Commons Sitting of 27 April 1896

ARMY (AVERAGE NUMBERS AT HOME AND ABROAD).
Return [presented 24th April] to be printed. [No. 153.]

GRIFFIN'S DIVORCE BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee on Divorce Bills without Amendment; Report to lie on the Table.
Bill to be read a Third time.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  The following notices stood upon the Paper in reference to this Bill:—
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN:
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert provisions in the Bill compelling the Company to run third class carriages on the mail trains between Euston and Holyhead at the usual rate per mile as those given by other Railway Companies."—(By Order.)
  Mr. P. J. POWER:
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert provisions in the Bill compelling the Company to carry holders of first and second class tickets on the Irish mail between Holyhead and all stations on the Company's line without payment of the extra fares now charged to holders of first and second class tickets who may travel by the Irish mail."—(By Order.)
  MR. J. P. FARRELL:—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert provisions in the Bill compelling the Company to put at least one third class carriage on the mail trains between Euston and Holyhead at the same rate per mile as given by other Railway Companies."—(By Order.)
  *MR. SPEAKER: Since these Instructions were put down I have had time fully to consider them, and I have come
  1708
  to the conclusion that these three proposed Instructions on the Paper are not in order, for reasons which I will shortly state. It is competent under the general law for a railway company to run express trains with or without second or third class carriages, and it is competent also by the general law for them to charge more for travelling by express trains than by other trains, subject, possibly, to revision by the Railway Commission; and under these circumstances I think it is out of order to move such Instructions in the case of a Bill of a particular company which does not in itself specially refer to any power to run third-class carriages or make extra charges for express trains. It is out of order, because it would really be inviting—nay, requiring—the Committee on a private Bill to alter the general law in the case of a particular company. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIENgave notice that he would on every occasion he could oppose Bills of the London and North Western Railway Company until they saw their way to treat the Irish travelling public fairly.
  MR. P. J. POWERasked whether it would be in order on the Motion to raise the question of preferential rates which prevail on this Company's system?
  *MR. SPEAKER: No, I think not. Preferential rates are matters to be dealt with by the Railway Commissioners, who are the proper tribunal.
  MR. D. LLOYD-GEORGEhad given notice of the following Motion:—
  "That in be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is referred to take the evidence of farmers and traders upon the tolls, rates, and charges which Clause 6 of the Bill proposes to authorise the London and North Western Railway Company to demand and take for the conveyance of passengers, parcels, and merchandise over the Chester and Holyhead Railway. That all petitions against the Bill presented Three clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill. That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."
  *MR. SPEAKER: With regard to the Instruction of the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, I do not say it is out of order, but it would be out of order for the hon. Member to move it. The established practice of the

  1709
  House is that an hon. Member cannot move more than one Instruction on a Bill, and, no other hon. Member having given notice of this Instruction, and it being incompetent for the hon. Member to move it, the Instruction can only be moved by another hon. Member giving notice of it.

  NEW RIVER COMPANY BILL.
  MR. J. BIGWOOD MR. J. BIGWOOD (Middlesex, Brentford) moved:—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to consider whether it is desirable to insert any special provisions with a view to preserving for the use of the public the same quantity of open space as is defined and appropriated for such use by the Muswell Hill Act, 1866; and, if so, to insert such special provisions in the Bill."
  He said that the Bill would confer further powers on the company. Among other objects, it was intended to enlarge the reservoir in the parish of Wood Green, and for this object it was proposed to take a certain number of acres of the Alexandra Park estate. It was with the view of maintaining this open space for the benefit of the public that he had placed this instruction on the Paper. The neighbourhood was growing very largely, and open spaces were more and more required for public recreation. The inhabitants of the locality looked to the House as the ultimate custodian of their rights, and it was the only opportunity they had of preventing from time to time those pieces of land and the rights and privileges attached to them from being frittered away. He trusted that the directors of the company would endeavour to meet his suggestions in the most honourable manner; but their difficulty had been to find out what to do. This accounted for the different forms in which his Instruction had appeared on the Paper. It was difficult to frame an Instruction that would be acceptable to all parties, but he thought that this Instruction as it now stood would not meet with any opposition.
  Instruction agreed to.

QUESTIONS.

  EXCESS RAILWAY FARES.
  MR. W. HAZELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the system under which some railway companies charge passengers for excess distance fares; is he aware that some companies charge only the difference between the sum already paid and the fare for the through journey, while other companies insist upon the full separate fare from the station to which the passenger is booked on to the end of his journey; and that this method of counting it as two separate contracts with the passenger often leads to a higher charge than the cost of a through ticket for the entire journey; and, if this system of charging is in harmony with the bye-laws, will he endeavour so to amend them as to prevent the charge being in any case higher than the through fare?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): I understand that it is the ordinary practice in cases where passengers travel beyond stations to which they are booked to charge the local fare for the portion of the journey not covered by the ticket; where the combined fares, however, are greater than the cost of a through ticket and an application is made accompanied by a reasonable explanation, some companies refund the difference between the higher and lower amounts. I do not think the terms of the bye-law unreasonable, but there appears to be a want of uniformity in the practice. The question of amending the bye-laws is a grave one and cannot be dealt with in regard to this bye-law only.

  CURRENT CORRESPONDENCE AND LITERATURE (POSTAL RATES).
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to a case in which the receiver of a postcard from Wigan sent it on in an open envelope, bearing a halfpenny

  1711
  stamp, to his agent at a neighbouring town, where a fine was imposed on the ground that the envelope contained a communication of the nature of a letter; and whether, as postage had been duly paid on the postcard and also on the envelope, and as the postcard was a communication to Mr. Greenall and not to his agent, the Postmaster General will treat it as book-post matter, and remit the fine?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The Postmaster General's attention has been given to the case referred to. The question is a nice one. Letters which have already passed through the Post and, having discharged their original purpose, have become old and spent, are allowed to be sent a second time at the Book Post rate as literature. But where the letter is, to the second person, as to the first, a current business communication, it is liable to letter postage. The communication sent on by Mr. Greenall to his agent was held to be still current correspondence and not literature, and the Postmaster General is not, therefore, prepared to remit the surcharge. The case is not affected by the communication having been written originally on a Post Card. Post Cards enclosed in envelopes are naturally treated as letters, even on their first transmission.

  EDUCATION BILL (SPECIAL GRANT).
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether he sees his way to a modification of the 4s. special grant proposal so far as it concerns poor School Board districts, inasmuch as the special grant proposed by him will in some cases produce less than the existing poor districts section of the Act of 1870, upon which he desires to improve?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): The Committee of Council will consider any proposed modification of the special aid grant, but they are unaware of any case in which the grant to School Boards will be less than that under Section 97 of the Act of 1870.
  *SIR C. DILKE: There is a case in Dean Forest. I will send the figures to the right hon. Gentleman.

  DISTRICT COUNCIL ELECTION (DROYLSDEN).
  MR. C. E. SCHWANN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Prestwich Division of Lancashire (Mr. F. CAWLEY): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether, in view of the fact that at the recent District Council Election a large number of voters were prevented from voting at Droylsden, although in the booth before the time for closing the poll, the Government will propose such an alteration in the law that voters in the booth at the time for closing the poll may have papers given to them and so be enabled to exercise their franchise?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): I have made inquiry of the Returning Officer and am informed by him that although there were persons outside one of the polling booths at eight o'clock prepared to vote, every person who had a ballot paper given to him within the booth until eight o'clock was allowed to place it in the ballot box. The suggestion of the hon. Member will be considered by me before any new regulations are issued by the Local Government Board as to elections, but I cannot hold out any expectation that in respect of these elections a course different from that adopted in the case of Parliamentary, Municipal, and County Council Elections can be prescribed as regards voting after the time fixed for the closing of the poll.

  VERMINOUS PERSONS.
  *MR. HAZELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that a large and growing number of persons, estimated at from 50,000 to 60,000 in London alone, sleep in refuges and similar places, and become infested with vermin, and that the same conditions prevail in some of the larger provincial cities; whether this verminous state hinders even deserving persons in their endeavours to get employment, and spreads the evil among the general population when they go to the parks and to other places of public resort; and whether he can recommend the Sanitary Authorities and the Poor Law

  1713
  Authorities, to permit, as far as they find practicable, all verminous persons who may apply to them, to be cleansed by the aid of the apparatus which these authorities already possess, such cleansing to be without charge and without the applicants being in any way treated as paupers?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: As regards the casual wards, it is the usual practice to provide for the bathing of the inmates and also the cleansing of their clothes where necessary. With regard to those persons who sleep in refuges, it appears to me that it would not be unreasonable to expect that those who supply the refuges should also provide the means of freeing the clothes from vermin where required. With regard to the general question as to the Sanitary Authorities and the Poor Law Authorities providing means, such as those suggested, for cleansing without charge, and in the case of persons who are not paupers, at present it appears to me that there would be considerable difficulty in carrying out such an arrangement. The subject is, however, receiving my consideration.

  SHERIFF COURT (SUTHERLAND).
  MR. J. McLEOD: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that in a case now pending in the Sheriff Court of Sutherland at Dornoch, in which proof has been partly heard at Dornoch, the continued diet of proof was fixed to take place at Tain, in the county of Ross, and witnesses cited to appear there; and whether any recent precedent for such procedure can be stated?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir CHARLES PEARSON: The statement in the Question is substantially correct. So far as I am aware, there is no precedent for the step that was taken by the Sheriff-Substitute, and I have requested the Sheriff of the county to call for an explanation.

  ROMNEY MARSH SEA WALL.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether his attention has been called to the
  1714
  great devastation caused by storms and other natural causes to the sea walls along the southern coast, especially in Romney Marsh, during recent years; whether he is aware that nearly the whole cost of keeping up these sea walls falls upon the agricultural land in certain areas of comparatively limited extent; whether he is aware that tracts of the richest land in the Kingdom are being driven out of cultivation by the incidence of this exceptional burden; and whether he can see his way to include in the Agricultural Land Rating Bill a provision to extend relief to this particular case?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I cannot hold out any expectation that this is a matter which can be dealt with by the Agricultural Rates Bill.

  TELEGRAPH CLERKS (SCOTLAND).
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, with regard to the circular which has been posted in several provincial post offices in England, inviting applications from telegraph clerks to perform temporary duty at offices in the north of Scotland on an allowance of 3s. per day, will he explain why a departure has been made from the usual practice of obtaining these relief clerks from offices in Scotland, who have hitherto been paid 5s. a day for this duty?
  MR. HANBURY: I understand that some of the surveyors of the Post Office have issued a notice, which has been posted in several provincial offices, and in regard to the latter part of the Question I beg to say that it is not the usual practice, either in Scotland, or elsewhere in the United Kingdom, at offices where there is a pressure of work in consequence of the influx of visitors, to provide temporary assistance exclusively by means of established officers. Nor is there any regulation to pay such an officer when sent a subsistence allowance of as much as 5s. a day. The rate varies from 2s to 5s. a day, according to the nature of the town to which he is sent, and to the length of his stay. In many cases, however, both in Scotland and elsewhere, the necessary relief has been afforded, not by the employment of established officers, but by sending

  1715
  unestablished persons, viz.: assistants, who receive, when thus employed, considerably less than the established officers. Assistants are largely employed on this duty, and experience has proved that they are glad to go for the terms offered. In the northern district of Scotland where there are but very few large towns some inconvenience was experienced last year by the withdrawal of assistants from their own offices to other offices where pressure was felt; and, consequently, an alteration of practice was arranged for. As an experiment, the plan is being tried of inviting applications to act as relief-clerks from established officers who, though fit for work, are regarded by the Post Office medical officers as likely to benefit by change of air. To such officers a subsistence allowance has been offered at the rate of one guinea a week in addition to their wages throughout the period of their stay. This allowance is regarded as sufficient.

  COLLECTION OF RATES (KILKENNY CITY).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether it has come to his knowledge that large numbers of people, principally belonging to the working classes, have been for years deprived of the franchise by reason of the non-collection of rates from property owners in the Parliamentary borough of Kilkenny; and, whether he will take steps to prevent the disfranchisement of the people in future, either by the failure of the Poor Law authorities to collect the rates, or of property owners to pay them when demanded?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR.): It appears to be the fact that a certain number of persons have been affected in the manner stated by the non-payment of rates. The Local Government Board exercise no jurisdiction over Boards of Guardians in their capacity as Overseers under the Franchise Acts, but the Clerk of the Union states he will take all necessary steps in the preparation of the register for the coming year so as to insure that all persons duly qualified to vote will be placed on the register.

  ARMY AND AUXILIARY FORCES (UNIFORM AND ACCOUTREMENTS).
  MR. HUBERT BUNCOMBE): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, who is responsible for the frequent and expensive changes in uniform and accoutrements in the Army and Auxiliary Forces; whether any of the pecuniary profit, in the shape of commission or otherwise, consequent on these changes, is shared by anyone except the officers' tailors; and whether he will consider the justice and advisability of making in future a pecuniary grant to officers of all arms as compensation for changes they are compelled to make through no fault of their own?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): Any changes in officers' uniforms and accoutrements, considered necessary in the interests of the Service are made on the responsibility of the Secretary of State. As in almost all cases they are in the direction of simplicity and economy, and as, whenever practicable, time is allowed for the previous pattern to wear out, no one should be the gainer, but the officer himself.

  GIBRALTAR.
  *MR. CHARLES BILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the post of Captain of the Port at Gibraltar was, during the year 1895, merged in the office of the Colonial Treasurer, who has no special knowledge of Naval matters; whether the Chamber of Commerce at Gibraltar has protested against the amalgamation of these two offices in the hands of a civilian; and whether, at a time when large harbour works are being constructed at Gibraltar, he will consider the desirability, especially in the interest of the mercantile community, of providing that the Colonial Officer who has to discharge the duties of Captain of the Port should be a Naval Officer with some experience connected with the Navy and Mercantile Marine?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The answer to the hon. Member's first and second Questions is in the affirmative. I have at present

  1717
  no means of finding other employment for the Treasurer, but the matter will be borne in mind.

  PORTLAND PRISON.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, by rule or custom, the star class of convicts in Portland Prison were exempted from menial work in connection with the workshops; when was that rule or custom altered and the star class put to such work; on what date was John Daly and the other treason felony prisoners first put to such menial work in connection with the workshops where they have been employed; and whether John Daly is still obliged to do this menial work?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): No such custom or practice as the hon. Member suggests has been in existence of late years. Further information which I have called for as to the date when the present rule came into force has not yet reached me, but I will communicate it to the hon. Member when it arrives. The object of this rule, by which Daly and the other men in his workshop are required to perform certain sanitary work in connection with the workshop, is that, being star class men, they should not come into contact with prisoners who have not reached that class. The work must not be confounded with the work of the gang employed in cleaning the prison. Daly and the other treason felony prisoners have been employed in the manner described, on their turn coming round, for about two or three years; he is still required to perform the work.

  TORPEDO BOAT DESTROYERS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Government has given an order to a Clyde firm for the building of five torpedo boat destroyers; and whether it is the intention of the Government to place any orders in Ireland with the Passage, Derry, or Belfast ship-builders?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): No, Sir; no single firm has received an order for five torpedo destroyers. The Government have already placed contracts for the number of torpedo boat destroyers inserted in the Estimates, so that no further orders can be contemplated now.

  AMERICAN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANIES (INCOME TAX).
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: On behalf of the hon. Member for Dublin, College Green (Mr. J. L. CAREW), I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer upon what ground a discrimination is made against American life assurance companies of high standing in respect of remission of Income Tax on income applied in support of life policies; and, whether he will provide for the remission of Income Tax on all life premiums paid to any companies doing business in Great Britain and Ireland in accordance with the regulations of the Board of Trade?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): The discrimination is based on the provisions of the Act 16 and 17 Viet., cap. 91, as interpreted by the Court of Appeal in the case of "Colquhoun v. Heddon" (Law Reports, 25 Q.B.D., 129), and I am not at present disposed to propose an alteration in the law. The difference of treatment does not rest on merely technical grounds. Persons who insure in British companies are advantaged by rebate of Income Tax on their premiums, but the companies themselves pay Income Tax on their investments. Foreign companies who hold investments abroad are advantaged by having no Income Tax to pay on their investments, and there is, therefore, no claim for remission of the tax on the premiums paid.

  ROYAL CANAL HARBOUR (LONGFORD
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether any, and, if so, what steps have been taken by him to ascertain the facts as to the dangerous condition of the Royal Canal Harbour at Longford, in consequence of the want of

  1719
  a protective paling, which has led to the accidental drowning of a large number of people; and, will he instruct the Board of Trade Inspector to inquire into this matter with a view of providing such paling?
  MR. RITCHIE: The Board of Trade have no power to take any official action in this matter; but I have asked an Inspecting Officer of Railways to look at the place when he is next in the neighbourhood, and make a report to me.

  EXTRADITION OF C. T. DAINTRY.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Charles James Daintry, a British subject, who was arrested by the Italian police on the 30th January, and lodged in. prison at Venice on an extradition warrant, has yet been surrendered; and, if not, whether he can state the cause of the delay?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (MR. GEORGE CURZON,): Her Majesty's Ambassador at Rome reports that the delay in the surrender of Daintry has been occasioned by the necessity of translating the lengthy documents sent to the Italian Government in support of the application for the prisoner's extradition. The Italian Minister of Justice has taken the necessary measures to obviate any further delay in the matter.

  FOREIGN BUTTER.
  MR. J. C. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether the Customs officers still continue to take samples of Foreign butter at the ports of entry; if so, whether he can state the number taken for the months of January, February and March respectively; what proportion of the samples have been found to be adulterated; and, what steps are being taken by the Customs authorities, or other public Department acting in conjunction with them, to fine or otherwise punish consignees found in possession of adulterated butter?
  *MR. HANBURY: The Customs officers are still continuing to take samples of foreign butter at some of the
  1720
  ports of entry. The number of samples taken for the months of January, February, and March respectively, and the number found on analysis in the Government Laboratory to be questionable, are as follows:—

  Month.

  Samples taken,

  Number found Adulterated.

  January

  …

  118

  …

  10

  February

  …

  179

  …

  16

  March

  …

  77

  …

  0

  So far as the Customs are concerned, no steps are being taken to fine, or otherwise punish, consignees, found in possession of adulterated butter, nor have they any legal powers in this particular direction. The results of analyses of samples of foreign butter are, in every case, communicated to the Board of Agriculture.

  ALDERSHOT SEWAGE FARM.
  MR. A. F. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that milk from cows fed and kept on the sewage farm at Aldershot is being distributed in the Camp, and sold to civilians in the town below the usual price; whether he will stop this unequal competition with local dairymen; whether the sewage farm is maintained and stocked by public money; whether it has the usual licence for selling milk in the Camp; and, whether the sanitary conditions of the farm have been approved by the medical authorities?
  *MR. BRODRICK: In order to treat the sewage of Aldershot Camp a sewage farm is maintained at Government charge, of which a dairy forms a part. The Secretary of State will not allow milk to be sold until he has satisfied himself of its purity by analysis, and no further sales will be made outside the camp precincts until the dairy is duly licensed by the local authorities.

  EXECUTION OF WRITS IN IRELAND.
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, has it come to his knowledge that on Tuesday last, the 21st instant, a police inspector from Monaghan, with a large force of

  1721
  constabulary, visited the townland of Carrickroe and effected the seizure of a cow, the property of Widow Flood, on foot of a decree obtained against the poor woman's deceased husband, at the suit of a loan bank in Aughnacloy; have the constabulary of late been extensively engaged in the execution of decrees for this same loan society: and, will the Irish Executive see to it that the police shall not again be detailed for such objectionable duty?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In the particular case referred to, a police force, consisting of ten constables under the command of their officer, was detailed, upon the requisition of the Sheriff, to protect his bailiffs in the execution of a writ issued from the Court of Exchequer, at the suit of a local Loan Fund Society against the person named. It has been explained again and again in answer to Questions in this House that the Executive are bound by law to provide such protection, when required. I may also mention that it has been in effect decided that it is the duty of the police to execute all warrants issued by Magistrates at Petty Sessions for the recovery of sums due to Loan Fund Societies.

  RAILWAY CARRIAGE OF PARCELS.
  MR. HAZELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the contract between the Postmaster General and the railway companies runs till the year 1903, and, meanwhile, the present high rates for the carriage of parcels by passenger train cannot be reduced; and, whether this arrangement leaves the Post Office free to send parcels as ordinary merchandise by luggage train; and, if so, whether he can arrange for sending parcels by this method at much lower rates?
  MR. HANBURY: The arrangement with the railway companies for the conveyance of parcels, which rests upon an Act of Parliament, will remain in force until the year 1904; and, meanwhile, the railway remuneration cannot be revised except in connection with a revision of the Post Office tariff, which Her Majesty's Government do not see their way to adopt. No distinction is drawn in the Act between passenger trains and
  1722
  luggage trains, and the Post Office is not left free to send parcels as ordinary merchandise by luggage train at lower rates.

  GUERNSEY AND SARK (TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION).
  MR. HAZELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, when the urgently expressed wishes of the people of Guernsey and Sark for telegraphic communication between these islands is likely to be granted; and, whether, remembering that the resident population of Sark is 600 while the summer visitors number upwards of 12,000, he will waive any claim for a guarantee from the inhabitants, as the telegraph would largely be used by visitors from all parts of the Kingdom?
  MR. HANBURY: As it is estimated that the revenue of a telegraph office at Sark would fall far short of the expenses, I regret that the office cannot be established except under guarantee.

  FRENCH FISHING VESSELS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to Article LXXXV. of the Schedule of the 6 and 7 Vic. c. 79, which prohibits French fishing vessels from approaching within three miles of the British or Irish coasts except when driven in by stress of weather or contrary winds, whether that article is still in force; and, if so, whether such vessels are prohibited by this Article from entering British or Irish harbours for the purpose of selling their fish?
  MR. RITCHIE: The Article is part of a treaty arrangement with France, and as such has not been abrogated; but statutory authority is needful for enforcing it in this country. The Act mentioned did for many years give such authority. Its provisions on this head were, however, repealed by the Sea Fisheries Act, 1883, to Sections 24 and 30 of which I may refer the hon. and gallant Member.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: May I ask whether these French fishing vessels are liable to pay harbour dues?
  MR. RITCHIE: I must ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to put the Question on the paper.

  NATIONAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND).
  MR. PATRICK A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether an Irish national school teacher in his first year of service receives the same class salary as a teacher of the same class after many years of efficient service; and, will he consider the justice of increasing the class salaries of the Irish national school teachers by increments after certain periods of efficient service, in accordance with the system adopted in the case of inspectors, model school teachers, and others in the service of the Commissioners of National Education, and in every Department of the Civil Service?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Graduation in the salaries of teachers is at present provided by the classification system. There are no classes of inspectors of schools, and consequently there is no true analogy presented by their case. I understand, however, that the question of modifying the mode of payment of National teachers, so as to give greater weight to their efficiency as school-keepers, is now under the consideration of a Committee of the National Board.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether he can explain the reason for refusing to allow pupils in Irish National schools to be presented for science and art examinations in agriculture in May unless they have passed the second examination of the sixth class in the previous November; whether he is aware that the Rule presses very heavily on schools examined under the National Board between November and May, whose pupils in some cases would have to wait 18 months after passing the examination of the sixth class before going up for the science and art examination; and, whether, having regard to the fact that the Rule does not apply to other science and art subjects, he will relax it in the case of agriculture?
  SIR J. GORST: The Rule was made in concert with the Commissioners of
  1724
  National Education for Ireland, to prevent the duplication of payments by the two Departments for the same instruction, to which attention had been called by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The interval of six months, from November to the following May, when the Department's examinations are held, is the least that can be held as necessary for instruction under the Science and Art Department. The Rule applies specially to agriculture, because this subject is obligatory in all National country schools in Ireland, and it would be inadvisable, for the reasons stated, to alter it.

  AGRICULTURE (IRELAND).
  MR. PATRICK A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can state the amount of public money now given for agriculture in Ireland through the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council, the Agricultural Department of the Land Commission, the Royal Dublin Society, the Agricultural Department under the Commissioners of National Education, and for the collection of agricultural statistics by the Registrar General; and, if he can state the cost of the Board of Agriculture for England?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The total expenditure of public money for agricultural purposes amounted to about £82,000 in the last financial year. The approximate net expenditure by the English Board of Agriculture for the year 1895–6, including payments to Ireland, amounted to £73,500. This includes an exceptional expenditure of £3,000 in obtaining a return of agricultural holdings.
  MR. PATRICK A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can say when he can introduce his Bill for the establishment of a Board of Agriculture in Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have already within the past fortnight replied to two Questions identical with that now put by the hon. Member. The Bill for the establishment of a Board of Agriculture in Ireland is nearly ready, and whether it will be possible to introduce it during the present Session will depend

  1725
  on the state of public business. According to present appearances, there is not very much chance of its being introduced.

  GOVERNORSHIP OF ZEITOUN.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he is able to give any further information with regard to the attitude of the Sultan and the Turkish Government in relation to the Governorship of Zeitoun?
  MR. CURZON: There is nothing to add to the answer given on the subject to the hon. Member on the 20th instant. Her Majesty's Government have not heard that any reply has yet been received to the representations made to the Turkish Government by Sir Philip Currie and the French and Russian Ambassadors with regard to the appointment of a Mussulman as Kaimekam of Zeitoun.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES (IRELAND).
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, when the £40,000 appropriated by the Land Purchase Act, 1891, for the erection of labourers' cottages will become available for distribution among the various unions?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Under Section 5 of the Act of 1891 the Exchequer contribution of £40,000 a year becomes available this year for the first time for the purpose of the erection of labourers' cottages. It now devolves upon the Lord Lieutenant to make regulations for the application of the Grant. When these regulations were about being made a flaw was discovered in the Purchase of Land Act, in order to remedy which Section 33 has been introduced into the Land Law (Ireland) Bill now before the House. Unless that amendment of the law is carried, the unions which have provided labourers' cottages, between the date of the passing of the Act of 1891 and the 1st of January 1896, would not be entitled to participate in the relief of their financial burdens which the Grant was designed to afford.
  MR. KNOX: May I ask whether a distribution will be made at once?
  MR. FLYNN: Will the remedy be available only on the contingency of a large Bill like this passing?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The money will be available in any case. The particular distribution depends upon whether this amendment of the law passes or not.

  SLIGO POST OFFICE.
  MR. B. COLLERY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Post Office Authorities have selected a site for a post office in Sligo; and, will he take steps to have the erection of the proposed new premises proceeded with as soon as possible?
  MR. HANBURY: No suitable site has yet been found that could be acquired at a price which the Department could be advised to pay, and the inquiry is still going on. When a site has been found and acquired, steps will be taken to proceed with the building as soon as possible; but as there is no provision for the purpose in this year's Estimates, nothing can be done until next year.

  SHANNON NAVIGATION.
  MR. D. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the intention of the Irish Board of Works to transfer the work now being done in Limerick in connection with the Shannon navigation; and, if so, for what reason?
  *MR. HANBURY: The transfer of the work now done in Limerick in connection with the Shannon to a position where it can be carried on with greater economy and expedition has been under the consideration of the Board, and they may arrange for the removal of the headquarters of the superintending engineer to Dublin. The details of the changes requiring to be made have not yet been fully arranged, and the question where the work shall be excuted is still under consideration. Limerick was fairly central in former years, when certain works on the Shannon below the city were under the charge of the Board. By the transfer of these works to local authorities Limerick has ceased to be in any sense central, and is

  1727
  now the southern extremity of the "Shannon navigation." Traffic is being developed at the northern end of the navigation, and important works of a character which require speedy attention for purposes of repair and maintenance, have been executed, and are in course of completion at that end.

  EXCISE OFFICERS.
  MR. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether it is the custom in the Excise, where an officer is absent through sickness or other cause, and a substitute is not provided in the general bonded stores, to give double duty pay to the officer who performs the duties of the absent officer; and, whether this custom is carried out in Dublin; and, if not, will he explain why?
  MR. HANBURY: Double duty pay is nowhere given as a matter of course in the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Member. It is not given when the work to be done by the remaining staff is not more than can be conveniently done within the recognised hours.
  MR. SHEEHYasked whether the custom held good in Dublin.
  MR. HANBURY: I do not think there is any difference in the treatment of Dublin and other towns.

  PAWNBROKING LAWS (IRELAND).
  MR. SHEEHY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, whether he intends to bring in a Bill to assimilate the Pawn broking Laws of Ireland to those in England, as recommended by two Commissions?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN ATKINSON,): No, Sir. It is not the intention of the Irish Government to introduce a Bill dealing with this complicated subject this Session.

  AGRICULTURAL LAND RATING BILL.
  MR. J. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, what is the estimate of the rateable value and the acreage of the agricultural land in Ireland to which the relief proposed to be given by the Agricultural Land Rating Bill would extend if Ireland were in-eluded in the Bill?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I will procure the figures asked for by the hon. Member if he desires them; but I may say that this question appears to be based on a misapprehension. It is not the intention of the Irish Government to make for Ireland the same proposals as are made for England by the Agricultural Land Rating Bill. As a certain sum is to be devoted from the Imperial revenue to local purposes in England it is thought right, as in 1888 and subsequent years, to devote a corresponding sum, in the proportion then fixed, to local purposes in Ireland. These purposes will be shown when I introduce the Irish Bill; but we do not think that in the case of Ireland the money would be best expended in the form of a grant directly in aid of agricultural rates.
  MR. DILLON: I should be very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman if he would kindly procure me these figures, and his answer has only given me a stronger desire to get them. My question is perfectly clear. It is, Give me the figures for Ireland in case the English Bill is extended to Ireland.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I shall be perfectly ready to give the figures to the hon. Gentleman when I get them.
  MR. J. H. DALZIEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Bill he refers to will be introduced this Session?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Oh yes, certainly.

  ESTATE DUTIES.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he can state the total number of estates exceeding £1,000,000, together with their aggregate net value upon which Estate Duty was charged, and the amount of the duty, during the year 1895–6; whether he can state the total number of estates (a) not exceeding £100, and (b) exceeding £100 which were returned for Death Duties during the same period; and, whether he can state the total amount of Settlement Estate Duty levied and paid during the same period, and also the principal value of property situate out of the United Kindgom on which Estate Duty was paid during the same period?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The total number of estates exceeding £1,000,000 on which Estate Duty was charged in 1895–6 was eight, and the net value upon which duty was charged was £8,728,866. The duty received in respect of these estates was £701,446. There was also a considerable amount of realty declared upon which payment of duty was deferred. The records are not sufficiently advanced to admit of an answer being given at this date as to the total number of estates (a) not exceeding £100, and (b) exceeding £100 which were returned for Death Duties during the same period. The amount of Settlement Estate Duty paid in 1895–6 was £125,716. The principal value of property situated out of the United Kingdom on which duty was paid was £1,661,000.

  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.
  MR. HENRY LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he can approximately state what is the amount of cash belonging to the Chartered Company of South Africa; and, whether, in view of expenses now being incurred by the Government in respect to the Matabele rising, he will consider the expediency of obtaining some security that this cash will remain available for their repayment?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I believe the Company have about half a million in cash, more or less. I do not propose to take the course suggested in the second branch of the Question. The Company are paying for the expenses of the war as they are incurred, and at present I have no reason to doubt their readiness to meet their liabilities.

  REGISTRATION DUTIES ON GRAIN.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how much the registration duty of 1s. a quarter (or 3d. a hundredweight) upon imported corn and maize, which was repealed in 1869, would have produced in the last financial year?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: If the registration duties on corn, which were repealed in 1869, had been in force in the last financial
  1730
  year they would have produced £2,479,000—viz., £2,078,000 on grain and £401,000 on meal and flour—assuming, of course, that they had no effect in diminishing the amount imported.

  PRESIDENT KRUGER'S REPLY.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he has received the telegraphic abstract of President Kruger' s reply to his Dispatches?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I understand the Secretary of State has now received President Kruger's reply. I should like, therefore, to ask him whether he is in a position to state what course he proposes to take in regard to it?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Her Majesty's Government received on Saturday by telegraph the substance of President Kruger's reply to their invitation. It is rather lengthy, and its full effect cannot be fairly appreciated without reference to the Dispatch in extenso and to the correspondence which preceded it. The most important point is that the President says:—
  "Referring to your request for a definite reply to the invitation, he feels confident you will recognise and appreciate the difficulty of his position, and it appears to him to be the wiser course not to press the question of his proceeding to England any further at present, but to leave it an open matter, more especially in view of the approaching Session of Volksraad of South African Republic in May. The desirability of his presence, at least for a portion of the Session, at Pretoria, when important measures will have to be considered by the Legislature, is apparent, and it is his confident hope that by patience and tact on both sides the peaceful and satisfactory solution of matters will be attained."
  In reply to the supplementary Question of the hon. Gentleman opposite I have to say that under these circumstances Her Majesty's Government have for the present reluctantly withdrawn their invitation to the President to come to England—[some Opposition laughter]—and they have telegraphed to Sir H. Robinson their wish that as soon as Sir Graham Bower has returned, and if the then state of affairs in Matabeleland permits, he should pay a short visit to

  1731
  this country to confer with Her Majesty's Government and receive the instructions which will be necessary for his guidance in the further negotiations which may be decided upon. The whole of the correspondence is being prepared for publication, and I expect to be able to lay it upon the Table in the course of the present week, and I hope it will be in the hands of Members in ample time for a discussion on Friday week, if it should be desired to Debate the subject.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked, whether the reply of President Kruger contained any suggestion to the Uitlanders' grievances?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I really think that the hon. Member had better wait until the whole of the correspondence is laid upon the Table. ["Hear, hear!"]

  TRADE MARKS IN EGYPT.
  MR. C. B. STUART-WORTLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Egyptian Government requires the consent of any and what Foreign Powers before it can legislate against the forgery of trade marks or the use of false trade descriptions on Egyptian territory by (1) Egyptian subjects; (2) subjects of other Powers?
  MR. CURZON: The Egyptian Government does not require the consent of any Foreign Power for legislation of the character indicated in the case of its own subjects on Egyptian soil. But in the case of foreigners it cannot act except through the Mixed Courts, which have at present no penal jurisdiction in such matters, and can only obtain it by the joint action of the Powers. Negotiations with this object in view have for some time been proceeding.

  EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN.
  MR. ELLIOTT LEES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether any steps have been taken by Foreign Governments to carry out the recommendations of the Berlin Labour Conference with reference to the age at which children may be employed in labour, since the Report (Commercial, No. 15, 1891)
  1732
  presented to the House in pursuance of their Address, dated 4th June 1891?
  MR. CURZON: Since the publication of the Report referred to by the hon. Member, Her Majesty's Government have been informed of the following important changes made by Foreign Governments with regard to the age of employment of children. In France the age of admission to factories has, by the law of November 1892, been fixed at 13; except for those holding the certificate for elementary education, who may be employed as young as 12. In Norway the law of June 1892, which regulates the age of admission to factories, fixes the age for full employment at 14, but permits the employment of children over 12 under certain conditions for not more than six hours a day. The age of employment was fixed at 14 in Illinois by a law of June 1893, and in Connecticut by a law of May 1895. In Portugal a Royal Decree of March 16th, 1893, denned the conditions under which children between 10 and 12, and over 12, might work in certain industries. I may add that changes of the nature of those I have mentioned are, as they are brought to the knowledge of Her Majesty's Government, published from time to time in the Labour Gazette.

  RAILWAY COMMISSION (TRADERS' COMPLAINTS).
  MR. F. A. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether, in view of the notice of appeal given by the London and North-Western Railway Company against the decision of the Railway Commissioners in the recent Northampton case, he is prepared to further extend the time for filing applications to the Railway Commissioners in complaints by traders now pending before the Board of Trade?
  MR. RITCHIE: Yes, Sir; the time will be extended for three months.

  PLATELAYERS KILLED (SAPPERTON TUNNEL).
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether the Board of Trade was represented at the inquest held at Strood, on

  1733
  16th April, on the four platelayers killed in Sapperton Tunnel on 14th April, or have ordered an inspector or sub-inspector to inquire into the circumstances; and, if not, whether he will cause such inquiry to be held with a view to authoritative recommendations by the Board of Trade as to the precautions necessary for the safety of plate-layers in dangerous positions?
  MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir; the Board of Trade were not represented, but one of the sub-inspectors of railways has been directed to investigate the circumstances attending the accident.

  PAUPER LUNATICS (IRELAND).
  MR. C. J. ENGLEDOW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he has yet ascertained from the Local Government Board auditor whether the collective number of days in respect of which no Government grant is payable for pauper patients confined in Irish district lunatic asylums is considerable; and (2), whether it is his intention to amend the instructions issued to Government auditors on this subject?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Reports have not yet been received from all the auditors dealing with the matter referred to in the Question, but the Board hope to receive them at an early date. Until all these reports have been received, I cannot, as already stated, decide whether further action is called for in the direction suggested in the second paragraph.

  CARLOW GRAND JURY.
  MR. ENGLEDOW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, of Ireland whether he has yet received the information asked for in the return which he promised to give with reference to the qualification of the members of the Carlow Grand Jury, and those gentlemen whose names appear on the Grand Panel for that county.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have not yet received the information referred to. No unnecessary delay will be allowed to take place in completing the Return, which will be laid on the Table as soon as received by me.

  FEE GRANT (IRELAND).
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Treasury have arranged to pay over to the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland the arrears due to Ireland in respect to the unpaid fee grant?
  *MR. HANBURY: As I stated in reply to a Question put by the hon. Member for South Dublin on March 127th: "The Government recognise that an equitable claim exists for the payment to Ireland of a proportionate share of the Supplementary English Fee Grant for 1895–96, although no such share was allowed for in the original Estimates for 1895–96." This claim will be dealt with by a Supplementary Vote this year. As regards any claim for years previous to 1895–96, if the hon. Member will refer to the Debate on the subject on March 30th, he will see that I have already explained to the House that the grants for those years were definitely settled by the late Parliament in strict accordance with the Act, and it is impossible for the Government to re-open the account.

  DECORATIONS FOR MILITARY MISSION TO VIENNA.
  MR. T. W. LEGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the members of the recent Military Mission to Vienna have received permission to accept and wear an Austrian decoration; and if such permission is in accordance with the regulations regarding the acceptance of Foreign Orders by British subjects?
  MR. CURZON: The officers composing the deputation to Vienna of the King's Dragoon Guards have received the Queen's permission to accept and wear an Austrian decoration. Such permission is an exception from the Regulations, which has been sanctioned by Her Majesty under the special circumstances of the present case, as an act of courtesy to the Emperor of Austria.

  ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE ENGINEERS.
  MR. FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty—(1), if he

  1735
  is aware that an official representation has been made to the Admiral Superintendent of Naval Reserves that, in the opinion of the Council of the Institution of Marine Engineers, Engineers of the Royal Naval Reserve should have opportunities of gaming experience at sea in Her Majesty's ships; (2), whether he is aware that the Institution of Marine Engineers has a membership of 1,000 skilled engineers representative of the engineers of the Mercantile Marine; and (3), whether he will make arrangements to enable engineers of the Royal Naval Reserve to thus make themselves efficient in their duties as naval engineers?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: My reply to the first paragraph is "Yes." The second paragraph is not ad rem. The question as to enabling engineer officers of the Royal Naval Reserve to serve on board men-of-war must be decided on service considerations. In reply to third paragraph the Admiralty have not failed to study the subject with great care. It is surrounded with difficulties, but I shall be glad if I see my way to an arrangement which would bring the Reserve officers into closer touch with the Navy.

  AGRICULTURAL LAND RATING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  MR. THOMAS SHAW: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate what is the estimate of the annual valuation and the acreage of the agricultural land in Scotland to which the relief proposed to be given by the forthcoming Agricultural Land Rating (Scotland) Bill will extend?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE: This Question seems to be based on the assumption that the proposals for the two countries will be identical; an assumption for which no warrant has been given. The information on which the proposals of the Government as to Scotland in regard to this subject are based will be given when the Bill is introduced.

  RUSSIA AND CHINA.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have given him private notice—Whether there is any
  1736
  foundation for the persistent statements in the public Press that a Treaty has been made between China and Russia giving to the latter country not only large portions of territory, but also great commercial and other advantages?
  MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Government have been informed by the Russian Ambassador that the statements which have appeared in the public Press as to a Secret Treaty between China and Russia, by which the former is to cede a large portion of her territory to Russia, is devoid of the slightest foundation. ["Hear, hear!"]

  GREAT BRITAIN AND VENEZUELA.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury a Question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether arrangements have been made, or will without delay be concluded, with the Government of the United States for the settlement by arbitration of the matters in dispute respecting the boundary of Venezuela?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In reply to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman I have in the first place to thank him for having given me timely notice of his Question. The arrangements for the conditions of arbitration with respect to Venezuela, and also with respect to other questions, are matters that both Governments have had in view in the conduct of the recent negotiations. The last communication from the Government of the United States, which arrived on Friday last, and which is now under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, deals both with the general question of arbitration, and also with the special question connected with Venezuela. I am afraid that I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman further information, and the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, will agree with me that to discuss negotiations that are being still conducted would not be expedient. ["Hear, hear!"]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERasked the First Lord of the

  1737
  Treasury what business would be taken on Thursday next.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have already said that we hope to proceed with the Budget Resolutions on Thursday.
  *SIR C. DILKEwished to ask what course the Government proposed to take with reference to two Labour Bills—the Truck Bill and the Coal Mines Regulations Bill. With regard to the Truck Bill, he understood that the Second Reading might be assented to without discussion, in order that it might be sent to a Grand Committee.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: If that course can be adopted with the Truck Bill, it will be in the interest of all parties; I trust it will be so. The course which the Government may take with reference to the Mines Bill must depend upon the general course of business. I am not in a position to give any information to-day about it.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.— (GOVERNMENT BUSINESS.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYrose to move:—
  "That for the remainder of the Session the House do meet on Tuesdays at 3 o'clock; that Government Business have priority over all other Bills and Notices of Motion on any day for which it is appointed; and that the provisions of Standing Order No. 56 be extended to every day of the week."
  He said: The Motion I move will, if carried, practically give the control of the time of the House for the remainder of the Session to the Government. It is, therefore, desirable, and the House will probably expect, that I should give some survey of what we have already done, and some forecast of what we hope to accomplish. Looking back to the portion of the Session that is already passed, I find that 16 days have been given to financial business, including the Budget, and private Members have had 15 days, two of them, however, being reduced to half days. For Government legislation we have had ten days, two of which were but half days. Of these two half days, one was nominally given to Government business, but it was almost entirely occupied by a discussion on a private Bill commencing at 2 o'clock,
  1738
  and on another day a large portion of the time was taken up by the statement of my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty in introducing the Navy Estimates and the Naval Works Bill. So it cannot be said that for doing the whole of the legislative work intrusted to us we have had more than nine days. In those days we have passed the Naval Works Bill and read the Light Railways Bill a second time and sent it to the Grand Committee, which, I believe, has pretty nearly got through it. The Military Manœuvres Bill has nearly reached the end of the Committee stage; while the Diseases of Animals Bill has been read a second time. The three remaining more important Government Bills have been read a first time. So much for the past. As regards the future, we are in possession of two-and-a-half days in the week. Friday, of course, as the House knows, is permanently devoted to financial work. At present Wednesdays and Tuesday nights belong to private Members, This being the time at present at our disposal, what is the task we have got to accomplish? I will not refer to the smaller Government Measures which have been mentioned during Question time, and which we may reasonably hope will pass this House without any long discussion, nor is it necessary to allude in detail to such administrative Bills as the Military Lands Bill or the Uganda Railway Bill, which will have to be passed in the course of the Session. Everybody knows that the main outline of the Session will have to be determined, not by what we do with regard to those Measures but by what we do with regard to the three important Bills which at present are read only a first time—the Rating Bill, the Education Bill, and the Irish Land Bill. The Rating Bill, T am given to understand, is a Bill likely to be regarded as controversial — [Opposition cheers] — but it cannot be regarded as one embodying provisions of great detail, or, indeed, as involving more than the affirmation by the House of a single principle, which may be good or may be bad, but which has been already discussed for one night on the introduction of the Bill, and which, I imagine, will alone concern us when we are discussing the Second Reading and which, again, I imagine will occupy

  1739
  the time legitimately spent in Committee in discussing the clauses of the Bill. In fact, the Bill consists of at most two clauses; the rest is merely machinery; I therefore may say that the Rating Bill, if a controversial Bill, is not a complex Bill. The Education Bill, on the other hand, I gather from statements made on the other side, is also a controversial Bill, and I cannot deny that it is complex. As the Rates Bill is not complex, but is controversial, so the Education Bill is both. There remains only the Irish Land Bill, and I shall be willing to admit that that Bill is undoubtedly complex; it was impossible to deal with such a topic except in a complex Bill; but whether that Bill can be regarded as controversial will depend upon the representatives of those classes in Ireland for whose benefit it is intended. Those are the three great Measures to which I wish to call the attention of the House. As regards the Rating Bill and the Education Bill, the House will not receive with surprise the statement that those are the Bills, which, in any and all circumstances the Government mean to pass into law. [Cheers.] On the other hand, the fate of the Irish Land Bill trembles in the balance. [Mr. DILLON: "Why?"] If that Bill be treated by Irish Members as a Measure requiring elaborate discussion, if they are going to treat it as a controversial matter, then I boldly say, whatever may be the time the House is prepared to give the Government, it will be impossible, in view of our other legislative engagements, to get that Bill through without throwing a burden on this House which, for my part, I say will be extremely inexpedient. But I hope for better things; I hope that the Irish Members, whether they sit on that side or on this side, will be prepared to treat it as a Bill introduced with the solitary object of benefiting those engaged in agricultural pursuits in Ireland, that they will recognise the spirit that has presided over the construction of that Bill, and that they will endeavour to meet the views of the Government of the day in framing that Bill, and will discuss it at much less length than former Irish Land Bills have been discussed. But even if Irish Members are prepared, as I hope they are, to meet us in the spirit I have indicated, I do not think we can look forward with confidence to

  1740
  the passing of that Bill, if the House insists upon confining us to two-and-a-half days a week, if it refuses to consent to turn that two-and-a-half days into three-and-a-half days, which will be the result of the proposal I have now to make.
  MR. DILLON: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can now answer my question about the date of the Second Reading of the Irish Land Bill.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I will endeavour to give the hon. Member my view of the position of that Bill. It will be gathered from the statements made by the Government since the delivery of the Queen's Speech that we regard the Rating Bill and the Education Bill as having precedence of the Irish Land Bill; we cannot allow ourselves to be involved in Irish controversies until those Bills are, from a Parliamentary point of view, out of danger. It is not in the interest of the Irish Land Bill that we should sandwich it, in the way the hon. Member has suggested, between the chief stages of the other two Bills, because the result of such a course, if it were taken by the Government, would be to provoke discussion on the Irish Land Bill for the purpose of delaying the stages of the other two Bills, which meet with great hostility from the other side of the House. Therefore, in the interests of the two English Measures, and also of the Irish Measure, it is not the intention of the Government to allow the two Measures to be blocked by the stages of the Irish Land Bill. But it is my intention to give time for the Second Reading of the Irish Land Bill before we commence work on the Committee stage of the Education Bill. I do not know that any greater forecast of the future can be made at the present time, and I do not know that anything more can be required, seeing the task that is before the House. It will only be necessary, therefore, to explain the views of the Government with regard to one portion of the Resolution—one phrase—which is, perhaps, not very usual. It will be seen in the Resolution that the Government only obtain the right to take the time of the House when they put down business for discussion. That will give a certain elasticity with regard to the Wednesdays. [Ironical Opposition cheers.] I propose

  1741
  to explain to the House how that elasticity will be made use of. In the first place, with regard to Wednesdays after Whitsuntide: as the House knows, several Bills have passed the Second Reading stage. It has usually been the practice, and it is a fair practice, if possible, to give some privileges to such Bills on Wednesdays after Whitsuntide, and not proceed to the discussion of new proposals. So, Sir, I propose to give two Wednesdays at least after Whitsuntide, and, if we are fortunate in the progress of the general business of the Government, it is possible that they may be extended to three Wednesdays. As regards the Wednesdays before Whitsuntide, I do not desire to speak absolutely. The business in each week must be got to a stage which would justify me in giving them up. I will explain what I mean. I should not ask for next Wednesday if the Second Reading discussion on the Rates Bill is finished to-morrow night. ["Oh!" and laughter.] If, if! [Cheers.] If that Bill is disposed of on the second stage to-morrow night, I should be very glad to give up the right to Wednesday. If the Second Reading be not taken on Tuesday night, is there a single man who does not think that we ought to take Wednesday? ["Hear, hear!"] With regard to next week, I hope on Monday next to bring on the Second Reading of the Education Bill, and, if arrangements can be made, familiar to Parliamentary practice, that the Division should take place on Thursday night. ["Oh, oh!"] If any arrangement of that kind can be made, of course I should have no desire to take the Wednesday for Government business; but I think it will be felt that to take the discussion on Monday and not carry it on to a conclusion would be an abandonment by the Government of all proper control of the Government business, which neither Gentlemen on this Bench nor Gentlemen on the Bench opposite would ever consent to. ["Hear, hear!"] We shall, on the Monday following, take the Committee stage on the Rates Bill, and continue it de die in diem, excepting, of course, Fridays, which are given up to Supply. I hope it is felt by the House that I am asking no more than what is absolutely necessary if we intend this to be not an impotent and barren Session. I hope I
  1742
  have explained our intention—that, if business goes on more rapidly than we have contemplated, I would be able to restore to private Members some of those privileges I am most reluctantly asking them to give up. Under these circumstances I trust the House will do its best to meet the views of the Government on this point—views in which the Government are not necessarily interested, except as the guardians of the business and rights of the House. I therefore now have the honour to move:—
  "That for the remainder of the Session the House do meet on Tuesdays at 3 o'clock; that Government Business have priority over all other Bills and Notices of Motion on any day for which it is appointed; and that the provisions of Standing Order No. 56 be extended to every day of the week." [Cheers.]
  *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: As I listened to the right hon. Gentleman I could not help asking myself what he would have said last Session if such a proposal as this was made by the Government of the day. ["Hear, hear!"] He has, in the course of his statement, said what he knows to be a fact, that never before was such a proposal as this made at this time of the year. He says it is made not in the interests of the Government, but on behalf of the general business of the House. It is on that account that he asks all that time for the exclusive use of the Government and a few selected Bills. The right hon. Gentleman began by enumerating the days that have been employed in the past upon the various sections of the business. This I will undertake to say—that no Government, certainly of recent years, I may say for 20 years, has ever had such favourable facilities given it in the early part of the Session for the transaction of business. [Cheers.] They got through the Debate on the Address in a remarkably short time compared with the practice of recent opposition. They have had, I am bound to say, remarkable and most unusual facilities in getting Supply. None of their large Measures have received anything that can be called obstruction—["Hear, hear!"]—or even extended Debate upon their early stages—facilities which were not extended to us. ["Hear, hear!"] Therefore, I ask, what is there in the circumstances of this Session

  1743
  which induces the Government or justifies the Government in making these unexampled demands? Is it to carry on their legislation? ["Hear, hear!"] We were told that we were to enter on quiet times. We were not to have exciting Measures. We were to have moderate Measures of social reform. The moderate Measures of social reform have disappeared. One of them was announced as already withdrawn. Others have been spoken of in a rather light manner by the Leader of the House, and he has concentrated his attention on the principal Measures of the Government. Why is it that the Government, in this state of premature panic, come to the House and ask these further facilities? What is the character of these Measures? We were told in the Queen's Speech that there was to be an Education Bill to give some slight additional assistance to voluntary schools. It would not have been necessary to take the whole time of the House to pass a Measure of that kind; but, having announced a Measure in those terms, there has been some eruption or convulsion in the Cabinet which has resulted in the production of a wholly unexpected educational Measure to overthrow the whole of the existing system, and substitute a new system of education in its place. ["Oh, oh!" and cheers.] It may be a good system or it may be a bad system, but nobody can deny that it is a complete change. Then the Rates Bill; the right hon. Gentleman says this is a one clause Measure, and a one-principled Measure. It is not a one-principled Measure, and it is not a one-clause Measure. ["Hear, hear!"] It is a Measure which involves, either now or immediately hereafter, an entire revolution in all the local taxation of the country. Do you suppose that you can make a breach in the system of local taxation in this country without discussion on a scheme which in its results must affect every class in the community? If the right hon. Gentleman thinks so, I venture to say he is entirely mistaken. He has said that these Bills will require four other days. Then there are the Bills which are to carry out the equivalent for what is done in the English Bill with regard to Ireland and Scotland. ["Hear, hear!"] These are what you may call the corollaries of the Bill which the Government
  1744
  has introduced. That is equally true of the Education Bill. That Bill, no doubt, applies solely to England, but it will not be denied that there must be complementary Bills dealing both with Ireland and with Scotland. ["Hear, hear!"] These are the things which the right hon. Gentleman says must be disposed of before we enter on what he calls Irish controversy. [A laugh.] Then the right hon. Gentleman thinks that these things are likely to be disposed of in a day or two. Why, really, if the dulcet language in which the right hon. Gentleman spoke as to the time to be occupied by these Bills were the truth, or anything near the truth, you would not want any additional time at all. He talks of finishing off these Bills in two days, and though he speaks with soft tones, he holds a rod behind his back, and says, "It depends upon your behaviour how I will treat you." There is one extraordinary part of this proposal, and it is this—what shall I call it—this local option which is reserved to the Treasury Bench in reference to the time of the House. I object to that altogether. [Cheers.] Either this time is wanted for the Government Measures or it is not. If it is wanted for the Government business these reservations ought not to be made. If it is not wanted for the Government business, it ought not to be in the power of the Government to deal with the time which in the ordinary course of events belongs to the independent Members of the House; that ought to be left to the regular course of business. I remember that when I was responsible for the conduct of business I once was foolish enough to reserve a single day for a Bill that was specified at the time, and I determined never to do it again. But this is a great deal worse than that. The right hon. Gentleman does not say he will reserve a particular day for a particular Bill, but he practically says: "We will keep in our own pocket these days and give them up to any Bill that it may suit us at the time." [The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: That is not my proposal!] That must be so, because you may choose your Wednesdays.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I distinctly pledged myself to the House that, if the Second Reading of

  1745
  the Rates Bill is not finished, this Wednesday will be taken by the Government. If the Second Reading of the Education Bill cannot be finished by the Thursday of next week, then the Wednesday will be taken. The taking of the Wednesday following depends upon the course of business with regard to the Committee on the Rates Bill; and I have distinctly said that two Wednesdays after Whitsuntide will be kept for private Members. Under these circumstances I do not think it can be said I am not dealing quite frankly and openly with the House. [Cheers.]
  *SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has mended matters. What he says to us is this: "Either you must confine yourselves to two days for the Rates Bill or you shall not have Wednesday." That is not a decent way of dealing with the time of the House. [Cheers.] The Government are, by this means, practically introducing a new form of closure, for they, in effect say: "We will introduce a Bill, however controversial, and unless you confine it to two days we will take Wednesday." That is not the way in which the time, of the House ought to be dealt with. If there is an indispensable necessity for taking the time, then take it, but do not say the question whether we have Wednesdays depends upon whether we finish the Debate on Measures like the Rates Bill and the Education Bill in two days. I do not think it is likely the Debate will be concluded in two days. In my opinion this House would very ill do its duty if it did not take more time than that in discussing Measures of such immense importance and involving principles of such great consequences as those which are involved in these Bills. The right hon. Gentleman calls this elasticity. It seems to me that is far too mild a name to apply either to the proposal itself, or to the manner in which he proposes to carry it out. For my part I shall offer my entire opposition to the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman has made. [Cheers.]
  MR. H. SETON-KARRregretted that he was unable to support the Motion which the First Lord of the Treasury had made. [Opposition cheers.] His reasons were twofold; they were, in
  1746
  the first place, particular; and, in the second place, general. The carrying of the Motion would deprive him and those hon. Members who were acting with him in the matter, of the last chance they had this Session of making their Motion regarding the national food supply. Although in the first week of the Session the right hon. Gentleman told them this was to be a humdrum Session, that there was to be no sensational legislation, in the second week he introduced his new Sessional Order appropriating Fridays. He was thus deprived of an opportunity which he had secured of introducing his Motion on a Friday. He then, in the Ballot, secured the second place on a Tuesday; but that Tuesday the Government immediately appropriated. He had intended to ballot again to-morrow. This Motion, however, would deprive him of every opportunity of raising during this Session the question in which he and others were greatly interested. On general grounds he asked what was the meaning of running the business of the House on the present high-pressure system. The Government had a strong and compact majority; they had, in all probability, six years of office before them; and therefore there could be no necessity to pass this year all the important Bills they had introduced. The Government programme was too large; indeed, if the Government had had at their disposal the whole of the time from the first day of the Session to now, and had the whole of the rest of the Session in their hands, they could not hope to pass such a programme. Surely two of the six important Measures they had introduced, coupled with the ordinary business of Supply, would have been sufficient for one Session. If the right hon. Gentleman had said that he wished to bring the Session to an end at a reasonably early period, in order that he might go away and play golf—["oh, oh!"]—he would have regarded that as a very strong reason for the Motion, because he admitted that Ministers, as well as Members, required a certain amount of rest during the year. While he opposed the present Motion, he was prepared to vote for all the Government Measures, with the exception, perhaps, of the Irish Land Bill. He, as an English Member,

  1747
  knew absolutely nothing about that Bill—[Irish cheers]—and, with all due courtesy to the Irish Members of the House, he cared less. [Laughter.] For the last 25 years the House had been legislating about Irish land; they had never succeeded in satisfying Ireland—[Irish cheers]—and his opinion was that they never would. It would be a wiser and more common-sense proceeding to give up the task. When he found in The Times five columns occupied with the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the Irish Land Bill, he thought to himself: "This Bill will never pass. It is a Bill no British constituency cares anything about." [Nationalist cheers.] The Irish Question, in its different phases, has been before the House ad nauseam, and he submitted that if the Government had not time for the Irish Land Bill they should drop it before they trenched unnecessarily on the time of private Members. To his mind the proposal of the Leader of the House was unnecessary and uncalled for at so early a period of the Session. The Government had introduced an unwieldly programme, which it was impossible to carry out this Session, and before introducing such a Motion as the Leader of the House had done, they should have dropped some of their Bills.
  MR. W. ALLENexpressed his astonishment at the statement of the Leader of the House that the Government had only had nine days of Parliamentary time during the Session.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Nine days for legislative business, including the Budget.
  MR. ALLEN, resuming, said Supply was more forward than it had been for some years past. Supply was as much Government business as any of their legislative proposals, and if they counted the days the Government had spent on Supply, as well as those they had spent on their legislative proposals, they found they had had 26 days of Parliamentary time. He supposed the Leader of the House was asking for further facilities because obstruction to the Measures of the Government from their own supporters had grown during the past fortnight. Both to the Irish Land Bill and the Education Bill Amendments were
  1748
  put down by followers of the Government. He believed the proposal of the Government was absolutely without precedent, and that such a proposal had never been made with so little justification for it. In 1893, earlier in the Session (on March 30th), Mr. Gladstone proposed to take the whole time of the House. But in that Session there was the greatest controversial Bill that had ever been before the House, and the right hon. Gentleman himself said it deserved a whole Session of Parliamentary time for its discussion. In 1893, ten days were devoted to the Debate on the Address and eight days to the Supplementary Estimates. This year only six days were occupied with the Debate on the Address, and one day with the Supplementary Estimates. In 1894 there was as great a press of public business as during the present Session. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had to pass his Budget Bill—a more complicated and technical Bill than any the Government had to pass this Session—and he did not ask the House for its time, or private Members to give up Wednesdays until May 31st, and then he left three days for the Miners' Eight Hours Bill. If the Leader of the House would make a similar concession with regard to that Bill, and give an opportunity for the sense of the House to be taken upon it, he would support his proposal, strongly as he felt about the time of private Members being taken from them. Never had a weaker case been made out for taking the time of private Members. The Government got the First Reading of their two most important Bills in a day, and he did not think the Opposition could have treated them better than they had done. This Motion, if adopted, would establish a precedent, and private Members would never know what their time would be. Under the present system the Government could come down and take any single day which had been otherwise appropriated by a private Member, as they did the day that should have been devoted to the Resolution on the Truck Acts, which was to have been moved by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean. He suggested that the Government should arrive at some arrangement by which private Members would have a

  1749
  certain amount of time assured to them throughout the whole Session, rather than the present method, by which they got a good deal of time at the beginning and none at the end of the Session. Such an arrangement would be of great advantage, and one which the House, he was sure, would be willing to accept. However, they had now to take things as they were, and unless he could receive an assurance that the right hon. Gentleman would give them time to discuss the Mines Bill, for his part he should vote against the proposal made to-day.
  *SIR G. OSBORNE MORGANobserved that the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that what was, perhaps, the most controversial Bill ever introduced into that House, in which an enormous number of Members on both sides took an interest and wore anxious to speak, would only occupy three days.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, he had never expressed that opinion. He had always anticipated that the Bill would take four days.
  *SIR G. OSBORNE MORGANreminded the right hon. Gentleman that the Welsh Suspensory Bill, which never came to a Second Reading, took two days to discuss upon its introduction. The Welsh Disestablishment Bill, which no doubt was very controversial, took six days, two on the introduction and four on the Second Reading, and the Irish Home Rule Bill, which was also, of course, a controversial Bill, took no less than 12 days. It was a curious thing that when the light hon. Gentleman came down to claim some fresh portion of the time of the House it was always to displace, a Motion which stood in the name of a Welsh Member. The Member for Anglesey had for to-morrow put down what to the Welsh Members was a very interesting Motion, raising the question of autonomy or self-government for Wales. That question had never been discussed in the House, though there had been a good deal of vague discussion out of doors, and it was only by discussion in that House that a question of this kind found its scope and limit. The moment a day had been found for its discussion that day was immediately snapped up by the Government. It was not only for that reason he objected, but he did most
  1750
  strongly object to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman that the Government should be able to pick and choose any Wednesday they liked, and would enable them to favour particular Bills, and would thus indirectly add greatly to their power. It was said that the Government wanted the time of the House to pass their legislative programme, but as to two of the Bills which the right hon. Gentleman hoped to pass he could only say that he could not have asked for time for two Bills which were more controversial, or which would be more hotly and persistently resisted clause by clause.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, that for many years the Government had been encroaching more and more on the time of private Members, and he very much doubted whether the result was for the advantage of the Government or of the business of the House. However, he only rose now to say a few words as to the position of private Members' Bills after Easter. There was only one Bill, and could be only two—the Early Closing Bill and the Benefices Bill—which would have passed the Grand Committee. He submitted that it was a useless waste of the time of the House when a Bill had passed Second Reading and the Grand Committee that the time should be denied to pass the remaining stage. The Government announced their intention of looking on certain Bills with a benevolent eye. In claiming this power they would place themselves in some difficulty, and he appealed to the Leader of the Bill to adopt a principle, and to exclude from his proposals the Bills, the very few Bills, of private Members which passed through Grand Committee. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *SIR C. DILKEremarked that the weighty observations of the right hon. Baronet who had just sat down only showed once more the importance of full discussion of the forms of the House and the revision of the forms, and the necessity of doing something to remove the difficulties at present encountered, such as adopting the proposal of the right hon. Member for Bodmin, or some modification of it, and giving large groups of the House of Commons real control over portions of the time of the House. It would not be in order to discuss the

  1751
  details of any such proposals now, and he merely alluded to them to express the regret he had felt that the present Leader of the House backed up in the last Parliament the present Leader of the Opposition in preventing any such full discussion of the forms as to the business of the House taking place. With regard to the Motion now before them, he was bound to say that it appeared to him the Government had greatly mismanaged their business and were heavily responsible for the state into which the business of the House had fallen. If Governments intended to have programmes so large and detailed as that set forth in the Queen's speech and other proposals of this year, then Parliament must sit during a longer Session than the Session of this year or any ordinary Session. He would mention one Bill, which had occupied about a day and a half of their time in discussion, as an illustration of the confusion into which they had fallen—he referred to the Military Manœuvres Bill, which he understood was now going to be dropped.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No.
  *SIR C. DILKEsaid, he was glad to hear it, but two or three days ago the right hon. Gentleman had indicated his fear that that Bill would have to be abandoned. He took the keenest interest in the Bill and had voted in every Division for it, but he had not said a word in regard to it because he had been so anxious that it should pass. He believed the Government during the Session had been given remarkable facilities for getting through their business. It was a poor reward for the help which the private Members of the House had given the Government in the transaction of their business, to sweep away the whole of their rights at so early a period of the Session. The only real cure for a state of things which was getting worse year by year would be for the House of Commons to take in hand the suggestion which had been made for the allotment of a certain time to the Bills of private Members.
  *SIR W. HART-DYKEsaid, the Motion was a disappointing one as regarded the aspirations and ambitions of many amongst them. He had been very anxious during the present
  1752
  Session to speak on a Motion, of which he had given early notice, with reference to the fraudulent marking by foreigners of our home produce. His Motion had been blocked by several Bills upon the Order Paper dealing with the same subject, and this Motion, by rendering it impossible for these Bills to be disposed of, would make it impossible for him to refer to the subject. No one had voted more often for these rapacious proposals for taking the time of private Members than he had when a Member of a Government, and he supposed the general verdict, of his colleagues at all events, would be, "Serve him right in the present instance." But was there not a great deal of humbug about these discussions? The time of private Members had been practically done away with for many years, and if they would recognise that fact they might save an enormous amount of time. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had asked the House if ever such a Motion had been heard of before from the Treasury box. It was only a question between two Front Benches and of who might be standing at that box. It had been the habit of successive Governments for years to encroach upon the time of private Members. They never had in that House a more genial, or kindly, or better Leader than the late Mr. Smith, and no man could take a big slice out of the time of private Members with a more genial countenance than he used to do. The right hon. Gentleman opposite appeared to be everlastingly taunting the Government for having said that the House should have quiet legislation, and he fortified his observations by stating that the Education Bill which the Government had introduced was a complete revolution, and they were also taunted in regard to the Measure for the relief of the unfortunate agriculturists, which they were told were also of a subversive character. He thought there was a tinge of exaggeration in all this, and that the right hon. Gentleman would find when this Resolution was passed that many of his fears were very ill grounded indeed. Although he had got a grievance he should vote for this Motion. Her Majesty's Government had four or five Measures in hand which were of the utmost value to the country,

  1753
  and he had therefore put aside the remainder of the principle which he had had with regard to the rights of private Members. He utterly disagreed with the suggestion that a considerable time, if not the remainder of the Session, ought to be spent on the Irish Land Bill, and he would advise hon. Members opposite to deal with that Bill on its merits, and to get the best they could out of it.
  MR. LEONARD COURTNEYsaid, he had never before engaged in one of these discussions, which came on once or twice every Session, because he had recognised, with his right hon. Friend who had just sat down, whose confession was perhaps rather tardy, that these discussions were generally somewhat of a hollow farce. But he rose to approach the matter in a practical spirit. His right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition had objected to the Motion exactly as a Leader of the Opposition should, and had done his best to turn it into ridicule, but the way in which his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had made his proposal was an illustration, to a great extent, of the wisdom of the late Mr. Smith, to which his right hon. Friend who had just sat down had alluded. It was an offer of give and take. Private Members might get something if they would sacrifice something. Was it possible to consider the offer? He thought it was not an unreasonable proposal that, if they could get through the Second Reading of the Rating Bill on that day and the next, the Scotch Local Veto Bill should be put down for Wednesday; nor did he think it unreasonable to hope that, if they could settle the Second Reading of the Education Bill in three days of next week [Opposition laughter], they should be allowed to discuss the Sunday Closing Bill on the Wednesday of next week. Hon. Members laughed, but if they did reorganise the disposition of their time, as had been suggested, an unlimited time would not be allowed to the discussion of the Second Reading of a Bill. Did any hon. Member suppose that the country at large would tolerate the suggestion that it was necessary that 20 Welsh Members should speak on the Education Question. It might be impossible to bring the scope of that discussion within the period he suggested,
  1754
  but he was quite certain that the popular judgment outside the House would be of opinion that three or four days were enough for the Second Reading of the most disputable, the most debateable, and the most complex Bill that could come before them. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "Home Rule Bill!"] Hon. Members cried "Home Rule Bill," but he was going to say that even with regard to that Bill, popular judgment outside the House would have said that four days were enough, seeing that the subject had been discussed over and over again in the country before it was brought there. When they were going to reorganise their time, a strict limit would have to be placed on the time for Second Reading. Now, with respect to their position today. Hon. Members had not very much agreed with him so far, and they would probably disagree with him in what he was going to suggest. The point on which everything now turned with respect to the future disposition of the time of the House was the Irish Land Bill. If they could come to terms of a reasonable character with the large section of the House interested in that Bill, they might be able to get through their programme without any great difficulty, and with even more respect, possibly, to the rights of private Members than they got now. Was it impossible that this Irish Land Bill should have a way opened to it? The Leader of the House spoke of it as a complex Bill, but he said it was not a controversial Bill. It had not, indeed, been approached in a controversial spirit, but more was needed. They must have a fair agreement as to the principle on both sides, in order to make a Bill non-controversial, and it seemed to him that the Irish Land Bill had become of the character of a non-controversial Bill, in that it had not been approached by either side in a controversial spirit. If it was a non-controversial Bill, and if, as the Government admitted, they were going to read it a Second time before entering on the Committee stage of the Education Bill, why should they not—he threw out the suggestion, but did not invite an immediate decision—adopt in reference to the Irish Land Bill the process which they so successfully adopted with respect to a Scotch Bill in the last Parliament? Why not refer it to a Grand Committee, in which

  1755
  the Government had their majority securing its control, but in which they would have as large a constitution of Irish Members as possible. He thought the answer to that suggestion might clear the way with respect to the rest of the Session, and might allow them, while bringing their sittings to an end in the middle of August, to accomplish the main part of the Government programme, and also to satisfy some of the aspirations of private Members. Did they want this Irish Land Bill to pass or not? That was the question. If they wanted the Bill to pass, and it was not controversial, here was an opening for considering how it might be done, and if they got that opening and that means of settling that business accepted, then they greatly facilitated the conduct of the other part of the work. They might possibly then realise what had been scouted as absurd on the other side of the House, the conclusion of the Second Reading Debate in the time that had been mentioned, and they might even realise the conclusion of the Second Reading Debate of the Rating Bill. In connection with these Bills, it must be remembered both had been subjected to the bad and comparatively new habit of prolonged Debate on introduction—Debates which really were very difficult operations of most doubtful expediency. Hon. Members could not speak with authority on a Bill they had never seen, and they sometimes made very injudicious remarks, which they afterwards found it difficult to explain.
  *SIR G. OSBORNE MORGAN: I did not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman when he was speaking, and I only rise now to say that I never said anything so absurd as to suggest that 20 Welsh Members should take part in the Debate. What I said was that I knew there were 20 Welsh Members who would be very glad to speak on the subject if they got the chance.
  MR. J. DILLONsaid he must at once confess that primâ facie, he felt strongly inclined to urge upon the Government that they should give the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin the most serious consideration before they rejected it. Such a proposal, coming from the present Government, would meet with a totally different reception at his hands
  1756
  than a similar proposal coming from the late Government, and for this reason. When the late Government introduced their Land Bill they were warned from this side of the House that it would be met with very considerable opposition. If the late Government, therefore, had made use of their majority to send the Irish Land Bill to a Grand Committee, he assumed that they would have been warned from the Front Opposition Bench that, if they did so, and that if the Bill, as a result, was passed through that House, it would be killed in another place. Therefore they would have approached such a proposition from a Government which was face to face with an irreconcileable Opposition, having the support of the House of Lords, in a totally different condition of mind from that which they would approach the present proposition if it were made by the Government. While he was not in a position to give any pledge as to what course would be adopted by the Party to which he belonged, and still less by the other Irish Party to which he did not belong, he thought it was a proposition of very great gravity, and one which ought to be very carefully considered by the Government before they decided what answer they would give. Turning to the general question of the Resolution, he wanted to point out, from the Irish point of view, that no inducement of any kind had been held out to them by the Government to support or abstain from supporting the proposal. If the First Lord of the Treasury had come forward and made some statement to them of a satisfactory character, that he would place the Irish Land Bill in such a position in the Government programme, that not only the Second Reading would be taken before Whitsuntide—a matter to which he attached very little importance indeed—but that the Committee stage would be brought on at such a date as would give them a rational opportunity, not of obstructing and delaying the Bill, but of endeavouring to amend it, and to remove the enormous defects it at present contained, then it would have been the duty of the Irish Party to very seriously consider the present proposal. But the First Lord had told them that the first use to which he would put the whole time of the House, if it were surrendered to the Government, would be to pass the

  1757
  Agricultural Rating Bill, to which they were opposed root and branch, and which he ventured to characterise as the most grotesque and indefensible attempt ever made in that House to treat Ireland unjustly from the financial point of view, and the principle of which they would oppose with all the resources in their power. If for that reason alone, he for his part would do everything in his power to oppose the First Lord's Motion. His statement, when it was read in Ireland to-morrow, would go a long way to enforce the view which had been prevalent there for the last three months, that the Land Bill had been introduced for the purpose of deluding and humbugging the people of Ireland. Some of them were old enough to remember the circumstances that attended the introduction of the Local Government Bill. They would recollect that the Bill was introduced in such a manner by the right hon. Gentleman who was now the First Lord of the Treasury, and who was then Chief Secretary for Ireland, as to convince everyone that it was not intended to pass. This was a similar case, for could anyone believe, after having heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, that this Land Bill was meant to pass? The First Lord of the Treasury had stated that, as regarded the Agricultural Rates Bill and the Education Bill, the Government were determined to pass them, whether the Resolution before the House was passed or not; but, with reference to the Irish Land Bill, he said that it trembled in the balance, and that whether it passed or not would depend on the action of the Irish Members. What did that statement mean? It was one of an extraordinary character, the like of which, he believed, had never been made in the House by a Minister on an important Government Measure at a similar stage of business. If it meant anything at all, it was meant as a threat that the Irish Members were not to exercise their rights as private Members to criticise or oppose the Measure. But the threat was uncalled for, because the Irish Members had not given the Government the slightest ground for believing that they intended to obstruct the Bill. The circumstance would go a long way to convince the Irish people that the Government had no serious intention at all of passing the Irish Land Bill.
  1758
  [Nationalist cheers.] The Bill was dangled before the Irish Members as a Measure so magnificent and valuable that they ought to prostrate themselves in gratitude before the Government, and to allow the Government to quietly walk over their bodies with the other two Measures. ["Hear, hear!"] But this was a mistake. It would be idle to pretend that the Irish people or the Irish Members attached any great importance to this Irish Land Bill. [Nationalist cheers.] His position in regard to the Bill was perfectly clear. He thought the Bill contained some valuable provisions, which he should be sorry to see lost, especially those relating to purchase and the Land Court. The great body of the Irish people were anxious to obtain Amendments in those directions, especially such Amendments as would sweep away the complications that had been woven around the Ashbourne Acts. Were the Irish Members to be told that they were not to be at liberty to propose Amendments embodying improvements to which the Irish people attached such great importance? It had not been the intention of the Irish Members to offer any prolonged opposition to the Measure, or even to weigh it with a great array of Amendments; on the contrary, they believed the Irish demands, or desires, might be embraced in a very moderate number of Amendments, and he saw no reason why the Debate on the Bill should occupy a very long time. That was an argument, surely, in favour of giving the Bill precedence over the Agricultural Rating Bill and the Education Bill, both of which were extremely contentious Measures, and would occupy a long time. [Nationalist cheers.] The Irish Land Bill immediately and directly affected the interests of a very large class of people; in every respect it was more urgent than either of the Bills he had just named, and therefore he urged that it should have precedence of those Bills. But why should it be placed behind both of the Bills? If the right hon. Gentleman would give a pledge that the Irish Land Bill should be placed in front of one of the other Bills, say the Rates Bill, so that they might have some security that the Measure would not be pushed off to the very end of the Session, he would withdraw his opposition to the present

  1759
  proposal of the Government. ["Hear, hear!"] When the First Lord of the Treasury expressed the hope that the Irish Members would allow the Land Bill to pass in the course of a few hours —in a time too short, in fact, to permit them to express or enforce the views of their constituents, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill was of so large and complicated a character that the Chief Secretary took three hours and a half merely to introduce it. ["Hear, hear!"] It would be hard, indeed, in such circumstances, that the Irish Members should be deprived of fair opportunity to express their views and the views of their constituents on the Bill. But this whole matter illustrated in a striking manner the radical evils of Irish Government. Why was it that in Irish Land Bills, and in other Irish Bills, there were so many points that required amendment? It was because the Irish Minister took his instructions and advice in such cases from persons of one side only. Men of Nationalist views, or men attached to the Nationalist cause, were never consulted at all; their opinions and their advice were entirely ignored. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for the St. Helens division had stated that the House had been more than 25 years discussing the subject of Irish land legislation, but that it had never succeeded in settling the question and never would. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member; the House of Commons never would settle it while the unfair course was pursued of trying to legislate on the question without consulting those who represented the opinions and feelings of the vast majority of the people. It was, therefore, all the more the duty of the Irish Members to insist on their right to place such Amendments on the Notice Paper as their constituents considered to be essential, with a view to making the Bill a really valuable one to the people of Ireland. Having repeated that he should be sorry to see the provisions of the Bill relating to purchase and to tenure lost, he said the Irish Members would do all they could to compel the Government to bring on the Committee stage of the Bill at such a period as would secure to them full opportunity of moving those Amendments which they deemed to be absolutely essential. ["Hear, hear!"]
  CAPTAIN BETHELLsaid, he thought it was greatly to be deplored that those who led the House of Commons—on either side—should so overload the programme of work that it became necessary to ask the House for the whole of its time. It was a shortsighted course to take. The opportunities of private Members to initiate discussion or legislation could not be wholly taken away without harm being done to the House and the country. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not intend to oppose the Resolution, but earnestly invited the Leader of the House to take the matter into careful consideration; for all who had reflected upon it would admit that not infrequently the discussions and proposals initiated by private Members had proved of advantage to the House and the country. He believed that right hon. Gentlemen on both sides thought it essential to their popularity in the country to overload the Session. That idea of theirs was an entire mistake. [Opposition cheers.] One or two Measures thoroughly discussed would do much more to augment the popularity of any Government.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY,who rose at the same time as several hon. Members, said: As there are Amendments to be discussed, perhaps it would be convenient to the House if I were now to reply to the speeches which have been made. [Opposition cries of "No, no!"]
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEsaid, that he had a non-controversial Bill down for May 13—the Steam Engines (Persons in Charge) Bill. This Bill passed the House last year with the assent of all parties, and both employers and employed were agreed as to its value. As in all probability it would secure an early Second Reading if it came before the House, he hoped the Government would give facilities for its discussion on May 13.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid, that he took a very serious view of the situation with regard to the Irish Land Bill and its chances of passing into law. He was most anxious to make nothing in the nature of a partisan speech, but to say something which might lead to the passing of the Bill into law. He regretted extremely

  1761
  that the right hon. Gentleman had not made a more satisfactory statement with regard to the Bill. In the main he agreed with the hon. Member for East Mayo in his description of it. It was a Bill of the most vital necessity to the vast bulk of the population of Ireland. It was not satisfactory in all its details, and with regard to some of its clauses it required considerable amendment. But while the tenure clauses were in some respects not so satisfactory as those in the late Government's Bill, yet it was a more comprehensive Measure, and dealt in an eminently satisfactory way, on the whole, with the vital question of purchase. He did not believe that the discussion of the Bill would occupy any prolonged period. ["Hear, hear!"] It was not a case for a prolonged Debate on Second Reading. ["Hear, hear!"] On the principle of the Measure there was very little difference of opinion between the various parties, and a long Second Reading Debate must resolve itself into a discussion of those very details which could only be dealt with in Committee. ["Hear, hear!"] The Second Reading ought not to take more than one or two nights; and he should be content with a single night, provided that the time so saved should be devoted to the discussion in Committee. The hon. Member for East Mayo said that he should insist on the right of the Irish Members to move Amendments. It was scarcely necessary for the hon. Member to make that protestation. [Ministerial cheers.] The most sanguine Leader of the House who ever existed could not imagine that any Bill of consequence would pass without those specially interested having a sufficient opportunity to move Amendments. But while, of course, the necessary Amendments must be moved to give expression to the views which the Irish Members held with regard to the deficiencies of the Bill, yet, if the Committee stage were approached in a practical business spirit, and if the Irish Members of all parties were actuated in Committee by a bonâ fide desire to pass the Bill, the Committee stage would not take long. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not see why a comparatively short period should not suffice to pass the Bill into law—comparatively with the time occupied by such measures as the Act of 1881. He listened with
  1762
  the greatest possible interest and sympathy to the proposal made by the right hon. Member for Bodmin. On this point he was inclined to echo what was said by the hon. Member for East Mayo. Were the Government going to accept the right hon. Member's suggestion or not? If the Government would agree to it, and if all the various parties in the House would honestly and fairly agree to it, then he should be delighted to see it carried into effect, and he believed it would be a means of carrying the Bill with certainty this Session. ["Hear, hear!"] He regretted extremely that the Government had not put the Bill in an earlier portion of their programme. In past years the House had had occasion to complain of the Leader of the House because he was not sufficiently frank and candid in explaining the course of business. During the late Parliament he repeatedly addressed questions to the then Leader of the House, and never received a frank and candid answer. [Ministerial cheers.] But the right hon. Gentleman opposite had been most brutally frank and candid. [Opposition laughter and cheers.] They could not complain that the right hon. Gentleman was endeavouring to disguise his programme, which was that the Education Bill and the Rates Bill must absolutely pass. They were to be taken before any serious progress was made with the Committee on the Land Bill; and if the Land Bill were to pass at all, it could only be by Irish Members acting in a way which would only require a limited time to be occupied by the discussion. He greatly deplored this programme, and that the Land Bill had not been given the first place, which it deserved. He would do anything in his power to compel the Government to change their programme; but he had no power to compel the change, and he believed it to be his duty to get the Land Bill passed this Session. The Irish Nationalist Members had no power to compel the Government to take the Land Bill first. Unfortunately they no longer held the Government in the hollow of their hand. [Ministerial cheers.] It was better to look facts straight in the face. If the Irish Members held the Government in the hollow of their hand he would advocate a very different course. He did not gather from the

  1763
  speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo whether he and his friends were going to vote against this Motion. The hon. Member sat down without precisely stating his intentions. [Ministerial laughter.] But he had heard that it was the intention of the hon. Member to vote against the motion of the Government. His mind went back to what had happened in recent years on similar motions. On April 9th, 1894, the then Government—whom the Irish Members did hold in the hollow of their hand—[Ministerial cheers]—proposed to take Tuesdays. He had looked in "Hansard" vainly for any speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo or any Member of his Party on that occasion. [Laughter.] But he had found a short speech of his own. [Laughter.] He asked the Government then to state what the precedence of the Bills would be, and the Chief Secretary of the day, in reply, stated that in asking for the time of the House the Government were asking for an expression of confidence from the House, both as to their programme and as to the arrangement of it. There was at that time an Evicted Tenants Bill on the stocks which every Irish Nationalist Member regarded as of the most vital and pressing necessity; and the endeavour was made to get the Government to promise to take that Bill earlier. But those who made the attempt had not sufficient strength, and those who had the strength to exact the promise did not use it, but remained silent, and walked into the Lobby with the Government. [Ministerial cheers.] In May of 1894 the remainder of the time of the House was taken by the late Government; and again he asked the Government to state when they would go on with the Evicted Tenants Bill, but the Leader of the House then wittily replied by reminding him of the great man's saying that while questions were generally discreet, answers were very seldom discreet. [Laughter.] Again, those who held the Government in the hollow of their hands remained silent, and voted in favour of taking the time of the House. [Ministerial cheers.]
  SIR W. HARCOURT: But we did pass the Bill through the House of Commons.
  MR. J. REDMONDsaid that it was passed late in August, when everyone knew it had no chance of becoming law.
  1764
  [Cheers.] He sincerely hoped that the present Land Bill would pass into law. He wished the Bill to pass; and he believed that the overwhelming majority of the Irish Members wished it to pass also. But they could only get it passed on the Government terms. He did not like those terms, and he thought they were unjust. But he had no power to compel them to change the terms, and the question for every Irish Member to consider was: "Did they want this Bill passed this Session or not?" That question he had answered in the affirmative, and he would take no title of responsibility for any action which would lead to the failure of its passage into law. He would, therefore, vote in favour of taking the whole time of the House for Government business, and he would strenuously advocate such an arrangement being arrived at between the Irish Members and the Government as would enable the discussions on the Bill, if retained in the House, to be regulated with strict regard to business, and in such a way as to insure its passage into law. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. BENJAMIN PICKARDsaid he had no stones to throw at his own Party—[Nationalist cheers]—but he reminded the right hon. Gentleman of a small deputation which waited on him with regard to a day being given for discussing the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill.
  COLONEL WARINGsaid, he was anxious to loyally support the Government in this proposition as he had supported them in others, but on this occasion his loyalty was conditional—[ironical cheers from the Irish Members]—on the non-acceptance of the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Bodmin. The Irish Land Bill was not a Measure which should be remitted to a Grand Committee to be discussed by many who knew nothing about the subject. Nor could he join in the sanguine hopes of the hon. Member for Waterford that this Bill could be looked upon as non-contentious, or that it could be passed without a full discussion.
  MR. HENRY LABOUCHEREsupported the appeal as to the Miners' Eight Hours Bill. By the chances of the Ballot he had brought in a Bill himself, and he understood that the Leader of the House or his colleagues

  1765
  had given some sort of assurance that a day was to be given for its discussion. He did not complain of the hon. Member for Waterford being ready to make a bargain, or to sell himself to the Government, but the hon. Member ought to take care to be well paid for it. [Laughter.] He was ready to sell himself—[laughter]—and if the Government would give him a Wednesday for his Bill he would vote for the Government Resolution, although he thought that it was an abominable one. The hon. Member had sold himself for a vague, indefinite promise that some time in September, or otherwise, the Irish Land Bill would be brought before the House. But the hon. Member should be well aware that this Bill was not intended to come before the House. The Government practically said: "Let us keep the Irish Members quiet during the discussions on the Education Bill and the Hating Bill by telling them that if they behave themselves properly they will have something to discuss in connection with Irish land."
  MR. J. REDMOND: We are in favour of the Education Bill. [Cheers.]
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that though the hon. Member might be silent on that Bill, he could not suppose other hon. Members would be silent. They intended to oppose those two Bills to the best of their ability. The Leader of the House had said nothing in his statement about the fourth Wednesday; but he observed that on that day there was a Bill down giving to women certain rights that they had not at any time possessed in this country—in fact, to absolutely unsex them. [Laughter.] He should like every definite assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that, if the Resolution passed nothing, more would be heard during this Session of the Woman's Rights Bill. [Laughter.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I think it may be convenient to the House that I should now briefly reply to the numerous questions which have been put to me, and to the not less numerous criticisms which have been urged against my Motion. Several hon. Gentlemen have put questions with regard to the Eight Hours Bill, requesting the Government to except the Wednesday on which this Bill stands first from the general operation of this
  1766
  rule. If I carried out the wishes of hon. Gentlemen, they would be no nearer the realisation of their hopes than they are now, because, by the Standing Orders, Wednesdays after Whitsuntide are practically earmarked for the Bills which have been advanced a certain stage.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I want you to give a day.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I would refer the hon. Member to the Leader of the Opposition. In the earlier part of the discussion the Leader of the Opposition told us that once in his Parliamentary career he had given a Wednesday for the discussion of a special Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that, so hard had been his experience in consequence of that action, that he never would be betrayed into a similar proceeding. That Bill, I believe, was the Eight Hours Bill [laughter], and after that declaration from the Leader of the Opposition, I think hon. Members can hardly expect me to follow a course which has been condemned by that high authority. [Laughter.] Then questions have been asked as to the Bills that stood first for Wednesday May 13, and Wednesday, May 20. I have explained precisely what the Government propose to do with regard to both those Wednesdays. If the Committee on the Rating Bill is concluded before those Wednesdays, then they will be free; if it is not, then they will not be free. The policy is a plain one. Our course is taken simply and solely with a desire to promote the business of the House in accordance with the principles I have laid dawn. My right hon. Friend the Member for London University thinks that the House should not content itself with the definite promise, the explicit pledge given by the Government that the first two Wednesdays after Whitsuntide, and possibly the first three, would be set aside for the discussion of Bills that had gone through the Grand Committees. My right hon. Friend wished me to go further, and to embody in a resolution or give a pledge that no Wednesday would be taken after Whitsuntide until every Bill that had passed through a Grand Committee should have passed through the remaining stages and become law. I cannot give a pledge of that kind, and no such policy has ever

  1767
  been adopted in the past. It would deprive us of Wednesdays after Whitsuntide for an indefinite period. I hope, therefore, my right hon. Friend will be content with the general pledge which I have given, which shows, I think, a fair spirit towards those hon. Members who will have been fortunate enough to get their Bills through Grand Committee by Whitsuntide. I now come to the broader issues that have been raised. The first allegation against the Government is that they have committed themselves to a programme which is unduly long. I do not think, however, that the programme which I have unfolded to the House this evening can be regarded, when measured by any known Parliamentary standard, as excessive or extravagant. ["Hear, hear!"] When I am told by hon. Members opposite that the Education Bill is a Measure of such gigantic complexity, and of so controversial a character, that an almost infinite and illimitable period would not be too much to devote to its discussion, I must remind them that the Act of 1870, the first great educational Measure of this country, which laid down the great principles upon which public elementary schools are conducted, and which raised the most bitter religious and denominational differences, both inside and outside this House, occupied altogether only 23 days, including the First and Second Reading, the Committee and Report stages, and the Third Reading. The Second Reading took three days. The Bill contained 100 clauses, and no one who knows anything about that Bill can pretend that, in length, or difficulty, or novelty, or complexity, or controversial matter, there is any comparison between that Measure and the Bill that has been introduced by the Government. [Opposition cries of "Oh!" and cheers.] If hon. Members will but show the same moderation with respect to the Education Bill as was shown by their predecessors when dealing with a far more controversial Bill on the same subject, I see no reason why that other Measure which has been referred to—namely, the Irish Land Bill should not pass into law.
  MR. J. MORLEY: There is some doubt as to the exact plan which the right hon. Gentleman proposes with respect to this Bill. I understand that he does not propose to take the
  1768
  Second Reading of the Irish Land Bill until after the Committee stage of the Education Bill.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No; what I said was that the Second Reading of the Irish Land Bill would be taken before the Committee stage of the Education Bill and after the Committee stage of the Rating Bill. Now I pass to what fell from my right hon. Friend behind me with regard to the Land Bill. He said that the Bill was regarded as non-controversial, and that it might, therefore, be referred with propriety to a Grand Committee. It would be quite wrong on my part to give any immediate answer to so novel a proposal. It is quite true that the objections that we have raised to the reference of certain Bills to the Grand Committees were based almost wholly on the fact that they were Bills of a very controversial character. If this Bill is not of a controversial character, that particular objection, of course, would not hold good. But I can say no more at present. The point will receive full consideration by myself and my colleagues, and at a later stage of our proceedings I shall be ready to communicate our decision to the House. In answer to the hon. Member for East Mayo, I have to say that he has misunderstood the whole scope of my speech if he thinks that I intended to threaten the Irish Members with the loss of the Bill if Amendments to it were proposed. I made no threats of any kind, but simply laid before the House the practical aspects of the case. I say now that, even if an almost immoderate amount of time is taken up by the Rating Bill and the Education Bill, there will still be time to pass the Land Bill if hon. Members who are interested in it will consent to pass it without raising every conceivable point that might be legitimately raised. It will be for them to decide whether the period allotted to the discussion is sufficient or not, and to determine whether or not their duties to their constituents dictate the policy of allowing the Measure to pass. The choice will lie with them, and to their consciences it must be left to decide what the decision shall be. ["Hear, hear!"] I think the House must see that our demand is not an unreasonable one, and I may fitly conclude by reminding the House that the Gentlemen who

  1769
  have told us that we ought not to ask for more time are the same Gentlemen who have exhausted all their powers of language to describe the long and bitter discussions of which the Measures of the Government are to be made the subjects. If these Gentlemen treat the Education Bill and the Rating Bill as they have threatened to do they will themselves supply a complete answer to all the objections they have raised against this Motion. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. JOHN WILSON MR. JOHN WILSON (Govan) moved to exclude Wednesday the 29th instant from the operation of the Resolution, that being the day on which the Liquor Traffic Local Veto (Scotland) Bill was to be brought forward for a Second Reading. He complained that in the Ministerial cargo of Bills there was not one Measure of Scotch origin. The Bill which he had mentioned as standing on the Paper for Wednesday was a Bill to give the people power to protect themselves against a great and growing social evil. A very large number of the Scottish people were anxious that a discussion should take place on this subject in that House, and during the last two months shoals of petitions had been sent up in favour of the Bill. Sunday closing had been the law in Scotland for a great many years, and during the last 10 years the hours during which public houses could remain open had been shortened. Public opinion was now ripe for further restrictive legislation on this question. For the protection of homes and families, and in the interests of the religious life of the country, some thing more should be done to stay the ravages of this great evil. In almost every town in Scotland there was abundant evidence that the feeling of the people was that they should be empowered to deal with this question in their own way. He trusted, therefore, that the Leader of the House would recognise the propriety of excluding next Wednesday from the Resolution. If he should refuse to exclude it that action would not conduce to his popularity in Scotland. The great majority of the Scotch Representatives were in favour of the Bill. Those who were not in favour of the Bill knew that there was a strong sentiment in
  1770
  the country in its favour, and he felt persuaded that if hon. Members opposite would consider the strong injustice that was being done to the Scotch people in this matter they would really feel in their hearts that it would be very hard indeed, that after their patience and perseverance during the last 12 years, when an opportunity occurred whereby they were entitled to first place on a Wednesday, the Leader of the House should step in and take possession of that day. It was all very well to say that when the Rating Bill passed they would have Wednesdays. That would not satisfy Scotchmen. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to give Wednesday the 29th, for the discussion of this subject, and if he did so, it would be creditable to himself and to the House of Commons. He begged to move his Amendment.
  MR. J. COLVILLEin Seconding the Amendment, contended that it was the duty of Scotch Members to protest most emphatically against the action of the Government in taking away the only opportunity that had occurred during the Session for the discussion of a Scotch Measure. The Government in this Parliament had received a much larger share of support from Scotland than on former occasions, for Scotland had sent more supporters of Conservative principles to the present House of Commons than previously. In three of the largest cities in Scotland, Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Aberdeen, the principle of this Measure had been affirmed by large majorities on a plèbìscite, and during the Recess the Secretary for Scotland at a Primrose League meeting frankly admitted that there was great need for a revision of the present licensing authority in Scotland.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot make on this Amendment those observations which he might make on the Second Reading of the Bill.
  MR. COLVILLEsaid, he would not pursue that line of argument. Notwithstanding the great changes in the Liberal Party during the last 16 years, Scotland had maintained her faithfulness to its principles, and notwithstanding the great change in political parties last

  1771
  year, there was still a great majority from Scotland in favour of this Bill. On both sides of the House there were hon. Members pledged to procure for Scotland what the Colonies had had for many years. He therefore desired to enter his protest against the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, and to say while it had not previously been his intention to offer a stubborn opposition either to the Rating or the Education Bill, he would consider it his duty to do so now.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have already explained the reasons why I cannot accept the Amendment.
  SIR HENRY CAMPBELL-BAN-NERMANsaid, he was surprised and disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman did not take more interest in this question, and give a more definite reply to the arguments of his hon. Friend. He entirely corroborated what his hon. Friends had said as to the importance of the Measure of which they were in charge. Its importance was fully recognised on both sides of the House. This was the only Bill relating to Scotland Scotch Members were likely to have an opportunity of discussing this Session. Not a single Bill relating to Scotland had been proposed by the Government. He admitted the force of the argument that the Government could not begin to make exceptions to their Resolution; but it did not apply in the present instance, because the Government had introduced into their Resolution a totally new principle, namely, that they should practically have the power of saying which Measures were to go on and which were not. He would point out, moreover, to the right hon. Gentleman that by his own statement of his intention he had declared that he was going to do so. The right hon. Gentleman had said that if the coming Wednesday was absorbed, as it would be, of course, by the Second Reading of the Rating Bill, private Members would have to be excluded. Next week the same thing would happen. The following week, according to the dispensation of time announced by the Government, the Committee on the Rating Bill would, of course, extend over Wednesday. It could not, however, be expected to cover the week after, and in the week after the right
  1772
  hon. Gentleman reverted to a private Members' day, and instead of proceeding with the Irish Land Bill he was to have an interval, when the private Member was to resume his rights, and after that the right hon. Gentleman would again appropriate the time. It was a remarkable fact, which could not be ignored, that the particular Measure for which a Wednesday was to be allowed, had, he believed, the support of the right hon. Gentleman himself. That was an unfortunate circumstance, which must come into play on men's judgment in the matter. That seemed to him an additional reason why a strong protest should be entered against the course the right hon. Gentleman was taking.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, the First Lord of the Treasury had made a moving appeal to his Irish supporters, and had received a significant response from the hon. Member for Waterford. He thought the hon. Member was a little sanguine with regard to the Irish Land Bill. Let him remember that when he had the Government in the hollow of his hand——
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That has nothing to do with the Amendment before the House.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he was about to adopt a line of argument which bore distinctly on the Amendment, but he would not pursue it. [Laughter.] If the right hon. Gentleman was going to make conditions as to the way in which he would carry out this Resolution and the order of Bills, any man who had taken part in the business of Opposition would tell him that those who were against the second and third Bills would subject the first to that full, fair, constant, and complete elaboration which on the other side of the House was called Debate and on the Ministerial side was branded as obstruction—[laughter]—with the result that it would eat up all the time of the House. He objected to these Resolutions——
  *MR. SPEAKER: The question in the Amendment is that the 29th of April shall be excepted.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES(continuing): But I most strongly object—[Order, order!]—when they are left, as this is, with a dispensing power in the hands of the Government.
  *MR. SPEAKER: There is no question here of a dispensing power. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that if this Resolution were to he adopted there ought to be no exception to it.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISasked the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair whether the Amendment now before the House would exclude the Amendment which stood upon the Paper in his name.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The Amendment now under discussion will certainly exclude that of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid that in that case, on the ground of sympathy for the Scotch Members, and because of the injustice that would be done to Wales, he should vote for the Amendment.
  Question put: "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided.:—Ayes, 151; Noes, 312.—(Division List, No. 117.)
  MR. T. LOUGH MR. T. LOUGH (Islington, W.) moved as an Amendment to omit the, word "any," and to insert the word "every." The Resolution, as it was drawn would enable the Government to pick and choose as to what subject should be brought forward on Wednesdays, and what Member should be favoured, and that he thought was an entire revolution as far as the rights of private Members were concerned. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had said earlier in the evening that he looked upon himself as the guardian of the interests of the House; but in his opinion the right hon. Gentleman was not the guardian of the interests of the private Members of the House. He hoped private Members on both sides of the House would consider the matter seriously before they allowed the far-reaching principle embodied in the Resolution as it stood at present to be carried. On other occasions, when the Government found themselves in an exigency, they had had Wednesdays taken from them, but it was never proposed that the Government should decide whether a Wednesday should be taken or not, and what private business should be selected for a Wednesday.
  1774
  Under their Rules, at present, the private Member was entitled to preference according to the fortune of the ballot. Private Members had done nothing to warrant their being placed in the position proposed. They had not discussed any proposal of the Government at. any length. Bills of a far-reaching character had been introduced, and yet no Bill had been discussed for more than a single night on its First Reading. During the last Parliament, on the other hand, there had been constant Amendments on the state of affairs, and the agricultural question was raised constantly, and the question of the condition of the unemployed. Nothing of the kind, however, had taken place in the present year. He would like to dispose of the Resolution altogether or to limit it to Tuesdays only, but certainly, if they could not obtain that, he thought it would be better to sacrifice their Wednesdays altogether. He did not believe that there was a chance of these two Wednesdays which the Government had referred to being utilised. What chance was there of the Second Reading Debate on the Rating Bill being concluded on the following night? What chance was there of a general understanding being arrived at that the Debate on the Second Reading of the Education Bill should be disposed of in three days? The Debate on the Second Reading of the Home Rule Bill lasted for three or four weeks. These Second Reading discussions were useful, inasmuch as they stimulated discussion outside in the country. He begged to move the Amendment.
  *SIR JOSEPH PEASEseconded the Amendment. He thought the Motion, as it stood would place a most invidious power of selection in the hands of the Government in regard to the favoured Wednesdays. Many of them took very strong views as to the gravity of the two principal Government Bills that were before the House, and wished to discuss them quietly and fairly, and to take the judgment of the House upon them would occupy a good deal of time. He hoped the Government would not persist in the proposal to keep in their hands all power of selection in regard to private business, which would, he thought, be obnoxious. He would point out also that to accept

  1775
  this Motion would save the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the House, from much pressure from those interested in various Bills and deputations.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he was afraid he had expressed himself earlier in the day very imperfectly. He thought he had made quite clear exactly what would happen on Wednesdays under certain conditions, and by that declaration, made on his responsibility as a Minister and on behalf of his colleagues, he had put it absolutely out of his power, without a breach of faith to the House of Commons, to exercise that species of favouritism which hon. Members opposite appeared to suspect. [Ministerial cheers.] The Government did retain, by the common law of Parliament, those very powers of selection of which hon. Members tried to deprive them. The Amendment therefore left him the fullest power of favouritism where he could exercise it, and take it away from him where he could not exercise it. What was the common sense underlying a proposal of that kind? If these arguments were not sufficient, let him point out that the spirit of this Amendment would make it impossible after Whitsuntide to give precedence or any facility at all to any Bills that had passed the Grand Committee. That ought not to be the intention of the House. If it were the intention of the House, he must resist it on behalf of the Government, and, as he believed, of the general opinion of his side of the House. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment to a Division.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid, that when the Leader of the House spoke of its being in his power at the present moment to show favouritism to any particular Bill by giving a particular night for the purpose of discussing that Bill, he forgot that such favourites would be indulged at their own expense. What the right hon. Gentleman proposed now was that a selection should be made of Wednesdays which belong to private Members, and that was what he objected to. The right hon. Gentleman had promised five Wednesdays, of which two were promised conditionally, but the conditions could not possibly be
  1776
  conformed to. The right hon. Gentleman must know perfectly well that the Rating Bill and the Education Bill could not be disposed of in the time proposed to be alloted to them. Three of the Wednesdays were given up unconditionally. Why? Simply because the Benefices Bill would be put down on those days, a Bill for which exceptional measures had already been granted to carry it through Grand Committee. It was a curious fact that these measures had never been proposed except in regard to clerical or ecclesiastical Bills. This was simply a measure of patriotism, and by way of protest he supported the Amendment.
  Question put, "That the word 'any' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 289; Noes, 138.—(Division List, No. 118.)
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS MR. HERBERT ROBERTS (Denbighshire, W.) moved to insert words providing that the Resolution should not come into operation before Whitsuntide. He had a personal interest, he said, in this, because on the 19th of May he had first place with a Resolution of great importance and general interest—the question of railway rates. If that Resolution were carried as it stood it would be carried by an unwilling House.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS MR. HERBERT LEWIS, in seconding the Amendment, said the Welsh Members had been treated worse than any other section of the House. [Laughter and "Hear, hear!"] This was the first Session during the four years he had been in the House that they had been successful in the ballot, and now night after night was to be taken away from them. If they did not get the nights before Whitsuntide, when they could concentrate their discussion, it would be necessary to range all over the Estimates and Bills as well.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEwas about to address the House, when
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put." [Cheers and cries of "Oh, oh!"]
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 273; Noes, 130.—(Division List, No. 119.)
  Question put accordingly, "That the words 'after Whitsuntide' be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 123; Noes, 265. (Division List, No. 120.)
  MR. R. J. PRICE, who had the next Amendment on the Paper, providing that Wednesdays should not be taken for Government business unless three clear days' notice were given of such appointment, rose to speak, when
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYclaimed, "That the Main Question be now put."
  Main Question put accordingly.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 266; Noes, 124. (Division. List, No. 121.)
  Resolved, That for the remainder of the Session the House, do meet on Tuesdays at Three o'clock; that Government Business have priority over all other Bills and Notices of Motion on any day for which it is appointed; and that the provisions of Standing Order No. 56 be extended to every day of the week.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  AGRICULTURAL LAND RATING BILL.
  On the return of Mr. Speaker, after the usual interval,
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. Chaplin,)*THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. Chaplin, Lincolnshire, Sleaford) moved the Second Reading of the Agricultural Land Rating Bill. He said: After having spoken already on two occasions with reference to this Bill, I am sorry to be obliged to intervene for a few moments to ask the, permission of the House to allow me to make a very short statement dealing with a single matter, which arises in this way. A gentleman who had some connection indirectly with this Bill—the Chairman of the Royal Commission now sitting upon agriculture (Mr. Shaw - Lefevre)—has
  1778
  thought it his duty to make a communication to the Press which appears only this morning, and which I saw only this afternoon, in condemnation of my attitude and the attitude of my colleagues and the Government and also a large majority of the Commission in reference to this Bill, and I think it. perhaps only due to myself and the House that I should make a brief reply to those statements. He begins by stating, in reference to my speech made upon the introduction of the Bill, that although 10 out of the 17 members of that Commission are in favour of the recommendation of the Commission—not, he says, 12 gentlemen, as I stated in my speech—there was no inquiry made whatever into the merits or defects of the proposal. That statement is wholly inaccurate. What I said in my speech was that 12 gentlemen on that Commission, with some reservations, signed the majority Report, and, as a matter of fact, there was any amount of discussion on the merits and defects of the proposal which was made. He goes on to say that "there was no evidence taken in favour of relieving the land by a certain proportion." In the month of February 1895, a witness was called from the Scotch Office, on this question, and he gave a great deal of evidence; in March 1895, when the right hon. Gentleman to whom I am referring was President of the Local Government Board, one of the officials in that office was called. He gave evidence, and among other great authorities he quoted Sir George Cornewall Lewis in favour of the proposal. He was asked whether he himself was in favour of the proposal, and he suggested that more evidence was desirable before a decision was come to by the Commission, especially from Scotland. In the summer of 1895 the Commission took any amount of evidence on the point. He says, "The Scotch system is different from the gigantic scheme of relief proposed by the Bill." I would remind the House that the Leader of the Party opposite spoke of it the other night as "a dole attempted to be dealt out to a depressed industry. [Cheers.] "Up to January 22 of this year," he goes on to say, "he had no idea that any such scheme was in contemplation." I am not surprised at it. After our experience of that gentleman

  1779
  on that Commission I think there are few members of it who would be disposed to take him into their confidence. "On that day," he says, "January 22, the scheme was sprung upon the Commission." What happened was this. The Commission met on January 23, and the Report was circulated on the 21st. He says, "They were asked on the following day to commit themselves to the Report." It is not so. They were asked to consider on that day whether an ad interim Report was desirable, and, if so, to agree to consider the Report which was circulated. Again he says, "henceforth it was pressed with the utmost haste." What are the facts? The moment it was agreed to consider an ad interim Report, the proceedings were adjourned for a week at the express request of this gentleman. The part of the Report dealing with local taxation was agreed to be still further postponed, and it was postponed until the 6th of February. As that part of the Report consists only of four pages and 17 paragraphs, I should think that that was a reasonable allowance of time in which to give proper consideration to the question. I may be asked why it was not produced before, and thereby hangs a tale. We were waiting for a promised Report on the part of the Chairman of the Commission. We received it in two parts—the first part on the 17th of December, and the second early in January. When we received it there were two points which appeared to me to deserve our very serious consideration and to impose upon the Royal Commission the task of deciding what course, under these exceptional circumstances, it was necessary for them to take. The first of those points was this. It appeared to meet with so little favour or support on the part of any members of the Commission that there was no chance whatever of its adoption. It was met with a motion by one of those who are called the minority calling upon the Chairman to take back his Report and to recast it more in accordance with the evidence. We should have been left with nothing whatever to consider. The second point is this—that all reference to the question of local taxation was omitted, and there appeared in his
  1780
  Report, under the heading of "Local Taxation," "I leave it to the Commission to make recommendations on this head." ["Hear, hear!"] There was very little time to decide what we had to do. It resulted in the recommendation of the course which received so much condemnation at his hands. He goes on to say:—
  "The real sequence of events was that the Report was made in order to bolster up a scheme already decided on."
  I should like to ask on what possible grounds he can be justified in making such a statement. ["Hear, hear!"] To that statement I give the most unqualified contradiction. [Cheers.] I have had to consider many schemes in connection with this question, and for any one to say that the scheme I have submitted to Parliament was decided when that Report was made is absolutely untrue. [Cheers.] But the most extraordinary statement, and one which stands sufficiently self-condemned, is in the next paragraph. Those who have read this extraordinary production will know that it does nothing but denounce the scheme which was proposed. He says that it is fundamentally bad; that it must lead to the nationalisation of the poor rate; that it will give most relief where least is required and least relief where most is required; that it is rash, inequitable, and unwise; that it sets up a condition of glaring and gross inequalities; that it is intolerable and unjust in the highest degree. And yet, in the next sentence of his letter, this incorruptible Chairman informs us,
  " If I had been interested in agricultural land I should, I doubt not, have been equally unable to refuse the proposed boon."
  He is entitled to speak for himself, and I have not a doubt that he has truly described his own motives and his own methods, but let him not speak for others. We supported the proposals that we made in that Commission, and I support the proposals we have made in this House because we believe them to be wise, because we believe them to be expedient, and, above all, because we

  1781
  believe them to be just. [Cheers.] And when he goes on to say that,
  "The constitution of the Commission is such that no one could be surprised that a majority of its members should jump at it."
  I take leave to tell the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of this Commission, on behalf of my colleagues who have been serving on it for two years, that I repudiate his statement as a libel and a calumny on a Commission which he ought to have been the first person to defend. [Cheers.] After what I have said already, I do not think the House will be surprised if I tell them something else. I regret to say. I grieve to say, that in the course of the labours of the Commission there have been occurrences which, thank God, have been foreign to my knowledge altogether upon any other Commission or Committee on which I have served in the course of my nearly 30 years' career as Member of Parliament. So many statements were made at the commencement of the proceedings of the Commission injurious to the motives, the action, and the policy of the majority of the Commission, and they were so constantly reaching the Press, that it became necessary to propose that an honourable understanding should be arrived at among all its members that no communication whatever should be made by any one of its members to the Press without the sanction and knowledge of the Commission. Notwithstanding that understanding, we have had sometimes since then to complain of similar occurrences, and the Commission in consequence agreed to a Resolution which, I think, under the circumstances, I may be allowed to read to the House:—
  "The Commission considers that, in view of previous discussions and the general understanding which was arrived at by the Commission in their earlier sittings, no communication with regard to their proceedings except as to summaries of the evidence which has been taken, ought to be made to the Press without the knowledge and sanction of the Commission, and any such communications will be regarded by its members as a breach of faith to the Commission."
  That Resolution, to which the Chairman was a party, was unanimously adopted, and yet, in face of this and behind the back of the Commission, not for
  1782
  the first time, he goes and publishes what I think I am justified in describing as this tissue of fictions. [Cheers.] I have been a little surprised more than once in the course of our Debates at some of the statements which have been made by responsible and leading Members opposite. I used to wonder where on earth they could have got their information from. Now it seems to me possible that I may be able to understand. I wish to say that I entirely acquit every one of them in this respect. When I pointed out one or two misstatements that were made, nothing could be more generous than the way in which they were withdrawn by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. But it leads me to take this opportunity to reply to some of the observations that were made, in perfect innocence, I am sure, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton on the introduction of the Bill. He talked of this singular Report; he said there was no controversy between the Commissioners as to its wording, and that where the Commissioners differed was on the Report dealing with the one subject of the rates. Where he got his information from at that time I did not know. I knew it was from an entirely unreliable source, because it was untrue in every particular. The whole of the Report was discussed clause by clause; various Amendments were moved to it, and some of them were carried. When it was put to the vote in its amended form there were only two of the Commissioners who voted against it. Then, again, instead of dealing with one subject, it dealt with three. It dealt with the question of the Land Tax, the question of local taxation, and with the question of loans for agricultural improvements. Those were the subjects on which it was held to be important that a Report should be presented before the financial policy and the financial proposals of the Government for the year were announced. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton doubted whether there was any statement before the House showing where the Commissioners differed. The answer is very simple; it is in print. The majority Report is contained in 12 pages, and no less than 30 pages are occupied by members of the minority in explaining where

  1783
  and in what respects they differ from the majority. Again, the right hon. Gentleman has been grossly misled in another case. He said that Sir Alfred Milner was not cross-examined. But, as a matter of fact, he was cross-examined on two different days at considerable length, and by the Chairman of the Commission himself. ["Hear, hear!"] There are many other matters in the letter of the Chairman of the Commission touching the merits of the Bill itself, upon which I shall say nothing at this moment, but which may very well be dealt with in the course of the Debate so far as it is necessary to deal with them; but I thought it right, in justice to my colleagues on that Commission and to myself, and in order that the House might not be misled, that I should take the earliest opportunity in my power to reply to the statements I have referred to, and I hope the House of Commons will think I am right in having done so. [Cheers.] I beg to move that the Bill be read a Second time.
  *SIR HENRY FOWLER*SIR HENRY FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.) moved to leave out from the word "that" to the end of the Question, in order to add instead thereof the words—
  "This House, while recognising the desirability of readjusting the burdens of local taxation, is of opinion that it is inexpedient and unjust that relief granted from Imperial taxation to rateable property should be restricted to one class only of such property."
  The right hon. Gentleman said: I am quite sure that the feeling which has prevailed on this side of the House since the General Election is one of regret that the right hon. Gentleman — Mr. Shaw Lefevre — was among those who were not fortunate enough to succeed in that contest—[cheers] — and that that feeling must now be intensified. ["Hear, hear!"] A gentleman is placed at a singular disadvantage when criticisms so exceptionally severe are passed upon his letter as have been made by the right hon. Gentleman to-night, and he has not the opportunity of at once explaining or justifying his action. ["Hear, hear!"] I have listened with great attention to what the right hon. Gentleman has said and I have no doubt that before the Debate closes my right hon. Friend will
  1784
  find an opportunity, either through the Press or through some right hon. Member near me, to explain those points on which the President of the Local Government Board has commented in such strong language to-night. ["Hear, hear!"] I am not going to delay the House, for I do not think it necessary to do so, by any observations on the differences of opinion among the members of the Royal Commission on Agriculture. We are here to-night to deal with a Bill introduced by Her Majesty's Government, the Second Reading of which has been moved by the President of the Local Government Board. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition warned the Government the other night that this Bill meant the reopening of the whole question of local taxation. ["Hear, hear!"] But the Leader of the House treated the Bill to-night very jauntily. He seems to be of opinion that it is merely a one-clause Bill—["hear, hear!"]—that it is simple in its object and in its details and is being opposed only on Party grounds, and that the Opposition might be exceedingly brief in dealing with it. Before the Bill leaves the House I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that he has been considerably misinformed in this respect. ["Hear, hear!"] But whether the Leader of the Opposition was right or not in saying that the Bill would raise the whole question of local taxation—and I think he was perfectly right—there can be no doubt that it is impossible to discuss the proposals of the Government without having a very clear understanding in our minds as to the facts and figures relating to our system of local taxation at this time. We cannot deal with these proposals in an isolated manner; we must look at local taxation as a whole, and I propose, in the first instance, to trouble the House with a few of the facts of the case. [Cheers.] By the last Local Government Board Report for 1894–5, which, of course, refers to the figures of the previous year, local taxation in England and Wales, exclusive of all rates for gas and water, was, in round figures, £30,250,000, and those rates are levied on a rateable value of 160 millions. That sum of 30¼ millions averages all round 3s. 10d. in the pound. The first question I will put to the House is, Where are those 30¼

  1785
  millions levied—by whom is that enormous sum paid? Now, London itself, including the Poor Law, at once absorbs ½ millions of the sum. The poor rate outside London—I mean the poor rate proper—is 5½ millions; the municipal boroughs and the purely urban districts are, 10¾ millions; the districts partly urban and partly rural (but which include the whole of the School Board rates outside London and municipal boroughs) are 3½ millions; and the districts purely rural account for two millions. [Opposition cheers.] When the present First Lord of the Admiralty 23 years ago reported on this question he stated the amount of local taxation to be 16 millions. In 1874, three years afterwards, that local taxation had reached 19 millions, and, as I have already said, in 1894 it passed 30 millions. Where has this enormous increase taken place? Because it is a very important element in the consideration of the question whether there has been an increase of recent years in any one particular denomination of property which entitles it to claim special consideration. The increase in the metropolitan area during the last 20 years has been 4½ millions; the increase in the urban districts has been six millions; in the partly rural and partly urban districts half-a-million; while the increase in the purely rural districts has been one-quarter of a million. [Opposition cheers.] The House, therefore, will observe that in the increase of 11 millions which has taken place during the last 20 years there is only three-quarters of a million in which the class intended to be benefited by this Bill has any concern, and not even to the full extent of this, because half-a-million of it is in districts which are partly urban and partly rural. I do not trouble the House with the apportionment of the rate, because there are no reliable figures since 1891, when the rateable value was seven millions less than it is now. In 1891 the rateable value of London was upwards of 31 millions, municipal boroughs and urban districts 67 millions, and rural districts 53 millions. It is estimated that that has since been increased in London to 34 millions and in urban and partly urban districts to 72 millions, and in rural districts the increase has been very slight indeed. I wish to make another ex-
  1786
  planation to the House as to how the rating is calculated. We are told that the rates on purely agricultural land average 3s. 10d. in the pound. But these averages do not tally with the rates actually levied. London, the Boroughs and the rural districts raise larger rates than the averages given by the Local Government Board. The explanation of these discrepancies is very simple, but the House must understand them to appreciate their importance. Let me give an illustration. Let me take a certain district of which the rateable value is £24,000. To raise a £100 requires an average rate of a penny in the pound, but a penny in the pound will not produce £100, because there is a leakage in all rateable districts. There are the leakages of composition, of empties, and of bad debts, and for these and other reasons a larger rate must always be levied than the exact rate that would appear from the rateable value. Everyone knows that these leakages are much larger in towns than in rural districts, and that, therefore, a much larger allowance has to be made on that account in regard to the towns than the rural districts. Making the calculation on the principle I have explained as to rateable value, the Local Government Board in 1893 apportioned the uniform rate which was then 3s. 8d. in the pound as follows:—London, 5s. 0d.; county boroughs, 4s. 6½d.: non-county boroughs, 4s. 4½d.; urban districts, 3s. 11d.; and rural districts, 2s. 3d. Since then there have been some variations, but in the figures I am going to argue upon I shall take the rural rate now at 2s. 4d. But there is a disturbing element in rural rating which must be looked at. Totally apart from the general leakage to which I referred, there is a peculiarity in rural rating which disturbs the calculation—I mean the School Board rate. The entire number of parish School Boards as distinguished from London and the municipal boroughs, is 2,247. It is assumed that the purely rural School Board rate in 1891 is £456,000, and this in the Local Government Board calculations is reckoned as equivalent to a rate of 2d. in the pound. This is got by spreading it over the whole of the rural districts, whereas the rate in some rural districts, as some of us know,

  1787
  is very much larger. There are 292 School Board parishes where the rate exceeds 1s.; there are 1,000 where the rate is 6d. and less than 1s.; and only 185 where it falls below 3d. I at once admit that I consider that a very heavy and exceptional burden upon rural districts. [Ministerial cheers.] That will make the rural rate, apart from School Board purposes, about 2s. 2d. Then there is the amount of local debt to be considered. The local debt of this country is rapidly increasing. It was upwards of £215,000,000 in the last Local Government Report. In 1891, when the figures were carefully analysed, it was £201,000,000, having increased £14,000,000 in three years. Deducting from the £201,000,000 upwards of £30,000,000 in respect of harbours, piers, and docks, which of course are charged upon these undertakings, there is a sum of £171,000,000 levied upon rating. And now observe the proportions of the burden of this debt. A sum of £153,000,000 was owing by urban districts, £13,000,000 by urban and rural districts, and £4,000,000 by rural districts. [Cheers.] The present Bill deals only with one class of property comprised in the rural districts. There are two great divisions in this Bill. There is the first division confining rural rating exclusively to agricultural districts, and, secondly, that is subdivided, confining it exclusively to agricultural land, forgetting that the agricultural depression from which large areas have suffered, and suffered severely, has affected the shopkeeper, the millowner, and the rural artisan quite as much as it has affected the farmers. What are the rates which those rural districts pay? There are the Poor Rate, the Highway Rate, and the County Rate. These are the old rates, the "hereditary burdens," a phrase for which I have been severely attacked. [Ministerial cheers.] Ah, yes; but I was not the author of that phrase. There was a speech delivered in this House in 1871—I only wish the right hon. Gentleman who delivered it would deliver it again in 1896—I mean the present First Lord of the Admiralty. He said:—
  "The House must distinguish between those rates which are hereditary burdens on account of Poor Law administration and those rates
  1788
  which were adopted to make sanitary or other improvements. As regards the hereditary burdens, the hon. Baronet had said they almost became a rent-charge to the owners of land; but they have been so from the beginning. Most of the great estates in this country have been bequeathed and inherited, bought and sold, subject to those identical rates which, according to the statistics, have so greatly increased the burdens of property. Is that burden to be transferred from the land on which it had long been a rent-charge and added to the general taxation of the country, which is already high enough?"
  The Poor Rate in 1891 all over England was 9½d. in the pound, and in 1893 it was 10d. If the returns were brought down to the present time I think we should find that the Poor Rate now was about 10½d. That is the average. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes, but you must take London out in making the calculation. London gets no relief under this Bill. The London Poor Rate is 1s. 3d., and, therefore, the average rate in the provinces is a decimal under 9d. in the pound; and anybody who understands anything of the subject will know that that is almost the lowest figure at which the Poor Rate has stood in this century. The Highway Rate is 6½d.; the County Rate 6d. These are the old burdens. The chief new burden is the Rural Sanitary Rate, and to that rate land is only assessed at ¼d. The burden falls upon houses. The average Rural Sanitary Rate is 2d. in the pound, of which only ¼d. or ½d. in the pound falls upon land. You must add to that the School Board Rate, of which I have already admitted the inequality, and the Parish Council Rate. I wanted the House, as will be remembered, to adopt the limit of a lower Parish Council Rate than the House in its generosity was inclined to adopt. I was beaten in the Division on that occasion by a majority composed of both sides, having nothing of a party character in it, and the maximum rate was fixed at 6d. in the pound. I do not know whether that rate has approached to that figure yet; but I had accounts sent to me the other day by a distinguished friend of mine, a member of a parish council in Surrey, and he called my attention to the fact that, though they did a great deal, their Parish Council Rate was only ½d. in the pound. Have those rates, old and new together, increased? The old rates as between

  1789
  1868 and 1891 considerably decreased; the new rates have increased. The average in 1868 was 3s. 4d., in 1891 it was 3s. 8d. But, so far as rural districts are concerned, there has been a very large reduction in the assessments. I do not know whether, after the censures of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I may be permitted to quote from that minority Report which he has so strongly denounced; but I shall ask the leave of the House to read one paragraph. There are 20 unions taken in various parts of England, where, if
  "the assessment of land had been maintained at the same point as it was in 1870, the rate in the £ in 1893 would have been reduced to 1s. 9d., as compared with 2s. 4d. in 1868—a reduction of something like 25 per cent."
  A large quantity of evidence had been given before the Royal Commission to show that assessments had been reduced. They have not been reduced as much as they ought to have been in several counties. One hon. Member the other night called attention to the fact that some clerk of a board of guardians was deliberately setting at defiance the law; but the law is clear as to what rateable value is, and no board of guardians and no clerk has any right to attempt to go beyond the law. Their business is to administer the law as they find it. The present proposal of the Government is to pay half of all those rates I have mentioned—the old and new, the hereditary burden or modern imposition—out of the Consolidated Fund, winch proposal assumes a grant of £2,000,000 from the Exchequer. The apportionment to England and Wales of that sum is £1,550,000. The agricultural land to be benefited by this grant amounts to 32,745,000 acres, of which the annual rateable value is £26,250,000, on which the present rates are £3,100,000. Therefore, those rates, at present paid on £26,250,000 rateable value, are to receive from the Exchequer this sum of £1,550,000. We are told that this contribution is to alleviate depression in agriculture. The right hon. Gentleman was careful to say that it was not to remedy; but several speakers classified it as one of the Measures to alleviate the condition of agriculture and to lighten the burden of the farmer. One hon. Member even said it would
  1790
  benefit the labourers. [Ministerial cheers and ironical laughter.] Then one hon. Member advocated this Measure because it would show the sympathetic feeling of the House of Commons [laughter]—he might rather have said a section of the House of Commons—towards the agricultural community. Nothing is more easy than to be generous with other people's money——[cheers]—but outside the House the supporters of the Government have put it on a much higher ground They have censured my right hon. Friend (Sir W. Harcourt) and myself for presuming to question the wisdom of this procedure on much stronger grounds than those stated. Of two great organs of the Government in the Press, one has advocated this Bill as having been brought in "to avert a great national calamity." [laughter.] Another organ of the Government states that "the cultivators of the land are being crushed to death by the weight of local taxation"—["Hear, hear!"]—we will see about that presently—"and that the first necessity of the hour is to save British agriculture from complete extinction." [Ministerial cheers.] I should be glad to join hon. Members opposite in a Measure that would avert a great national calamity or relieve agriculture from total extinction; but I must ask myself, What is it that the Government propose? What is their scheme that is going to avert this national calamity, and to save agriculture from extinction? What is the scheme that is to relieve farmers from being crushed to death?
  *MR. CHAPLIN: The right hon. Gentleman will admit that no one has been more careful than I have to say, on behalf of the Government, that this was not intended or pretended for a moment to be a remedy for agricultural depression. [Opposition laughter and cheers.]
  *SIR H. FOWLER: This Bill has been brought in by the Government, and it has the names on the back of it of Mr. Chaplin, Mr. Balfour, Mr. Long, and others. I should be sorry to put into the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman words which he did not use, and I think he has expressly repudiated this wild nonsense that is being talked on this question. What, then, is this scheme? It is 1s. 2d. in the pound of rates, and it is less than 1s. an acre. And

  1791
  this relief is going to save agriculture from complete extinction! It is going to avert a great national calamity! [Laughter.] A farmer whose rateable value is £200 will get £11 13s. 4d., and a farmer whose rateable value is £500 will be saved from complete extinction by a dole of £29 3s. 4d. [Laughter.] One hon. Gentleman opposite said that the receipt of a £10 note would be a very pleasant thing for the agricultural ratepayer. Well, I agree that no man ever objects to receive a £10 note. I do not suppose that landlords or tenants or Members of Parliament would object to such a receipt. [Laughter.] But when there are to be 150,000 £10 notes, where is the money to come from? This money is to come from the taxation of the whole community. ["Hear, hear!"] You are, in fact, putting 1d. on the Income Tax in order to be able to pay this sum. What will be the extent of the benefit? I do not care to ask whether the landlord or the tenant will reap the benefit of this munificent contribution, because I am very doubtful whether there will be any benefit at all. This subvention, like its predecessors, will be a stimulus to extravagance. The last local subvention was given by the present First Lord of the Admiralty when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1888, and the amount that he then gave to boards of guardians was practically a million of money. The Poor Law expenditure in the preceding year was £8,366,000, and the amount of the expenditure last year was £9,670,000, an increase of much more than a million. It has been the same story in the case of the police, and in other cases where the men who spend the money are not the men who raise it. ["Hear, hear!"] Where the argument can be used "if we spend 1s. the Government will provide 6d. out of it," there is always a resistless temptation to incur additional expense. My belief is that boards of guardians, finding that they have a margin of 50 per cent. to work with, will use that margin. Hon. Members opposite will do well to read the powerful speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Local Government Bill of 1894 and his observations as to the future course of expenditure on the part of boards of guardians. They must see that if the present 9d. rate is reduced to 4½d. the
  1792
  temptation will be to raise the rate to its former standard. This Bill is the largest step that has ever been taken towards a national poor rate. It goes half-way towards it. Those who have read the Report of the Poor Law Commissioners of 1834 will see that the dangers which they describe as resulting from the old system are the dangers that will arise now. I must trouble the House with some extracts from the evidence given before the Commission on Agricultural depression with reference to "this great national calamity." I will take two or three typical counties and two or three typical witnesses. The first county I take is Hampshire, and the first witness Mr. Rainbird, Lord Bolton's agent. The property consists of 15,000 acres; and the witness said that the reduction of rent had approached to 50 per cent., and that there had been temporary abatements of from 10 to 20 per cent. That is good proof that this is a county where agricultural distress has greatly prevailed. The Commission, I ought to point out, received answers to about 70,000 questions, and I doubt whether 1,000 related to the question of rates. Well, Mr. Rainbind considered that the depression was partly caused by the rates, but chiefly by continued low prices. He said that the rates were lower than they used do be, and expressed the opinion that those who used the roads ought to pay for them, adding that the public already paid for the main roads. This witness, who was a typical land agent, had nothing more to say on the question of rates. Another witness was Mr. Stratton, a farmer who rents 3,500 acres in Hampshire, and whose average rent, tithe free, is only 11s. an acre. He complains very bitterly that land should bear the same taxation now that it used to bear when it enjoyed the privilege of protection. He says that, as land has now no exceptional advantages, it ought not to bear exceptional burdens. He thinks that the rate per £1 has increased during the century, and, speaking of the poor rate, he expresses the opinion that the increase has been gradual from the time of Queen Elizabeth, but he adds that he could not supply figures bearing that out. He considers it very unfair that 1,000 acres should be rated at £1,000. It is remarkable that when he is asked what

  1793
  his rates are he is quite unable to say. He says he will send in an account. He is perfectly in ignorance as to what they were. Well, he did send in a report, and he put his rates at a very low figure indeed, though he complained very much, I think, of the burden. Taking one farm, the rent in 1872 was £690 and the rates £80 14s. 2d. In 1882 the rent was £510 and the rates £72. In 1892 the rent and tithes were £352 10s., and the rates £42 10s.; and in 1893 the rates were £34. I do not think that is very strong case. ["Hear, hear!"] One of the Sub-Commissioners, Dr. Fream, gave some very important evidence. He said that there did not seem to be any great complaint of local taxation in the district he visited, though complaint was made of the highway rate. He said:—"I am afraid that local knowledge on these subjects is very limited." [Cheers.] He agreed that, if the local rates were all taken off, that would not be of much benefit. The fullest relief of local taxation would not meet the trouble from which agriculturists suffered. In answer to another question this gentleman said that he had had no evidence as to whether the rates in the pound had gone down, but he was sure there had been a heavy fall in the rates. A farmer of 800 acres had told him that at the best a remission of the rates would only benefit him to the extent of £30 a year. Now I go to Berkshire next, and I think some of the most valuable evidence before the Commission was that given by one of the greatest landowners in Berkshire, Lord Wantage. Lord Wantage has 18,000 acres in Berkshire and 28,000 acres in Northamptonshire, 4,400 of which he farms himself. What is the evidence given by him as to Berkshire? He was asked:—
  "What is your experience with regard to local rates?"
  and he said—
  "I have not very much to complain of with regard to rates. Of course for the last two years I have been paying rates out of nothing."
  Speaking of himself as a tenant, he said that all that time he had been paying rates at a little over 2s. in the pound. He did not think they had risen, with the exception of the education rate,
  1794
  which had risen, and there was a special sanitary rate then coming into force. The rates had remained stationary, but the rents had fallen off. Then he was asked, "You say that the farmers in your district have had their assessments reduced?" and he answered, "Certainly." Then he goes into his Northamptonshire property, which I will not deal with now; but that is the beginning and the end of Lord Wantage in reference to the rates in Berkshire. ["Hear, hear!"] Then some rather interesting evidence was given by Lord Harrington's land agent as to this question of rating and renting. He put his average farms at 200 to 250 acres. The question was put to him:
  "Have local rates been raised or lowered within the last 16 years?"—"I think they have been raised. In the next parish they have been raised to 2s. 8d."
  That parish turned out to be an urban district. ["Hear, hear!"] With reference to the rating of his farms, he was asked, "What do you suggest?" And he replied:
  "I should like to see the rates merged in the Income Tax and collected in one sum, and spread over the whole country. If the system of local rates is maintained, in my opinion, the rates should be divided between the landlord and the tenant."
  Then there is one other case in this volume which I think is very interesting It is the evidence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom I do not see here to-night. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a very interesting account of the depreciation on his estates in Gloucestershire and Wiltshire. He showed that there had been a reduction of rent, something like 50 per cent., and he claimed to have the full benefit of this reduction in the assessment. What does he say about the rates? He was asked:
  "May I ask whether the rates on land have increased in your district in the past few years?"—"The Poor Rate has decreased, the other rates have increased."
  Asked whether assessment had decreased, he said:
  "Where the reductions of rent have been permanent, no doubt assessments have decreased."
  Then the question was put:
  "May I ask whether, in your opinion, the incidence of rates upon land is unfair and unjust in relation to other property?"

  1795
  And the right hon. Gentleman answered:
  "That is a large question. I certainly think that it is so, but I speak, of course, from the point of view of the landowner."
  [Cheers and counter-cheers.] Then there is the evidence of Mr. Squarey, probably the largest land agent in England. He is agent of 195,000 acres, and consulting agent as to 60,000 acres. He has the management of land in Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Wiltshire, and Derbyshire. This gentleman speaks very strongly about the depression in agriculture. He thinks the depression from 1847 to 1852 was almost as acute as the depression of the present day. About 500 questions were put to him about the various remedies that were proposed. The Commissioners discussed with him the subdivision of farms, the currency, free trade, uncultivated land, and land laid down to grass, but the question of the rates was not put to him. The Commissioners seem to have had a curious instinct of knowing of whom to ask questions about the rates. [Laughter.] I should have thought that Mr. Squarey was exactly the man to know where agricultural depression was the worst, and where the national calamity lay. The witness went on to say that, in his opinion, there was still some inducement to tenants, notwithstanding the burden of the rates, to take the land for the purposes of endeavouring to make a living out of it, or, at all events, they would try to do so. Numerous other witnesses also gave their evidence before the Commission to a similar effect. Mr. Robert Turnbull, who managed the large estates in Northumberland, Cumberland, and Yorkshire, of Lord Carlisle, in the course of his evidence, said that the question of rates and taxes did affect the rent of a farm in the long run. He admitted that a farmer on taking a farm did not make any very exact inquiry into the amount of the local burdens, but roughly took them to amount to about 10 per cent. on the rent, and assumed that if he paid £1 an acre for rent, he would have to pay 2s. per acre for rates. The witness proceeded to say that, in a great many instances where farmers who had been cultivating the land for years were asked what the amount of their rates was, they were unable to say what it was. A farmer on taking a farm ought to inquire as
  1796
  to the average amount of the outgoings, but the witness added that many took farms without any precautionary inquiries whatever, because they were going to be married, and wanted a home, and consoled themselves with the thought that if they were hardly dealt with there would be 20 others in. the same boat. The result was, the witness remarked, that numbers of farmers did not generally take the amount of the rates into account on taking a farm. I abstain from quoting a large number of extracts I have as to the evidence relating to rates, but there was a general feeling in favour of a reduction of the rates on land. But it is the feeling of ratepayers everywhere in the United Kingdom that the rates should be reduced. I contend that there is no evidence whatever in the whole of these four thick volumes which indicates that the witnesses believed that the one thing necessary to relieve agricultural depression is that the rates should be lessened because the farmers were being crushed out of existence by their weight. ["Hear, hear!"] I have occupied the attention of the House for some time, I am afraid, in dealing with the question of the local burdens upon land in the rural districts, but I must now ask permission to say a word or two with regard to the burden of rates in the urban districts. ["Hear, hear!"] The first proposition I put to the House is that, as regards land in rural districts and real property in urban districts, the incidence of the rates is equally heavy and equally unfair. ["Hear, hear!"] The Government contend that it is unfair that one description of property in the rural districts should bear the whole burden of local taxation. I quite agree in that, but I say that this is the first time that an attempt has been made to treat the burdens borne by real property in the rural districts differently from those borne by real property in the towns. ["Hear, hear!"] When Lord Beaconsfield was speaking upon this subject he repudiated the idea of treating land in rural districts upon a different footing from real property in towns; and Sir Massey Lopes, when challenged upon the point, denied that he had attempted to draw any distinction in this sense between houses and land. My contention is that business premises in towns occupy

  1797
  the same relation to the trade carried on in them, that land in rural districts does to the trade of the farmer who cultivates it. It matters little whether a man's business is that of making bread, beef or mutton, or that of making cotton, iron or woollen goods, except that as a matter of fact the rates fall heavier upon the business premises of the town ratepayer than upon the land of the rural ratepayer. There are far greater discrepancies in the towns. There you have tradesmen and manufacturers employing a large amount of labour, incurring great risks and often making large losses, sometimes making very small profits and sometimes none, who pay rates on an enormous ratal as contrasted with the ratal of merchants, brokers, professional men, and opulent citizens retired from business, and the discrepancy is far greater than in any illustration that we have had with reference to the farmer. Then urban ratepayers have another peculiarity from which the agricultural ratepayers are to a great extent exempt; the urban ratepayer is not only paying these heavy rates, but he is paying off in his rates by sinking fund enormous debts. [Opposition cheers.] You have heard to-night of the debt of London; that debt will be paid off by the present tenants of London; the freeholders of London do not pay one shilling towards that—["Hear, hear!"]—and at the end of the time when those leases expire, enormous improvements, vastly enhancing the value of their property, will have been completed and paid for by their tenants. Is not that a case which calls for some consideration from the House when dealing with this question? There is nothing like a concrete illustration, and I will take the municipal borough of Wolverhampton which I have the honour to represent. Of the rateable value of Wolverhampton, 51 per cent. consists of works, mills, factories, collieries, railways, and gasworks, and only 49 per cent. of offices and dwelling-houses, and of that 51, one-half are assessments of over £500, and the rates in Wolverhampton are not 2s. 4d. in the pound—the rates are 7s. 4d. in the pound. I will take a case which I know. It is the case of two partners who have got business premises, shop and warehouse, for which they pay a rental of £750 a year. They are rated at £600 a year, their rates are 7s. 4d. in the pound;
  1798
  you will see that they pay £210 a year. They are also rated on their own residences, and there are men within a quarter of a mile of those premises who are not on a ratal of one-sixth or one-tenth of the amount at which they are rated, but who are, perhaps, making a four or five times larger profit. The hon. Member for Stockport the other night gave a case where a company was rated at I think, £3,000 a year, and they lost last year £8,000. There are no cases in these Blue-books which are worse than that. ["Hear, hear!"] When you are admitting the unfairness of putting this taxation on one description of property alone, why do you leave out the largest and most heavily burdened ratepayers in the Kingdom, and concentrate your relief on one kind of taxpayer? I have got a statement here of the rates in other places besides Wolverhampton. I do really believe that those hon. Gentlemen opposite who are exclusively connected with agriculture, and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, do not realise the enormous taxation that is paid in towns. The rates in Blackburn last year were 5s. 10d. and in Bolton 5s. 1d. in the pound, in Bristol they were 6s. 4½d., in Bury 5s. 8d., in Coventry 6s. 4d., in Dewsbury 7s. 8d., in Gateshead 6s., in Halifax 6s. 6d., in Huddersfield 6s. 10d., in Hull 7s. 1d., in Leicester 6s. 3d., in Leeds 7s., in Manchester 6s. 0½d., in Middlesbrough 7s. 4d., in Norwich 8s. 8d., in Nottingham 6s. 5d., in Oldham 4s. 4d., in Plymouth 6s. 1d., in Reading 6s. 5d., in Swansea 6s. 9d., in Wakefield 6s. 10d., in Wigan 6s. 10d., in York6s.5d., in West Ham 8s. 5d., and in Preston 7s. 3d. I think those figures must convince the House that there is a case for consideration in regard to the ratepayers of the towns. [Opposition cheers.] This is the first time that the towns have been excluded from these subventions. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty when Chancellor of the Exchequer did not exclude the towns—he gave them a share. But what share was it? The rateable value of London and the county boroughs was £67,000,000, and the rateable value of the administrative counties, which include all therest of the country, was over £92,000,000. In 1893 the taxation paid in London and the county boroughs was

  1799
  a little over £15,000,000, and the taxation paid by all the rest of the counties was a little under,£15,000,000. Of the subvention, the £92,000,000 of rateable value, raising less than £15,000,000, received £3,600,000, while the £67,000,000, raising more than £15,000,000, received less than £2,500,000. That was to have been an equal subvention, but that was the way it was worked out. We have now arrived at a point when the towns are to be excluded altogether. Now as to the mode in which the relief is proposed to be given. This is one of the simple matters which the First Lord thought would not occupy the attention of the House long. [Laughter.] We are told it is to follow the precedent of 1888. In the Bill it is proposed that this subvention is to be charged upon the Probate Duty paid under that portion of the Estate Duty which represents the old Probate Duty. And, as I pointed out last Wednesday, the first result of this muddling of our financial system is a misstatement of our position. I disputed then, and I dispute now on fuller consideration, the statement that the precedent of 1888 is being followed. That precedent transferred licences to local authorities; and I very much wish that the right hon. Gentleman had imposed on the local authorities the duty of collecting those licences. I never could see the justification for retaining the collection with the Inland Revenue and handing the money over.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): There are so many difficulties.
  *SIR H. FOWLER: I cannot see any more difficulty in that case than in any other. But the right hon. Gentleman divided the Probate Duty into two moieties; and he corrected us again and again when we talked about a 3 per cent. duty. He said that there was only 1½ per cent. on personalty and 1½ per cent. on land. But there is this still greater difference. The right hon. Gentleman in this manner paid a certain amount to the local authorities for local taxation. But this Bill is not in aid of local authorities, but of individuals. [Cheers.] It is a subscription—[cheers]—for a certain class of ratepayers in the rural districts. This money comes out of the Consolidated Fund, upon which
  1800
  it is charged; and that Fund would have to meet £2,000,000 less this year if this charge were not imposed on it. My right hon. Friend, in his great Budget speech, said that he meant to alter this circumlocution of the Local Taxation Account; but he had other things to do. This money is to come out of the Probate Duty on personalty. I say that is not possible. [Cheers.] But what does it mean? It means that nobody is to contribute to this subscription unless from pure personalty. The Gentlemen whose property consists of land are not to pay anything towards this subvention. People often think that the Probate Duty is paid by very rich people. That duty still remains at 1½ per cent., but a large proportion of that revenue does not come from the very rich people. One-third comes from people who die worth less than £10,000; and a great deal comes from people who die worth less than £5,000. ["Hear, hear!"] But this is a permanent charge—an endowment; and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall fight it at greater length than he imagines. [Cheers.] I say that it is absolutely impossible to put this on a level with the Consolidated Fund charges, which are taken out of the control of Parliament. If the right hon. Gentleman were levying a new tax, he might say; "I will give so much to personalty, and so much to realty," though the principle would be bad. But when you are dealing with an existing tax, any attempt at ear-marking it is most dangerous and misleading. [Cheers.] There was a similar precedent which Mr. Gladstone disposed of, and I should have thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was one who would thoroughly approve of that action. Before Mr. Gladstone's day the collection of the revenue was deducted from the revenue receipts, and never came under the control of Parliament; though, of course, collection is a payment out of revenue. To sum up. I say that the burden of local taxation is unfair. I say that personal property ought to contribute a much larger share than it does—[Ministerial cheers]—but all payers of local taxation have an equal claim to share in any contribution from the Imperial Exchequer. [Cheers]. As far as agricultural land is concerned, its depression cannot and will not be re-

  1801
  lieved by any contribution in aid of its rates—even if the whole rates were abolished to-morrow. I estimated them in my Report four years ago at 3s. per acre, including tithes and other properties. The calculation now is, on agricultural land, less than 2s. an acre, which represents the real burden upon the rates. The proposition is that 11d. an acre or 1s. an acre shall be taken off. I say if the whole 2s. were taken off it would not arrest a great national calamity. I say that as between agriculturists it is unfair. It treats all land alike. The good land and the bad land—the land worth 11s. an acre and the land worth £2 an acre—are treated alike. The land on Salisbury Plain is treated in the same way as the accommodation land near a large town. Whether the rates are high or whether they are low, every man who pays rates on agricultural land is to be treated alike. It distributes relief on an unfair principle. It excludes the relief of a large section of the community who have suffered in their trade from agricultural depression. It leads to extravagance in local administration, it will do no good to anyone. You might as well throw the money over Westminster Bridge into the Thames for all the good it will do the landowner, the agricultural tenant, or the labourer. The money is going to be thrown away, and I say that this House, which is trustee for the general taxpayer, has no right to impose a general charge for the benefit of any class. Therefore I ask the House to accept the words of my Amendment, that it is inexpedient and unjust that relief granted from Imperial taxation to rateable property should be restricted to one class only of such property. [Cheers.]
  *MR. E. STRACHEYseconded the Amendment, contending that they could not single out one class of ratepayers for special treatment to the exclusion of other local ratepayers. It was clear that the President of the Local Government Board felt the difficulty, for
  1802
  he was reported in The Times (he was obliged to quote from The Times, as the official report of his speech was not printed) as saying that while the Bill only proposed to amend the law as to rating of agricultural land in England, it was not to be understood that the Government was not perfectly alive to the fact that other property was entitled to the equitable adjustment of the amount of its taxation. "The Government," he said, "recognised the grievances brought forward for so many years." But, though the right hon. Gentleman recognised there were great inequalities as regarded local taxation, he did not propose to deal with them. After being in office nine months, the Government said they would inquire into it, which meant putting the question off to another Parliament. He knew there was another, and a very strong argument—that there was not sufficient money to give relief to the urban ratepayers. He thought that a remedy for this might have been found by imposing other taxation in order to equalise local burdens between personal and real property. Now he was going to quote a statement of the hon. Member for North Somerset. His hon. Friend his colleague in the representation of Somerset, speaking in 1895 as the Conservative Candidate for the Division which he now represented, said:—
  "He did not think that any such scheme as Protection would ever be tolerated in England again. But there were other ways in which agriculture could receive assistance. He was in favour of relieving the burdens on houses, lands and farms, and making an increased call upon people who derived their incomes from banks and breweries."
  He agreed with his hon. Friend in that; and he regretted that the Government did not propose to give relief to local rates in the manner his hon. Friend had suggested. He, personally, was perfectly ready to support the principle of giving relief to local rates. In carrying out that principle they ought to act on the maxim of equality of treatment, or in other words, that every man should

  1803
  pay according to his ability his fair share of local rates as well as of Imperial taxation. But the Bill of the Government did not do anything of the kind. It singled out one class of ratepayers for relief. Speaking as an agriculturist and the representative of an agricultural constituency, he felt that it was an unfortunate mistake that agriculturists should separate themselves from other ratepayers in this question of relieving local taxation; the urban ratepayers felt their own heavy burden of high rates, and freely sympathised with agriculturists in the depression from which they were suffering. In the old days the people living in the great towns thought that all local rates should fall upon land. But he rejoiced to say that that feeling no longer existed. There was now a pretty general agreement amongst Members on both sides of the House, whether representing rural constituencies or urban constituencies, that the maintenance of the poor, the education of children, the cost of the police, the making and repair of roads were national obligations—[Opposition cries of "No!"]—and should, like the maintenance of the Army and Navy, be paid for by all equally. He dissociated himself from hon. Gentlemen on his own side of the House, who thought that only real property should bear those heavy charges. If the argument of hereditary burdens of land was accepted, the argument of hereditary exceptions must also be conceded. In the last Parliament an hereditary exception which land possessed was taken away by the Finance Act of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and owing to that real property had a fair claim to be treated on an equality in regard to taxation. He could not help thinking that the Government were doing the right thing in the wrong way. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton that subventions had in the past proved to be very extravagant and wasteful, and had led to a
  1804
  want of due care in local administration. At the present moment nearly £7,000,000 was given by Imperial grants in aid of local taxation, and yet it was the rule to find the rates just as high as ever. And in some places the rates had even steadily increased. It was now suggested to give a new subvention of £1,500,000 towards the relief of a certain class of rates falling upon a certain class of real property. That, of course, was an entirely new principle, because, hitherto, subventions from the Imperial Exchequer had been given in relief of rateable property of all kinds. Difficulties, too, would arise under the Bill. There would have to be large re-assessments. In fact, it seemed to him there would have to be a new assessment in every county, in every union, and in every parish; it would mean great complication and expense. It was very probable, also, as his right hon. Friend had said, that relief would be given, to a great extent, in the very places where it was the least wanted—in the richer districts, for example. That point was clearly brought out in the March Report of last year of the Statistical Committee of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, a Committee of experts who certainly had a right to speak in the name of the agriculturists of the country. He objected to the Bill because it did not give relief to the ratepayers as fully as it might have done. He would have been ready to have supported an increased tax upon brewers, as suggested by the hon. Member for North Somerset, but if the Government said they could not impose an increased tax he could well understand why. Before, and during, the last Election the people were told it was intended to relieve local rates by handing over some special tax to local bodies—the Land Tax for instance. The Land Tax would have been a very appropriate tax to hand over; it represented about £1,903,843. He was aware that of this amount of Land Tax at the present moment the unre-

  1805
  deemed stood at £1,200,000, and that to the amount redeemed at £882,000. It was argued that, because part of the Land Tax had been redeemed, there would be no good in transferring it. Those who used that argument could not know much about the Land Tax. The fact that it had been redeemed did not mean that the parish did not any longer benefit from it; on the contrary, it received benefit as much as it did before. It reduced the amount to be found by the ratepayers as much as it would if the Land Tax had not been redeemed. The Land Tax was ear-marked; it was never lost sight of, and it was secured for the benefit of the parish, to help make up the quota. For practical purposes it still existed, and the argument of the supporters of the Government that it could not be dealt with because it had been redeemed was no argument at all. The Government might have paid some attention to the evidence on this question, given before the Royal Commission on Agriculture. Mr. Robinson, the Deputy Chairman of the Inland Board of Revenue referred to the unequal incidence of the Land Tax, and he said that the taxable capacity of Hertfordshire was deemed to be twice that of Lancashire, while now Lancashire's taxable capacity was from 14 to 15 times greater than that of Hertfordshire. If the Government had remitted the Land Tax to the local authorities in the different counties for their use in diminishing parochial taxation, they would have done something that would have been equitable in the case of Hertfordshire, which was paying doubly in comparison with Lancashire. Hertfordshire had suffered from agricultural depression a great deal more than Lancashire had done; it required a great deal more assistance than Lancashire; and it would have got that assistance if it had received the Land Tax. It was pointed out in the evidence before the Royal Commission, that the Land Tax was now heaviest in the poorest parishes; those
  1806
  which had suffered most from agricultural depression had to pay the larges poundage. If the Government had remitted the Land Tax to the local authorities, instead of keeping it as an Imperial Tax, they would have adopted the very best plan of helping the poorest districts while the rough and ready plan they had adopted gave most benefit in the richer districts and least in the poorer districts He could illustrate this by two parishes in his own county. One was an agricultural parish in which the land let at from £1 to 30s. an acre, and in this the Land Tax was 1s. 3d. in the pound; the other was a prosperous industrial parish, where the land let at from £3 to £4 per acre, and the Land Tax was only l¼d. in the pound. In these cases the remission of the Land Tax would have given the poorer parish 1s. 3d. in the pound, and the comparatively well-to-do parish only 1¼d. in the pound. That would have been giving relief from local burdens where it was most needed. Another way in which the Government might have given appreciable relief at small expense to the Imperial Exchequer was by remitting the Income Tax under Schedule B, which, in 1894, yielded £253,000, and last year only £180,258. That would have given relief direct to tenant farmers, and also to another class the House ought to have some sympathy with—namely, the diminishing class of yeoman farmers, men who owned and occupied their own land. The Government might have remitted the whole of the small amount of £189,000 under Schedule B, which would be a great help to the tenant farmers. An hon. Member had a notice on the Paper in which he drew attention to the fact that the Government were not doing anything to help manufacturers in agricultural districts, and he referred to the question of the rating of machinery. Small manufacturers in agricultural districts suffered a great deal from local taxation and the unfair method of rating of

  1807
  machinery. It was unfortunate that the Bill gave no assistance to small manufacturing industries in agricultural districts. The effect of heavy local taxation on small manufactures was to crush them out, and to drive those engaged in them on to the rates. In districts where there were small manufactures, not only were the rates reduced to the general ratepayer, and the farmer, but at the same time population was retained in agricultural districts instead of being driven into the towns. He was afraid the proposal of the Government would, by degrees, extinguish most of these small local manufactures. It was of the utmost importance to give relief to small manufactures in agricultural districts, because they played an important part in assisting our rural population. He might quote the cases of two parishes in Essex, from which county they were always hearing of agricultural depression. In Sible Hedingham, where there was no local manufactory, the population in 1871 was 2,097; in 1891 it was 1,785, a decrease of 312. The decrease in rateable value was more startling. In 1879 it was £10,468; last year it was £5,353, a decrease of £5,115, or a falling off of 50 per cent. Taking another parish in Essex, Earls Colne, where there were two agricultural engineering factories, the population in 1871 was 1,481, and in 1891 1,720, an increase of 239. The rateable value in 1879 was £7,164; in 1895 it was £5,514, having decreased by only £1,650, or 23 per cent. These figures showed that where there was a manufactory, not only did the population increase, but the rateable value, although it might decrease, did not decrease by more than one-half the amount in a parish where there were no small manufactures. It was unfortunate the Government should extend no relief to small manufactures in agricultural districts from local taxation when they were complaining of its incidence, and in some cases had been
  1808
  crushed out of existence to great extent because of the pressure of local rates. He thought those interested in agriculture should insist on these small industries receiving as much assistance as was given to the farmer or the small landowner in this matter. He expressed regret that in the Bill the Government gave no assistance to the clergy. The President of the Local Government Board, in his speech on the introduction of the Bill, said he very much regretted that the Government had been obliged to exempt tithe from any benefit received in reduction of local taxation under this Bill. He did not think the clergy, who, as a rule, over the whole of this country supported the Government at the last election, would thank the right hon. Gentleman or be inclined to be satisfied with the statement that the difficulties were too great, but would openly express their dissatisfaction at this poverty of resource of the right hon. Gentleman. The clergy had a great claim to assistance when it was remembered that an incumbent paid rates on the whole of his income, because as a rule the whole of the income of an incumbent was derived from tithe. Under the Bill the clergy would get no benefit at all, while they would have to pay full rates upon their tithe. It seemed to him that there was a strong argument, indeed, for the clergy asking for exemption. They had a very just claim when it was remembered that they paid upon the whole of their income, and were not allowed to make any deduction whatever for collection or anything of that sort. The clergy had been hit very hard of late years from the fact that the value of tithe had fallen to a great extent. Finally he wished to say that he did not approach the discussion of this Bill in any hostile spirit whatever. If he found fault with it was only in the sense that it did not go far enough. He should be ready to support a proposal of the Government in aid of local taxation if it had given assistance to

  1809
  every class of ratepayers, but he held that it was most unfair, unjust, and inequitable to dissociate any relief which was to be given to the occupiers of land from the occupiers of buildings and houses. The small shopkeepers, tradesmen, and mechanics in their country towns had suffered to a very large extent—and they were equally entitled to relief. The Government would have been better advised if they had grappled with this subject as a whole, and not taken it piecemeal, as they told them they were about to do. He was aware they professed their intention to deal with the whole matter in the near future, but he expected it would be a far future in reality before they would be prepared to deal with this subject as a whole. He supported the Amendment of his right hon. Friend on this ground, and he did so mainly because the proposal of the Government was unequal and unfair.
  MR. GRANT LAWSONobserved that the two speeches they had listened to with so much interest for the last two hours bore out at least one statement of the right hon. Gentleman who had introduced the Bill, and who commenced his speech by saying that the discussion of the Measure would be large. That he might not himself fall into the same line of argument, he would pass the very interesting speech of the Seconder of the Amendment, and turn to that of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton. That right hon. Gentleman had introduced to the House a large number of figures, with which, he thought, many of them were very familiar, because the whole of these figures and arguments were produced in 1893 in the Report on the subject of Local Taxation, which the Mover of this Amendment presented to the House when he was President of the Local Government Board. The right hon. Gentleman opposite laid considerable stress upon the small amount of money raised in the rural districts as compared with the amount
  1810
  raised in the Metropolitan and semi-urban districts. A calculation of that sort depended entirely on how they made their difference between rural and urban districts. All such calculations were entirely arbitrary. There were many urban sanitary districts which very largely consisted of agricultural land. On the other hand, there were many districts in which the contrary condition of affairs existed. They would have to draw an arbitrary distinction between rural and urban, and they could make any calculation they chose as to the amount of rates to be borne by rural or urban districts. The next point the right hon. Gentleman took was that the enormous preponderance of local taxation was borne mostly by urban districts, and not by rural districts. But he omitted to tell the House what was one of the strongest reasons for that state of things. That state of things was produced by the fact that the rural districts throughout the country were under the control of quarter sessions, whereas the urban districts were under the control of popularly-elected bodies. His figures were a very good argument against popular representative government, but they had no bearing on the questions of the burdens borne by rural or urban districts. The next point mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman was one on which they would hear a great deal in the course of these Debates. It was the question of the hereditary burden theory. What was that theory? It was that land, having been bought subject to the expense of the Poor Rate, less was given for it, and therefore that the future rates were paid by the past owner. That was the only way in which it could be coherently stated. Take the case of stocks and shares. They were bought subject to the transfer stamp. As the transferee paid part of that duty he, on the same line of argument, gave less for the stocks and shares. Therefore, the tax on this transference was not a tax. It was an hereditary burden on those stocks

  1811
  and shares. If they were going to argue that the fiscal conditions in any way affected either the rise or the lowering of the price of any commodity at the time of the purchase, let them see what happened to certain matters which would raise the price of land. A great deal of land in this country was purchased at the time when the protection of the Corn Laws raised the price of land. It was then, he supposed, on the same line of argument, an hereditary privilege of land to have protection against the importation of foreign corn and foreign meat. But even an hereditary burden might be resisted if it was shown to be an unfair burden. If the care of the poor, for instance, was an hereditary burden, let them examine how it affected certain kinds of property. What were the limitations of the burden and how was it imposed. Take the case of a new house, or newly-reclaimed land—land which was, for the pourpose of rating, an absolutely new creation. Was it not rather ridiculous to talk of the new creation coming into the world with an hereditary burden upon it. Then look at the limitations, for there must be some limitation.
  And it being midnight the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

  BURGLARY BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  NAVAL RESERVE BILL
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  SUPPLY [24TH APRIL].
  Report deferred till to-morrow.
  SUPPLY.
  Committee deferred till Wednesday.
  PUBLIC OFFICES (SITE) [EXPENSES].
  Committee thereupon deferred till to-morrow.
  MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.
  TELEGRAPH MONEY BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  CONCILIATION (TRADE DISPUTES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY (GUARANTEE).
  Committee thereupon deferred till Tomorrow.
  FINANCE BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Committee deferred till Wednesday.
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  SECRETARIES OF GRAND JURIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Beading deferred till Tuesday 12th May.
  MERCHANT SEAMEN (EMPLOYMENT AND RATING) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Tuesday 19th May.
  FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 11th May.
  BOROUGH FUNDS ACT (1872) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1894) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday 6th May.
  CORONERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  PRISON-MADE GOODS IMPORTATION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday.
  MINES (STANNARY COURT) (ARBITRATION) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 11th May.
  AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (MARKS) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Motion for Committal to Select Committee [18th March] further adjourned till Monday next.

  ORKNEY AND ZETLAND SMALL PIERS AND HARBOURS BILL.
  Read a Second time, and committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, three to be nominated by the House and two by the Committee of Selection.
  Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented three clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—(Sir Leonard Lyell.)

  BALLOT ACT (1872) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 11th May.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday.
  ESTATES TAIL ABOLITION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
  TROUT FISHING CLOSE TIME (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.

  FISHERIES ACTS (NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Read a Second time, and committed to a Select Committee of five Members, three to be nominated by the House and two by the Committee of Selection.
  Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented three clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—(Captain Pretyman.)

  DISPENSARY COMMITTEES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; Bill read the Third time, and passed.
  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS AND LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  LAW AGENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

  CONTEMPT OF COURT.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to Contempt of Court, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Macaleese, Mr. McCartan, Mr. Morton, Mr. MacNeill, and Mr. McDermott; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday 14th May, and to be printed.—[Bill 199.]
  Adjourned at Ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.