be lent in three instalments of £50,000 each, the second and third instalments not to be advanced until the first and second instalments have been spent. The rate of interest will be three per cent., and the security will be the guarantee of the British Columbian Government. Repayment is to begin after five years and to be spread over a period of twenty-five years. It is proposed to commence colonisation under this arrangement as soon as possible. The Government of British Columbia contemplate sending a Representative to confer with Her Majesty's Government upon the details of the scheme. The hon. Member will understand, therefore, that the details of organisation about which he asks are not settled yet. Legislation will, of course, be needed before the proposed advance can be made, so that the House will have full opportunity for considering the scheme when it is complete.
  MR. SETON-KARR: I wish to ask whether any families will be sent out this year?
  MR. GOSCHEN: That will depend on the representation of the British Columbian Representative who is coming over, but who has not yet arrived.
  MR. SETON-KARR: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me some information as to the last clause of my question?
  MR. GOSCHEN: On that I shall have to confer with the Representative of the British Columbian Government. The point is not yet settled.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. MACNEILL: Will the First Lord say when he proposes to take the Indian Councils Act Amendment Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If there is time I shall take it before seven.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Is the First Lord of the Treasury now able to fix a definite time for the Second Reading of the Irish Local Government Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The progress of the Local Government Bill for Ireland will depend upon the advance we make with the Bill we are now engaged upon—the Small Holdings Bill. We cannot take it before we finish the Committee stage.
  MR. PICTON: Are we to understand that the Budget Bill is definitely fixed for Monday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps I ought to qualify my previous answer. I understand it would be inconvenient to many gentlemen to begin the discussion of such a Bill as the Irish Local Government Bill on Tuesday or Friday, and therefore I cannot pledge myself on the point. Supposing business so fell out, some other business might have to be taken in order to commence the discussion of the Bill on Thursday or Monday.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SMALL AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.—(No. 183.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress, 12th May.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 7.
  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: When Progress was moved last night we were discussing this question, which really is one of very great importance; and now that I have had an opportunity of still further discussing it, I am more than ever impressed with the seriousness of the mistake the Committee will make unless something is done to meet the possibilities of the case we suggested last night. Let me remind the Committee that there are two interests we have to protect: the interests of the County Council—that is to say, of the ratepayers—and also the interests of the landowners who are concerned in this matter. I shall later show where we are all interested in protecting the interests of the landowners. In the first place, I will deal only with the case of the representatives of the community, who, under this Bill, are asked to run a very considerable risk and to expend public money for a great public service. That public service is the creation of peasant proprietors; and we pointed out last night that under the clause as it stands, after the peasant proprietors have been created by this Bill, it will be perfectly possible, after the expiry of ten years, for the owner of the land to sell it to speculative builders or other people, and to turn what was intended to be a great social reform into a mere speculation, which would in no degree fulfil the objects and intentions of Parliament. Therefore, I say in the interests of the ratepayers, we are bound to see that their sacrifices secure the object which we have in view. Now, Sir, I turn to the interests of the landowners, and I have said we are interested in protecting them. If we do not, what will be the result? If the landowners are to be injured or to run the risk of injury in selling their land for this purpose, of course—at all events so long as the Act is voluntary—no landowner in his senses will dream of selling his land for the purposes of the Act, and the measure will become a dead letter. The Minister for Agriculture, answering our objections last night, said that if the landlord feared any such possibility as I suggested, he had

  837
  the remedy in his own hand—that he need not sell his land. Well, I may say, having thought the matter over carefully, I am of opinion that any landlord who does sell land, if the Bill remains in its present form, will be a very imprudent and a very foolish person. I must repeat what I said in order to make this perfectly clear. The owners of large estates may—and I hope will—in some number of cases be extremely willing to sell portions of their estates for the purpose of creating peasant proprietors. Having done so, ten years later, if the small owners either can themselves, or with the assistance of any other person, pay off the remaining instalments, they will then become absolute owners of the land; they can do with it what they please, and the conditions which we insert in the Bill against sub-dividing, sub-letting, or using the land for any other than the agricultural purpose which the Bill has in view—all these conditions fall to the ground, and the small owner is absolute owner. He can put up a factory, a row of small cottages; indeed, he can use it for any purpose, however objectionable to the owner of the estate. Is it likely that any landlord in his senses is going to put himself entirely at the mercy of a possible absolute owner of land which he might be willing to part with for the purpose of small holdings? What we have proposed is that the conditions, which I think everybody will admit to be reasonable—although, if we were to discuss them they might be capable of some variation—shall be made permanent, and that when the County Councils have advanced money for these purposes, they shall have the satisfaction of knowing that the purposes shall be fulfilled; or, if from any circumstances it is found impossible to work the land at a profit, or the land becomes necessary for an extension of the towns or villages, then, in that case, the profit ought not to go to the small owner, who has been created by the money of the State, but ought to go either to the County Council which has afforded him this opportunity with the funds of the ratepayers, or to the landowner who would otherwise have been entitled to it, and who has abandoned all the prospects of an im-
  838
  provement in value for a public purpose which has ceased to be possible. We propose, therefore, to omit the words which make the small owner absolute owner, without any condition, at the expiry of ten years, or so soon as the instalments have been paid up. The Minister of Agriculture could not see his way to accept our view of this question last night. But he was not able—perhaps for lack of time—to show that I had in any way exaggerated the possibilities of the Bill as it now stands. I have been endeavouring to find some possible compromise or arrangement of this matter which might meet with the approval of, and at the same time not be inconsistent with what has fallen from, the right hon. Gentleman. Before coming to that, however, let me say that what we are now discussing is not a Party question. It has been to me a great surprise that a proposition which is made primarily of course in the interest of the ratepayers, and secondly in the interest of the landowners, should hitherto have received so little support from the other side of the House. The only difference between my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin) and myself is as to the best way to accomplish the same thing. I understand he fears that a person desirous of becoming a small holder will be deterred from doing so if his ownership is clogged by any conditions, and that for that reason he opposes the Amendment. I do not understand that he is blind to the extreme possible inconvenience of the clause as it stands. Let me say in answer to his objection that I do not think it has any force, because, what is the position of the person who wants to be a small holder? At that time he has no conception of building speculation. He does not enter upon the land with any intention of making a profit by a probable increased value, nor does he intend to be an annoyance to the present landowner. If any idea of that kind ever arises in his mind it will be probably suggested to him by some outsider, by a jerry-builder, for instance, or some speculator in land, at a later period. But at the time he is desirous of taking advantage of this Act it will give him everything he can wish for—absolute ownership for the purpose of

  839
  cultivation. The only way in which it restricts him is that it prevents him from changing his intention of being a cultivator of the soil and becoming a land speculator or builder. Now I come to the suggestion which I respectfully submit to my right hon. Friend, and it is this: if he does not see his way to maintain these conditions in the Bill permanently, he should, at all events, follow what has been suggested to him as the usual course where land is allowed to be taken by railway companies and by other public bodies, namely, that whenever a small holder, who has obtained land for a particular purpose, wishes to sell it for a different purpose he shall offer the right of preemption to the landowner of whom he has bought it, or to the County Council, who have also a claim since they have assisted him to buy it.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): Or to the adjoining owner.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Quite so. If something of that kind is done—and I think it will be possible to introduce a new clause on Report—all temptation would be taken away from the small holder to do the thing which otherwise I think he will be tempted to do. Take the case of Birmingham, where the County Council might be willing to carry out this Act. At the present time you can buy land in most directions at a small distance from Birmingham at £100 an acre, and yet land almost contiguous is worth £500 or £1,000 an acre. It all depends upon accident, or whether or not large works have been established in the immediate neighbourhood. Now, all this land which could be taken for the purpose of creating small holdings at £100 an acre may in the course of a few years become the object of ambition on the part of some speculating builder, and the price may rise to £500 or more an acre. In such a case as this I think the small owner should not be allowed to part with his land for other than agricultural purposes. If he wants to give up his agricultural holding, undoubtedly he should offer it to the County Council or to the landowner from whom it was bought, or to both. My suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, is whether
  840
  it would not be possible to introduce a clause of this kind in the Committee stage, or possibly in the Report stage.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Before my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin) replies to the speech which has just been made, I should like to say that I am not desirous of hurrying him into a reconsideration of the draft of this Bill, and I think the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Chamberlain) that the subject should be carefully considered with the view of bringing up an amended clause is, perhaps, the best method of getting out of the present difficulty. I must say that I entirely agree with what has fallen from my right hon. Friend opposite as to the great danger we run of neutralising the objects of this Bill by the retention of the words now proposed to be omitted. As I understand it, the intention of Parliament is to enable small holdings to be created for agricultural purposes. It is no part of our duty to assist British labourers or mechanics to acquire eligible plots of land in order that they may make a profit by selling at an enhanced price. What we desire is that the land shall be held permanently upon the conditions now laid down; but as far as I can see, there is nothing in the Bill as it now stands to prevent a serious injury being inflicted upon the adjoining property. It seems to me that the fairest way of approaching this matter would be to follow the course adopted by railways when they cease to use land for the purposes for which it was obtained, but with some modification, because if I recollect aright, the adjoining owners have the right of pre-emption at a valuation. But a valuation must include other considerations, such as the possibility of enhanced value, and towards which the small holders may not in the least contribute. I therefore think that if a small holder wishes to sell his land for purposes other than agriculture, the owner from whom he bought it, or the owner of the adjoining property, should have the right of pre-emption at a price not exceeding that which he gave for it in the first instance, plus compensation for any obvious improvements. That seems to me to be a just method on which to proceed. I do not think

  841
  the County Council would have any claim to the enhanced value of land in cases of this kind. Now, I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill, that while he is right in resisting any proposal that would have a tendency to discourage the acquisition of land, and while I agree with him that the purchaser should have a freehold for the purposes of agriculture, still I think he should not go further in that direction, and I hope he will not be hurried into any decision, but give this matter his careful consideration with the view of bringing up an amended clause.
  *MR. THOMAS H. BOLTON: I should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Chamberlain) to the effect of his proposal, that either the landowners who have sold the land to the County Council or the County Council itself should have the right of preemption in accordance with the usual rule that prevails when railway companies take land for their undertakings. Well, the effect of that would be that these landowners or the County Council would have the power to buy back ten years hence the land with the improvements. (An hon. MEMBER: Subject to compensation.) The hon. Member says, "subject to compensation" but only for improvements made by the tenant. But has he considered the difficulty of settling the difference between the improved value attributable to unearned increment, and that attributable to improvements made by the tenant? Has he considered the expensive law-suits he will land every one of those unfortunate people in who attempts to enforce his right to compensation against the right of preemption of the County Council, or the landowner who many years before sold his land to the County Council? If the County Council is to appropriate the whole of the unearned increment, it will be doing exactly what was decided in this House a few days ago it should not do when the Local Authorities (Purchase of Land) Bill was rejected. I contend that if you are going to import questions and considerations of unearned increment into dealings with these small parcels of land you will certainly terrify persons from having anything to
  842
  do with land under the Bill. And I appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (the Attorney General), who has had probably more experience in compensation cases than any professional gentleman in this House, whether the introduction of a clause of this kind will not hold out a future prospect in connection with every one of these small holdings of litigation of the most troublesome and difficult and possibly most expensive kind? The Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) artfully appealed to the sentimental feelings of the landowners who sit on the opposite side of the House, and he welds the two things together—the right of the landowner to have his land back, and the right of the Council to take land upon which public money has been risked, and to use it for public purposes. And he also associates with it the desire of gentlemen on this side of the House that this Bill should be used only to create and perpetuate a peasant proprietary. If the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman is embodied in the Bill, the landowners may be sure that they will never be allowed to seize the unearned increment. The first instance of anything of the kind would result in such an expression of public feeling that the law would have to be altered. The proposition would absolutely deter any man of foresight and common sense from having anything to do with land to be acquired under the Bill. The proper course is to give the small holder the land as free from restrictions as possible, so that when he has paid for it he may do what he pleases, and look upon it as a property in which he has invested his savings for the benefit of himself and his family, and be encouraged to improve it. I think you ought to leave the question of whether any of this land may hereafter be required for cottage building or other purposes to be determined by the future necessities of the locality. I do not see such terrible consequences in land being used for cottages, nor even for the purposes of a manufactory. But these are special cases, and not once in five hundred times will any of the land be required for these purposes The land will, in the main, continue to be used for purposes of agricultural or

  843
  market garden cultivation, and the man who buys in the first instance will cultivate or sell the land to someone else who will also cultivate. These terrible instances of the possible appropriation of the land to other purposes are mere inventions conjured up by the fertile imagination of people who are either ignorant of the effect of what they purpose, or who do not desire the Bill to pass, or who want to so injure it as to render it inoperative. I think the Government deserve every credit for having brought this Bill forward. The Bill is a good Bill, and will be very useful; and though it will not remove agricultural depression, it will provide a ladder by which the labouring man may climb into the position of a small farmer. It is, of course, an experiment, but if it is successful it will be extended and we may confidently hope to see considerable benefit from it accrue to a very large number of thrifty, industrious, and deserving people.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham has met the objections of the Government to the Amendment that has been moved in so reasonable and temperate a spirit that I cannot do otherwise than attempt to meet him in the same spirit. The objections of the right hon. Gentleman are twofold. He wishes to guard against the object of the County Council and of the Bill being defeated, and he wishes to protect the landlords against some of the future consequences which he apprehends from the Bill, if it should pass in its present form. For my own part, I think the dangers are to a great extent exaggerated. It may be the case that when small holdings are created builders and speculators will go into the market and buy them with the object of devoting them to other purposes than those of agriculture. But if that is to be so, why is it that these same builders and speculators, being men of wealth and in a position to buy land at the present time, do not buy up land for those purposes now?
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: The landlords will not sell it.
  *MR. CHAPLIN: That I do not agree with. I am a landlord myself, and I should be very glad to sell a great deal of land. As a matter of fact, there are large quantities of land in the market which would be available if there were any demand. That is one ground which makes me hesitate, and another reason, I think, diminishes the ground for any Amendment whatever. As a matter of fact, I think we may be fully certain that the payment for all these small holdings or the major part of it will not be made or completed until the expiration of fifty years from now. Most of them will be paid for by instalments, if not all; and fifty years is quite long enough for us to look forward to now. On the other hand, I own that there is something attractive in the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, and he has not asked me to give any pledge on the subject or to do more than consider the matter; and I am bound to say I could not give a pledge because, attractive though it may be, I have some sort of suspicion, especially after listening to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. T. H. Bolton), that the proposal may be surrounded and encumbered with difficulties that have not been apparent to the right hon. Gentleman, and are not at this moment apparent to me. I am afraid these difficulties may exist, and therefore, in anything I may say upon the subject this afternoon, I cannot go further than this: that I will willingly undertake to consider with the utmost care the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, and if I see my way to give effect to that proposal I will introduce a clause at a later period. More than that I cannot say this afternoon, and I make no pledge more than this: that I think the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is worthy of every consideration, and that consideration I am prepared to give to it before coming to a final decision. In the ordinary course, therefore, the clause would be carried as it stands, and any Amendments which would have been moved may be introduced when the clause comes up afterwards.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: After the speech of the President of the Board of Agriculture, who has at last seen the importance of these Amendments, and

  845
  has promised to consider the matter fully, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment. With respect to the fear entertained by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton), that money will be wasted in legal proceedings as to the settlement of the value of the holdings, they should bear in mind that the value would be as an agricultural holding, without any value for buildings or anything else, and would, therefore, be a very simple matter, and need involve but very small expense in the case of a transfer. With respect to compensation for improvements, the whole thing is quite clear, and I fail to see where the difficulty would come in.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I hope the Committee will think very seriously about this question of ten years. If this were a Bill to create small land speculators I could understand the contention of the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton), but it professes to be a Bill to create small agricultural holdings; and if we are going to create them, and at the end of ten years turn them over to land speculators, all the trouble that we have taken over this Bill will have been thrown away. We ought, I think, to take care that the Bill does not lend itself to the schemes of speculators and jerrymanderers. We ought, I think, to take care that there should be a preemption; and that so long as the County Council can use the land for the purposes of this Bill, they should have the pre-emption; and if they fail, by all manner of means let the preemption in the second instance go to the landlord who parts with his land voluntarily for the sake of this experiment and for no other purpose. A good deal has been said about this Bill being a ladder. We do not want to raise a ladder by which a few men may climb up and then kick the ladder away, and that is what will happen if this alteration is not made.
  *MR. ABEL SMITH: This question is of the greatest importance to every landowner. I do not think the cases which have been put forward are exceptional; it is quite possible that a public-house or a factory might be erected on one of these holdings, as after ten years there will
  846
  be no control over them. In the words of a correspondent, a landowner may have on the edge of his property erections for Atheistical, Papistical, or Salvationist purposes. Therefore, I think the landowner or the County Council ought to have a right of preemption at the end of ten years. Without this security, the Bill will discourage owners from selling to the Council. I should like to press upon the right hon. Gentleman the importance of this Amendment most earnestly.
  *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: As one of those who had a strong objection to creating a new system of tenure applicable for ever to a particular class of holdings I may be permitted to say a few words. It appears to me that the present proposal is of a very different character and not open to the objections that many of us felt to the previous proposal. I think it is worthy of very serious consideration; and without committing myself in any way to details, I am certain that nothing will be lost by giving the matter full consideration. I presume it would be necessary to determine at what price these holdings should be taken—whether it should be the price originally paid by the Local Authority or the present price. I suppose it would be the price paid to the Local Authority by the purchaser, but I do not imagine there would be much difficulty about that, and there might be an Arbitration Clause by which the improved value could be ascertained with as little difficulty. I would point out that this right of pre-emption only applies in the case of land bought by compulsory purchase, and I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite will not be surprised if we ask for the right of compulsory purchase.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I seldom trouble the House on this Bill, because I am anxious to see the end of it. I am not one of those who conceive it to be their business to better the Bills of the present Government. When I discovered that the Government were not prepared to put in compulsion I thought it a mere waste of time to discuss or even to vote on the subject; and so far as I remember, with the exception of the compulsion ques-

  847
  tion, I have not even voted once on any of these Amendments. But I have remarked that since yesterday a curious change has come over the Members for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) and West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage). These Gentlemen have been complaining of obstruction, but who have been obstructionists during the last two days? They have obstructed Public Business to their hearts' content, aided and abetted by the Minister for Agriculture. I counted in the Times this morning no fewer than nine speeches delivered yesterday by the Member for Bordesley.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Short speeches.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: No doubt they were short, but they were supplemented by long speeches by the Member for West Birmingham. What is the meaning of all this? The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Chamberlain) says it is to improve the Bill. The Liberal Unionists need not come here to improve the Bill; they can talk it over quietly with their friends opposite instead of wasting the time of the House by long discussions. Why do not I do the same? I do not pretend to have the ear of the Government. They would not listen to me. I have not the advantages of the Member for Bordesley. I am not a persona grata with the Government. The right hon. Gentleman said he did not wish to legislate for fifty years hence. I object to come down here and waste time in legislating for three months hence.
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY,): Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is making observations which hardly have reference to this Amendment.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I will not continue; they were somewhat general.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BARCLAY: I move, in page 4, line 10, to leave out the words "by the owner." If these words are retained it will be impossible for the owner to let his holding.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 10, to leave out the words "by the owner."—(Mr. Barclay.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  COMMANDER BETHELL: If the Amendment were carried the holding could be cultivated by anyone who was not the owner.
  MR. HENEAGE: The next sub-section says that the holding shall not be let without the consent of the County Council.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  *MR. HOBHOUSE: My Amendment is to insert after "used," in line 11, the words "as building land or." The object of the Amendment is twofold. First, to make a clear prohibition of the use of this land for building purposes mainly; and, in the second place, I want to get rid of the restriction in the second part of the clause that no dwelling-house shall be erected on a small plot of land. I believe that restriction will be found objectionable in practice. Of course, the view of the Committee is that these holdings should not be used for building purposes mainly; but where the holding is bonâ fide used for agricultural purposes, we should do nothing to prevent the owner making his home thereon. I think the limit of an annual value of £25 for a holding on which a dwelling-house can be erected will be most unsatisfactory. That annual value might represent 50 acres where land is of small value, and surely in such a case the owner should not be prevented from erecting his home on the land.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I think the object of the hon. Member is met by the clause as it stands. Sub-section b provides that the holding shall not be used for any purpose other than agriculture, therefore the insertion of the words "as building land or" is unnecessary. With regard to the second point, I propose, when we come to Sub-section d, which provides that no dwelling-house shall be erected on a holding not exceeding £25 annual value, to make a suggestion which will abolish that limit altogether, and I hope, to some extent, meet the views of hon. Members opposite.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BARCLAY: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. Hitherto we have discussed the conditions under which the owner of the land shall hold it; this Amendment deals with the conditions under which a sub-tenant shall hold the land if the owner lets it. I propose that if the owner lets the land the tenant should have perpetuity of tenure at a fixed rent, and the right to assign the tenant right.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the hon. Member for Forfarshire that we have already passed words making the limitation only apply to ten years, or so long as anything remains unpaid. It would be inconsistent with that to insert a limitation which provides that a sub-tenancy or sub-lease should be in perpetuity.
  MR. BARCLAY: Do I understand that it is not competent to move the Amendment?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will have to modify his Amendment to make it consistent with the words already passed.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I think the right hon. Gentleman appreciates the remarks I made on the Second Reading with regard to the point dealt with by my Amendment. As far as Scotland is concerned, if the limit of £25 is retained, it would make the Bill entirely inoperative, which I am sure is not intended. I do not take exception to the restriction to one dwelling-house, though in a holding of 100 acres at 10s. an acre a workman's cottage in connection with the house would be an advantage. I think it would be well to hear what concessions the right hon. Gentleman will make, and then discuss them.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 14, to leave out Sub-section (d.)—(Mr. Esslemont.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'No more than one dwelling house shall' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity of stating at once what I suggest. He is perfectly right. I do recognise the objections to this clause he pointed out on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I have considered
  850
  the matter and come to this conclusion. I think the first part of the sub-section—
  "Not more than one dwelling-house shall be erected on the holding"
  commends itself generally to the Committee. The main objection is to the proviso which forbids the erection of any dwelling-house upon a holding not exceeding £25. I am bound to say there is no good reason that can be assigned for any specific limit, and what I would suggest is that the clause should run in this form. I should propose to divide the sub-section into two—
  "Sub-section (d)—not more than one dwelling-house shall be erected on the holding.
  "Sub-section (e)—Where the County Council declare that in their opinion a small holding is not sufficient to enable the occupier thereof to maintain in comfort himself and his family by the cultivation thereof, the holding shall, during the period aforesaid, be held subject to the condition that no dwelling-house shall be erected thereon without the consent of the County Council."
  That, I think, ought to meet the views of many hon. Gentlemen who raised objections on the Second Reading, and it appears to get over the difficulty I was anxious to avoid, that buildings should not be erected all over the country on small plots of land on which it was impossible the owner could maintain himself and his family.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I am prepared to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, as I think the question is one which should be left to the County Council. Congestion has been caused by the erection of houses on small holdings where there was not sufficient to keep the family, and no other work to be got, and the consequence was that the places became, to a certain extent, pauper settlements. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I would point out that, so far as I caught the words, the question is not left in the discretion of the County Council. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman means that it should be left to them, and it would be more satisfactory; but there are words binding the County Council.
  MR. CHAPLIN: The County Council will have full discretion.
  *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I fully recognise the spirit of conciliation in which the right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to meet us, but I do not think his proposed Amendment is altogether satisfactory. It appears to me to raise a very strong presumption against the erection of houses. As I understand the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, the County Council will have power to prohibit the erection of dwellings if they think the occupier cannot live on the land. I think it would be better to say that no dwellings should be erected on holdings under £25 without the consent of the Local Authority, and give them no other direction whatever. I can imagine nothing more likely to make labourers and artisans remain in the rural districts than to encourage them to erect houses on these holdings. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will go a little bit further and remove the instruction to the County Council, saying merely that dwellings shall not be erected on holdings under £25 without their consent.
  MR. GRAY: It seems to me it would be rather difficult for the County Council to say whether a house is really desirable under the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. I would suggest, rather than throwing on the County Council the duty of determining whether the family could be properly maintained on the holding, that the question should be put in a negative form—that the house should be erected when the County Council were convinced that the nonexistence of the house would be a serious obstacle to the successful cultivation and occupation of the holding. I think that would make the task of the County Council less difficult.
  *MR. WINTERBOTHAM: Will not the right hon. Gentleman leave it further to the discretion of the County Council, by omitting the words "in comfort"? The idea of comfort in agricultural districts varies, and occasionally clergymen tell my constituents that with eleven shillings a week they should keep a wife and family "in comfort" and be contented. I do not want differing views as to what is "comfort" to be discussed by the County Council,
  852
  and we may trust the County Council on the matter.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: Might not my right hon. Friend put the presumption the other way, and say that the County Council might forbid the erection of a house?
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (, &c.): I think it would be desirable that there should be no presumption against the erection of dwelling-houses and buildings on small holdings. In reply to the deputation which was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham to the First Lord of the Treasury yesterday, the First Lord of the Treasury acknowledged the shortcomings of the Crofters Act in the Highland districts, and said that these shortcomings would be met by the provisions of this Bill. Small holdings in the West Highlands consist not of twenty-five acres merely, but of fifty acres, and sometimes of two or three or four hundred acres; and if you put in a presumption of this kind against the erection of dwelling-houses and buildings it would make this Bill absolutely a dead letter. If the shortcomings of the Crofters Act are to be met by this Bill, I think the least that can be done is to make a full concession in this matter of the erection of dwelling-houses and buildings. Over the greater part of Scotland—the Highland area is the largest—but over the whole of this area the crofter families do not support themselves on their crofts. It would be absolutely impossible that they could do so in comfort, or in any other way. They supplement their income by fishing or by various other methods; and I think that it would be very unreasonable that in that large part of Scotland the Highlands, where the agrarian question is the most acute, you should put a spoke in the wheel of the County Council, and prevent them from carrying out one of the necessary portions of their duties. I think it is very desirable that this Small Holdings Act should in the end supersede very largely the working of the Crofters Act, so that there may be but one system in the country. That can only be done by making a concession of this kind. I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman will make it quite plain that there will be

  853
  no presumption against the erection of dwelling-houses and buildings on these small holdings.
  *MR. CHAPLIN: I think we are all in agreement as to the object to be carried out; but it is as to the means whereby that object is to be carried out that we disagree. I think, however, it is a mistake to say that there is anything in the sub-section which appears to raise a presumption against the erection of houses on small holdings. Perhaps the Committee would let me read it again—
  "Where the County Council declare that in their opinion a small holding is not sufficient to enable the occupier thereof to maintain in comfort himself and his family by the cultivation thereof, the holding shall during the period aforesaid be held subject to the condition that no dwelling-house shall be erected thereon without the consent of the County Council."
  The County Council are not bound to declare anything. That is absolutely in their discretion; and if they do not make a declaration to that effect at the sale, then the purchaser is perfectly free to erect a dwelling house on the holding, however small. But, even if they did make that declaration, then a building can still be erected if they give their consent. I do not think the provision could be drawn upon much broader lines, or could give a more full and complete discretion to the County Councils. I am, however, perfectly ready on this point to accept any suggestion which appears to me to be a better one, or which would give fuller effect to the object we have in view.
  *MR. HOBHOUSE: I would suggest that we should leave the matter to be regulated by the rules to be made by the County Councils. If we gave a direction to the County Councils that a man should be able to maintain his family out of his holding before he was allowed to erect a dwelling-house, they would very likely in many cases prevent the erection of houses; and the result would be that they would draw a wrong line and injure a really good class of small holders.
  *MR. THOMAS H. BOLTON: Whether a man can maintain himself in comfort on land for which he pays £25 a year or on twenty-five acres or not depends upon the man himself, upon his
  854
  capacity, and upon the particular cultivation of his holding. I happen to live in a district where there are a great number of small holders, and tenants of my own live in very considerable comfort on less than twenty-five acres. They pursue a special cultivation; they devote themselves to special modes of industry on the land. As to the cultivation, I suppose it is desirable to encourage a certain amount of market-garden cultivation in connection with small holdings near towns. Market-garden cultivation is carried on by a great many tenants on less than twenty-five acres, and twenty-five acres is a considerable market-garden—or even a holding of £25 a year valuation. In my neighbourhood, in Sussex, there are some hundreds of holders living upon small quantities of land by means of poultry, butter, and market-garden produce. They send it to Tunbridge Wells and Eastbourne and neighbouring towns. They are living in reasonable comfort. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill wants some modification in the direction of greater freedom. As to this particular proposal is the owner for the time being to go to the County Council and represent his personal qualifications, and give information as to his means and experience, and explain what he proposes to do, before he gets permission to build or to change his cultivation? This is one of the conditions I have been protesting against from the first. I think the right hon. Gentleman is here throwing a very awkward and difficult duty upon the County Councils, and is seriously embarrassing the Bill.
  *DR. FARQUHARSON: What my hon. Friend has said is perfectly true, and I can corroborate it from my own personal experience. I quite agree with my hon. Friend that it is possible for a man to make a living out of 17 acres of land. I have a tenant myself who is not only doing that, but is able to live in greater comfort than a great many of the farmers surrounding him, because he is a man of great industry and practical experience, and turns to account every bit of land under his control. I am sorry my hon. Friend did not press his Amendment. If we

  855
  want the people to come back to the land, if we want them to make their homes on the land, I think we ought to enable them to build where they please, on any quantity of land, and anywhere they like; and I think it is unfortunate that the Amendment has not been pressed.
  MR. GRAY: It seems to me that the words which I have suggested are best adapted to meet the necessities of the case. I think we should not say anything about maintaining a family in comfort, because the County Council might have some difficulty in deciding what is comfort. It depends upon how many there are in the family; it also depends upon what some members of the family are bringing in—these are all matters which it seems to me are entirely outside the scope of a Bill of this sort. It seems to me that as we are all agreed upon what is required, the best way of getting at it would be to insert the words inline 18, page 4—
  "Unless the County Council consider that the want of a dwelling-house occasions a serious obstacle to the successful cultivation of the holding."
  *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I venture to submit to the right hon. Gentleman that he should omit this part of the clause, and bring up an Amendment on a future occasion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Motion of Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 4, line 15, to leave out from the word "holding" to end of subsection.
  MR. ROWNTREE: I beg to move—
  In Page 4, after Sub-section (e), insert the following sub-section:—"(f) That no dwelling-house or building on the holding shall be used for the sale of intoxicating liquors."
  I do not think there will be any objection to this Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. ROWNTREE: I beg to move—
  In page 4, line 23, after "overcrowding," insert, "In the case of any dwelling-houses so to be erected within the area of any borough the requirements of the County Council shall not run counter to or be in substitution for the bye-laws or sanitary and building requirements in force in such borough."
  856
  The Bill as it stands in no way recognises the jurisdiction of the corporation of a borough within its own area. I venture to submit that it is extremely undesirable that there should be any conflict between the Sanitary Authorities if any new buildings are to be erected. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make it quite clear that the County Council should not come to interpose in matters affecting the bye-laws and sanitary requirements of the borough.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 23, after the word "overcrowding," to insert, "In the case of any dwelling-houses so to be erected within the area of any borough, the requirements of the County Council shall not run counter to or be in substitution for the bye-laws or sanitary and building requirements in force in such borough."—(Mr. Rowntree.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am in agreement with the hon. Member so far as I understand his wish; but I do not think the Bill is drawn in any way to interfere with the jurisdiction of the borough authorities within their own area. It is quite clear that should the County Council lay down certain regulations for this purpose they cannot over-ride or in any way interfere with any sanitary regulation which the borough authorities may choose to make. I think that is perfectly clear as the Bill has been framed, but if it is not I shall make it quite clear.
  MR. GULLY: I think the difficulty would be met by modifying my hon. Friend's Amendment in this way—
  "Any dwelling-house erected on the holding shall comply with the requirements of the County Council or Borough Council if such dwelling-house be within the boundary of the borough as fixed by the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882."
  A small holder under this Bill might be put to the expense of complying with the requirements of the County Council after having previously gone to the expense of satisfying the regulations of the borough authorities.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I do not believe there is any necessity whatever for putting in rules with regard to these sanitary matters. Any tenant or proprietor would be amply protected against any infringement of the sanitary regulations by the general law.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I shall look into the Bill, and make it quite clear on this point.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to move in page 4, line 24, leave out the word "may" and insert the word "shall." Sub-section 2 says that if there is any breach of these restrictions the County Council may, after giving the owner an opportunity of remedying the breach, if it is capable of remedy, cause the holding to be sold. The object of this Amendment is to make that obligatory on the County Council.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 24, to leave out the word "may," and insert the word "shall."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Clause."
  *MR. THOMAS H. BOLTON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not consent to this, to take away from the County Council all discretion in the matter. I can conceive that this Amendment, if adopted, might work a very serious injustice to the particular persons who might be the owners of property of this kind. There might be a good deal of property in the market and it might be depreciated, and to oblige the County Council to insist upon immediate sale might work a very great deal of injustice upon poor, unfortunate persons whose parents had perhaps put their little all in these small holdings. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will not consent to this.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I rather hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. I think discretion should be allowed to the County Councils, and I can conceive cases in which, if it is made positively obligatory, great hardship will be done to the owners of small holdings.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: After the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman for an explanation of Sub-sections 4 and 5 of Clause 7. As the clause stands it
  858
  refers to where the holding is sold free of these restrictions, and any man with sufficient capital might buy the holding and get clear of the restrictions entirely and do what he likes with the holding then and there. If that is the case, I should suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should put in some such words as I have proposed on the Paper. I move the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, leave out sub-sections (4) and (5) and insert the following sub-sections: "(4) Any small holding sold by the County Council under this section shall be sold subject to the terms and conditions provided by this Act. (5) The proceeds of the sale shall be applied in discharge of any interest or instalment then due to the County Council on account of unpaid purchase-money, and the balance, if any, shall be paid to the person appearing to the Council to be entitled to receive the same."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
  Question proposed, "That those sub-sections be there inserted."
  MR. CHAPLIN: The object of the hon. Member is provided for in the last three lines of the section as it stands now—"and in either case the provisions of this Act with respect to the purchase-money shall apply in like manner as if the sale were the first sale of a small holding under this Act." That is to say, it is to be sold subject to the conditions provided in this clause.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman in case a man purchases the holding—if it is for sale and he pays off the whole of the purchase-money—will he not, under this clause, become free of all restrictions?
  MR. CHAPLIN: No.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: In view of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. THOMAS H. BOLTON: In moving the Amendment which stands in my name, I would point out that if the right hon. Gentleman will refer to a preceding section, he will see that the word used is "let." This Section relates back to the preceding portion, and the word "lease," which appears in the 13th line, should, therefore, be "letting." "Letting" will cover and include "lease," but "lease" will

  859
  not include "letting." Therefore, I would suggest that the word should be "letting," and I move the alteration.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 13, to leave out the word "lease," and insert the word "letting."—(Mr. Thomas H. Bolton.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. A. E. GATHORNE-HARDY: I only rise to call attention to a point which I think is really one of drafting. I think the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Forfarshire received rather scant attention, and if the right hon. Gentleman will turn his attention to Sub-section B, he will see that it provides that the holding shall be cultivated by the owner. If he then looks at Sub-section C, he will see that there is power to let with the consent of the County Council. Supposing the property to be let with the consent of the County Council, I cannot help thinking that, as the Act stands, unless the lessee employs the owner to cultivate the land, he will not be able to cultivate it at all. Of course, it is simply a question of drafting, but I thought it right to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to it.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I will see to it.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8.
  *MR. THOMAS H. BOLTON: The Amendment which I have to propose is, in page 5, line 26, after the word "loss," to leave out all the words to the end of line 30. As the first clause stands at present it is—
  "Any such letting shall be at the best annual rent that can be obtained without any premium or fine, and on such terms as may enable the Council to resume possession of the land within a period not exceeding twelve months."
  Anyone acquainted with agriculture, as the right hon. Gentleman is, will know that that would render it very difficult to let any land such as this for agricultural purposes. If a tenant is to be turned out in less than twelve months—if this is perpetually hanging over him—there is not much inducement for him to put much in the land. Then, again, it is objectionable that there should be a disqualification on the
  860
  part of the County Council to take any premium or fine, because I can well understand that the land might be thrown by some preceding tenant on the hands of the County Council with a tenant-right in it which would be of value, and which ought to be paid for, and which, if paid for, would be a security to the County Council for the performance of the conditions of the tenancy. But this clause, providing that no premium or fine is to be taken, might prevent the County Council availing themselves of this opportunity of securing a return for money, perhaps, which they had expended. Then there is the provision that it is to be let at the best annual rent that can be obtained. How is that to be arrived at—by advertisement or by putting the property up to auction, or in what way? I know a landlord who fancied that he could get a considerable rent for his land by putting it up to competition. He put up two properties by auction and got a considerable rent, but what was the result? The people gave more rent than they could pay, and the consequence was that both tenants got into difficulties and are now leaving. That is most unfair against the careful and prudent and thoughtful tenant, and calculated to encourage that unfair competition for agricultural land which is altogether opposed to the principle of this Bill. The man who gives most rent is not always for agricultural purposes the best tenant, and I hope the County Councils, consisting of persons living in the country districts, will be allowed discretion in this matter. I, therefore, hope the right hon. Gentleman will assent to this Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 26, after the word "loss," to leave out to the end of line 30.—(Mr. Thomas H. Bolton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. CHAPLIN: I have no objection whatever to omitting the first part of these lines; but I should not like to omit the words which enable the County Council to recover possession in twelve months, because this is a clause which enables them to get rid

  861
  of superfluous land, and I want to provide for the use of this land until they can sell it. I shall be prepared to leave out—
  "Any such letting shall be at the best annual rent that can be obtained without any premium or fine."
  *MR. THOMAS H. BOLTON: I agree to that, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether on Report he would not deal with the question whether liability to eviction at twelve months or less is not rather unreasonable, and whether he will not give a tenant a clear twelve months' notice from the ordinary date for payment of rent customary in the district. That would enable him to get his full tenant-right. Then also I would suggest whether he would not give a tenant who comes in under these circumstances the benefit of the Agricultural Holdings Act with regard to tenant-right.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: Will the Agricultural Holdings Act apply? If so will the County Council not be able to turn a man out at six months' notice?
  MR. CHAPLIN: What I propose is to modify the words twelve months, so as to give the usual notice to quit, whatever that may be.
  SIR R. PAGET: I think it would be better to accept the proposed Amendment in its entirety, because the words proposed to be retained impose a restriction on the action of the County Council. They say that any lease or letting shall be on such terms as to enable the County Council to resume possession of the land within a period not exceeding twelve months. It is quite conceivable that the County Council might prefer to let the land on lease for a term of years, and I fail to see any advantage from keeping in the words that the right hon. Gentleman desires to retain.
  Amendment amended, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 9.
  MR. BARCLAY: I beg to move my Amendment. It will make the clause read thus—
  "A County Council may delegate, with or without restrictions, the powers of the County Council under this Act with respect to the adaptation of land for the holdings," &c.
  862
  The clause as it stands limits the delegation of this work to those cases where the holdings are of such a size that dwelling houses cannot be erected upon them. I think it would be much more advantageous to give the County Council a general power of delegation.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 40, to leave out the word "where."—(Mr. Barclay.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'where' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am quite ready to accept the spirit of the Amendment, but I think the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Haddington (Mr. Haldane) would be more suitable. The clause will then read—
  "Where a County Council provide small holdings, they may delegate, with or without restrictions, the powers of the County Council under this Act," &c.
  MR. BARCLAY: I will withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Motion of Mr. HALDANE, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 5, line 40, leave out from "holdings" to "they," in line 42.
  *MR. HOBHOUSE: I will not move my Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) will give me an assurance that there is nothing in this clause to prevent a County Council from managing a small holding through a Committee appointed under the Local Government Act in the ordinary course.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I believe that to be the case; that is my understanding of the Bill. I now propose the Amendment that stands in the name of the hon. Member for Islington (Sir A. Rollit). It is in accordance with the engagement which I made at an earlier period of the Bill, and it is in order to give to the Borough Authorities a place upon the Committee to whom the management of these small holdings has been delegated in those cases where the land is within their own district.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 6, after line 5, to insert, "The Mayor and one member of the Town Council to be appointed by the Council for that purpose of any borough situate or partly situate within the area in which the holdings or part of the holdings are situate.—(Mr. Chaplin.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. HOBHOUSE: The Committee as constituted consists of five Members. If this Amendment is agreed to it will consist of seven.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean "the Mayor and one member" or "the Mayor or one member"?
  MR. CHAPLIN: It should be "the Mayor or one member." It should be so amended.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I would suggest that three members of the Council should be added to the Committee.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I think there is reason in what the hon. Gentleman suggests. I will therefore withdraw the Amendment, and will introduce another at a convenient opportunity.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 10.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: This clause requires that three-fourths of the purchase-money shall be advanced; but the alteration that has been made in the amount to be advanced in the case of the creation of small holdings will necessitate some alteration in the clause. Therefore, instead of moving, as stated on the Paper, to leave out "three-fourths" and insert "eighty-five per cent," I will move to leave out "three-fourths" and insert "four-fifths."
  Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 26, to leave out "three-fourths," and insert "four-fifths."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 11.
  On Motion of Mr. CHAPLIN, the following Amendments were agreed to:—Page 7, line 11, after "rate," insert "for the purposes of this Act"; line 13, leave out "the purposes of this Act," and insert "those purposes."
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I beg to move—
  In page 7, line 19, at the end of the Clause, to add the words, "Providing always that one-half of the rate, or increase of rate, leviable
  864
  in respect of such charge may be deducted by occupiers from the rent payable to their immediate landlords, any agreement to the contrary notwithstanding."
  In moving this Amendment, I do not propose to raise the vexed question of rates as between landlord and tenant, because it is one that has been before a Select Committee of this House as well as before the Royal Commission. The Select Committee on Local Taxation reported in 1870 in these words—
  "It is expedient to make owners as well as occupiers directly liable for a certain portion of the rates."
  The Members of that Select Committee were well known in the agricultural world, and included the late Leader of this House and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Royal Commission on Agriculture in 1882 also reported in favour of the same principle. They said that, without disturbing existing contracts, all the rates should in future be borne equally by owners and occupiers. Upon that Commission there were the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Minister for Agriculture, the present President of the Local Government Board, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney. Surely, then, I am entitled to say that a principle which was first started by Gentlemen of considerable eminence on both sides of the House should be accepted by it. It prevails in Scotland, where, I believe, it works well and satisfactorily. Now the Act proposes to raise ten millions of money on the security of the penny rate for the purpose of setting up small holders. But every holder that is set up will displace a tenant farmer. You are going, then, to substitute small farmers. This rate, which is a new one, must have been quite unforeseen twelve months ago; and I think it is entirely unfair, entirely unjust, to set up a class by means of it to compete with the present occupier. The tenant farmers may well say, "Save us from our friends." Who would have ventured eighteen months or two years ago to predict that the Minister for Agriculture would have introduced such a proposal as that we are now considering? Everyone will admit that this a just and a right principle which is embodied in

  865
  this Amendment, and I sincerely trust that the right hon. Gentleman will accede to it.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 19, at the end of the Clause, to add the words,—"Provided always, that one-half of the rate, or increase of rate, leviable in respect of such charge may be deducted by occupiers from the rent payable to their immediate landlords, any agreement to the contrary notwithstanding."—(Mr. Seale-Hayne.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. CHAPLIN: The hon. Member has raised a question which is undoubtedly one of great importance, and to the principle of which I have on more than one occasion, both in and out of this House, given my adhesion. I may remind the Committee that it was one of the recommendations made many years ago by the Commission of which I was a Member. But, although we have accepted the principle, I do not think this is a convenient or a fitting occasion upon which to raise the question. The hon. Member has talked about the burden we are going to lay upon the occupying tenant, and the risk the County Councils are going to run; but, unless I am altogether mistaken, the burden will be practically nothing. Unless the Act fails to fulfil our views financially, there will be no deficit or rate to be raised at all. In any case, I think we may look forward with confidence to the working out of the Act in that respect. I ask the Committee, therefore, whether it would be wise to introduce such a large question on this occasion?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I consider that this is by far the most important Amendment that has been moved in connection with this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has confidence that there is no risk in the measure. Well, Sir, I do not entirely share that confidence. I do not think anyone could go into the question of the principle involved without feeling that it will have a much larger extension than that which is given to it in the Bill. You cannot begin a system of this kind without going a great deal further than this tentative measure—as it has been called—can go. Everyone must see that as regards tenant farmers the Bill
  866
  is not being received with enthusiasm. They regard with natural jealousy the fact that a class of competitors will be introduced by it into the agricultural market. "What do they say? They say that the whole of the burden is to be cast upon them. I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer went out just now, because the question as to whom the burden is to fall on is one which ought to be considered. I know that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill has very clear and definite ideas upon the subject; but I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer goes so far as he does upon this point. Now, this is a new rate; it has now been proposed for the first time. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted the justice of the division of the rate in Scotland—I am not quite sure whether he does so in regard to Ireland as well—as between the owner and the occupier. Unquestionably, in the first instance, this rate will fall upon the occupier. Now, if you want to make this Bill more palatable to the tenant farmers of England than it is at the present time, you must do something to show them that you are not going to throw upon their backs the whole burden of this change. The right hon. Gentleman said this was not a convenient time to raise so large a question; but what could be a more fitting opportunity for raising it than upon a Bill which proposes to create it? We were all agreed some years ago in regard to the education rate, which has since been complained of both in town and country. If you now create a new rate for the purpose of manufacturing holdings, and borrow large sums of money on the security of the rate, you will take a step which will have serious consequences. Therefore, I cannot understand the right hon. Gentleman saying that this is not a convenient and fitting time upon which to raise the question. But this is a fitting occasion for imposing a charge of the kind, and indeed there seems to be no dispute as to the justice or policy of the case. You are creating a charge by this Bill, and, therefore, it is just that the charge should be divided. This is the only occasion for the assertion of the principle, and I trust, therefore, that

  867
  the hon. Member will take a Division upon this question, than which no more important subject can be raised within the four corners of this Bill.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): The question now before the House is one that may be divided into two branches—one as to the policy, and the other as to the possibility of putting that policy into practice. As regards the policy, I think the House will not deem this a convenient opportunity for discussing the question of the division of rates. The Government, I may remind the House, have more than once expressed their entire willingness to consider and adopt the principle of the relief of rates; but it is clear that a mere division of rates without taking into consideration the question of the representation of the owners would not be fair or proper. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Harcourt) shakes his head, but he knows quite well that on the County Council the owner is not represented at all. He does not even have a vote, and it is, of course, quite a question—one I should be prepared to argue—whether if he had a vote that would be adequate representation. I venture to think the right hon. Gentleman himself would consider that it would be unjust and unfair to put a portion of the rate upon the owner without making arrangements by which he is to have some kind of representation. I ask the Committee whether this is not an inopportune occasion for taking in hand the amendment of the law in regard to the question of representation upon the County Council, and upon all the various other bodies, that will have to be considered in connection with this subject? It would, I submit, be exceptionally inopportune at the present moment, because this particular subject is now under the consideration of a Committee upstairs, which is discussing the subject and propriety of altering the representation of these bodies if the relief of rates is taken in hand. The Members of the Committee are now discussing not whether the owner shall have representation—that is admitted by all—but what degree of representation the owner
  868
  shall have if there is to be any division of rates. But there is another difficulty in connection with the subject. The county rate is a rate which embraces many things. While it is not necessary for me to set out in detail the purposes for which a county rate is levied, I desire to point out that it would be absolutely impossible to distinctly and definitely lay down what portion of the county rate ought to be divided to meet any demand made upon the rates in consequence of this Bill. There is one observation the right hon. Gentleman made which I hope will be taken note of. The right hon. Gentleman said that in his opinion it would be unjust to put the whole of these rates upon the tenant farmer. Well, Sir, that is quite contrary to much of the argument used in regard to the Government Motion as to the relief of local taxation. It has been asserted by his colleagues that the relief which has been given by the Government to local taxation has been relief not to the tenant, but to the landlord.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Hear, hear!
  *MR. RITCHIE: The assertion of the right hon. Gentleman is that it will be a farmer's rate.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I said it was a very disputed question as to how much of the rate fell upon the landlord and how much upon the tenant. It is quite true that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture said the whole fell upon the landlord; but I have always accepted what I believe is the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that as regards the whole rates they fell more upon the farmer than the tenant.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I do not think my observations have been affected by the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. However that may be, it is clearly a very hard question, and one that cannot be adequately discussed in Committee on this Bill, and it would be unwise and improper for the Committee to accept the Amendment now proposed.
  MR. GRAY: This is a most important question to the tenant farmers of England who hold their farms under lease. Although I feel the force of

  869
  what has fallen from the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie), yet I want to know when this sort of thing is going to stop? We were told exactly the same some years ago when the educational rate was imposed. In some instances that meant something like 2s. in the £1, and consequently was at the time a very serious matter to the tenant farmers. This, I know, will not be a such serious matter, but still the principle remains. I have not been influenced very much by what has fallen from the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) in his new-born zeal for the tenant farmers, since I remember that he did not stand up in vindication of the tenant farmer when the education rate was being imposed upon them, and remember also that not long ago we heard from those Benches that the land was not sufficiently rated. That, of course, meant that the tenant farmers were not sufficiently rated. What has weighed with me is, if I understand the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board correctly, the intention of the Government to deal with this question as a whole. Of course, we know that is the intention of the Government, but we are nearing the end of this Parliament, and consequently the statement must be taken with a certain degree of caution. If I can be assured that this is not a mere dangling of the subject, but that it is the intention of the Government to look into it in a wide sense when a suitable occasion arises, then I shall support the Government. Of course, we know what Gentlemen opposite will do; they are pledged to go into this matter, and if I have the honour to be in the House I will, under certain circumstances, remind them of that pledge.
  MR. R. T. REID (, &c.): The hon. Member (Mr. Gray) has said that he would be satisfied if the Government would indicate their intention to deal with the subject in a large way on some future and suitable occasion; but he has not even received that paltry assurance. As far as I can make out the Government admit the principle, but do not deem this a proper occasion for carrying it into practice. This, they say, is not a convenient time. Why?
  870
  As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby pointed out, this is a perfectly new burden, and I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division on the Amendment, as this is the only opportunity we shall have of expressing our view as to how the rates should be imposed.
  SIR R. PAGET: I regret that this question should have been raised in connection with the present Bill. The whole thing is an experiment, and I think it should be conducted at the expense of the State, and not at the expense of any one class of owners of property. As a matter of principle, I am in favour of the equalisation of rates between owner and occupier; but the question now to be considered is, Is this a convenient occasion to deal with the matter? Something has been said about a convenient occasion by hon. Members opposite, and I should like to ask whether the present time is more convenient to deal with this question of the division of rates than was 1870, when the educational rate was introduced? I maintain that if ever there was a time when the rates should have been divided it was when the Liberal Government brought in their Education Bill. I am afraid hon. Members on the other side of the House have lost sight of the clause as it stands. The first section imposes on the County Council the duty of fixing the purchase-money or rent at such a reasonable amount as will, in their opinion, guard against loss. County Councils are, therefore, bound to take care that their ratepayers are not saddled with a loss. It will be seen, too, that the maximum amount of the rate fixed by this Bill is a penny in the pound, and there is every probability that the rate levied will be very much less, perhaps only a farthing in the pound. I venture to say that the cost of collection and account keeping connected with the division of so small a rate would be more trouble and expense than it is worth, and on this ground I shall oppose the Amendment.
  MR. WALLACE: I should like to point out that the farmers have a double grievance in this case, inasmuch as every penny they pay will be appropriated for the purpose of endowing a class of persons who will compete with them in the ordinary

  871
  markets. The farmer will not only be handicapped, but he will have to pay the expense of the handicap. I submit that there is no sort of parallel between this case and the educational rate, because in the latter instance no body of ratepayers were paying to create a class of men that would be their direct competitors in business. We cannot have a case that constitutes a greater hardship than this, and I think it is one Parliament ought to deal with.
  MR. MARK J. STEWART: It is a fallacy to say that this rate will be entirely paid by the tenant farmers. I contend that inasmuch as in Scotland the occupier and the landlord share the rates, no real burden will be imposed upon the farmers. Besides, I am satisfied that the tenant farmers in Scotland will consider this as for the national benefit, and that they will not object to pay any additional rate of a trifling character.
  MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON: The hon. Member who has just spoken says that in Scotland the rates are divided between the owner and occupier. That is not so in England, and considering this Act applies to both countries, the English farmers, under those circumstances, will be at a disadvantage as compared with the Scotch, and that we do not wish to be the case. The hon. Baronet's reference to the Education Act of 1870 is altogether misleading, because that Act applied to England, only. But I should like to point out that public opinion has advanced during the past twenty-two years, although some hon. Members opposite have remained stagnant. Opportunities have occurred during the present Parliament to deal with this question. It was brought forward in connection with the Local Government Bill of 1888, but it was rejected notwithstanding the expressed desire of the Party opposite to deal with the question.
  *MR. CHAPLIN: The tenant farmers are to be congratulated on their newfound champion, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt). I notice his support is generally forthcoming when he thinks he can inflict some injury on his opponents. I do not rise, however, for
  872
  the purpose of dwelling upon the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, but to reply to the hon. Member for Essex (Mr. Gray). And I may say that I have my right hon. Friend's (Mr. Ritchie's) authority for saying that the Government are prepared to consider and adopt this principle, and that the occasion upon which they do so will be, no doubt, to use the language of the hon. Member himself, a suitable occasion. I may add that it is the wish of the Government that the whole subject of the revision of rates should be considered and dealt with by Parliament. We have been asked when it will be a convenient occasion to deal with this question. Well, my right hon. Friend has pointed out that this question cannot be dealt with alone, as it involves the question of representation as well, and he has pointed out, too, the difficulty of separating this particular fractional rate from other rates I think that is a conclusive reply to those hon. Gentlemen who ask if this is not a fitting occasion to deal with this particular matter.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I should like to reply to one or two objections that have been urged on the other side of the House against considering this question at the present time. And let me say, first of all, that it never is a convenient time for the Party opposite to carry out a reform of any kind. That is a commonplace which need not occupy us for a moment. It is said that this rate would be a small and infinitesimal burden. If so, why not agree to my Amendment? It appears to me that that is not a valid argument. Then it has been said by an hon. Member opposite that the Liberal Government did not divide the education rate. In 1870 this question had not been considered, the Royal Commission and the Select Committee had not reported in its favour, and therefore at that time it was by no means ripe for solution. But, Sir, there was an occasion when it might have been considered, but when it was refused consideration by the present Government and by the Conservative Party. When the Local Government Bill was passing through this House, the hon. Member for

  873
  Northampton moved an Amendment for this special purpose, but the Government did not find that a convenient occasion. They did not support that Amendment, and I say that under the circumstances they are not entitled to twit the Liberal Government of 1870 with not dividing the educational rate. The main argument in favour of the division of the rate in this case is that you are going to tax the tenant farmer in order to provide him with a competitor, a step which I feel sure he will warmly resent.
  Question put.
  (5.20.) The House divided:—Ayes 133; Noes 203.—(Div. List, No. 127.)
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 12.
  *MR. HOBHOUSE: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. Under the Local Government Act the borrowing power of the County Council is restricted to one-tenth of the annual rateable value of the county. Under this Bill the County Council will be able to raise, under Clause 11, the sum of £104 for every £1,000 of annual rateable value. The figures were given me by the right hon. Gentleman himself, and the effect of those figures is that if the County Council exercises to the full its powers under this Bill they can borrow rather more than one-tenth of the annual rateable value. If they borrowed that sum for the purposes of the Bill they would be unable to borrow for any other purpose whatever without a Provisional Order or Act of Parliament. I should like to know if the President of the Local Government Board desires to put them in that position, or if he will accept my Amendment, which provides that the borrowing powers under this Act shall not affect the limit of borrowing powers under the Local Government Act.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 26, at end, add "Provided that money borrowed under this Act shall not be reckoned as part of the total debt of a county for the purpose of section sixty-nine, sub-section two, of 'The Local Government Act, 1888.'"
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  *MR. RITCHIE: I see no strong objection to the proposal of my hon. Friend; but, at the same time, I do not think it is necessary, for I can hardly conceive that the very large powers of borrowing possessed by the County Councils under the Local Government Act are likely within a reasonable distance of time to be exhausted. It must be remembered that the County Councils are not like Sanitary and Urban Authorities, which require to borrow large sums for many purposes. If, however, the Committee are of opinion that the Amendment is desirable, we do not offer any strong opposition to it, though we do not think that the large amount they can now borrow is not likely to be sufficient.
  MR. RATHBONE: I hope the Government will not give way in this matter, because it is very undesirable to extend the borrowing power of the County Council.
  *MR. HOBHOUSE: I am afraid I did not make my case clear to the House. The Bill has sanctioned special borrowing powers for new and important purposes, and these powers if fully exercised will amount in every county to more than one-tenth of the total annual rateable value, and that is the limit of the borrowing powers for all purposes under the Local Government Act. Do the Committee intend that the borrowing power under this Bill should not only be restricted by the limit of a penny in the pound, but should also be restricted to the amount left over between the actual debt of the county as it exists and the one-tenth of the annual rateable value? If that is not the intention of the Committee, these or some such words are necessary to enable the County Council to raise the sum which on the face of the Bill they are authorised to raise for this special purpose. I agree that the County Councils are not like Sanitary and Urban Authorities — desirous of raising large sums for many purposes; but this is an entirely new purpose, and if the Committee think it is important that small holdings should be created in large numbers it is obvious that the County Council must have power to raise large sums, and I only wished to make it clear

  875
  that they would have such borrowing powers as appear on the face of the Bill. At present if the County Council exercised their full powers under the Bill and then wanted to build an asylum or do some other work they could not raise the money without a Provisional Order or Act of Parliament. The other day the right hon. Gentleman received a deputation from the County Councils complaining of the delay in issuing loans under the present system. Much greater delays may be expected in the future if they have to get Provisional Orders or Acts of Parliament to enable them to borrow.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope the Government will accept the Amendment, which appears to me to be a common-sense one. Evidently the total borrowing power of County Councils under the Local Government Act was fixed with regard to the purposes contemplated at that time. Now a new purpose has been created and a new obligation placed on the County Council, and surely to the extent of that new purpose and obligation the borrowing power should be extended.
  MR. CHAPLIN: As I gather that in certain instances the difficulties referred to might arise, I will accept the Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: The Amendment I have now to move is to leave out the words which empower the Public Works Loan Commissioners to charge interest at the rate of not less than £3 2s. 6d. per cent. I propose to leave out that minimum sum, which will enable the Commissioners to advance money for the purposes of this Bill at a lower rate if the Treasury authorise them to do so. As the clause stands, though the Commissioners might have a disposition to lend at three per cent., they would be unable to do so; they would be compelled to charge more than they borrowed at, and the ratepayers would have to be overtaxed to that extent. There would be absolute protection in the clause as amended.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 32, to leave out from the word "interest," to the word "as," in line 33.—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. CHAPLIN: The terms of the clause were settled by arrangement between the Treasury and myself. In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I cannot accept an Amendment altering the terms of the clause as it is in the Bill.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider it between this and Report?
  MR. CHAPLIN: Yes.
  MR. MORTON: I also had an Amendment down to strike out these words, but I wanted to substitute the words "two pounds fifteen shillings" for them. It appears to me that the money ought to be advanced to the County Council at that rate, especially when we remember that the rate fixed in the Irish Land Purchase Act was £2 15s. per cent. I think I am right in claiming for England, Scotland, and Wales that they shall have money advanced to them at the same rate as it is advanced to the Irish tenant.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I should be glad to see that rate of interest put in the Bill; but if the hon. Gentleman can persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept it, his eloquence must be more persuasive than mine. I will undertake to confer with my right hon. Friend on the question but it is open to the local authorities to borrow in any other quarter they may please if they can obtain money cheaper than they can from the Treasury.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will leave the matter open till Report? It is a very important one.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am satisfied with the promise of the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope he will press on the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, in the case of the Irish Land Act, for Irish purposes £2 15s. was put in as the minimum. Now, we are dealing with English Local Authorities, and I defy anybody to find better security than the rates of English Local Authorities. If it is safe and proper in Ireland to allow loans at

  877
  £2 15s., I cannot conceive why, with such securities as the Bill affords, English Local Authorities should have to pay higher interest.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: If the clause passes as it stands, will it be competent to take out these words on Report? We do not ask that any other words should be put in, but simply to leave the matter to the discretion of the Loan Commissioners.
  MR. MORTON: The hon. Gentleman says we do not want to put in 2¾ per cent., but I do, and I shall insist on it so far as I can. The security offered by England, Scotland, and Wales is better than that offered by Ireland.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I think, in the case of Ireland, there was no power to loan at 2¾ per cent., but Irish Land Stock at 2¾ was created; that is not so good as the English Stock. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not give way on the point till he has conferred with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: As I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will take the matter into consideration after he has conferred with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 8, line 1, after the word "county," to insert the words—"shall be defrayed out of the county rate, and the expenses incurred by the Council of a county."—(Mr. Stephens.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHAPLIN: It is already provided by Sub-section (2) of the clause:—
  "The Public Works Loan Commissioners may, in manner provided by the Public Works Loans Act, 1875, lend any money which may be borrowed by a County Council for the purposes of this Act."
  MR. STEPHENS: I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.

  SMALL AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.—(No. 183.)

    NEW CLAUSES.
    MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to move to insert the following clause:—
    (Registration of title to small holdings, 38 & 39 Vict. c. 87, s. 118.)
    "(1.) When a County Council have sold a small holding to a purchaser under this Act, they shall apply for his registration as the proprietor thereof under 'The Land Transfer Act, 1875,' and thereupon the purchaser shall, without further inquiry, be registered under that Act as proprietor of the land with an absolute title, subject only to such incumbrances as may be specified in the application; but such registration shall not affect the remedy against the County Council of any person claiming by title paramount to the County Council; (2.) rules under 'The Land Transfer Act, 1875,' may (a) adapt that Act to the registration of small holdings, with such modifications as appear to be required; and (b) on the application and at the expense of a County Council provide, by the appointment of local agents or otherwise, for carrying into effect the objects of this section."
    New Clause brought up, and read the first and second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
    MR. HOBHOUSE: I am sure all of us who are interested in the registration question are very much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for having acceded to our request, and put a clause of this kind in the Bill. But I would appeal to him whether he thinks it really advisable to put the County Council to the expense and trouble of making special applications, and to the expense of paying for local agents. It is clear to most of us that some local machinery will have to be provided, if this part of the Land Transfer Act is to work at all.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member make any Motion?
    *MR. HOBHOUSE: Yes, I beg to move, in the new clause, to leave out the words "on the application and at the expense of a County Council."
    Amendment proposed, in new clause, to leave out the words, "on the application and at the expense of a County Council."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed new Clause."
    MR. HALDANE: I am not sure that I agree

    879
    with my hon. Friend who has just spoken. I rather think the clause as it stands is quite right. There are two alternatives which might be adopted. You might take the general provisions under the Act which enables you to create district registries, or you might take the Act as it works in London, and make special provisions for applying it to the local districts by making the local offices have the duty of transferring everything to London. And the latter alternative is what the Government have adopted. Before I sit down I should like to say a word about this clause. I am sure we all feel that it is a very good step in advance so far as it goes, because it is the first time that registration of title in England has been made compulsory. The Act of 1875 did not work because of its voluntary character, and the right hon. Gentleman has taken a great step in advance in making registration of title compulsory under this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman is doing nothing revolutionary, because last year in a case under the Irish Land Bill there was a supplementary Act passed introducing compulsory registration into Ireland. This clause is an immense improvement, and a great advance on anything we had, and I think the Committee is under an obligation to the right hon. Gentleman, and also to the hon. Member for Stamford, who was the person who first put this subject down on the Paper. The hon. Member for Stamford (Mr. Cust) took the alternative mode of making use of the Act as it exists in London, without the creation of district registries, and in that way without any change of machinery providing for transfer at a very small cost. I understand that a transfer can take place under this arrangement at a cost of about something like a shilling an acre, which is a very great improvement on existing regulations. Therefore, I think we must all regard this as a great step forward in the conveyancing law of this country.
    MR. RATHBONE: I quite agree with my hon. and learned Friend that we are under an obligation to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has done. Not being a lawyer, I wish to ask one question. Am I to understand
    880
    that under this clause no proprietor will be obliged to go to London and employ a lawyer to register and transfer his title; and are successive owners to be compelled to register their titles?
    MR. HENEAGE: Having raised this question on Clause 5, I, for one, am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman on account of having done so much as he has done, and I think we must all regard this Registration Clause as very satisfactory. But I do not see anything in the clause which will enable the original purchaser to transfer his land free of cost, except through a new conveyance, unless rules are made. If at the present time there are no rules in existence, unless such rules are made there is nothing in the clause which will enable the original purchaser to transfer his land free of cost when the property changes hands.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: With reference to the first part of the question of the hon. Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Rathbone), and in reply to the non, Member for Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse), who has moved this Amendment, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Haddington (Mr. Haldane), has stated, there were two alternatives which might have been adopted in this matter; either to create district registries under the general provisions of the Act, or to take the Act as it worked in London, and make special provisions for applying it to the local districts. We have adopted the latter alternative. If there is not a large number of applications there will be no necessity for making any special rules. I conceive that the right course has been followed. In every instance the County Council is to provide the local machinery contemplated by Sub-section B of the Land Transfer Act. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), as to the expense required to be incurred in the case of a second or third transfer, that, of course, will depend upon whether the original owner of the land has in any way dealt with the land in the way of burdening it or mortgaging it, or anything of that kind. It is necessary, as hon. Members will understand in a scheme of this kind, that in the first place the transfer should be registered. The first owner

    881
    of the land is to be bound to register as the proprietor, and then he will have for all practical purposes an absolute title. Then, if there is any more done in the way of the transfer of that land, of course it will be done without the intervention of a lawyer; and rules would be provided whereby the questions of form would be settled at once. As to the question of expense, I think it would be unwise to leave out a portion of Sub-section B of the Act, as has been suggested.
    SIR H. DAVEY: I think we are all very much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the course which he has taken in this case. With reference to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Carnarvon and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby, I suppose what will happen will be this: If any owner wishes to transfer his land he will have to go to the local agent of the Land Transfer Department, and the local agent of the Land Transfer Department will see that his transfer is registered in London in the proper registry. That appears to me to be just as good a course to take, though, of course, it may not be as speedy, as if statutory district registries were established for the purpose in the country. I am not very fond of legislating by rules, and though I do not wish to make any Motion or Amendment at this moment, I would call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the point, and I think he will agree with me that if it should be necessary—though I do not say at this moment it is, for I do not know—that a rule should be framed, it should in some way be in accordance with the Act.
    MR. RATHBONE: I did not quite understand whether the second part of my question had been answered. I understand that rules will be made, but will those rules provide that the successive owners shall be compelled to register their titles?
    SIR R. WEBSTER: Certainly.
    SIR H. DAVEY: The Act of Parliament does it.
    MR. CRAWFORD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the point, for we have a system of registration in Scotland which
    882
    I believe is more advanced than the system in England.
    SIR R. PAGET: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would be possible to provide by rules for an Ordnance map being recognised for the purpose of land registration?
    SIR R. WEBSTER: With regard to Scotch registration, I would ask to be allowed to speak to the Lord Advocate upon the point. I have some general knowledge of the registration law of Scotland, but I am not au fait with the details. I rather understood from what I was told that no alteration would be required, but I will communicate with the Lord Advocate on the matter. With regard to the question put to me by my hon. Friend behind (Sir R. Paget) as to the use of the Ordnance map, I will say that I think the time is coming, and approaching very rapidly, when an Ordnance map will be recognised officially, and will be used for the land registry and for land surveying. But I think it is too much for me to say that the rule shall make an Ordnance map, without the sanction of Parliament, sufficient evidence. I think that would be an instance of which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Davey) would have reason to complain of the rules going too far. Of course, use can be made of an Ordnance map already to some extent; but to ask that it should be made final and conclusive evidence would be going too far.
    MR. HALDANE: I think some words are necessary providing that it should not apply to Scotland. It is a perfectly general scheme at present.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I think there is no objection to insert the words "County Council in England."
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: There is a point on which my right hon. Friend has not answered the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I, therefore, beg again to ask him the question. In paragraph B of Sub-section 2 of the clause it is provided that rules may,
    "On the application and at the expense of a County Council, provide by the appointment of local agents or otherwise for carrying into effect the objects of this section."
    What we want to ask is this: Do the Government undertake that in every case they shall provide some

    883
    means by which the registration may be taken locally, because the clause does not say so
    MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON: I entirely agree that it is better that the clause should remain as it stands under existing conditions, although in theory I think it might be better it should be amended. It is quite obvious from this discussion that a great deal of the value of this clause will depend upon the nature of the rules made under this Act. It may be possible, on account of our Parliamentary usage, that the rules made by the Lord Chancellor may not be laid on the Table before the passing of the Act, and I would ask whether it is not possible for the Attorney General or the President of the Board of Agriculture, by some means or other, to communicate to this House, before the Report stage, what the nature and what the purport of those rules may be.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: It would be very rash to give any such promise as that. The rules will require to be carefully considered. They must be analogous to the well known rules now existing, and I cannot help thinking to endeavour beforehand to give their general scope and purport might lay us open to the observation that we did not communicate some necessary part. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, it is distinctly an intention that the registrations shall be carried out locally, and if these words do not restrict the clause to that, my right hon. Friend will certainly see that proper words are inserted. "Locally or otherwise" might mean that the agent need not be a person appointed ad hoc. Some difficulty might arise in the case of the County Council not having sufficient work to be done to justify the appointment of a local agent.
    MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON: My suggestion was not that the exact words of the rules should be placed before the House, but that the general purport should be placed before it.
    VISCOUNT EBRINGTON: Is there anything in the proposed rules to provide for the cost of the transfer of land? It is very important that the cost of transferring
    884
    these small holdings by any future deed should not be heavy.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: In the Land Transfer Act there is provision for fees. The fees for transfer after the first registration are extremely small, and I never heard any one complain of them.
    MR. HOBHOUSE: After the discussion that has taken place, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
    COMMANDER BETHELL: It is possible that laymen like myself may be under a misapprehension as to this clause, and I therefore would ask the Attorney General whether it will be necessary after this registration of the land for all fresh mortgages to be entered upon the register? If it is possible to do that by rules, then I think it should be done.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I am afraid that in answering another hon. Member on the opposite side of the House I have not clearly replied to my hon. and gallant Friend. The clause states:
    "The purchaser shall, without further inquiry, be registered under that Act as proprietor of the land with an absolute title, subject only to such incumbrances as may be specified in the application."
    Therefore subsequent dealings with the land by way of mortgage must be registered in order that the mortgage may be valid. Of course it is quite possible that a man may attempt to deal with his land without registration, but there would not be effective security without registration. All legal mortgages and proper incumbrances should appear on the register.
    COMMANDER BETHELL: I gather from my hon. and learned Friend that the charges made after the first transaction will be very small, and that there will be very little necessity for the intervention of a lawyer. That leads me to ask this question about mortgages: Will a mortgage upon the land be valid if it is not registered?
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I think it would not be valid unless properly registered. What I desired to say about the intervention

    885
    of a lawyer was this. I do not mean to say that under all circumstances no lawyer would be required. There might be deaths, there might be intestacies, there might be an uncertainty as to the person entitled to the property, there might be a variety of matters about which I am the last person in the world to suggest that there should be no intervention by a lawyer; but the intention of the Government is that under ordinary circumstances of transfer the simple registration will be carried out locally and at comparatively small expense.
    MR. CRAWFORD: I see that the Lord Advocate is now present, and I should like to repeat my question about the application of this clause to Scotland. It is quite obvious that it is inapplicable as it stands to Scotland, for the Land Transfer Act, 1875, does not apply to that country. It is highly desirable that this expeditious form of registration of title should exist in Scotland to facilitate the transfer of land, and we should all welcome a similar clause for Scotland. That can be done on Report. But I will in the meantime move to add at the end of the new clause these words, "This clause shall not apply to Scotland."
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The Question has been put, "That this clause be added to the Bill," and it is now too late to move that Amendment.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I would point out that the question has been put, and the discussion has come to an end. I will, however, promise that if the clause should be found inapplicable to Scotland, it shall receive careful consideration hereafter.
    MR. ROWNTREE: I am sure the Attorney General will admit that the system introduced into this Bill is practically non-existent in this country, and that those who are best entitled to speak upon it are opposed to legislation by rule.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I do not think I can make any such admissions as the hon. Gentleman desires. There are rules in existence at the present time which were framed under the Land Transfer Act, and all that the Committee have to do is to make such additional rules as are necessary to enable the transfer to be carried
    886
    out locally. The new rules could not, however, be framed before the Report. I think this matter may properly be left to the rule-making authorities.
    SIR H. DAVEY: I share the dislike that has been expressed by the hon. Member for Scarborough to legislation by rule, and so far as it lies in my power I will protest against it. On the present occasion, however, I think that the clause, which is a very important one, should be passed. I hope that my Friend the Attorney General will look into the matter, as I myself intend to do, with the object of ascertaining before the Report stage of the Bill what is the extent of the rulemaking power. If he cannot then satisfy the House upon the subject, and I am unable to do so, I will take the liberty of calling attention to it again on Report.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    New Clause—
    (Register to be kept by County Council.)
    "Every County Council shall keep a register of the owners and occupiers of small holdings sold or let by them, and a map or plan showing the size, boundaries, and situation of each small holding so sold or let,"
    —brought up, read the first and second time, and added to the Bill.
    *MR. SHAW LEFEVREmoved—
    In page 4, after Clause 6, to insert the following Clauses:—
    (Public Inquiry by County Council where glebes offered for sale.)
    "Where notice shall be given by the Board of Agriculture of the intended sale of any glebe under the Glebe Lands Act of 1888, the County Council within whose district the glebe is situate shall direct a public inquiry to be held in the parish in which such glebe is situate as to the suitability of the same for sale or leasing in small holdings under this Act, as to the need of small holdings in such parish, and the desire of the cottagers, labourers, and others to purchase or hire plots of lands for such purpose, and also in the event of the land being unsuitable for such purpose, as to the possibility of exchanging it for other land in the neighbourhood suitable for such purpose.
    If the County Council after public inquiry shall be of opinion that any glebe which the Board of Agriculture shall propose for sale within their district is suitable for small holdings, or may be exchanged for other land suitable for such purpose, and that there is a demand for the same in the parish or district in which the glebe is situate, they may inform

    887
    the Board of Agriculture that they desire to purchase the glebe, and the Board of Agriculture shall thereupon sell the glebe to such County Council for such price as may be agreed upon between them, being not less than the fair value of the same, and if no agreement shall be come to, then for such price as may be determined on under the Land Clauses Act.
    Where a County Council shall have acquired any glebe with the object of exchanging the same for any land suitable for small holdings, they may hold the same until they are able to effect the exchange, and the cost of effecting the exchange shall be part of the costs of acquisition of such land for the purpose of this Act."
    This is a question which has often occupied the attention of the House. I find that out of 131 cases in which glebe land has been offered for sale, in not fewer than 112 instances has it passed into the hands of the powerful landowners of the district. Only three plots have been sold to labouring people. Thus the intention of the Glebe Lands Act, 1888, has not been carried out. I have taken pains to ascertain why this failure has occurred, and it appears that not sufficient notice has been given of the intended sales to enable the people of the district in which they were to take place to come forward as purchasers. The only information previously given, so far as I am aware, is by means of notices posted on the church doors and at the post offices. I have been told by many people that numerous cases have occurred in which no inquiry has been made, and no notice given to the people of the district in which the sales were to take place. It is to rectify this, to facilitate the creation of small holdings, and to see that the Act of 1888 is carried properly into effect, that I move the insertion of the clause.
    New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. CHAPLIN: I am bound to admit that only a small number of the glebes sold since the passing of the Glebes Act has gone into the hands of the class of small holders. The right hon. Gentleman attributes the failure of the Act entirely to the fact that there was not sufficient pub-
    888
    licity given to these sales; but I can state this as a positive fact, that in accordance with the terms of Clause 8 of the Act, in every single instance the glebes have been offered in the first instance in small parcels for the very purposes in question, or to the Local Authority for the purposes of allotments. What further publicity could be given I do not know. The right hon. Gentleman proposes, in the first of his new clauses, that there shall be a public inquiry; and in the second, that if upon that inquiry there is found to be a demand for small holdings, the Local Authority are to inform the Board of Agriculture that they desire to purchase the glebe, and that the Board shall—not may—thereupon sell the glebe to the Council at a price agreed upon between themselves. Suppose they do not agree on the price what is to happen then? It appears to me the effect of the clause will be either to limit the market, and therefore to injure the sale of the glebe, and to injuriously affect the income of the incumbent, or else the clause will have no effect whatever. Then, again, I am afraid that the inquiry called for by the right hon. Gentleman would be very expensive, and by whom is this expense to be borne? Is it to be borne by the glebe, or by the Local Authority, or by whom does the right hon. Gentleman propose the expense shall be borne? I admit the object he has in view is a good one; it is unfortunate that glebes when sold should not be used in larger proportion for this particular purpose, but I do not see anything in the clauses of the right hon. Gentleman which would remedy that state of things. I am rather inclined to believe that if we were to pass the clauses in the form they are presented they would not encourage the sale of the land for this purpose—they would have a contrary effect. The mere fact of this Bill passing will probably have the effect that people will have far greater opportunities for the acquisition of land for this purpose than ever has been the case before, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be well to allow the Bill to pass without these new clauses, that we should see the effect of it, and then if we find that further reform is desired

    889
    in regard to glebe lands I shall be very glad to consider a proposal on the subject.
    MR. WINTERBOTHAM: From my own knowledge I can confirm what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford has said that the failure of the Glebe Lands Act, in so far as it was intended to promote the creation of small holdings, has been largely due to the manner in which sales have been effected. The clause proposed by my right hon Friend would be most valuable; it would allow a County Council to take glebe where the parson wants to sell, and has expressed to the Board of Agriculture his readiness to sell, and if that land should not be exactly suitable for small holdings, the Council may acquire it and then, by exchange, get land which is suitable for the purpose. From our point of view, I see no objection to the clause. It might possibly diminish the price of the land, says the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin). What, diminish the price to bring in another competing purchaser in the shape of the County Council? How could you diminish the price by increasing the demand? I think it will be much more likely to promote the sales of glebe, and at the same time further the object of this Bill, for land is often more likely to be acquired in this way than by asking a landowner to split up his estate. I hope my right hon. Friend will persevere with his proposal, and take the opinion of the Committee upon it.
    *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) has discussed the second clause as well as the first. I only discussed the first clause. The first and most important point is that there should be a public inquiry in the parish prior to the sale of the glebe—an inquiry in which the whole circumstances of the land and the condition of the people would be investigated, and in which the labourers in the district would be adequately informed of the intentions of Parliament and the offer of the sale of the land for the purposes of this Bill. That I hold to be of the highest importance. I do not think there need be any expense whatever. All that would be necessary would be that an agent of the County Council should go to the parish and hold
    890
    an inquiry, inform the people of the intended sale, explain the provisions of the Glebe Lands Act, and of this Bill when passed into law; give, in fact, full explanation of the facilities offered under the two Acts for the acquisition of glebe for the purpose of creating small holdings. There would be no expense whatever to the Local Authority, beyond that involved in sending a single agent to hold a single inquiry. That is all that is proposed by my first clause, which of course, if the Committee accepts, I shall follow up with the next clause. But this first clause has simply for its object a public inquiry and explanation from the labourers of the district of the intentions of Parliament in relation to the sale of glebe lands. At present the people have no information; the whole thing is conducted in a "hole-and-corner" manner; the glebe is sold without any public inquiry or the people for whom the sale was intended having any knowledge of the sale or any opportunity of bidding for the land.
    MR. ARTHUR H. DYKE ACLAND: Is the only objection of the President of the Board of Agriculture on the ground of expense? He must be aware that inquiries, such as are contemplated, can be conducted at very little expense. I do not see that he has made any objection to the first clause but the expense. Is that so?
    *MR. CHAPLIN: I think I may meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman in this way. Whenever there is a sale of glebe, notice shall be given by the Board of Agriculture to the Local Authority, and the Local Authority being aware that the sale is about to occur, it will be perfectly within its competence to conduct such an inquiry as the right hon. Gentleman proposes. If that will meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman I shall be prepared to agree to a clause of that kind.
    *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I think inquiry ought to be obligatory on the part of the Local Authority. In the past glebe lands have been sold, and they are now being sold without the people of the parish having any notice of the sale or of the intention of Parliament. It must be the duty of the Local Authority to direct an

    891
    inquiry on the spot and supply all information. I should not feel satisfied with a merely permissive clause.
    COLONEL GUNTER: A notice is posted on the church door, and the matter comes before the local Sanitary Board, who are bound to inquire into the particulars before any sale can take place. I speak from experience as Chairman of a Sanitary Board, and I know that every possible information is given to labourers and everybody around before glebe land is sold. There is no difficulty in any person interested finding out all about it.
    *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The answer to that is that there are Boards of Guardians who are known to be intensely hostile to the carrying out of the Allotments Act, and have not performed their duty in the past in respect to glebe lands.
    SIR R. PAGET: If the right hon. Gentleman were a little more acquainted with the manners and customs in rural parishes, he would be aware that if there is one thing which is spread abroad and becomes known in every village household it is the fact of glebe land being about to be sold. I defy anybody, if he desired, to conceal the information—it becomes known at once. It would be an altogether useless expense to insist upon a County Council inquiry in every case as to whether the land is suitable, and if there is any demand for small holdings.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 106; Noes 183.—(Div. List, No. 128.)
    It being after ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to Amendments to Short Titles Bill [Lords] without Amendment.
    Statute Law Revision,—That they have come to the following Resolution, viz.:—
    "That it is desirable that the Statute Law Revision Bill be referred to the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament on Statute Law Revision."
    To which Resolution they desire the concurrence of this House.
    Ordered, That three be the Quorum of the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons on Statute Law Revision.—(Mr. Solicitor General.)

    SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
    Sir JOHN MOWBRAYreported from the Committee of Selection; that they had discharged Sir John Dorington from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, and had appointed in substitution Mr. Mount.
    Sir JOHN MOWBRAYfurther reported from the Committee; that they had added to the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, the following fifteen Members in respect of the Evidence in Criminal Cases Bill [Lords]—viz., Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Barton, Mr. Gainsford Bruce, Mr. Finlay, Mr. Henry H. Fowler, Mr. Alfred Gathorne-Hardy, Lord Francis Hervey, Mr. John Kelly, Mr. Robert Reid, Mr. Bowen Rowlands, Mr. Rowntree, Mr. Sexton, Colonel Howard Vincent, Mr. Waddy, and Mr. Warmington.
    Reports to lie upon the Table.

  EVENING SITTING.
    ORDERS OF THE DAY.

      SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
      Order for Committee read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
      Notice taken, that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members being found present,

    BALLOT ACT (ILLITERATE VOTE).

      RESOLUTION.
      MR. WEBSTER: The Resolution of which I have given notice, and which there is now an opportunity to discuss, deals with a subject which I have on previous occasions endeavoured to bring before the attention of the House. I wish to

      893
      have the proper remedy applied to the evils which arise under the present system of dealing with the illiterate vote. The reasons why, when the Ballot Act was passed, provision was made for allowing illiterate persons to vote, are set forth in the discussions upon the Bill, and Mr. Forster stated that all he wanted to secure was that a man should not be disfranchised because he could not read. This I am ready to admit is commendable, but in practice the effect of the provision for the illiterate vote has been to defeat the object of the Ballot Act. Looking over the record of the proceedings of the Committee which sat on that Act, I find that a Motion similar to that in my name was made by an hon. and gallant Gentleman still a Member of this House, and who then was Captain Nolan. He moved—
      "That all special provisions for the assistance of the illiterate voter should be omitted, and that no voters save those labouring under some physical disability should receive assistance in making out their ballot papers."
      This Motion was put before the Committee which considered the operation of the Ballot Act, and I find it was carried by a majority of nine to six, that majority being principally made up of Members of the Liberal Party. Remembering this, I think I may fairly look for support for my Motion now to the other side of the House. The majority on that occasion included the late Mr. W. E. Forster and the right hon. Gentleman now the Member for Bury (Sir H. James), the only Conservative Member being Mr. Sampson Lloyd. I mention this as indicating that the proposal is not put forward with a Conservative view; the object of the Motion is to purify the source from which we on either side derive our right to sit here—to secure absolute freedom for electors to vote for whom they choose. The then Attorney General declared the purpose of the Ballot Act was to secure electors from coercion and intimidation; but I fear very much that the Ballot Act, good as it is, useful as it is, though no doubt it protects the elector from landlord intimidation, does under cover of this provision for illiterate voters let in influences which detract from the secrecy and security it was the inten-
      894
      tion of Parliament to confer. I think I can show that, especially in Ireland, the secrecy of the ballot is violated, and the free opinion of constituencies sometimes—I do not say it is general—sometimes, and very often, misrepresented and thwarted. From the Return laid before the House after the last General Election we find that of the total number of electors who then voted the proportions of illiterates were: In England one in sixty-four, in Scotland one in seventy-four only, whereas in Ireland there was the remarkable condition of things that one out of every five voters declared himself illiterate. The actual figures were 194,994 voters, and 36,722 of these claimed to be illiterate. There is a Return of a more recent date which the House was pleased to grant at my request, showing the results in bye-elections since the General Election in Great Britain and Ireland; and here I find that out of 86,470 votes given in England only 870 were illiterate, in Scotland twenty-nine out of 5,142; but in Ireland, according to one Return, there were out of 9,872, 2,173 illiterate votes given, or, according to another Return, 2,500. I may explain two Returns were given because, in the first instance, a Returning Officer at one of the polling stations where the illiterate vote was greatest omitted to return a full list of the illiterate votes. In some parts of Ireland the figures from the General Election Return show a strange position of affairs. Out of eighteen thousand voters in the four divisions of County Donegal, nearly half—7,900—claimed to vote as illiterate. In North and South Monaghan twelve thousand persons voted—2,300 as illiterate. In North and South Berry 9,300 voted—2,253 as illiterate. In Tyrone 26,700 voted, and 6,957 claimed to vote as being illiterate. It is a significant fact which I cannot leave unnoticed—and I have received a letter to-night which emphasises the fact—that from the constituencies where the proportion of illiterate voting is largest, we find hon. Gentlemen returned as Home Rule Members; and on the other hand, in the constituencies returning Unionist Members the illiterate vote is not so large. I do not believe, I cannot bring myself

      895
      to believe, that these figures represent the true state of education and knowledge among the people of Ireland. If it were a true evidence of the state of knowledge in Ireland, it would point the necessity for a more stringent measure of compulsory education. It would afford a striking commentary on the fitness of the country for Home Rule if the members of the various sections of the Party supporting the principle they were so unwilling to discuss this day week were returned by constituencies a fourth of whom were illiterate. But I do not believe this is the true condition of affairs; this is a pretended illiteracy, and it is due to totally different causes than want of elementary education. I have a number of letters here from candidates for Irish constituencies, and they all show the pressure put upon every doubtful voter to declare himself illiterate. Here is a letter from a Roman Catholic candidate for one of the Midland constituencies, in which he states that the election agent informed the voter that he was to declare himself illiterate, and he was given to understand his vote would be identified. A Leinster candidate says that in every polling booth there was a prominent National League agent or personation agent, and under the provisions for illiterate voting secrecy was destroyed in hundreds of cases. In some places, the candidate writes, the presence of the National League agent beside the presiding officer was sufficient to prevent the illiterate voter from giving his vote with the confidence of secrecy. A candidate in one of the Connaught constituencies says few of the electors knew who they were going to vote for. Some said, "for Parnell," others said, "for the priest." Several were allowed in the booth at one time, and there was very little secrecy. The presence of political agents to whom the voters were well known had an influence, to use no stronger word, over every illiterate voter recording his vote. I could give from the letters of Unionist candidates many statements of this kind, but I may also refer to an authority which hon. Members opposite may consider of more value. The newspaper United Ireland, on January 3rd, 1891, in com-
      896
      menting on the North Kilkenny election, said that priests acted as agents for Sir John Pope Hennessy at the approaches to the polling stations, and every illiterate voter was obliged to declare in their presence the candidate whom he wished to vote for; priests led the voters to the booth, by priests they were received inside, and in the presence of the clergy did the voter record his vote for Sir John Pope Hennessy. An intolerable state of things. What would have been said if, in an election at Kilkenny before the Land Act of 1881, the landlords had so acted, if they through their agents had ordered tenants to plead illiteracy and declare the candidate for whom they voted? Would not the country have rung with the denunciations from Gentlemen who call themselves Nationalists? On the authority of this same newspaper, United Ireland, it is said that at every polling booth the personation agents were Roman Catholic agents, that there is a complete list of them in Sir John Pope Hennessy's handwriting, and that many of these agents used language towards the voters which, if exposed to the world, would be visited with severe condemnation from the ecclesiastical authorities. Intimidation does not come from one source in Irish elections. At a recent election in Waterford, intimidation by means of this illiterate voters' provision came not from the Catholic priesthood, but from an entirely different source—from the mob. Thus we learn, on the authority of the Daily News of 24th December, 1891, that by noon more than half the expected total had been polled, and at that time large crowds collected round the polling booths intimidating many voters by the display of party feeling, and that this had a great effect on the illiterate voters. So the present Member for the constituency was returned by a large majority. But care not whence the intimidation comes—from the National League, from the priesthood, from the crowd, or from any other source; if it exists, if you allow the illiterate portion of the electorate to be influenced thereby owing to this special privilege, then I say it behoves us to carefully examine the manner in which the privilege has

      897
      been exercised, and its effect on the representation of the opinion of constituencies. I have some feeling of sympathy with these unfortunate voters. They are driven like sheep to the poll, and in the presence of personation agents, local League officials or priests, they have to vote absolutely, entirely, and completely to order. I have here a statement by a candidate for an Irish constituency that the voters were drawn up in a sort of regimental order, their names were carefully called over in order to mark—hon. Members from Ireland will know what the expression "mark" means—the absentees from the roll call. Then the unfortunate voters were required to declare whether they were illiterate, and they were instructed who to vote for. I fear that in many parts of Ireland electors have to vote in the presence of the returning and personation officers in a manner which renders the intimidation of the voters both possible and practicable. And here I wish to explain that in any terms I have used I have endeavoured to guard against any attack on the Roman Catholic priesthood. I have a very high opinion of the useful work they do, not only in Ireland, but in every part of the world. Their valuable missionary enterprise in India I have myself seen, and my opinion is that there are no better, no more self-sacrificing workers in the evangelistic field in China than the Roman Catholic clergy. While they confine themselves to their honourable and exalted duties I entertain the greatest admiration for them, but I do consider that they depart from their vocation when they lead crowds of people to the polling booth and dictate as to the candidate to be voted for. When that is done my admiration diminishes. I agree with the views of a great speaker on this subject, if I may be allowed to coincide with so eminent a man as Lord Macaulay, who, when the question of the ballot was first discussed in this House, pointed out that his desire for that system was prompted by the wish to secure the voter against intimidation. He further pointed out that the House had done much to rid the constituencies of corruption, and then proceeded to say—
      898
      "Corruption has a sort of illegitimate relationship to benevolence, and engenders true feelings of a friendly and cordial nature. …. But in intimidation the whole process is an odious one. The whole feeling on the part of the elector is that of shame and degradation, and hatred of the person to whom he has given his vote. The elector is, indeed, placed in a worse situation than if he had no vote at all; for there is not one of us who would not rather be without a vote than be compelled to give it to the person he dislikes above all others."
      I venture to say that the dictum that intimidation causes pain is truly and wisely applicable to the case of the man who has to go to the polling booth and tender his vote contrary to his dictates and intention. It may be asked why I, a London Member, address the House on this subject; and, in this connection. May I point out that I do so from no personal motive? Take the Metropolis as a whole, I think I am right in asserting that there is no part of the United Kingdom in which there are fewer illiterate voters. In Marylebone there were at the last election only two illiterate voters; in the constituency represented by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord R. Churchill) there was only one such, and I am pleased to allude to the fact that in my own constituency (East St. Pancras) there were only four illiterates. Here I will point out that in the constituency of an hon. Member opposite, the Member for South Donegal (Mr. MacNeill)—a gentleman of great literary and general ability, and whom I respect, though his views are not mine—out of 6,304 voters, no less than 3,200 voters claimed that they were illiterate. And here it may be remarked—as the Education Act was passed 20 years ago—every man now of the age of 30 years ought to be able to affix his mark to a voting paper. In this matter we need not look abroad, but, in passing, it may perhaps be mentioned that in America, where the obtaining of a vote is practically unrestricted, they have no such system as ours. I think that in these days a man ought to possess a sufficient degree of intelligence to enable him to vote under some system. If my Motion is carried, I quite allow the possibility of some system of marks against the candidates' names, in order that the least educated man may

      899
      detect the candidate for whom he intends to vote. I have seen suggestions in a newspaper called the Pall Mall Gazette in other directions, but I will not touch upon these beyond remarking that they are clever, although I cannot say I entirely agree with them. My wish is not to disenfranchise the illiterates, but to prevent the infringement of the Ballot Act. Instituting a comparison between two cities in Derry and the Borough of Wandsworth, a strange and grave anomaly presents itself. In the former 5,000 electors have two Members of Parliament, whereas in the latter one Member represents 16,000 inhabitants. Can you imagine anything more striking than that nine men should only have the same weight in the Council of the nation as one illiterate voter in the divisions I have mentioned? Reverting to the question of intimidation, I very much doubt whether under the open system of the past that evil was so glaring as under cover of the clauses of the Ballot Act. The privilege of voting as conferred by that measure has, in my opinion, been notoriously and gravely abused. Indeed, I do not think that Parliament can fairly be said to represent the views of the people unless we have each district fairly and equitably re-distributed according to the population, and in such a way that a man may vote just as he chooses. The admirable intention of Parliament in this matter has been degraded, the secrecy of the Ballot has been violated, and it is essential that some remedy should be found. I could say much more on this subject, but I refrain in order that we may have a varied discussion of the expression of other views on a question which is grave and comprehensive, and which ought not to have a party character. My wish is to place the constituencies in the position the Ballot Act intended—that every man should be elected by the free wish of those whom he is sent to represent in this House. I beg to move—
      "That, in the opinion of this House, in the interests of true freedom of election, the clauses in the Ballot Act which permit the Illiterate Vote should be repealed."
      *COLONEL WARING: I rise to second the Motion, and I shall
      900
      do so in a very few words after the exhaustive introduction of the hon. Member who has just sat down. It must not be supposed that my motive in seconding is to disenfranchise any man; and in reference to what has been said regarding the illiterates of South Donegal, I will venture to doubt whether, out of the three or four thousands who voted for the hon. Member representing that constituency, there were more than three or four who could not have dabbed their pencils down in the right spot. I believe the average Irish voter to be a shrewd, intelligent fellow, and am perfectly certain that in nine cases out of ten he can, when called upon, place his vote mark in the right place, unless he deliberately puts it somewhere else. This question is not a new one. For the last five years I have had a Bill before the House aiming at a reform in this matter, and in the earlier stages I deemed it necessary to somewhat modify it in order that those who differ from me might not prefer the charge of disenfranchisement. I also introduced several devices in imitation of tramcar tickets, so that the voters might, by strips of colours, easily distinguish between the various candidates. My Bill provided that no minister of religion, of whatever denomination, shall be an agent in the booth or remain in or about that place. In making that proposition I have not the slightest intention of attacking any particular Church, for I consider the political interference of ministers of religion, of whatever denomination, harmful not only to themselves, but also to the body politic. Though ministers of religion they have a perfect right to their own opinions and a right also to express those opinions, but interference in the polling booth is entirely beyond their sphere. I have said this subject is not a new one. Shortly after the Act was passed an important Commission discussed the general provisions of the measure. The Report of that inquiry has already been alluded to, and I propose further to draw attention to one or two important features of the evidence given. One of the witnesses called before the Commission was Sir Joseph Heron, the Town Clerk for Manchester, who had acted as the

      901
      Returning Officer for that city. Colonel Nolan said—
      "A member of your Committee stated that the special provision might be used not only to delay voting, but also to facilitate bribery and intimidation."
      Sir Joseph Heron answered—
      "In some places it seems to me that it would inevitably be the fact that they would arrange beforehand how they were to vote, and they would declare themselves to be illiterate in order that they might prove before the agent that they had voted as they had promised."
      The hon. and gallant Member for Galway, when he tendered his evidence, was asked—
      "What is your view with regard to illiterate voters?"
      He answered—
      "I think I have had as much experience as any Member of the working of the Ballot machinery in Ireland for this reason, I made a canvass of the constituency before the Dissolution, and explained the Ballot to a great many voters and found that the general opinion among them was that nearly everyone, if he wished, would be able to mark the paper without telling anyone which way he wished to vote. "I found a great fear that if pressure was put upon the illiterate voters it would affect their votes, and that there were very few voters so illiterate that they would not be able to mark their votes in the same way as ordinary voters."
      The result was, I believe, that Colonel Nolan moved a clause in the Report to the effect that this special provision might be used as a means of discovering whether a man voted in accordance with a promise already made and that it might also be used to encourage bribery and intimidation. That is, as the hon. Member has pointed out, the use that has been made of illiterate voters, and we, therefore, desire to see this provision done away with. We have no wish to preclude them from recording their votes. Our opinion is—and the evidence of those most acquainted with the matter confirms our impression—that this class of voters would have been able, with few exceptions, to accurately give their vote without assistance. Recent experience has proved that a change in the law in this respect is required more than ever. As it was utterly hopeless for a private Member to get a Bill forward for Second Reading, unless he happened to be exceptionally fortunate in the ballot, I have withdrawn my Bill in order that
      902
      my hon. Friend might bring forward this Motion, which I have much pleasure in now seconding.
      Amendment proposed,
      To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, in the interests of true freedom of election, the clauses in the Ballot Act which permit the Illiterate Vote should be repealed,"—(Mr. Webster,)
      —instead thereof.
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
      MR. MACNEILL: I shall keep the House for a short time only, and indeed I should not have interfered at all in this Debate had not some personal remarks been made as to my own position. I must say that on a Motion of this kind, the tendency of which is to disfranchise a section of the community, the absence of many right hon. Gentlemen from the Treasury Bench is a subject of interest to me.
      An hon. MEMBER: Where is the Opposition Front Bench?
      MR. MACNEILL: The Opposition Front Bench do not think it worth their while to attend, and I should not have thought it worth my while, but I chose to ward off slanders from my constituency when I have the opportunity. It is pleasant to see the courage of the hon. Members who have brought forward and seconded this Motion on the eve of a General Election. I should have imagined hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House would have been much more anxious to see how they could catch the votes of illiterate voters than to disfranchise them. This proposal, Mr. Speaker, is not a good one to go before the country with, and accordingly I regard with some amusement the absence of the Gentlemen who are mainly responsible for the course of Irish business. Now, Sir, this question of the non-education or illiteracy of Irish voters is one which lies very deep at the root of Irish misgovernment. Both hon. Gentlemen stated their case with great fairness, but the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Motion seems to have forgotten that Mr. Forster's Act was an English Act, and that the body of men—the Christian

      903
      Brothers—who have the whole education of the people of Ireland in their hands are not supported by one farthing of public money. It is not the fault of the Irish people that they are ignorant. They owe their ignorance to a system which for years has kept the scales of darkness on their eyes. Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege of knowing many heads of households in Ireland who are illiterate. Long before I entered into politics special circumstances brought me into connection with them, and I can assure the House that many of these men who can neither read nor write are men of extraordinary intelligence and with an extreme zeal for learning. The real aim of this Motion is not to make the Ballot absolutely secret—hon. Gentlemen opposite resisted the Ballot as long as they could—but to disfranchise the men whom they suppose to be most under the power of the popular leaders of the country. I admit that these men are under that power, and why? Because they look with confidence to their leaders for protection against misery and injustice. But I am happy to say that the illiterate voter is dying out; he belongs to the past generation. The men who can neither read nor write are the victims of the atrocious system of government of times gone by. Do hon. Gentlemen who reproach the Irish race with ignorance know that it is the fault of former Unionist Governments in Ireland of which they are the successors? Do they know that every inducement in the way of learning has been held out to the peasants of Ireland to forsake their religion, but all in vain? One of the most wonderful chapters in Irish history is that which relates to the Charter Schools. These institutions were founded in Ireland by the English Government with the object of getting possession of the Irish Catholic child, and giving him a good Protestant education, and if he were a clever boy to send him to Trinity College. All this was done to entice the peasant away from his religion, but without success. The ignorance of the Irish people, having regard to the circumstances under which it exists, is to be admired and respected, for I know of no
      904
      nation in Christendom where a people who have had such strong inducements to abandon their faith have kept to it. Unassisted as they have been, I maintain that the Irish have done their best to educate their children. Well, Mr. Speaker, blame has been cast upon the Irish priesthood—not directly but indirectly—for bringing the illiterate voters to the poll.
      An hon. MEMBER: Hear hear!
      MR. MACNEILL: Who says "Hear hear"?
      MR. GRAY: I say "Hear hear!"
      MR. MACNEILL: The hon. Gentleman represents an agricultural constituency in England, and would he not be delighted if he could get the Primrose League parsons to take the smock-frocked labourers to the poll to vote in his favour? Well, Mr. Speaker, I have been through many elections and I have seen the action of the Catholic priesthood, and I can conscientiously say that these clergymen do nothing that other good men in their position would not do. They have great influence over the people because they deserve it. They guide the people and tell them how they should vote, and the people to whom these priests, in good days and in bad days, have been protectors and friends, generally act on their advice because it is for their own benefit. I am rather astonished at the absence of the Home Secretary from this Debate. If when a similar charge was made against the Irish priesthood some years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman was Member for Dungarvan and an obscure Member on the Opposition side—obscure men have only to rat and they became eminent on the Front Ministerial Bench—he said it was a social misfortune in Ireland that circumstances had forced the clergy into a position of prominence on political occasions, and had obliged them to become leaders on the popular side, and he added that the landlords must bear their share of blame for this result. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Irish people had in their clergy "their only advisers and leaders." The idea that the clergy by acting as personating agents have, in the slightest degree affected the votes of these people is absolutely preposterous.

      905
      The people are only too delighted to show their respect and affection for their clergy—who have never yet led them wrong—by listening to their counsel and advice, and I maintain that the clergy have exercised their legitimate influence in acting at elections as they have done. Now, Sir, I wish for one moment to refer to a personal matter. It has been insinuated that my return was due to clerical intimidation or interference. I was returned by, I think, 4,606 votes, and my opponent was returned by 999 votes—at least that is how many votes he returned to Brighton with. It will scarcely be believed that the man who was put up by Dublin Castle to oppose me never came to the constituency at all. An agent was sent down, however, but for no other reason than to put us to expense. I was not returned as a Catholic, because I am a strong Protestant, while Mr. Munster—the Dublin Castle candidate—is a Catholic and a Liberal Unionist to boot. The true motive of this Motion is not to make the Ballot more secret, but to disfranchise a large number of men whose illiteracy is not their own fault, but the fault of those who, as long as they could, kept education from the people. I congratulate the Tory Party on having brought forward such a Motion as this immediately before the General Election. It shows that in going back to their constituencies they distrust the people. Lord Salisbury was the first to start this notion in a speech he made at the Mansion House in August last, but it has not been taken up by the First Lord of the Treasury. Now we have got a House for this discussion, I hope we shall go to a Division, because I am anxious to see how the Chief Secretary, and the Attorney General, and the First Lord of the Treasury will vote, and I hope the Division List will be a long one. I represent a constituency that is called illiterate, but I represent people who, if I transgressed in the slightest degree the moral code, would quickly call me over the coals. In their households in Donegal purity of life is known, and all the social virtues; the marriage tie is respected, and female virtue is safer than in a first-class carriage in one of your railway trains. If my
      906
      constituents are illiterate they have probably exercised more intelligence than their more cultured neighbours, and I would not exchange them for the constituents which have returned hon. Gentlemen on the other side.
      SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I rose before to take part in this Debate, but an hon. Friend said to me, "I would not speak till you hear the arguments on the other side." I have waited to hear the arguments, and I am waiting still. The hon. Member who has just sat down made a long speech, but he did not touch the question we are debating. I do not know what this has to do with the persecution of the Irish; the question is, is it a good thing or not that illiterates should be allowed to vote at elections? I congratulate the hon. Member (Mr. R. G. Webster) on having succeeded in getting a House, and I think it would have been a pity if he had not; for what can be more interesting to a Representative Assembly than a discussion on the manner in which it is elected?—and with all its faults this is the noblest Representative Assembly in the world. I venture to speak on this subject to-night, because I have been in the House a good while longer than many Members, and I remember the time when this Illiterate Clause was brought in by Mr. Forster. I forget who proposed it, but I remember that it came on about dinner time when the bulk of the Liberal Members had gone home to dinner. Two or three Liberal Members got up and said they were in favour of the clause, and Mr. Forster said afterwards—
      "Well, I could not do anything else; there was no one here to back me up, and I was obliged to agree to the clause."
      It was not carried by a very full or a very unanimous House; and after it had been carried I went into the Lobby and found an old friend of mine, a very strong Tory, who was literally dancing with delight. He said, "Now we have got this Illiterate Clause it is all right." He felt sure, as my hon. Friend (Mr. MacNeill) feels sure, of being returned. But whether this clause was right or wrong, I would ask whether it is desirable to make

      907
      provision for these illiterates now that twenty years have elapsed since we passed the Ballot Act? We have had education—Government education, compulsory education, and now free education—and it seems to me that even if it were necessary then it cannot be necessary now. I do not want to disfranchise anybody, and I do not think it is right to call this a disfranchising Motion. I do not think we can go into the matter as to whether people are very clever or whether they are able to discuss politics. The other day we were told that women were not to have votes because they were too stupid to exercise them. ["No!"] I know nobody said it, but I heard the leader of the anti-women party (Mr. S. Smith) say they are as good as we are; and having heard what was said, I think there is no other argument than that women are too stupid. But I would not disfranchise anybody, not even Peers, and I do not think we can go into an educational test at this time of day. It would be a ridiculous thing to confine the franchise only to those who are sufficiently educated to use it. If an educational test were necessary, I am afraid I should have very great difficulty myself in getting through. I think the whole question is whether the presence of this clause allowing illiterates to vote is, on the whole, an improvement of our representative system, or whether we should be better without it. We have had the Ballot now for nearly a generation to protect the people from a twofold injustice—from undue influence and undue corruption, from undue persuasion and from undue intimidation; and in my humble opinion, and from what I have heard and read, the keeping in of this clause about illiterate voters tends to weaken that system of election which we wished to adopt. It is, I really do think, ridiculous at this time of day to say these people could not vote. They could vote if they liked. With all the advantages we have in this country, and the extreme desire people have to get votes, it is absurd to say that they would not find out how to put their cross in the proper place on the ballot paper. They are not such fools as that. The hon. Member for South
      908
      Donegal (Mr. MacNeill) said that these illiterate voters were men of extraordinary intelligence, and I think they would certainly have intelligence enough to kown where to put a cross.
      MR. MACNEILL: Wise men make mistakes sometimes.
      SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I do not deny that; but what has that to do with the argument? The Member for South Donegal said that these illiterate voters were dying out. Then it is surely not necessary for us to keep up a clause for their protection; we do not want to protect dead men. My own opinion is, that the illiterate voter is a greater humbug than the bonâ fide traveller, and I say do not let us by our legislation confer special privileges on either dodgers or dunces, but put everybody on the same footing, and let all be protected fairly and fully by the Ballot Act. That is the principle of political equality, and, therefore, I shall support the Motion of the hon. Member.
      MR. T. HARRINGTON: If the strong feelings to which the hon. Baronet has just given expression are his real views, it is a pity he did not endeavour, before making his speech, to bring the Motion more closely in accordance with those views. It seems to me that there is a strange inconsistency between the arguments which have been advanced in favour of this Motion and the words of the Motion itself. We are assured by the Mover and Seconder, and by the hon. Baronet, that they are all in favour of the franchise, and that they are all in favour of giving the franchise to the illiterate voter; but it is a singular fact that the combined ingenuity of the hon. Gentlemen has not been directed to find words which would give the means of secret voting to the illiterate, but to deprive him of voting at all. Instead of applying a remedy or devising a means by which the illiterate voter can give his vote free from intimidation and free from influence, the hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to deprive the illiterates of their votes. If the Motion of the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Webster) had been a Motion to free the illiterates—whether in England, Ireland, or Scotland—from any influence that could

      909
      control their vote, and to give them the same freedom of voting which the most educated and literate voter possesses, I would record my vote in its favour; but as it stands, it is nothing else, and can be nothing else, but a disfranchising Motion. It is idle for the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Lawson) to say that if the House passes this Motion the vote will be anything else but an attempt to deprive the illiterate voters of any means of recording their votes. We have had some strange arguments from the Mover of this Resolution (Mr. Webster). He endeavoured to be facetious at the expense of our country, and declared that it was the illiterate portion of Ireland which had given its vote solidly in favour of Home Rule. It is quite true; but does not the hon. Gentleman see that there is another side to this question? It is only natural that a body of men, which have been kept in the condition in which the Irish people have been kept under your laws and under your Government, should be extremely desirous of devising a system of government which would bring them better conditions. If the great body of the Irish voters are illiterate, the shame is not theirs; the shame belongs to the system of government which you have practised in that country. The speech of the hon. Member is a libel on Ireland. No body of men have with more difficulty and greater expense to themselves endeavoured to educate the people than the priesthood of Ireland. You have had in this country the advantages of a system of assisted education. In Ireland they have had to educate the people at their own expense; they could not have recourse to the means by which the national system of education was carried on. But I do not want to go back to such things, and it is only because I hear hon. Gentlemen utter such a slander as to say that the Irish priesthood have endeavoured to keep the people ignorant that I feel bound to say it is not true, and that hon. Gentlemen on the other side should be the last persons to make such assertions. We have heard a great deal about the system of intimidation exercised in Ireland; but why, if you wish to be consistent, should you, in order to punish the man who practises that
      910
      intimidation, deprive the illiterate of his voting power, and allow the man who practises intimidation to go scot free. Is it impossible for Parliament to devise some secret means of voting by Ballot for the illiterate voters and for those who, in consequence of some physical disability, may not be able to record their votes? We have been told how in Ireland the voters are brought up by the priests to the poll. I regret that the priests have found it necessary, in the exercise of their duty, to take so prominent a part in political matters as they have done. But that is not confined to the priesthood in Ireland. I have seen the same thing at English elections. (Cries of "No!") Hon. Gentlemen may give their own experience; I am speaking of mine. I was at Barrow, and saw clergymen exercising the same system. That is not the argument. What we are addressing ourselves to is, Is the system bad? If so, stop it everywhere. What we want in Ireland is equality of votes, and if you find that system good for the government of your own community we shall be glad to follow your example in Ireland, when you give us the right to do so. Now, Sir, a great deal was endeavoured to be made out of the election of the hon. Member for South Donegal (Mr. MacNeill). The figures quoted are undoubtedly figures which, if we did not know the circumstances which brought them about, would be to a large body of Irishmen a source of humiliation. It is necessary, however, to remember that the district is an almost exclusively Irish-speaking district. If you had given them the means of educating themselves in their own language—and you never have—you would not be able to say they were illiterate because they cannot read a ballot paper printed in English. If you take the figures for the whole country, how much do you gain by it? Some hon. Gentlemen say that some Home Rule Representatives would not be in the House but for the illiterate votes cast. Let them point out a single constituency where, if the illiterate voters had gone to the other side, the same Representative would not have been returned. In the constituency where the highest illiterate vote was cast the Unionist candidate

      911
      polled 900. In one constituency at the General Election the Unionist candidate polled 74; if you were to add to those the whole of the illiterate votes, the Home Rule Representative would still have been returned. Of course, Sir, I admit at once that there is a great deal in the argument that there is a certain number of men who could properly record their votes and yet give illiterate votes, and I admit that there are cases where that power has been abused. But are you, because of that, to deprive every illiterate voter, every man suffering from physical disability, many of whom are intelligent men, of the right to vote? I admit while the present provision exists you give to the weakest members of the community—the men most liable to temptation—an opportunity of being corrupt in the exercise of their votes which you do not give to others. That is an anomaly and a grievance; but when I put that side by side with the question of depriving every illiterate voter—many of them intelligent men—of their votes, I cannot think of voting for the Motion. It is useless for Unionist Members to rely on the arguments put forward with regard to the election in South Donegal. If the votes were cast at the instance of the priests, if the priests came forward and advised the voters and accompanied them to the poll, the votes were cast for a Protestant and a stranger, who was never in Donegal before. When you accuse the Irish priests of bigotry, sectarianism, and a desire to exterminate Protestants, you contradict your own arguments when you point out that they persuaded the illiterate voters in Donegal to vote for a Protestant and a stranger. The hon. Gentleman would have little difficulty in passing his Motion if he would only put in the words of the Motion the principles which he avowed himself a supporter of in his argument. If the Motion passes in its present form it will undoubtedly deprive the illiterate voters of the right to cast their votes. ("No, no!") I must assume that hon. Gentlemen have not read the Motion, or that they do not understand the English language. I would be sorry to accuse any inhabitant of South Donegal of so much want of intelligence, if he could read the Motion, as to say it was
      912
      not a disfranchising Motion. If the hon. Gentleman desires to prevent any suspicion that the Motion is for the purpose of disfranchising the illiterate voters, let him amend it and put it in a form which will make it clear that he wishes to devise some method by which they can give an uninfluenced vote, and he will then have the support of many Members on this side of the House.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The Motion has been discussed as if it affected Ireland only. That is an entire mistake. The Motion covers the illiterate voter wherever that illiterate voter may exist, and that he exists elsewhere than in Ireland is abundantly proved by the figures in the Parliamentary Return. At the Election in 1885, out of 3,734,693 votes polled in England and Wales, 80,430 were illiterate votes. In Scotland, out of 447,588 votes polled, 7,708 were illiterate, while in Ireland, out of 450,906 votes polled, 98,404 were illiterate. I admit that there is a preponderance of illiterate votes in Ireland, but that does not justify speakers in attaching a sectional character to the Resolution. It affects illiterate voters throughout the United Kingdom. If the Resolution be passed and legislation is founded upon it, that legislation must affect England, Scotland and Wales, as well as Ireland. There is no doubt that the question must have a peculiar effect upon Ireland, as is shown by contrasting different parts of Ireland. Take Antrim and Cork, for instance. In 1885 there were 29,698 votes cast in County Antrim, and out of that number 2,550 were illiterate. In the County of Cork there were 30,047 votes, and of that number 11,587 were illiterate. That is a tolerable contrast; but, if you take the cities of Belfast and Cork, the contrast is as remarkable. Out of 25,178 votes cast in Belfast, 1,559 were illiterate, 999 being in the Western Division, represented by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton). In the City of Cork, with a vote of 8,376, there were 1,297 illiterates. In the two divisions of County Down, out of 16,010 votes, 2,182 were illiterate, of which number 2,021 were cast in the Southern Division. In the face of

      913
      facts like these, the Resolution must have a special bearing on Ireland, but it should not be treated as a purely Irish Motion. The facts are not denied. Then what is the answer of the hon. Member for the most illiterate constituency in the three kingdoms—South Donegal—to this state of affairs? I think it was that it is not the Irish priest, and not the Irish peasant, who is to blame; it is the English Government. The English Government is a very convenient packhorse, but I protest against its being made to carry this load. When was the system of national education established in Ireland? It was in 1831, and therefore we have had sixty years during which education has been brought to the door of every peasant, and practically free. I am told in an aside that the Catholics could not accept that education. Who were the men on the first Board of National Education? Archbishop Murray, the head of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland at the time, was one of the leading promoters of the system. Why tell me that the Catholics could not accept the system sixty years ago, when the head of that Church was a member of the Board? It is impossible to put forward that argument. If the Catholics have not accepted the system, as the Protestants have accepted it, the results are seen when you contrast the counties of Antrim and Cork and the cities of Cork and Belfast. I submit, Sir, that the Resolution has been misrepresented to the House. The hon. and learned Member for the Harbour Division (Mr. T. Harrington) treated the Motion as a disfranchising Motion, and said that if it had been as liberal in its terms as the speech of the hon. Mover, he should have felt inclined to vote for it. What are the terms of the Resolution?—
      "To call attention to the provisions of the Ballot Act in regard to the Illiterate Vote; and to move 'That, in the opinion of this House, in the interests of true freedom of election, the clauses in the Ballot Act which permit the Illiterate Vote should be repealed."
      MR. T. HARRINGTON: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to say that what I contended was that the repealing of those clauses would deprive the
      914
      illiterate voter of any means of voting at all?
      *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I do not think the hon. Member has mended his position by the interruption. The Motion does not disfranchise illiterate voters; it simply withdraws the privilege that this House conferred on ignorance twenty years ago. If it were passed and legislation founded upon it, the illiterate voter instead of being disfranchised would find himself exactly in the position of the voter who can read and write, which is the position of most of the men who pretend to give an illiterate vote. The illiteracy of the Irish voter in great part is a fraud, is contrary to public order; and the priest, as personating agent in the booth, is able practically to control the vote which ought to be given in secret. Voting is not secret while that state of things exists. We have had eulogies of the Roman Catholic priests to-night, and I am not going to say a word against these gentleman as priests, or that they do not deserve the eulogium passed upon them. They may be all that is said of them, but in the eyes of this House they are simply citizens. The hon. Member said that English clergymen acted in the same way, and that he had seen them.
      MR. T. HARRINGTON: I did not say it in that connection. I was replying to the Mover of the Resolution, who spoke of an instance where he had seen in some county in Ireland the priests accompanying the voters to the poll. The voters were drawn up outside the booth and the priest took their names. He described precisely what I have witnessed in an English constituency. I did not speak of English clergymen being personating agents or going into the booth, nor did I defend the Irish clergymen who did so.
      *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I think the hon. Member has publicly and effectually barred himself, in Ireland, from taking that position. But what I want to point out to the House is that any attempt to draw any analogy between Irish and English clergymen in this matter must fall to the ground. I have been at more elections in England than the hon. and learned Member,

      915
      and I have never yet seen an English clergyman, either belonging to the Established Church or a Noncomformist minister, acting in the way in which I have seen Roman Catholic priests acting in Ireland. I have never seen, and the hon. and learned Member for the Harbour Division has never seen, an English clergyman or a Nonconformist minister inside a polling-booth at an English election acting as a personating agent; and that is exactly the point where the danger comes in. If the Roman Catholic clergyman is not there inside the polling-booth acting as a personating agent, the illiterate vote might be tendered with impunity; and I say that his presence there, acting as a personating agent, invalidates the secrecy of the Ballot and the freedom of the electors, and if it was only for that reason alone, I should vote for the Resolution of the hon. Member. I submit now—because this is not a matter on which I wish to speak at any length—that the prevalence of illiteracy in Ireland must be a much more serious thing there than in this country. But I do not think that this is a disfranchising Resolution. It simply leaves the illiterate voter in the place occupied by every other voter, so that he can do with his voting paper whatever he pleases; and that was the object the Legislature had in view in passing the Ballot Act. I would object to any man wielding the power which a Roman Catholic priest wields in Ireland, being inside the polling-booth, acting as a personating agent. To see him standing there in the presence of the poor, illiterate voter to see how his voting paper is marked, and then to pretend that that is secrecy of the Ballot, is absurd nonsense. For that reason I support this Resolution.
      MR. SEXTON: I noticed that when the hon. Member or South Tyrone was referring in almost scornful tones to illiteracy in Ireland the most noticeable cheer—in fact, the only mocking cheer—which came from the other side of the House, came from the only Catholic Englishman, except the Home Secretary, who sits upon that side of the House.
      MR. DE LISLE: When you have finished I shall have something to say.
      MR. SEXTON: We are so accustomed to inarticulate expressions of opinion from the hon. Member that I, for my part, should welcome, if only for the novelty of the thing, any articulate expression of opinion from him, whatever may be its import. As I have said, the hon. Member, with the exception of the Home Secretary, is the solitary Representative of English Catholicism in this House. When the hon. Member for South Tyrone makes references to the illiteracy of the poor in Ireland—which has been their misfortune, not their crime, the result not of their own inclination, but of your policy—a mocking cheer comes from the Representative of the class of Catholics of this country, the aristocratic sections of whom have never had any sympathy with the sufferings and the wants of their poor Irish co-religionists. He is not ashamed to utter that mocking cheer, although he knows very well that if it had not been for the sufferings and the struggles of these poor ignorant Irishmen, those illiterate Irish who could not mark a ballot paper in the days of O'Connell any more than they can now—but, of course, there was open voting then—if it had not been that their trials, their sufferings, their shrewd and intelligent perception of political issues, notwithstanding the fact that they could not read and write, the hon. Gentleman and English Catholics whom he represents might be standing to-day outside the pale of the British Constitution. The miserable ingratitude of such conduct on the part of a class of the citizens of a great and wealthy country, who owe their emancipation to their efforts, must strike with disgust the mind of every chivalrous Protestant gentleman, no matter what may be his opinion on the Motion before the House. I confess upon the question of principle it appears to me to be open to discussion whether education, even primary education, is an essential to the intelligent exercise of the vote. I am glad that the First Lord of the Treasury is present. He is disposed to take a philosophical view

      917
      of political questions, and I would put the point before him with some confidence whether it is so self-evident that a man who may be able to read and write is necessarily a more intelligent politician, or can cast a more intelligent vote, than a person of natural shrewdness and intelligence who has been condemned by circumstances to what is called ignorance, so far as education in schools is concerned? I am perfectly certain, though I have no clear proof of it, that there are Irish-speaking peasants in Donegal who take a more shrewd and intelligent view of their interests upon political questions—and it is for the protection of their own interests that the vote has been given to them—I say that there are Irish - speaking peasants in Donegal who take a more shrewd and intelligent view of political questions that concern them, than the hon. Member who moved this Motion takes on any political question, although he took a first at the University. If it were possible for this House to establish a competitive examination and draw a line across that Bar, and put at the Bar the hon. Gentleman who move this Motion, and beside him an Irish-speaking peasant from Donegal, and cross-examine them both upon Irish political questions, I think the Irish peasant would come out uppermost. We talk about education. This House, I suppose, represents the quintessence of the efficiency of education. The Members of this House are supposed to be the most educated class, taken all in all, in the country. But to what practical use do Members of this House put their education in determining political issues? I think if we take the Divisions every day we shall see how the highly educated Gentlemen who are Members of this House apply their education in determining the issues brought before them. They smoke in one room, and play chess in another, and read the newspapers in another, and when they come to exercise their vote they take their directions from the Whips. I think an English gentleman who is vested with a responsible trust, when he takes his directions from a Whip at the door of this House, acts in a spirit which more requires restraint at the hands of
      918
      the Constitution than an Irish peasant in Donegal when he takes advice from a priest. And I submit, if the vote has been given to a citizen for his own protection and for the advancement of his interests, that it is not an essential question whether or not that man can read or write. These poor Irish peasants, whether they speak Irish or English, have interests to protect. They follow the course of politics, though they are not able to read or write. What is the true inwardness of the Motion which has been presented to the House? It is simply this—that these men upon whose ignorance you depend for suggesting that they do not understand their own interests, apply their votes so much to the direct advocacy of their own interests that you find it has resulted to your inconvenience. There can be no doubt whatever that if the peasants in Ireland, literate or illiterate, had been found to vote in favour of the hon. Member who brought forward this Motion and hon. Members who have supported it, that that learned Gentleman who obtained such distinction at the University and who moved the Motion to-night would be found to be the loudest advocate in their favour. The Debate upon the Motion has resolved itself into an indictment of Ireland, and into an indictment of illiteracy in Ireland; and I am not surprised to find, from the patriotic services of the Irish priesthood, that the Debate on the Motion on the part of certain Gentlemen has resolved itself into an indictment of the Irish priests. It has been said that there is no analogy between the action of the Irish priests and the English parsons. No, Sir, there is no analogy. I should scorn to admit that there is any such analogy. The English parsons act selfishly, the English parsons act stealthily, and they often act corruptly; they always act in the interests of a social class and of a political party. The Irish priests act in the interests of their country because they love their people. It has been said that the Irish priests have striven to keep the peasants in ignorance. Well, Irishmen have long memories. It is not so long a time since, when the Irish priest endeavoured to teach his people, you

      919
      set upon his head the same price as you set upon the head of a wolf. You have been 700 years in Ireland. During all that time you have applied yourselves, according to the intelligence and means of successive generations, to forward primary education in this country. When did you begin in Ireland? Until the last generation you left it in the hands of the priest and of the hedge-row pedagogue. Then you established a system of primary education, the design of which was to extirpate the nationality and uproot the faith of the people. Reference has been made by the Mover of the Motion to the designs of primary education as stated by Dr. Whately. Dr. Whately was one of the Commissioners of National Education. His words have not been quoted. I can quote them. He said—
      "The main objects of your primary system to wean the Irish people from the errors of the Romish system and to undermine the vast fabric of the Romish faith."
      When the Irish priests came to learn, from the words of a Protestant Archbishop, that such had been the design of the system, it would not have been strange if they had not opposed themselves to it as a system which attacked vitally—I will not say their natural prejudices—but their religious faith and their natural sense of right, but I claim without the fear of denial that the success of primary education in Ireland is due to the ardent and continual co-operation of the priests. Without them your system would have failed; with them it has been a considerable success. One of the most astonishing facts in connection with this Motion is that during the twenty years that have elapsed since the Ballot Act was given, the proportion of illiteracy in Ireland has come to be vastly decreased. The Ballot Act was passed in 1870. If any hon. Member will take the trouble to examine the Census of 1871, and compare it with the Census of 1891, he will find that although this primary system of education has scarcely yet penetrated into some of the backward and Irish speaking districts of the country, although the National Board of Education has refused to adopt the intelligent bilingual method of teaching the
      920
      English language, yet he will find that upon the whole illiteracy in Ireland since the Ballot Act was passed has decreased about one-third. Now, what is to be said of the intelligence of a graduate of the flower of English Universities who comes forward twenty years after this House deliberately passed the Ballot Act at a time when illiteracy in Ireland was known to be much more extensive than it is at the present moment, and who ignores the fact that illiteracy has decreased in such a proportion that in a few years there is reason to believe that it may be extinguished altogether? Why did he not recognise the force of events? It is apparent to anyone—I shall not say to an enlightened politician like the mover of this Motion—but I must say it is apparent to any man who in anything like a statesmanlike spirit applies his mind to the case of Ireland, that this Parliament should rather rejoice that within a period of twenty years the proportion of illiteracy has so much decreased, and that the probability is that in the course of another decade it will have disappeared altogether.
      MR. WEBSTER: I should like to know, if I am in order in asking the hon. Member, what number of illiterates there were in Ireland twenty years ago in proportion to the number at present?
      MR. SEXTON: It does not take much experience to know that when an hon. Member, who after prolonged cogitation and who has had many months for consideration, brings forward a Motion in this House the onus of producing relevant facts in support of it is thrown upon him and not upon me. Perhaps the First Lord of the Treasury may consider that excusable, as he is himself an adept at introducing relevant facts that are useful, and leaving out those that are inconvenient. Possibly he thinks the hon. Member has acted upon that principle.
      An hon. MEMBER: Go to the Library.
      MR. SEXTON: At any rate, if you examine the Census for 1871 and 1891 you will find that the decrease, and the disappearance in some cases, of illiteracy is universal throughout Ireland, and that the change from illite-

      921
      racy to literacy has been more extensive in the course of the last twenty years than in any previous years. Therefore the hon. Gentleman has committed a high Parliamentary crime in ignoring the cardinal facts of the case, because the whole course of education for the last twenty years entitles the House to rejoice at the experiment made in 1870, and to conclude that in the course of a very few years more every man will be able to cast his vote in Ireland under circumstances which will cause no suspicion of undue influence. The people of Ireland are extremely poor. In such districts as Donegal the land system which you established and which enabled the landlords to strip the people bare, and leave them naked and hungry, obliged poor parents to take their children away from school almost before the years of infancy were passed in order to assist them in obtaining the means of living. The ignorance, such as it is, that exists in Ireland now is partly due to the grinding poverty which was the result of your political policy—a political policy which only in the present day we have been able to modify—and partly due to the fact that the system of education in Ireland was not a system in accord with the principles or sympathies of the people; and I respectfully submit that if the question of illiteracy was to be taken into consideration, you ought to regard it rather in a spirit of sadness and of shame than in a spirit of mockery, rather as the fault of your own unwise—I will not say of your own criminal—policy than as any inclination of the Irish people towards ignorance. The way to cure such illiteracy as remains is not to deprive the poor illiterate peasant of the means of recording his vote; but to so reform the system of primary education as to make it accord with the sentiments and feelings of the people of Ireland.
      MR. DE LISLE: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken did me the honour to lose his temper, and launch a personal attack upon me for what he was pleased to call "mocking jeers." I have read of persons who imagined that they had seen blue devils peeping
      922
      round corners, and that they had shrieked at those blue devils. I leave it to the judgment of the House whether I am the blue devil the hon. Member sees in this House, or whether my existence was not objective, and rather due to his own diseased imagination. But I did give utterance to an expression which may have been thought to have been a mocking jeer, but it was not intended in the sense in which it was understood by the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend on the other side of the House threw, as it appeared to me, in the teeth of the poor Catholics of Ireland that they had not made that progress under the system of national education for some years which we in England had made under happier circumstances, and if I did give utterance to any sign it was intended to be dissent from the opinion that the national system of education which has been instituted in Ireland is a system which could be cordially and heartily supported by the Irish people. Irish Catholics naturally had demanded, still demand, and will demand Catholic education; and when the British State in its wisdom—I hope in a very few years—concedes to the Irish people the advantages which English Catholics enjoy, I have no doubt the Irish people will improve, and show that they are as intelligent, as quick in learning, and as anxious to reap the advantages of education as any section of the Queen's subjects.
      MR. SEXTON: I entirely accept the statement of the hon. Gentleman, and express my regret.
      MR. DE LISLE: The hon. Gentleman finds he has made a mistake for once in his life, and he will perhaps now feel that on many occasions when he has misjudged me he has done so because of his own ignorance. Now that I have been called to my legs I should like to say one word why I heartily support this Motion. I do not believe for a moment that one person in five of the Irish electorate is an illiterate voter. If they do give themselves out as illiterate voters I believe it is for a purpose. In my opinion, knowing the Irish people fairly well, or, at any rate, a considerable number of the Irish—because I have all my life

      923
      been accustomed to meet Irishmen, a great many Irishmen live in my own neighbourhood, and I have been to school with many—I believe there is no Irishman who could not be taught in two hours how to distinguish between two names printed upon a paper. I believe the passing of this measure, as I believe it will be passed—I commend it to the Government as a subject to deal with before the next election takes place which, by the way, I think ought not to take place before this time next year—will not disfranchise a single voter in Ireland, because the so-called illiterate voters have sufficient wit and sufficient understanding to learn to distinguish between two names printed on a piece of paper. Only one other word, and it is with respect to the statement made by my hon. Friend (Mr. T. W. Russell), in which he spoke about priests being recognised merely as simple citizens. Now my only wish, in the interests of good government, is that the Catholic priests were recognised as simple citizens, and had the full rights of citizenship. Anyone who knows my constituency is well aware that I have often said I thought one of the difficulties which arise in dealing with the Irish question is that the Catholic priests have not their full rights as citizens, and are not allowed to hold that position which they hold in this country; and one of the best things Her Majesty's Government could do would be to concede full rights of citizenship to Irish priests. I do not know whether right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench are aware that a Roman Catholic priest has not these full rights. He is debarred by his orders—the orders of the Church of Rome, which are recognised by Act of Parliament—from the honour and privilege of sitting in this House.
      An hon. MEMBER: So are English clergymen.
      MR. DE LISLE: But his order is not represented in the other House. Now, as has just been said, English clergymen are debarred from sitting in this House, but their order is represented in the other House, and they are consequently brought into touch
      924
      with the Constitution. My only wish is that the Roman Catholic priests might enjoy the full rights of English citizenship, and be brought into close touch with the Constitution; and I believe that if they were, in a few years the Conservative and Unionist Party would receive their support, for they would see that the only way to prevent such ebullitions of feeling as we have seen to-night is the maintenance of the fair, just, and honourable rule of one united Parliament for the whole of the United Kingdom.
      MR. ROBY: The terms of the Motion, as the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) has said, do not apply specifically to Ireland, but are applicable to the whole of the voters in the United Kingdom, and they point to the necessity of preserving the principle of freedom of election. I entirely agree with the object of the Motion in that respect, and the question that I have to ask myself is whether a simple repealing of the illiterate voters' clause is a proper remedy for any defect there may be in ensuring that freedom of election. I do not know that it has been noticed—certainly it has not been by those who have spoken since I entered the House—that this question of the illiterates is really a consequence of the particular mode of taking the vote which is prescribed in the Ballot Act. If a mode had been prescribed similar to what is usual in many other places where the ballot prevails, there would not have been any question about illiteracy. A simple direction to put a ball into the right box for one candidate and another into the left box for the other would, under the present system of single-member constituencies, be almost enough for the purpose. Now, if it be really necessary for the purpose of securing freedom of election that the present rules with regard to illiterate voters should be done away with, then I should be quite willing to join with the hon. Member, but at the same time I should wish to substitute another mode of giving effect to this desire. I am, happily, not in the position of some persons who think they have to defend or to attack either

      925
      Roman Catholic or English clergymen. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for West Belfast that English clergymen often act corruptly. I do not think that that is the case. Nor, on the other hand, can I withhold at any time it may be necessary or advisable my testimony to the conduct of Roman Catholic clergymen in Ireland, who in a very difficult position have to a very large extent been the supporters, helps, and guides of their people. But if it be found that the presence of clergymen, whether of the Roman Catholic or any other denomination, is fatal to due freedom of election, then that freedom ought to be secured by direct disqualification inserted in the Act. In that case, you must go a great deal further, and disqualify, as personating agents, the recognised agents of landowners and influential persons who know large numbers of the lower classes. Yet I do not think that any disqualification can be wisely or effectually adopted. If you are to secure freedom of election, and you wish, on that account, to do away with illiterate voters, then substitute a different mode of taking the poll, for I think that to disqualify all those who cannot or will not, from a fear of showing their poor scholarship, attempt to write or are unable to trace a word on paper, would be to disqualify a portion of the constituency, which is undoubtedly suffering under a great disadvantage, but which ought not to be disfranchised. In my view, what we ought to do with every question in regard to the franchise is to get every force that exists among the people of England within the electoral roll. What we want is that all those who have opinions, who are exercising their influence upon, and have any weight with, their fellows, should have the opportunity of voting directly, and not of using indirect means—that they should give their votes in the polling-booth, and not be driven to make their voices heard in mobs or assemblies. On that account I should be most unwilling to disfranchise even the illiterate voters. But I go a little further. I decline altogether to admit that the absence of facility in reading or in writing is
      926
      the right criterion to take as regards whether a person is fit to exercise the vote or not. I have met—I should think most Members have met—very many persons who always say they are no scholars, and consequently are afraid to write, who find some difficulty in reading, and yet who are men of shrewd sense, and quite competent to exercise their voices in their vote. I do not believe—I do not know there was ever a time when I did believe—that the franchise could be based in any sense upon education. I am quite certain that you do not get greater intelligence in politics by having specific forms of distinct education what you do want is that the voters should be alive to what is going on around them that they should take an interest in their fellows; that they should take over the difficulties that are met with; that if they cannot read they should attend and hear what is said—hear both sides, hear all sides. I think nothing can be more important for us than that all those who have influence should exercise that influence under the lines and in the cause of the Constitution; and it is our duty as legislators, if the present mode of exercising their vote infringes on the due freedom of election, to take other measures for that purpose. I shall vote against the Resolution.
      THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Let me preface the very few words I have to say upon the Amendment which is before us by pointing out that we have not now to discuss a disfranchising measure. If I understand the contention of my hon. friend rightly, he does not in the least desire to disfranchise anybody. He does not intend to impose upon any particular class any special disqualification. All he desires to do is to remove from one class a special privilege to which he thinks they have no right. And, in the second place, let me point out that it is not a controversy, as some speeches that have been made would almost suggest, between the priests on the one side and the parsons on the other. The hon. Member for West Belfast, who, earlier in the debate, made one of

      927
      his eloquent and spirited speeches, delivered himself of an invective against the clergy of the Church of England, whom he contrasted in a most unfavourable sense with the Roman Catholic priests of Ireland. I utterly fail to gather on what that comparison is based. I have, as the hon. Gentleman knows, never levelled any attack against the Irish priesthood as a class; but, at the same time, I must confess that no facts have been brought to my notice which would lead me to believe that in any public appointment requiring the display of any great quality, the class which the hon. Gentleman has taken under his special protection has any preferential claim as compared with the class which he has made the object of his attacks. The real question the House has to consider is not a question of disfranchising or enfranchising, but a question of how far we are to carry out the principles of the Ballot Act, and how far public policy requires us to remove a privilege which the Ballot Act conferred on certain classes of the community. The hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin—a gentleman quite as well acquainted with the Roman Catholic constituencies of Ireland as even the hon. Member for West Belfast can profess to be—stated that the number of persons who claim to be illiterates is far in excess of the number who actually are illiterates. If that statement be true, it is evident that in Ireland, at all events, the provisions of the Ballot Act are deliberately abused. However, I think the question of principle, apart from all special Acts of Parliament, is one of even greater importance, and the question the House has to determine by this Resolution is, "Ought we, or ought we not, to give special privileges to people who, in spite of all the advantages in the way of primary education which have been conferred by Parliament upon the people of England, Ireland, and Scotland during the last two or three generations, are unable to put a cross opposite the name of the candidate whom they favour? The hon. Member for West Belfast appealed to me as to whether I did not think that a person who can neither read nor write might not, nevertheless, be as shrewd a judge of
      928
      his own private interests and of any public interest as a person who has profited to the utmost by education? I admit he might be. I think that may happen, and I go much farther, and say that before the advantages of education were as widespread as they are now you would constantly find among the working classes of the population large numbers of persons who, though they could neither read nor write, showed as great a capacity for business and for deciding public questions as anybody, be their education what it might be. But circumstances have greatly changed since the Education Act was introduced. You will no longer find that the largest class of the population are unable to read and write. That, state of things has gone, and under the operation of our Education Acts has, I believe, gone for ever; and now the class of the population who can neither read or write is certainly far from being that from which we should choose those we wish to conduct our private business and to direct our public affairs. The hon. Gentleman has pointed to the constituency of Donegal, where, I understand, a greater number of illiterates exist than in any other constituency in the three Kingdoms, and he has said that that constituency—I will, not say is specially marked by its intelligence—but, at all events, shows great ability. We have no evidence of the special intelligence of any constituency, except so far as we are able to judge of it from the Gentlemen who sit in this House; and, judged by that test, I am far from complaining of the constituency which gives us the benefit of the eloquence of the hon. Gentleman who took part in this Debate earlier in the evening. At the same time, I must recall to the recollection of the House that, if we study statistics in this matter, among the population who cannot read nor write we find the greatest number of recruits to the criminal classes of the country. I have not the figures by me, but I should say that half the criminal classes in Ireland are unable to read and write. If you carry the investigation a little further, and study the proportion of children sent to industrial schools between the ages of six and fourteen, you will find an enormous

      929
      proportion—I think I should not be wrong in saying three-fourths—are unable to read and write. That is a conclusive proof, I think, that this particular class is not a class upon which this House ought to desire to confer special privileges.
      An hon. MEMBER: Apply the argument to England?
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am quite willing to apply it to England. I have only dealt with Ireland because the last two or three speeches have been specially addressed to the Irish side of the question; but, so far as I support this Motion, I do not do so specially with a view to Irish questions, but with a view to every constituency in the three Kingdoms. Therefore I think we should feel that it would be impossible for us to touch again the question of the franchise without dealing with this subject in accordance with the principles laid down by my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend is, of course, aware that even if the House assents to this Motion—as I hope it will—it will be impossible in this Session of Parliament, or for many Sessions of Parliament, probably, to introduce a Bill embodying in any practical shape the views which he has laid before us. Nevertheless, I think, it would be well that we should record our deliberate opinion that if and when this House again takes in hand the consideration of what constituencies shall return the Members responsible for the Government of this country this, at all events, will be one of the questions which they will not be able to leave on one side; and it is because I hold that view, and hold it strongly, and because the Government of which I am a Member have shown their earnestness in this direction by introducing clauses in conformity with the views of my hon. Friend in the Local Government Bill for Ireland—of which we shall hear a great deal more next week—that I shall follow my hon. Friend if he proceeds to a Division, it being, of course, distinctly understood that we do not think it possible—indeed, it would be absurd to suppose so—that any Reform Bill embodying my hon. Friend's views can be introduced in the course of this Session, and that we commit ourselves only to the general proposition that when
      930
      Parliament, in its wisdom, thinks fit to revise the principle upon which our electoral system is based, this will not be the least among the many important questions that will then come up for discussion, and have to be decided, and finally decided, I trust, in the sense of the Resolution of my hon. Friend.
      MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman, with that cleverness which is perhaps worthy of his palmiest days of discussion in this House, has drawn from an apparent conflict of opinion between the hon. Member for Belfast and the hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin an argument in support of his views. He endeavoured to show the House that there is a difference of opinion between those hon. Gentlemen, when there is absolutely none at all. My hon. Friend the Member for the Harbour Division, in alluding to the alleged illiteracy of the Donegal people, was simply repelling the idea that the voters there are as ignorant as many persons in this House believe them to be. The right hon. Gentleman has said that in Ireland the largest proportion of the criminal classes are to be found amongst the illiterates. It follows logically from that argument that the largest proportion of the criminal classes in England are also illerate. Then does the right hon. Gentleman propose to disfranchise the classes in England that are illiterate? No, he does not. The practical effect of the Resolution before the House, if it were carried out, would be to disfranchise a great many persons in Ireland who, notwithstanding their illiteracy, ought not to be deprived of a right, for a defect in regard to education, for which they are not themselves entirely responsible. The primary object of the Motion, indeed, is to deprive the large portion of the Irish people of the vote, and that this is so is attested by the fact that few or no arguments have been addressed to the House during the Debate except such as have been drawn from the state of Ireland. The hon. Member who moved the Resolution said the largest number of illiterates was to be found in the Irish constituencies that supported

      931
      Home Rule, and he drew the inference that these men supported Home Rule because they were so illiterate.
      MR. WEBSTER: Excuse me; I simply stated the fact. I did not draw any conclusion at all.
      MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I could draw no other inference from the fact than that it was the desire of the hon. Member, in introducing the Motion, to disfranchise or weaken the vote that was cast in Ireland for Home Rule. Why does not the hon. Gentleman go further and propose to disfranchise all constituents in Ireland who are in favour of Home Rule? That is the logical conclusion of his proposition. I suppose that those whom the hon. Member represents in St. Pancras are all learned men; but he will allow that Home Rule also exists in St. Pancras. If the hon. Member carried his argument to its logical conclusion he would bring forward a Motion to confer Home Rule upon Ireland, when, of course, learning and Conservatism would follow and Members from Ireland would sit on his side of the House. Certain it is that the people of Ireland are not Home Rulers because they are illiterate, but they are illiterate, to some extent, because they have not Home Rule. A good deal has been said about the action of the priests in Ireland in regard to the votes of illiterate persons, and it has been complained by hon. Members on the other side of the House that priests have exercised a certain amount of influence in elections. But who is to blame for the possession of that influence? Hon. Gentlemen have themselves to blame, if blame attaches, for the influence the priests possess. They are responsible, for they have neglected their duties to the people which the priests have performed. They have exercised the rights of property without performing any of its duties; they have allowed the priests to become the only educated class in Ireland who have stood up for the rights of the Irish people. To whom should the Irish people look for advice and counsel in political matters? It is only natural they should turn to those who in the past have stood by the people for the protection of rights attacked
      932
      and confiscated by predecessors of hon. Gentlemen who sit on the other side of the House. I am one of those who have protested against the exercise of any undue influence on the part of clerics in politics. I am prepared to give the clergy all rights of citizenship and no more. I object to their being allowed to be present in polling-booths to exercise undue influence over voters, but I would allow the clergy of any Church to have the full right of citizenship by vote, and such influence as position and education should have. I draw a line at the polling-booth. That there may be danger of undue influence there I admit. But I would prefer the influence of the priests in polities to the disfranchisement contemplated by this Motion. Reproach has been cast upon the Irish people that they are not better educated; that they have not made better use of the system of national education in years past, and when one of my hon. Friends alluded to the neglect of Irish education in the past he was met with the derisive remark, "Are the old, the ignorant, and illiterate class who voted in old times still alive?" No, they are not, but it is not all at once you can get rid of the evil effects which grew up through centuries. The blight, the incubus of enforced ignorance cannot be removed in a generation or two. But the argument has been used on the other side of the House, and has found support on this, that illiteracy is going to remain in perpetuity in Ireland. My hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) has shown clearly that illiteracy among the Irish voters has declined enormously in the past twenty years, that it continues to decline, and we may look forward with hope to its entire disappearance in a short time. In considering this question the hon. Gentleman should have thought of some other method of removing this blot on our system of voting. The best way to meet the difficulty is to educate the class from whom come the illiterate voters, and to facilitate the passing into law of the Bill which is now before the House to give to the people of Ireland the full benefit of that principle of general education which has been productive of such good results in this country, and which, if extended to Ireland, would

      933
      for ever remove the necessity for discussing here such a Motion as this.
      MR. MARJORIBANKS: The state of the Benches near me indicates how little importance is attached to this discussion—what little reality there is in the Motion which has been brought forward.
      MR. WEBSTERrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. SPEAKER said there yet remained time for discussion, and declined then to put that Question.
      Debate resumed.
      MR. MARJORIBANKS: I will not delay the House for long. The unreality of the Motion is proved by the argument brought forward in its support, because hon. Members have relied on the fact that after all, if the Motion were carried into law, it would not disfranchise any large number of people, for these people would be able to fill up their papers even if they were denied the privileges allowed under the Ballot Act. It seems to me, if you propose a disfranchising Motion and support it by saying it will not have a disfranchising effect, you cut away the ground from your own feet. I was quite prepared to believe that very few voters would be disfranchised by the Motion; but so far as it has any reality at all it is a disfranchising Motion. ("No, no!") It is not? Why, the whole argument is that voters who are unable to fill up their papers shall have the privilege of having their papers filled up for them taken away. Now, we know that hon. Members on the other side believe that the smaller the register the better is their electoral chance, and so we have this method proposed of reducing the register. But the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House is far too clever to go before the country with a Disfranchisement Bill. He says he looks on the Motion with a considerable amount of favour; it is a good idea, but that it is impossible to give effect to it in this Parliament, or for a future parliament for many years to come to give effect to the ideas of the hon. Member. The right hon. Gentleman
      934
      sees that if the Motion were carried into law he would in the course of a few months go before the country having disfranchised a considerable section of the people. All I can say from our point of view on this side of the House is, if hon. Members like to identify themselves with a Disfranchisement Motion, we do not object, and shall be only too glad to see them bring forward a Bill to give effect to their Motion, and go to the country a few months hence with the reputation of having disfranchised 150,000 of the population.
      Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
      (11.50.) The House divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 116.—(Div. List, No. 129.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
      It being after Midnight, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to interrupt the Business—
      (12.5.) Whereupon Mr. WEBSTER rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
      Question put, "That the Question be now put."
      (12.5.) The House divided:—Ayes 118; Noes 52.—(Div. List, No. 130.)
      Question put accordingly, "That those words be there added."
      (12.15.) The House divided:—Ayes 117; Noes 51.—(Div. List, No. 131.)
      Words added.
      Mr. WEBSTERclaimed, that the Main Question, as amended, be now put.
      Main Question, as amended, put accordingly.
      (12.25.) The House divided:—Ayes 115; Noes 50.—(Div. List, No. 132.)
      Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, in the interests of true freedom of election, the clauses in the Ballot Act which permit the Illiterate Vote should be repealed.
      SUPPLY,—Committee upon Monday next.

      ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 272.)
      Read the third time, and passed.
      PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER [MILNATHORT WATER] BILL.—(No. 280.)
      Read the third time, and passed.
      ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.—(No. 271.)
      As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
      ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.—(No. 273.)
      As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.—(No. 307.)
      Read a second time, and committed.
      CHARITY INQUIRIES BILL.—(No. 278.)
      Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

      PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (EXTENSION TO WOMEN) (No.) BILL.—(No. 37.)
      Order for Second Reading upon Wednesday 18th May read, and discharged.
      Bill withdrawn.

      EAST INDIA (FINANCIAL TATEMENT)
      Address for "Copy of the East Indian Financial Satement for 1892–3."—(Sir Richard Temple.)
    MOTIONS.

      WITNESSES' (ROYAL COMMISSIONS AND PARLIAMENT) PROTECTION BILL.—(NO. 287.)
      Ordered, That the Committee on Witnesses' (Royal Commissions and Parliament) Protection Bill do consist of eighteen Members.
      The Committee was accordingly nominated of,—Mr. William Abraham (Limerick), Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Darling, Sir Archibald Orr Ewing, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Hobhouse, Mr. Joicey, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Sir John Mowbray, Mr. Robert Reid, Sir Charles Russell, Mr. Abel Smith, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Warmington, Mr. Whitbread, and Mr. Yerburgh.
      Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
      Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)

      LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 10) BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. Long, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Boroughs of Cheltenham, Halifax, and Hertford, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long and Mr. Ritchie.
      Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 345.]

      LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 11) BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. Long, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Boroughs of Crewe, Falmouth, and Godalming, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long and Mr. Ritchie.
      Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 346.]

      BRINE PUMPING (COMPENSATION FOR SUBSIDENCE) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. Long, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Local Government Board for the formation of the Northwich and Winsford Compensation District, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Long and Mr. Ritchie.
      Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 347.]

      PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (BATHGATE WATER) BILL.
      On Motion of The Lord Advocate, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order, under "The Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867," relating to Bathgate Water, ordered to be brought in by The Lord Advocate and The Solicitor General for Scotland.
      Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 348.]

      SECRETARIES OF STATE (SEATS IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS) BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. E. Robertson, Bill to enable all the principal Secretaries of State and Under Secretaries to sit in the House of Commons, ordered to be brought in by Mr. E. Robertson, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Mr. Picton, and Sir Wilfrid Lawson.
      Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 349.]

      GALWAY INFIRMARY BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. Jackson, Bill to provide for the re-constitution of the Galway Infirmary; and for other purposes connected therewith, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jackson and The Attorney General for Ireland.
      Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 350.]

    ALLOTMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    On Motion of the Lord Advocate, Bill to facilitate the provision of Allotments for the Labouring Classes in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The Lord Advocate, The Solicitor General for Scotland, and Mr. Ritchie.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 351.]
    House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before One o'clock.