Commons Sitting of 6 August 1896

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
  DR. FARQUHARSON DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.) moved:—
  "That, in the case of the Dublin Corporation (re-committed) Bill [H.L], Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 he suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration, provided amended prints shall have been previously de-posited."
  Motion agreed to.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,)*THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford) moved the following Clause:—

  SAVING RIGHTS OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT.
  "Notwithstanding anything in this Act, or in any of the Scheduled Acts, or in any agreement, the Secretary of State for War shall he entitled to require that water from the River Vartry he supplied by the Corporation to any barrack or other establishment under his control in the county of Dublin, and the Corporation
  1652
  shall he hound to afford such supply at such price, not exceeding fivepence per thousand gallons, as shall be mutually agreed on between the Corporation and the Secretary of State for War: Provided that nothing in this Act shall he deemed to prevent the Secretary of State for War from obtaining a supply of water from any Township Commissioners within whose district any such barrack or other establishment under his control may be situate."
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether the War Office would give an undertaking not to go to any townships which were already supplied by the Dublin Corporation with water, so as to make a contract with them over the heads of the Corporation? He believed that this clause somewhat contravened the Standing Orders; and he hoped the Government would use their good offices to secure the suspension of the Standing Orders in the House of Lords.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid that the Government would consider any steps which might be necessary to secure the Bill passing the House of Lords. He thought it obvious that the other condition mentioned by the hon. Gentleman would be acceptable to the War Office.
  Clause read a First and Second time, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  MR. SPEAKER: The next new clause, standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Belfast, is out of order. The clause runs:—
  Part III., after Clause 15, insert the following clause:—

  WOMEN NOT TO BE DISQUALIFIED ON ACCOUNT OF SEX.
  Any person who, but for her sex, would be entitled to be placed on the Parliamentary Register of Electors shall be entitled to be placed on the Burgess Roll in respect of any qualification which enables male persons to vote for an alderman or councillor of the city; and the Irish Registration Acts shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to include women.
  It is not competent for the hon. Member to move any clause on Report which would have required an Instruction if it were to be considered in Committee. This clause would certainly have required an Instruction. For the same reason the following clause, in the name

  1653
  of the hon. Member for the College Green Division (Mr. Carew), is out of order:—

  EXTENSION OF LOCAL OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION ACT.
  The provisions of the Local Officers' Superannuation (Ireland) Act, 1869, are hereby, in their application to the Corporation, extended so as to authorise the Corporation to grant (subject to the provisions of that Act) superannuation allowances to artisans, labourers and others in the service of the Corporation: Provided that no such artisan, labourer or servant shall be eligible on any ground for the grant of an allowance under this section unless he shall have been in the uninterrupted service of the Corporation for at least twenty years, and shall have become incapable of further serving the Corporation by reason of permanent infirmity of mind or body or of old age, or shall have been disabled by accident occasioned without his own default while actually engaged in work for the Corporation. And no artisan, labourer or servant shall be entitled to such allowance on the ground of age unless he shall have attained the age of sixty years.
  That clause is quite outside the Instruction which was moved, as well as outside the Bill.
  MR. J. J. CLANCY MR. J. J. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.) moved, after Clause 25, to insert the following clause:—

  APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDENT OF COURT OF CONSCIENCE.
  The acting President of the Court of Conscience of the City of Dublin shall continue to hold office without appointment, and such office of President of the Court of Conscience shall be deemed to be held during good behaviour from the Corporation, and future presidents of the said court shall be elected and appointed by the Corporation.
  MR. T. HARRINGTONsaid he believed it was a perverse use of private legislation that a question touching in no way the purpose or object with which the Bill was originally introduced should be allowed to be imported into the Bill. Such a course was calculated to deter corporations from coming to this House in redress of grievances. The gentleman on whom it was proposed to confer a permanent appointment was a member of his election committee, and an influential supporter of his, but all the same he deemed it to be his duty to the citizens of Dublin, as well as to the honour of the House, to oppose the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The House proceeded to a Division.
  MR. HARRINGTONwas appointed a Teller for the Noes, but no Member being willing to act as the second Teller, Mr. Speaker declared that the Ayes had it.
  Clause read a Second time, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 8,—

  PRICE OF EXCESS OR SURPLUS WATER.
  The price for excess or surplus water supplied to the Commissioners of any of the townships shall be threepence-halfpenny per thousand gallons, and in and for the purposes of this Act the expression "excess or surplus water" means and includes in the case of each township all water supplied in excess of a quantity of water equal to twenty gallons per head per day for the population of the townships ascertained as in this Act provided.
  MR. CLANCY MR. CLANCY moved, at the end of the clause, after the word "provided," to insert:—
  "Provided always that nothing in this Act contained shall be deemed to interfere with the existing contracts between the Corporation and the Commissioners of the new Kilmainham township."
  His object was to exempt Kilmainham township from the provisions of Clause 8, and he made the Motion on very distinct grounds. In the first place, he understood there were contracts existing between the Corporation and Kilmainham township for the supply of water. He had never heard that the Corporation complained of the terms of those contracts, nor yet of the way in which the township fulfilled them. That being so, it was rather hard that all those contracts should be summarily terminated by the carrying of this Bill. He believed he was right in saying that Kilmainham township was almost the only township, if not the only one, to which the Corporation supplied water, which had always paid for its excess of supply without a murmur, and without being compelled to do so by law. There was a stronger reason for omitting the Kilmainham township. He was told, on

  1655
  the authority of the solicitor to the Kilmainham township, that there was a distinct agreement between Kilmainham and the Corporation that the latter should be omitted from the provisions of the Bill. Kilmainham so far acted on the understanding that they were not represented on the Committee of the House of Lords, before whom the Bill was thrashed out. That alone furnished a conclusive case why Kilmainham should be excluded from the provisions of this clause.
  MR. T. M. HEALYhoped the Chairman of Committees would advise the House against the acceptance of this Amendment. It raised exactly the same question in principle that had been thrashed out in Committee upstairs with regard to Kingstown and other townships. The case of Kingstown indeed rested not on mere contract, but upon statute; yet the Committee upstairs found it necessary to agree with the views of the Corporation that all these matters should be revised. It would be most unfair, seeing the Corporation had not an opportunity of considering the matter, to insert the Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,)said that the Motion of the hon. Member for North Dublin had come upon him by surprise, but he had made himself acquainted with the question as far as he was able. The Committee had gone fully into the subject, and they had given their decision. The hon. Member was now seeking to upset a decision come to after full inquiry, and, in accordance with the principles which he had always followed, he thought it would be inadvisable to disturb the arrangement made. He should therefore vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member, and would advise the House to follow the same course.
  MR. HARRINGTONhoped that the House would not go back upon the decision of the Committee, which had been arrived at after full discussion.
  MR. T. SKEWES-COXhoped that the House would support the Committee. The proposed clause had been before the Committee and was seriously considered in all its bearings. The Committee, after due deliberation, came to the conclusion to allow the Dublin Corporation to enter
  1656
  into the new arrangements as proposed by the Bill.
  MR. W. FIELDappealed to his hon. Friend to withdraw the clause.
  Clause negatived.
  Clause 15,—

  FUTURE QUALIFICATION OF BURGESSES.
  From and after the twenty-fifth day of November one thousand eight hundred and ninety-six the persons entitled to be enrolled as burgesses of the city shall, in addition to all other persons at present otherwise qualified, include all persons entitled to have their names included in the Parliamentary register of electors, omitting freeholders, leaseholders, freemen, lodgers, and persons qualified to appear on such register in respect of premises not situate within the municipal boundary.
  Clause 16,—

  PRESERVATION OF EXISTING QUALIFICATIONS.
  (1) All persons not entitled to have their names included in the said Parliamentary Register but who if this Act had not passed would have been entitled to be enrolled as burgesses shall notwithstanding anything in this Act contained be also entitled to be enrolled as burgesses of the city.
  (2) The Town Clerk shall in every year after the year one thousand eight hundred and ninety-six prepare, print, and publish a list of persons so entitled in the same manner and at the same time as in the case of the list of Parliamentary voters.
  (3) Any person so entitled and whose name is omitted from such list of burgesses may within the same time as in the ease of claims of Parliamentary voters lodge with the Town Clerk a claim to be enrolled of a burgess of the city in like manner as claims to be enrolled as a burgess are now lodged and made, and the Town Clerk shall in every year print and publish such list of claimants along with the lists of Parliamentary claimants.
  (4) Such lists shall be revised with the lists of Parliamentary voters in like manner in all respects as if they formed portion thereof, and the Municipal Corporation (Ireland) Acts 1840 to 1888 shall not apply thereto, and instead thereof the Parliamentary Registration Acts shall apply thereto including the provision thereof as to appeals from the decision of the Revising Barrister.
  Clause 17,—

  REVISING BARRISTER TO SIGN LISTS.
  (1) At the conclusion of the revision of the list of Parliamentary voters in every year after the year one thousand eight hundred and

  1657
  ninety-six the Revising Barristers shall prepare and sign one copy of the revised lists omitting there from the names of all persons qualified as freeholders, leaseholders, freemen or lodgers or in respect of premises not within the municipal boundary: Provided that where a person qualified as a freeholder, leaseholder or freeman is also qualified as a rated occupier or inhabitant householder in respect of premises within the municipal boundary, and the name of such person is retained on the Parliamentary Register as a freeholder, leaseholder or freeman, the name of such person shall be retained as a rated occupier or inhabitant householder as the case may be in the said copy to be prepared and signed as aforesaid.
  (2) The Revising Barristers shall also sign the said list referred to in Clause 16 of this Act as revised by them.
  Clause 18,—

  LISTS TO BE DELIVERED TO TOWN CLERK.
  The said copy of the revised lists shall be delivered by the Revising Barristers to the Town Clerk, and shall be and be deemed to be the Burgess Roll of the burgesses of the city entitled to vote at elections of Aldermen and Councillors of the city, and the same shall be printed by the Town Clerk, and shall for all purposes whatsoever be deemed to be substituted for the list of burgesses referred to in the forty-seventh section of the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act 1840.
  MR. HARRINGTON, in moving to leave out Clauses 15 to 18 inclusive, said that if he succeeded in his Motion nearly the whole of Part III. of the Bill would disappear. He maintained that the Committee had gone beyond the instructions given by the House. As introduced, the Bill was an extremely simple and short proposal, merely asking the right to carry out by law an agreement with the various townships of Dublin, to charge them for the excess of water taken. Originally, one of his colleagues in the representation of Dublin, wishing to give their constituencies a franchise in the widest sense, presented at the Table an Instruction for the extension of the franchise. That Instruction, he was informed, was ruled out of order, and he believed properly so. But the Instruction which was refused from the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division seemed to have been accepted afterwards when moved by the hon. Member for North Louth. Following on that Instruction was a second Instruction, wide in its scope and general in its terms, including almost every officer of the Corporation. The Instruc-
  1658
  tion gave power to make provision for an amendment of the law as to the election and tenure of office of aldermen, councillors, and assessors, and as to the appointment and tenure of office of any officers annually elected by the Corporation, or appointed by any persons nominated by the Corporation. This was so wide in character, so general in its terms, and far-reaching, that it would be perfectly possible for the Committee upstairs to consider whether the chaplain whom the Lord Mayor appointed, his secretary or coachman might not be made permanent officers of the Corporation. As a matter of fact, one of the officers who obtained a permanent appointment under that Instruction had no connection in an official capacity with the Corporation.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether the hon. Member was speaking on the omission of Clause 15 or the question to omit Part III?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member would not be in order unless he was moving the omission of Part III. generally.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid all the objectionable clauses to which he referred were dependent on the franchise clause. If the House decided to strike out the franchise clause, it would be in a position to deal with the Bill as originally introduced, and it would secure a safe passage; elsewhere. No one who had read the observations elsewhere of the Earl of Morley could fail to see——
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is the hon. Member in order in discussing the franchise clause?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in order in referring to proceedings in another House.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid he was following the example of the Leader of the House the other day. If by his Motion he appeared to be restricting the franchise to his own constituents, and if he was supported by his colleagues in the representation of the city, it was not because they had any fear of the extension, but because he believed that this system of engrafting the franchise on private Bills was calculated to deter persons coming forward in the promotion of private Bills. He believed it to be a vicious principle, and, if persevered in with regard to this Bill, it would bring

  1659
  it to ruin elsewhere. The franchise provisions which had been drafted in connection with this Bill were rude and clumsy. They were absolutely unworkable. The promoters of this Bill had, in a series of rough-and-ready clauses, thrown together different franchises. There was a general provision that the registration law for Parliamentary purposes should apply also in respect of municipal purposes in Dublin. But rough-and-ready clauses like these could not effect the object for which they were intended. As to Sub-section 4 of Section 16, the whole registration law of 50 years had been crammed into it. The sub-section would take away from the Court of Queen's Bench the jurisdiction which it at present exercised in restoring to the Burgess Roll burgesses whose names had been wrongfully struck off. Under the schedules of the Parliamentary Registration Acts there were forms of objection to names proposed to be put on the Parliamentary Roll. These same forms were supposed to be capable of being used under the rough-and-ready clauses of this Bill in the case of claimants to the municipal vote. They would not, however, be really applicable, and it would be impossible to sustain objections in the Revision Courts. He was not opposed to a proper extension of the franchise, but he objected to these clauses because they were offensive to the municipality and burgesses of Dublin, who had not been given an opportunity of pronouncing an opinion upon them. He might be told that the general body of the citizens were in favour of this change, but he maintained that it was to those who were already in possession of the municipal franchise that the right belonged of pronouncing judgment upon a Bill of this kind. He appealed to the House to refuse to assent to proposals of this kind in a private Bill.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that in the case of Derry, the House had already this year extended, by means of a private Bill, the municipal franchise to those who possessed the Parliamentary vote. The Derry Improvement Bill had now received the sanction of the House of Lords. What the Bill before the House provided was that all persons within the municipal area of Dublin who possessed the Parliamentary franchise should also
  1660
  enjoy the municipal franchise, certain freeholders and leaseholders in the county of the city of Dublin, but not in the city simplicites, being excluded. His hon. Friend said that there would be great difficulty in making up the Municipal and Parliamentary Roll, but at this hour the Parliamentary and municipal franchise lists were made up together in England, and there was no difficulty about the matter. Last year that practice was embodied in a Bill that passed through the House of Commons, and his hon. Friend who was on the Grand Committee who considered that Bill took no objection to the franchise, the only objection raised by him being that the Measure would extend the franchise to women. The hon. Member's argument that this Bill must cause complications and difficulties seemed, therefore, to be disposed of. His proposal was simply to extend the English law to the case of Dublin, so as to give the people of Dublin the same advantages as the people of England enjoyed. There were precedents for legislating in this way in a private Bill. In 1883 the same thing was done in the Rathmines Bill; and in 1893 in the Blackrock Drainage Bill, and this Session franchise clauses had been inserted in private Bills concerning Derry, Belfast, Drogheda, and Waterford. The real reason of his hon. and learned Friend's objection to the franchise clauses of the present Bill was that they provided for a minority representation. At present the Conservatives held 11 seats out of 60 on the Dublin Corporation, while under this Bill they would have 20 out of 60 seats. That was the sole objection which existed to his franchise clause. There was nothing better for preventing a Corporation from falling into mismanagement than the existence of a good stout party of opposition.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid he had no wish to go into the merits of the Bill, but what he thought the House ought to consider was whether it was convenient to the House at large or calculated to contribute to the good conduct of the business of the House that these controversial matters affecting the political franchise should be introduced into private Bills. In days gone by all private Bills were dealt with on the floor of the House,

  1661
  but that was found to be an intolerable nuisance, and the practice was abolished, and the principle of referring private Bills to Committees upstairs was established. There was no principle more strongly insisted on in the composition of Private Bill Committees, than that, as far as possible, the subjects that came before them should be approached in a judicial spirit and apart from all political feeling. The House would at once see that if questions involving keen political contests were to be relegated to Committees upstairs, those Committees would not be allowed to decide such questions. They were sure to be reopened in the Whole House, and the House could not fail to see the grave inconvenience of such a practice. The result of bringing such matters on to the floor of the House was that they were no longer dealt with in a judicial spirit. The question involved in the provisions now under discussion had not been dealt with by Parliament in its strict sense, and therefore hon. Members brought these provisions forward in private Bills as a substitute for the consideration of the whole question by Parliament; and thus, by a retrogade step, the consideration of private Bills was being brought back to the floor of the House. To show there was no very great accord on this subject, they had Members representing the various sections of the Irish Party differing upon it. He hoped the House would put its foot down and reject these clauses, by way of emphasising its intention not to allow private Bill legislation to be mixed up with political matters of this kind.
  MR. JOHN DILLONsaid that when the right hon. Gentleman opposite complained of these clauses being introduced into a private Bill, he must have forgotten the history of this question in Parliament. The Irish Members regretted very much that it should be necessary to introduce proposals in a private Bill. But who was to blame? The blame rested with Parliament, which had shown itself incapable or unwilling to deal with the question. If the House of Lords had allowed the House of Commons to assimilate the law in this respect in Ireland to that in Great Britain, this inconvenient course need not have been adopted. But when the ordinary
  1662
  channels through which justice might be obtained were blocked, it was only natural that hon. Members should have recourse to any means which might offer themselves in order to obtain these privileges for the municipal electors in Ireland. He therefore thought there was no force whatever in the right hon. Gentleman's objection. The right hon. Gentleman had drawn attention to the difference of opinion in the ranks of the Irish Party. That was often the case on private Bills. He himself was opposed to the Motion to omit these franchise clauses. He objected to jerrymandering the city of Dublin, and he objected to an artificial system which was not applied to any other city being applied to the city of Dublin.
  MR. W. JOHNSTONrose to support the Motion of the hon. Member for the Louth Division. He had intended to vote for the clause if he had been fortunate enough to introduce his Amendment to give the franchise to women; but as he was not able to do that, he should vote against the clause.
  MR. W. FIELDdesired to know how it was that this notice of Motion was in order, seeing that a similar notice of Motion that he had put down upon another Bill had been ruled out of order.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is referring to a matter which has nothing to do with this question. The only question before the House is whether Clauses 15 to 18 shall stand part of the Bill.
  MR. FIELDrepeated that he had been told that a similar notice put down by him was out of order. He was himself in favour of the extension of the franchise, and Clause 15 had his entire approbation; but there were other clauses attached to it which undoubtedly took away the value of the franchise clause. He would appeal to Conservative Members on the opposite Benches, who were finding fault with the course now being taken, to ask the Government to bring in a Bill to equalise the franchise in Ireland with that of England.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid that as a Member of the Committee which considered the Bill in the first instance he desired to explain his position. The hon. Member for the Harbour Division objected to the inclusion of these clauses

  1663
  on the ground that he had not had sufficient notice.
  MR. HARRINGTON: No. Because they were not submitted according to the Standing Orders of this House to a meeting of the citizens of Dublin.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid he understood the hon. Member to say that the matter was sprung upon the citizens of Dublin. However, if he desired to recede from that position he (Mr. Farrell) did not object. They could discount pretty readily the professions of the hon. Member in favour of extending the franchise in the widest sense when the three clauses which would do so as widely and generally as any other Act could do, were the subjects of the Motion which he now made to the House. He (Mr. Farrell) thought it would be bad treatment on the part of the House towards the first Committee as well as towards the Committee which considered the Bill on the second occasion if the House was now to go back on a decision, which he might say was unanimously arrived at on the second occasion. The position of the hon. Member for the Harbour Division was one that nothing could satisfy. Alone he stood out in opposition to the other Members of the City of Dublin, because on the second occasion at all events it was quite clear that none of them thought fit to put in an appearance before the Committee. The position was quite clear. They had an opportunity of giving to the citizens of Dublin a franchise clause without any extra cost whatever. The hon. member for the Harbour Division spoke of the Bill to be introduced next year, but he had elicited from the Lord Mayor that that was to be an omnibus Bill. Why should objection not be taken to the inclusion of the franchise in that Bill on the same ground as it was taken in the present case. The decision of the Committee after careful consideration ought to be upheld by the House.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid the contention of the hon. Member who had just sat down seemed intensely ridiculous—that because Members of a certain Committee took trouble with the consideration of a Bill therefore the House was to abrogate its function of deciding as to the merits of the Bill. But he had risen for the purpose of making an appeal for his hon. and
  1664
  learned Friend not to press the Motion to a division. The view he took was this—he was strongly in favour, as he believed all sections of Nationalists were, of the extension of the franchise to the bulk of the people, and he did not sympathise at all with the right hon. Member for Thanet in his complaint as to the inconvenience of the course of tacking on this clause to a private Bill. Of course that course was inconvenient. It was almost an improper one, but it had been rendered necessary by the persistent obstinacy of Parliament in refusing to redress a grievance which was admitted by all sections and all parties. Long ago, by universal consent, a Bill ought to have been passed into law assimilating the franchise for municipal purposes in Great Britain and Ireland. That had not been done, and the result had been that they had been forced to take advantage of these illegitimate opportunities, if they liked so to call them, of getting the franchise extended piece-meal to different parts of Ireland. He succeeded on a similar Bill for the city of Waterford in getting the franchise extended, and it would therefore be ridiculous for him to take up the position that an opportunity of this kind should not be seized upon to extend the franchise whenever they could. The position of his hon. and learned Friend was perfectly intelligible. He was in favour of the extension of the franchise, but what he objected to was that the extension of the franchise in this Bill had been coupled with an interference with the mode of election and other matters of that kind, such as there was no precedent for with regard to any of the private Bills in which the franchise had been extended up to the present. In taking up that position his hon. Friend had behind him the overwhelming majority of the citizens of Dublin and therefore he was perfectly justified in his action. On the question of minority representation it would be improper and out of order to say anything at that stage; so far as the principle was concerned and were it extended all over Ireland, he would be the last to say a word against it. His hon. Friend's position was, that he objected to the franchise proposed to be extended in Dublin, being hampered in the particular case of Dublin to the exclusion of the rest of the country by

  1665
  certain clauses providing for minority representation. That was a perfectly plain and intelligible position, but the particular Motion which his hon. Friend had moved was to strike out those clauses which dealt with the extension of the franchise alone. Therefore, he would suggest to his hon. Friend, as he was of the same view as himself with regard to the extension of the franchise, that he should allow these clauses to pass without a Division, and reserve his opposition for the subsequent clauses which dealt with the creation of this artificial mode of election.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 19,—

  ELECTION OF COUNCILLORS TO BE TRIENNIAL.
  The election of councillors for the city shall be triennial and at each triennial election each ward shall elect the number of councillors which such ward is entitled to elect at the date of the passing of this Act. The first triennial election shall be holden on the twenty-fifth November one thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven and all the existing councillors shall then go out of office. Provided that at the election of the councillors for each ward every voter shall he entitled to vote for two candidates and no more. The councillors elected at each triennial election shall hold office for three years and no longer, but shall he eligible for re-election if then qualified.
  Clause 20,—

  ALDERMEN TO BE ELECTED BY GROUPS OF WARDS.
  From and after the twenty-fifth day of November one thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven the election of aldermen by single wards shall cease and the election of aldermen shall be by five groups of three wards in each group. Each group shall elect three aldermen every six years and such group shall for all purposes connected with such election be deemed to be a ward, and the groups of wards shall be as follows:—
  On the north side of the Liffey—

  No. 1.

  North City Ward

  North Dock Ward

  Mountjoy Ward

  No. 2.

  Arran Quay Ward

  Inns Quay Ward

  Rotunda Ward

  On the south side of the Liffey—

  No. 3.

  Royal Exchange Ward

  South Dock Ward

  Trinity Ward

  No. 4.

  Fitzwilliam Ward

  South City Ward

  Wood Quay Ward

  No. 5.

  Mansion House Ward

  Merchants' Quay Ward

  Ushers' Quay Ward:

  Provided that at such election of aldermen every voter may vote for two candidates and no more. The aldermen elected at each such election shall hold office for six years and no longer but shall be eligible for re-election if then qualified:
  The first election of aldermen shall take place on the twenty-fifth November one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight and the existing aldermen shall remain in office until the said date. In the case of any casual vacancy in such office of aldermen prior to such date an election to fill such vacancy shall be held in the same manner as before the passing of this Act. On the said twenty-fifth day of November one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight all the then existing aldermen shall go out of office:
  Provided always that no person shall be eligible as a candidate for the office of councillor or alderman unless within the time limited for the lodgment of the nomination paper nominating him for election to such office as aforesaid such person shall deposit with the town clerk of the said borough of Dublin the sum of ten pounds towards the expenses of the said election. Provided also that the person or persons who shall be elected a councillor or alderman at any such election as aforesaid shall be entitled to a refund of the sum so lodged and deposited by him.
  MR. HARRINGTON MR. HARRINGTON moved to omit Clauses 19 and 20, which, he said, dealt with the question of minority representation. He asked Mr. Speaker in putting the question to preserve an Amendment in Clause 20 (after "alderman" to insert "representing the three groups on the southern side of the River Liffey."
  MR. SPEAKER: I will preserve that Amendment.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid it was not necessary for him, in asking the House to reject these clauses, to occupy its attention at any great length. These clauses raised for the first time in any municipality in Ireland the question of minority representation, and he repeated on behalf of the citizens of Dublin that if minority representation ought to be extended, the extension should include other parts of the country, and they would have no objection to minority representation. But here was a case in

  1667
  which one city was taken, and practically its charter was broken up. An arrangement in force since 1840, which safeguarded the rights of the minority was destroyed by this sub-division of wards, and an artificial system was introduced by grouping.
  MR. T. M. HEALYrose to order. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member did not include the question of grouping.
  MR. SPEAKER: Clause 20 has to do with grouping.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that was so, but the Amendment of the hon. Member came in on line 21.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid the Motion of the hon. and learned Member was to omit Clauses 19 and 20. He should put the question that the clauses down to line 18 stand part of the Bill.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid the proposal of the hon. and learned Member's clause was that the whole of the corporation should go out of office every three years, and the effect was to limit the franchise preventing burgesses in wards where there were three vacancies from voting for more than two. It was the first time the experiment was to be tried in any Irish municipality, and in face of the facts that no opportunity had been given to the citizens of Dublin of considering the proposal, and that it was emphatically condemned by everybody who had spoken on the subject as representing Dublin, he appealed to the House not to force this upon the citizens of Dublin. The hon. and learned Member had no claim to speak in any representative capacity for Dublin, and of all shades of political opinion the hon. and learned Member would be the last the citizens of Dublin would select to speak for them in the House. Having represented the City of Dublin for eleven years, and having the support of two colleagues in the representation of the city, he felt he was not making an unreasonable demand when he asked that an indignity of this kind, which implied that the minority had not been treated fairly, and that the citizens of Dublin could not be intrusted with the franchise which obtained elsewhere, he thought he was not making an unreasonable demand to the House for the rejection of these clauses.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid as regards Dublin this would be an innovation on the present state of the law, but could anyone pretend to deny that it was desirable, when extending the franchise to make this reform? Of course, when new machinery was proposed in any Bill, it was met with the objection that it was novel and would prove unworkable. Such phrases he had himself used, no doubt many times, and naturally, when these hardy annuals sprang from the mouth of his hon. Friend, he was not in the least astonished. There were precedents for the proposal in the clause, and it was recognised in English School Board elections. A precedent existed in Belfast, and by arrangement between the Catholic Bishop and the Town Clerk, Catholic representation was secured in that Orange city. He repudiated the charge of "jerrymandering," there was nothing of the kind in the proposal. The principle of minority representation had existed since 1840, and the passing of the Corporations Act. The gentlemen who arranged the lists were called assessors, and in the appointment of these and the arrangement of the lists regard was had under the Corporations Act for minority representation. This had been in vogue for half a century, with the result that in the City of Derry, in spite of the narrow franchise, the Catholics of Derry were able to return a Nationalist assessor. In dealing with elections of councillors, it was as desirable to have as full a representation of the citizens as possible. True, the outlying townships were Conservative and did not allow Nationalists to sit on their boards, but he hoped to see the city extended, and these boards coalescing and consolidating with Dublin, and then minority representation would be needed for Nationalists, and they would have the benefit of these clauses. It was impossible to secure minority representation without adopting the principle of grouping. Long ago he advocated the principle of minority representation, and more than elsewhere was it desirable to have full representations of opinions in Ireland, and though now he was attacked for proposing an innovation, he felt sure that when it was embodied in the law, and its effects experienced, there would be a demand for its extension to the rest of the country.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid if the hon. and learned Gentleman had taken up the position that he desired to secure the representation of the minority as it was required in Belfast, his position would he tenable and his argument unanswerable. In Belfast there was a large Catholic population without representation on the Corporation, and if in Dublin there was a large and influential Protestant population without representation the position of the hon. Member would be impregnable. But the fact was, and it had been repeatedly pointed out in Debate on the Belfast Bill, the Protestant and Unionist minority were represented on the corporation to a larger extent than their numbers could properly demand. The demand for this proposal did not come from the Protestant and Unionist minority, and no reason existed for applying to Dublin a system which did not exist in any other municipality in the three kingdoms. His own views on minority representation were, he believed, in agreement with those of the hon. and learned Member. When the question arose in the Debates on the Home Rule Bill in 1893, he spoke strongly in favour of securing minority representation in the proposed Irish Parliament, and he would be delighted to see it established throughout Ireland, but there was no demand for this artificial system in Dublin, where the minority were properly represented at the present moment. If this system of minority representation, which in principle was a good one, was to be applied to Ireland at all, it ought to be applied impartially to all parts, and after careful consideration by Parliament, and not by the operation of a clause in a private Bill. There were precedents for extending the franchise by private Bills, but there was no precedent for a private Bill altering the mode of election. The grievance was intensified enormously by the fact that it was done without consultation with the citizens of Dublin, and without the approval of any section of opinion in the city or the corporation. All sections of the Corporation were unanimous in opposing these clauses, and the minority repudiated the protection which the hon. and learned Gentleman pretended to offer them. Not a single meeting had been held in favour of the clauses, and there
  1670
  had been many resolutions passed against them.
  MR. J. DILLONsaid that he objected to the clauses on two grounds. The Committee had already passed clauses extending the franchise; and these clauses were disfranchising in their character. Further, they conveyed a gross insult to the City of Dublin. The case of Belfast told strongly against these clauses. In Belfast, so great was the intolerance of the Protestants, that the Catholics never had any representation on the corporation. But in Dublin no complaint had been made of the intolerance of the Catholic majority. The cumulative vote was demanded for Belfast; but the Government declined to give to Belfast an artificial system of voting, which was not in existence in other cities of the United Kingdom. Now it was proposed to submit the City of Dublin to the humiliation and insult which the Government declined to inflict on Belfast. The hon. and learned Member for Louth, with great and unusual generosity to his opponents, said that he wished to give 10 seats in the corporation to the Unionist Party; but he could not share that generosity. In the past the Unionist Party had had a fair share of representation and of the emoluments of office. The system of voting proposed was entirely novel; it was not known to the English law at all; and on this occasion he felt bound to support the hon. Members for the City of Dublin. The application of so great a change as minority representation in municipal government ought to be the subject of consideration in a public Bill. He, personally, was distinctly opposed to minority representation in municipal government, but at any rate it ought not to be brought forward for the first time in a Water Bill.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)appealed to the House, in the interests of business, to come to a decision on the question under consideration.
  MR. EDWARD CARSON (Trinity College)said that if he thought that the Unionist minority would be benefited by the passing of these clauses, he would willingly support them. But he was informed that, taking the proposal as a whole—the extension of the franchise and the mode of voting—the Unionist

  1671
  minority would be a smaller minority in the future than it had been in the past, if the clauses were passed. This particular clause of the Bill would be useless, even if it did not in the long run leave the Unionists worse off than they were now. Therefore, speaking for himself, he should take on himself the responsibility of voting with the hon. Member for the Harbour Division. It was, he thought, a serious matter to reflect upon, that without one word from the Government Benches, the new system of voting should be introduced in a private Bill, and a revolution effected in the municipal government of the capital of Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. VESEY KNOXsaid the right hon. and learned Gentleman had compared the Unionist representation in the Corporation of Dublin now with what it was likely to be if this clause were added to the Bill. It must be remembered, however, that the House had already passed the clauses extending the franchise, and the question for the hon. Gentleman to consider was whether in this extension some provision for the representation of the minority was not essential. The right hon. Gentleman could hardly contend that the position of the Unionist Party without the extended franchise and without this clause would be so favourable as under the Bill as it stood. He could not agree with his hon. Friends near him that the Unionist Party would have no grievance if the franchise were simply extended without any means being taken to give them a voice in the affairs of the Corporation, He had made inquiries from gentlemen on both sides of politics in Dublin, and he was told that there was one ward in which it was possible that the Unionists could obtain representation with the extended franchise. That was not a position which the right hon. and learned Gentleman could regard with favour.
  MR. CARSON: What I said was that under the scheme of the Bill—the whole scheme—the minority in the Corporation would be smaller by a great many seats than it is now.
  MR. KNOXsaid the position of the right hon. Gentleman was clear—he wanted to wreck both the extension of the franchise and the minority representation, but that position was likely to confuse the House. It would be impossible,
  1672
  without this provision, for the Unionists to carry more than one seat if they did that.
  MR. HARRINGTON: My information is that if these clauses are not inserted elections will turn in the future not on politics, but on business capacity.
  MR. KNOX: The elections always have turned on politics.
  MR. HARRINGTON: May I be allowed to say that at the last election for Lord Mayor, the Nationalists were only successful over the other side by six votes.
  MR. KNOX: Those Nationalists who on that occasion voted with the Conservative Party were denounced. He perfectly understood the system. ["Hear, hear!" and a laugh.] The fact remained that if, under the extended franchise, the elections were fought on political grounds, the Unionists would not be able to get representation in more than one ward, if in that; and an influential section of the people of Dublin would be kept out of the council. In form he admitted that the plan of the clause was new, but in substance there were many precedents for it. There had been three extensions of the municipal franchise in Irish towns through a private hill, and in each case a maimed franchise had been adopted in order to carry out local agreements. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. J. Redmond) in the case of Waterford, and the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon), in the case of Drogheda, had been instrumental in introducing these maimed franchises, which really gave protection and representation to minorities. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid that while he approved of minority representation, and had supported the principle by his votes in the House for the last 30 years, he was of opinion that so important a subject should be dealt with by the Government in a public Measure. He should, therefore, vote against the clause.
  MR. FIELDwas also in favour of minority representation, but considered that the principle should be applied equally all over Ireland, and not piecemeal to Dublin. The scheme of the Bill was revolutionary. Neither the citizens, nor the political associations, nor the working men's societies wanted

  1673
  it. He had received letters and resolutions from his constituents, protesting against the clause, and he intended, therefore, to vote against it. He maintained that this Bill, so far from increasing the number of minority members in the Corporation, would reduce the number, as he was informed, to five or six. A revolutionary Measure of this kind should not be introduced dealing with the city of Dublin alone. A public Bill dealing with the franchise question ought to be brought in extending such provisions to the whole of the country.
  Question put, "That the words of Clauses 19 and 20 down to the word 'shall,' in page 9, line 18, stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 106; Noes, 111.—(Division List, No. 384.)
  Remaining words of Clause 20, omitted.
  Clause 21,—

  PRESIDING OFFICERS AT ELECTIONS.
  The presiding officers at the elections of aldermen shall be nominated by the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor of Dublin from amongst, the members of the council.
  Clause 22,—

  AS TO CASUAL VACANCIES IN OFFICE OF COUNCILLOR OR ALDERMAN.
  Casual vacancies in the office of alderman or councillor shall be held in like manner as before the passing of this Act save that a casual vacancy in the office of alderman for any group of wards shall be filled by election to be held for such group of wards. A person elected alderman or councillor at a casual election shall hold office for the remainder of the period for which the person whose place he is elected to fill was elected to fill, and no longer, but shall be eligible for re-election if then qualified.
  Clause 23,—

  NO PERSON TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR ELECTION AS ALDERMAN OR COUNCILLOR UNLESS HE HAS PAID ALL RATES, ETC.
  No person shall be eligible for election as alderman or councillor who shall not have paid all rates, cesses and taxes due by him in respect of the premises out of which he is qualified as a burgess save and except such as shall not become payable for the six calendar months next before the date on which his name in the burgess list shall have been revised.
  MR. HARRINGTON MR. HARRINGTON moved to omit Clauses 21, 22 and 23 as being now unnecessary.
  Motion agreed to; Clauses 21 to 23 inclusive omitted.
  Clause 24,—

  OFFICE OF BOROUGH ASSESSOR TO BE ABOLISHED.
  The office of borough assessor shall on and after the twenty-fifth day of November one thousand eight hundred and ninety-six be deemed to be abolished and the election for such office shall cease to be held.
  MR. HARRINGTON MR. HARRINGTON moved to omit Clause 24. He said that up to the present the Lord Mayor with two assessors had revised the burgess roll, and he thought it was too soon to abolish the office of assessor in view of the approaching revision.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that the clause would save the Corporation, £300 a year. As the revising barrister had to do the work he did not see why they should provide a sinecure at the expense of the ratepayers for assessors.
  Question proposed, "That Clause 24 stand part of the Bill."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 25,—

  OFFICERS TO CONTINUE TO HOLD OFFICE.
  Existing officers of the Corporation now elected annually or otherwise shall continue to hold office without election during good behaviour. No person shall be eligible to any office in the gift of the Corporation who has been an alderman or councillor of the city within twelve months preceding the election to such office.
  MR. HARRINGTON MR. HARRINGTON moved to leave out Clause 25 on the ground that it would prevent a member of the Corporation from been elected as Lord Mayor. A member of the Corporation who wished to become Lord Mayor would have to resign his position and remain outside the Corporation for 12 months before the election day.
  MR. T. M. HEALYthought that it was desirable that members of the Corporation should not be eligible as candidates for offices in the gift of the

  1675
  Corporation, such as the offices of Town Clerk and City Marshal. He therefore could not consent to the omission of the clause.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDhoped the clause would be omitted. The had been no abuse in the Corporation under the existing state of things. The clause provided that no one should be eligible as a candidate for a post under the Corporation who had been a member of the Corporation within 12 months of the election. There might be on the Corporation a gentleman specially qualified to act as City solicitor, but this clause would preclude him from being appointed.
  MR. CARSONtook objection to the first part of the clause because it would attach the condition of permanency to the position of Corporation officials who had hitherto been elected annually. A Corporation was not a permanent body quoad the members who composed it. Its members were liable to be turned out if the electors thought that the work of the Corporation had not been efficiently performed. That being the case, the Corporation ought to have full control over the officials charged with the duty of carrying out its wishes, and such control might be impaired if those officials held office permanently,
  MR. FIELDexpressed the same opinion. The clause would make the officials of the Corporation its masters when they ought to be its servants. It could not be said that under the existing system any official of the Corporation had ever been capriciously evicted.
  MR. KNOXsaid that there were precedents for the proposals of the clause with regard to the Corporation officials both in English law and in a Provisional Order Bill recently passed relating to Armagh. He was himself rather against the plan of giving a long tenure to officials, but, having regard to the precedents, he thought the clause ought to be accepted. The clause in other respects was most salutary. It was nothing short of a public scandal that members of the Corporation should be constantly canvassing for official posts, and the clause would prevent jobs.
  Question put: "That Clause 25 stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 88; Noes, 129.—(Division List, No. 385.)
  Clause 26,—

  SUB-SHERIFF OF COUNTY OF CITY OF DUBLIN TO CONTINUE TO HOLD OFFICE.
  The Sub-Sheriff of the county of the city of Dublin for the time being shall continue to hold office without further appointment by the High Sheriff, and such office of Sub-Sheriff shall be holden during good behaviour from the corporation, and future Sub-Sheriffs shall be elected and appointed by the corporation.

  SUB-SHERIFF TO ENTER INTO BOND.
  The Sub-Sheriff shall enter into a bond to the High Sheriff as if this Act had not passed with sufficient securities for the duo performance of his duties.
  MR. HARRINGTON, rising to Order, said that under the Instruction moved in the House the Committee were entitled to inquire into the appointment of any officer elected by the corporation or by anybody appointed by the corporation. The Sub-Sheriff was appointed by the High Sheriff, and by the Act which regulated the appointment of the High Sheriff it was provided that the corporation should nominate three persons qualified to fill the office, and that the Lord Lieutenant should appoint one of the three persons so nominated to the office. He contended that the High Sheriff', therefore, did not come within the instruction under which Clause 26 was inserted. The instruction to the Committee was that they have power to make provision for the amendment of the law as to the election of the aldermen, councillors, etc., and also of any officers annually elected by the corporation. He submitted that that did not include the Sub-Sheriff, as he was not appointed by a person appointed by the corporation. The Committee, in giving the Sub-Sheriff a permanent appointment, bad exceeded their powers, as he was appointed by the High Sheriff, who, in turn, was appointed by the Lord Lieutenant.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Council, as I understand it, nominates three persons, and out of those three persons the Lord Lieutenant appoints one to fill the office of High Sheriff. The High Sheriff appoints the Sub-Sheriff, and the question is whether the Sub-Sheriff is a person appointed by the Corporation. It seems to me that the Sheriff is not a person appointed by the corporation within the

  1677
  meaning of the Instruction, and therefore the Committee in dealing with the office of Sub-Sheriff have exceeded their powers under the Instruction.
  MR. HARRINGTON: Then I beg to move that Clause 26 be struck out.
  Clause 26 omitted.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Rill be now read the Third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

QUESTION'S.

  VACCINATION (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, seeing that the Royal Commission on Vaccination has been sitting over six years, he can hold out any hopes that they will be able to publish the result of their investigations in time for the Report to be laid before the House by the end of the present Session?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): The Commissioners hope to be able to submit their Report to Her Majesty in time for its presentation to Parliament before the close of the Session. If, however, they are unable to do so, the Report will be, by Her Majesty's permission, presented in dummy with a view to its being circulated to Members during the Recess. In either case, it will be, I hope, in the hands of Members within the next four or five weeks.

  EVICTION NOTICES (COUNTY CAVAN)
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, can he state the number of eviction notices, under the Seventh section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, which have been served in Cavan County since the passage of that Act; in how many cases were
  1678
  tenants whose tenancies were so deter" mined readmitted as caretakers, future tenants, and present tenants; and in how many cases were the holdings left derelict, and the tenants wholly dispossessed after service of these notices; and, can he state the number of County Cavan estates now pending sale in the Land Judges or Land Commission Courts?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The number of eviction notices under Section 7 of the Act of 1887 served in County Cavan between the date of the passing of the Act and the 30th June, 1896, was 2,842. But in 452 cases only were the notices followed by actual eviction proceedings. I have already more than once explained that Government has no effective means at its disposal of obtaining reliable, or even approximately reliable, information as to the numbers of tenants restored as either "present" or "future" "tenants, but I am told that out of the 452 cases of actual eviction proceedings to which I have referred, the tenants were readmitted in 257 cases, either as caretakers or tenants, leaving only 195 cases in which the holdings were left derelict and the tenants wholly dispossessed in the period mentioned. The police have no records to show what has been done in the 2,390 cases in which eviction proceedings did not follow the service of notices, but it may be assumed that in the great majority of these cases settlements were arrived at between landlord and tenant. The statistics of the Land Judge's Court do not enable the Registrar to state the number of estates for sale in that Court according to counties. There are six estates from the county, in which sale proceedings are now pending in the Land Commission Court.

IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOLS (WORK-MISTRESSES).
MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) can he state what were the propositions submitted by the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland to the Government on the subject of providing increased remuneration by way of salary and results for work mistresses in Irish National schools; (2) Whether anything will be done in

1679
the coming year to encourage the greater employment and better training of these work mistresses in technical education on improved principles; and (3) whether the Board of Education can provide for an increased number of such qualified teachers in exclusively rural districts?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: As regards the first paragraph, I have already informed the hon. Member in reply to a previous question which he addressed to me on the same subject, that I am not prepared to state what is the nature of the proposals referred to. The other inquiries have been referred to the Commissioners, who will consider them at their next meeting on the 11th inst.

IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOLS (WORK-MISTRESSES).

  BELTURBET MILITARY BARRACKS.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, can he state in whose hands the old Military Barracks at Belturbet now is; whether it is proposed to use it for Military purposes again; and, if not, what the War Department intend to do with it.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL-WILLIAMS): The Barracks at Belturbet are in the charge of the Military authorities. They are liable to be used when there is not room in other barracks in the districts.

  MANCHESTER AND SALFORD BARRACKS.
  MR. W. J. GALLOWAY (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether he can state why the Hulme Cavalry Barracks, Manchester, and the Regent's Road Barracks, Salford, are being dismantled of all the Military fixtures if the War Office have not as yet decided what is to be done with regard to the garrison in Manchester and Salford in the future; and whether he can say how soon the decision of the Military authorities with regard to Manchester and Salford will be made public?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): There is no present question of demolishing or dismantling the Hulme Barracks which are now
  1680
  occupied by troops. The barracks at Salford have such unsatisfactory drainage that they cannot be occupied without very considerable re-construction. The question is before the Military authorities, and all the circumstances will be carefully weighed, some little delay will therefore occur before a decision is come to.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: Will the question be considered on military apart from political grounds?
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes, Sir, certainly on military grounds.
  In answer to a further question from Mr. GALLOWAY,
  MR. BRODRICK: If any decision is arrived at I will communicate to the hon. Member. The question must be decided before any money is expended on barracks.

  ARMY FOOD AND FORAGE SUPPLIES.
  COLONEL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whether the Government after the careful consideration which they promised at the commencement of the Session to give to this subject, have come to any decision regarding the supply of food and forage to the Army; and, whether they see their way to giving our own in place of foreign agriculturists the benefit of the money paid by the taxpayers in this country for the support of the defensive forces of the Empire?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: It has not yet been possible to arrive at any decision regarding the supply of meat and forage to the Army. The question is one involving many serious points—not the least of which are those relating to expense, and to change in the present military system. The inquiries are being pursued in the hope that some solution of the question may be found which, either wholly or in part, may meet the object which the hon. Member has in view.

MERCANTILE MARINE (EXAMINATION OF MASTERS AND MATES).
SIR EDWARD GOURLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he will be good enough to inform the House how and in

1681
what respect the existing regulations for the examination of masters and mates in the mercantile marine are to be modified after the 1st January 1898; will he state what is meant by the words "by the addition, largely of new matter," contained in the circular of the Marine Department, No. 539, and dated February 1896; and, will he say what percentage of applicants fail annually under the current system in the United Kingdom?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OE TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): I fear it is not possible for me within the limits of an answer in this House to explain every point in which the new regulations for the examination of masters and mates will differ from the old, but the general effect of the alterations (which, I may say, have met with wide approval) will be to somewhat raise the standard of the examinations and to improve the method of conducting them The words on the cover of the Circular to which the hon. Member refers mean that the main changes made are embodied in paragraphs 1 to 18, and that those made in the other paragraphs are indicated by italics. The average percentage of failures yearly under the current system during the last three years has been 50.

TRANSMISSION OF SEAMEN'S WAGES.
SIR EDWARD GOURLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether, seeing that the transmission system for the payment of seamen's wages, originated by Captain Pitman, has proved a success at Dunkirk, will he arrange with him to establish the system at the other Home Foreign Ports between Havre and Hamburg; whether, seeing that the shipowners alone benefit by the discharge of their crews abroad, he will arrange with the Foreign Office that the Consuls shall be instructed to levy the charges for transmission upon the ships rather than upon the seamen; and whether he is aware that seamen arriving at Antwerp in British ships are discharged there, because owners can reengage their crews at a cheaper rate than in the United Kingdom?
COLONEL DENNYasked whether the discharge of seamen at Antwerp was not in accordance with agreements as approved by the Board of Trade, concerning the procedure to be adopted with seamen at the final arrival port of the voyage; whether, when, discharged abroad the expenses of sending the seamen to their homes are not defrayed by the master of the vessel on account of the owners?
MR. RITCHIE: I am in communication with the Treasury and Foreign Office with regard to the extension of the transmission system originated by the Board of Trade at Dunkirk to other foreign ports, but no definite decision has yet been arrived at. I am not prepared to express an opinion why shipowners discharge their crews at Antwerp; and, with regard to the charges for transmission, I can only say that I have appointed a Committee to consider the whole subject of the conditions under which seamen are engaged and discharged at home trade ports abroad. My hon. Friend, I think, has correctly stated the conditions under which the discharge takes place, but the whole question will be taken into consideration by the Committee I have appointed.
MR. J. HAVELOCK WILSON: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the fact that the 186th Section of the Merchant Shipping Act provides that the owner shall defray the expenses of a seaman discharged in a foreign port to his home in the United Kingdom, or to the port of engagement; and whether the Board of Trade are insisting upon that section of the Act being carried out.
MR. RITCHIE: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that it is to the port of engagement. To a home port certainly, and there is a question as to what the actual meaning of that word is. But I am always very glad indeed to take means for insisting upon carrying out the clause of the Merchant Shipping Act to which the hon. Gentleman refers, when a breach of it is brought to my notice.
MR. J. HAVELOCK WILSON: Is it not a fact that the attention of the Board of Trade has frequently been drawn to breaches of the section?

TRANSMISSION OF SEAMEN'S WAGES.

  FEMALE TELEGRAPHISTS (BELFAST).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General—(1) with reference to the late promotions to the first class of female telegraphists in Belfast, how many were so promoted, and what is the average length of service of each; how many were on that occasion superseded, and what is the length of their respective services; and also what were the grounds upon which these supersessions took place; (2) whether he is aware that those superseded have performed and continue to discharge similar duties as those performed by those by whom they have been superseded, and that similar duties in other large offices are participated in by members of the service holding the rank of first class telegraphist; (3) whether it is alleged that the supersessions in this instance are due to those superseded not being efficient in the manipulation of telegraph instruments; and (4), whether, seeing that the alleged disqualification is due to local administration which debarred them from attaining a high standard of proficiency, and that at least two of those superseded are equally as efficient as some of the present members of the first class, he will reconsider his decision in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The number of women telegraphists recently promoted was seven. Their length of service ranged from 13 to 7½ years, the average being about 9½ years. Five women telegraphists were passed over, and their length of service was about 25 years in each case. These five were passed over because they were not qualified to perform the duties of first class telegraphists. The answer to the second paragraph is in the affirmative; but such work forms only a portion of that for which the promoted telegraphists may be made responsible. The answer to the third paragraph is, Yes. The Postmaster General has no reason to suppose that the disqualification of those who were passed over is due to any default in the local administration. The promoted telegraphists worked under the same conditions as the others. I have
  1684
  answered the hon. Member's Question, though I hope that the House will allow me to add that injury will be done to the Public Service, and pain may be caused to individuals, if questions are frequently asked as to the grounds on which promotions are made or refused.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is it not a fact that the superseded telegraphists are now engaged on duties—public and departmental—as important as those of the telegraphists who superseded them?
  MR. HANBURY: For a portion of the time they are—at the beginning of their new service. But the promoted telegraphists are liable at any time to be called upon to take much more responsible work, and it is for that work that those not promoted are not fitted.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Did any of them fail? Is it not fair that they should have an opportunity of trying that work?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member's Question has been fully answered.

SKIBBEREEN MAGISTRACY.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the conduct of Dr. William Jennings, J.P., of Skibbereen, in occupying a seat on the Bench at the last weekly petty sessions of Skibbereen, and endeavouring to prevent by unseemly behaviour the issue of a summons applied for by Mr. Sheehy, solicitor, on behalf of Mr. Charles M'Carthy, a local trader, against the said Dr. Jennings, J.P., for alleged assault; and, whether the matter has been brought to the notice of the Lord Chancellor; and, if so, what action does he propose to take in the matter?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The hon. Member has forwarded to me a newspaper report of the occurrence in question. I have called for a report in reference to the matter, though if, as appears to be the case, a summons has been issued against Dr. Jennings, the Lord Chancellor could obviously not investigate the matter until the summons has been heard and the facts are fully known.

SKIBBEREEN MAGISTRACY.

  ELECTION OF POOR LAW GUARDIANS (IRELAND).
  MR. JAMES DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he can state how many sworn inquiries were held during the year 1893, 1894, and 1895, arising out of the election of poor law guardians in Ireland; (2) and, whether he will take steps to have elections for the position of poor law guardian in future carried out under the Ballot Act.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The number of sworn inquiries held during the years mentioned in connection with the election of Poor Law Guardians in Ireland were 13 in 1893; 8 in 1894; and 12 in 1895. Legislation would be necessary to give effect to the proposal in the second paragraph, and I cannot give any pledge in the matter at the present.

  POTATO DISEASE (COUNTY CAVAN).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that potato disease has already extensively appeared in the Western portion of the County Cavan; and can he state whether potato spraying has been recommended in this district by the local authorities, or have steps been taken by the Government to make the application of strawsonite to prevent disease easy of access to the poorer class of the inhabitants, to whom the potato crop is so essentially necessary?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I understand that the potato disease has made its appearance in some parts of the County Cavan, but that the potato crop, generally, looks green and healthy and no substantial damage has yet been done to the tubers. There appears indeed to be every reason to believe that the yield of the crop will be equal to, if not above the average. I am not aware that the spraying of the potato plant with strawsonite or other solutions has been recommended by the local authorities in West Cavan. Copies of the leaflets prepared by the Agricultural Department of the Land Commission with directions for the use of spraying machines and various mixtures used,
  1686
  were largely circulated amongst Boards of Guardians in Cavan and elsewhere, together with the recent special Report of experiments conducted by the Department in the season of 1895. Everything has been done by Government which experience suggested, to give publicity to these documents, and otherwise to bring home to the minds of the farming classes in Ireland the beneficial results following upon a timely application of, the solutions referred to, and the Government believe that the efficacy of these applications is now very well known throughout the country. Notwithstanding this, however, I am informed that only a small proportion of the farmers: in West Cavan have made use of these; appliances and solutions during the past season.

BAILIEBOROUGH UNION (COUNTY CAVAN).
MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether his attention has been called to the statement that, in a recent audit of the accounts of Bailieborough Union, and in a report to the Local Government Board, Mr. Sheehan, auditor, has recommended the stoppage of payment of collectors of poor rates fees until the collections are fully closed; (2) whether this recommendation amounts to a mandamus to the collectors to levy their rates the moment the warrants are signed, which will press very severely upon the poor ratepayers in the county Cavan; and (3) will he take steps to see that no undue pressure is exercised, particularly at this season of the year, when money is scarce with the poorer class of farmers all over Ireland?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Auditor's report is not open to the construction put upon it in the second paragraph. A collector is only entitled to be paid his poundage fees when his collection is fully closed, and the Auditor has called attention to this rule, a strict compliance with which, he states, is the only way to make the collectors carry out their duties properly. In this Union the current rate has been in course of collection now nearly 8 months, whereas the time allowed to the collectors to complete their collections is only four

1687
months. The Local Government Board have no authority to interfere with the collectors in any legal proceeding they may take to recover outstanding rates.

BAILIEBOROUGH UNION (COUNTY CAVAN).

  DEATH OF A BOY AT COOKSTOWN (IRELAND.)
  MR. P. C. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, has he read a minute of the evidence taken at an inquest in Cookstown touching the death of a boy of 14 years of age, named Patrick Coleman, from which it appears that the verdict of the jury at their adjourned meeting of the 10th June was that, in their opinion, the deceased Pat Coleman came to his death from strangulation, but by what means they were unable to find; and, what steps the Government propose to take to clear up the mystery of this boy's death.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am asked by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General to say in answer to this Question that he has carefully read the report of the evidence given at the inquest. Since the inquest, the Police have been investigating the case, but no evidence has as yet been obtained to implicate any person, or even to show that the death was not accidental.

  ST. JOHN'S SCHOOL, HEYWOOD.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Education Department has obtained the report of the sanitary officers of the Town Council of Heywood as to the sanitary condition of St. John's School; whether the Department has ordered an examination by its own inspector in respect to the sanitary condition and the structural fitness of such school, and also of the other public elementary schools in the town; and, if so, with what result; and whether the question of additional school accommodation will now be reconsidered?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,University: (1.) Not yet. (2.) Yes; and the inspector has reported that the school is in a good sanitary condition
  1688
  and that the premises are generally satisfactory. (3.) Inquiries are being made as to the question of additional school accommodation.

  BURIAL AT SHIRLAND, NEAR ALFRETON.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received from the parties concerned declarations concerning the statement that, on the burial of Robert Tomlinson in the churchyard at Shirland, near Alfreton, the rector objected to a Nonconformist burial at five o'clock in the afternoon, and required that it should be at three o'clock; and, whether such requirement was contrary to the provisions of the Burial Act of 1880?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: Yes, Sir, I have received statements to this effect from those in charge of the funeral and have been tunable to obtain any satisfactory explanation from the rector who simply denies their accuracy. It seems clear that under Section 3 of the Act objection cannot be made to a funeral taking place at five o'clock in the month of July except on some one of the grounds mentioned in the section; the section does not exclude a mutual arrangement between the parties, but in default of any such arrangement, or of a written intimation from the incumbent that the hour fixed is inconvenient, it is provided (by Section 4) that the burial shall take place at the time specified.

BOILER EXPLOSION (H.M.S. "BLAKE.")
MR. FORTESCUE FLANNERY): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the verdict of the coroner's jury in the case of the accident to one of the boilers of H.M.S., "Blake," and to the committal of the fleet engineer in charge of her machinery for manslaughter; whether in the case of a large ship with a large number of subordinates, the engineers in charge are held by the Admiralty responsible to the extent of personal criminalty for the negligence of any of those working under

1689
them as to the condition of the parts of the machinery; and, whether the Admiralty will take steps to provide proper legal assistance to the fleet engineer concerned when taking his trial upon the coroner's committal.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): My attention has naturally been called to the verdict of the coroner's jury in the case of the accident on the Blake. The questions raised by it are too grave for me to be able to deal with them in a reply to a question across the Table of the House, but I need not assure the hon. Member that I am studying them with anxious attention. It will certainly be the duty of the Admiralty to see that steps are taken for the protection of the interests of all concerned.

BOILER EXPLOSION (H.M.S. "BLAKE.")

  COUNTY SURVEYORSHIP (IRELAND).
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, under the regulations for examination for County Surveyorships in Ireland, service as County Surveyor's Assistant would count as giving qualifying experience for an appointment as County Surveyor, if the examination was successfully passed?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Candidates for County Surveyorships in Ireland are required to show that they have been engaged in the practice of their profession in a responsible position, in charge of important works, for not less than four years, one of which at least shall have been spent in Ireland. A County Surveyor's Assistant would be eligible to compete provided he fulfilled the requirements of the regulations, but the mere fact of his being an assistant would not necessarily qualify him.

  STREET PREACHING (SLIGO).
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the reports of the action for assault brought by the Mayor of Sligo, in the Borough Court of Sligo, against District Inspector Carden, from which it appears that in his evidence the Mayor stated that he did not
  1690
  consider it any part of his duty to protect the street preachers, that under no circumstances would he protect them, and that this evidence was followed by applause in the gallery; and whether the conduct of the Mayor of Sligo and the management of the Borough Court will be brought under the notice of the Lord Lieutenant?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have received from my hon. Friend a newspaper report of the proceedings referred to, which, however, hardly seems to warrant the construction placed upon it in the Question.

GOVERNMENT PRINTING CONTRACTS (IRELAND).
MR. MICHAEL DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to complaints made on behalf of the Typographical Societies of Dublin and Belfast about the evasion of the terms of the Fair Wages Resolution in connection with Government printing contracts in Ireland; whether the printing required for Departments under the control of the Local Government Board of Ireland falls within the purview of the said Resolution; what steps, if any, have been taken to secure that the execution of such contracts as fall under the category of Local Government Board printing shall be carried out in accordance with such Resolution; and whether, in view of the fact that large Government printing and stationery contracts are about to be entered into for the Irish Public Departments, the Treasury will take note of the complaints in question and endeavour to have such contracts carried out in strict accord with the meaning and intention of the House of Commons Resolution of February, 1891?
MR. HANBURY: The Fair Wages Resolution is expressly limited to Government contracts, and does not include those of local public bodies. If the Irish Local Government Board have any printing contracts of their own, the Resolution would presumably apply. The evidence given before the Committee on Stationery Contracts shows that some printing done for the National Education Commissioners was not considered by the contractors to be subject

1691
to the Resolution, but that view, of course, is not a correct one. I have reason to believe that an impression prevails that the Resolution applies to the printing done for certain local authorities in Ireland, such as Boards of Guardians; but they, of course, are not Government Departments, and the Resolution cannot affect them.
MR. WILLIAM CORBET: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he explain why the Pair Wages Resolution of the House of Commons is not enforced in contracts in subordinate departments under the supervision of the Irish Local Government Board: is he aware that a great portion of the printing done for the Poor Law Department, such as jurors' lists, etc., is done by employers who persistently ignore the Fair Wages Resolution; and that a great portion of the public advertisements are given to newspapers produced under conditions antagonistic to the Resolution, and are transformed into different papers by the simple plan of changing name and heading of pages; and whether he will take measures to see that the Resolution is enforced in; Ireland in all printing contracts under the Irish Local Government Board?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I believe that the Fair Wages Resolution is in force in all Government contracts in Ireland. Boards of Guardians are, of course, not Government Departments, and the Local Government Board have no power to compel Boards of Guardians to comply with the terms of the Resolution.

GOVERNMENT PRINTING CONTRACTS (IRELAND).

  LEE-METFORD AMMUNITION AT BISLEY.
  MR. JAMES BAILLIE: On behalf of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Colonel RUSSELL), I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the very general complaints made of the ammunition supplied for the Lee-Metford rifle at Bisley; whether the Militia have also made similar complaints: and whether he has any reason to believe these complaints are well founded; and, if so, what steps the Government propose to take to remedy this most serious danger to our military efficiency?
  MR. BRODRICK: Complaints have been received from Bisley of a certain number of hang-fires, but no such complaint has come from the Militia. No pains will be spared to discover the origin of these hang-fires and to prevent a recurrence of the defect; but it is satisfactory that except in respect of the ammunition supplied at Bisley, no complaints whatever have been received, although 303 ammunition has been fired by the Regulars throughout the year.
  MAJOR RASCH: Will the hon. Member inform the House from what firm or Government factory these useless cartridges were obtained?
  MR. BRODRICK: That subject is under investigation; we are endeavouring to see whether we can trace them.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHERasked whether the hon. Gentleman had received a report from the secretary to the National Rifle Association with regard to the defective cartridges alluded to in the Question, and also with regard to the Martini-Henry cartridges, which had likewise proved defective?
  MR. BRODRICK: Such a report has been received. The investigation will deal with both points.
  MR J. H. DALZIEL: What was the age of the ammunition?
  MR. BRODRICK: I cannot say; we are looking into the whole subject.

QUEEN'S HARBOUR MASTER FOR HAMOAZE.
MR. R. ASCROFT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any person has been appointed as Queen's Harbour Master for Hamoaze to superintend the execution of the provisions of the Dockyard Port Regulations Act, 1865; whether such person is solely responsible for seeing that the provisions of the said Act and Orders in Council relating thereto are carried out; and whether the Metropolitan Police are also empowered to act independent of the Queen's Harbour Master, and to bring actions against persons contravening the Act and Orders in Council arising therefrom; and, if so, under which Acts such power is vested in the hands of the Metropolitan Police?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The Staff Captain of Devon-port Dockyard is Queen's Harbour Master for Hamoaze. This officer is responsible for seeing that the provisions of any Order in Council issued under the Dockyard Ports Regulations Act, 1865, are carried out. The Metropolitan Police do not, so far as I know, institute prosecutions under the Act or Orders in Council; but, if they observe any infraction of the regulations, they report the matter, and if any legal action is necessary, the Queen's Harbour Master takes proceedings.

QUEEN'S HARBOUR MASTER FOR HAMOAZE.

  BOYCE (THE LATE DR.).
  MR. M. M. BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a petition has been received by the Foreign Office from the widow of Dr. S. R. Boyce, a Parsee medical officer lately employed under Her Majesty's Commissioner and Consul General in British Central Africa, who lost his life in a slave expedition, near Lake Nyassa, for a maintenance allowance for herself and her two infant children; and whether, in view of the fact that in attacking the slave dhows, the commander of the expedition having been killed and the second officer severely wounded, Dr. Boyce led the men, and fell a victim to treachery on the part of the Native Chief Makinjira, the Foreign Office will take such petition into favourable consideration, and grant a maintenance allowance to Dr. Boyce's widow and children, who have been left utterly destitute by his death?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): Yes, Sir; I am happy to inform the hon. Member that, in reply to representations from the Foreign Office, the Treasury have recognised the meritorious character of the case to which he alludes, and have granted a pension of £33 6s. 8d. per annum to the widow of Dr. Boyce, together with a gratuity of £23 for her two children.

  LOCAL LOANS (WALES).
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: On behalf of the hon. Member for Mid-Glamorgan (Mr. SAMUEL EVANS), I beg
  1694
  to ask the President of the Local Government Board what is the total amount the Public Works Loan Commissioners are authorised to lend to local authorities; what is the total amount such Commissioners are authorised to lend to local authorities in the county of Glamorgan; what is the total amount such Commissioners are authorised to lend to the County Council of the county of Glamorgan; and what is the total amount which the Commissioners have already advanced or lent to local authorities in the county of Glamorgan?
  MR. HANBURY: The sum named in this year's Public Works Loans Bill to be issued to the Public Works Loan Board for the purpose of making local loans is £1,500,000. The persons to whom loans may be made are not always local authorities in the sense of the hon. Member's question. The present Bill, for instance, takes power to lend for the construction or improvement of canals. There is no apportioned limit to the Public Works Loan Board's power of lending to any particular local authority. The amount depends, amongst other things, on the local authorities' powers of borrowing. The Board keep no record of the amounts advanced to each individual county. To select the amounts advanced to local authorities in the county of Glamorgan would entail considerable labour, and perhaps, in view of what I have said above, the hon. Member will not press his request.

COUNTY COURT FEES.
MR. HENRY BEMROSE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been directed to the fact that the fees now charged in the county courts are proportionately far in excess of those charged in the High Court; and that they press very heavily on the poor suitor, as for instance in the case of a man claiming, say £5, for damages, or for wages, etc.; if he is not prepared with 10s. hearing fee, the case is struck out, with the loss to him of 6s. entrance fee already paid; and if, seeing that the county courts are not only self-supporting, but produce a surplus, he will consider whether the fees can be reduced, especially the hearing and execution fees?
MR. HANBURY: I am not in a position to compare the fees in county courts with those charged for corresponding services in the High Court, and I am not sure what my hon. Friend may mean by the phrase "proportionately far in excess." The figures given are correct in the case selected. The fees must, of course, have some relation to the cost of the Courts themselves, and my hon. Friend is mistaken in supposing that the county courts are self-supporting and even produce a surplus. On the contrary, they cost the taxpayer over £30,000 yearly, besides £90,000 for the salaries and pensions of Judges. As more than 1,100,000 plaints are entered yearly for amounts not exceeding £20, the fees do not appear to deter suitors. I will have inquiry made as to the allegation that those fees fall with undue weight upon poor suitors; but the whole question of the amount of these fees is, of course, subject to the approval of the Lord Chancellor.

COUNTY COURT FEES.

  ILLEGAL TRAWLING (SCOTCH WATERS).
  MR. J. McLEOD: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Admiralty has yet made any reply to the representations received from the Scottish Office and the Fishery Board for Scotland as to the necessity for further assistance in policeing the Scottish inshore waters against the depredations of trawlers acting in defiance of the law?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): A reply from the Admiralty has been received, and the matter is still under consideration of the Departments concerned. As the hon. Member is aware, many considerations must be taken into account before a definite decision can be arrived at.

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS AT PRESTON.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if it will be possible for him to arrange that the reports of the Inquiries into the four railway accidents which have recently occurred in and near
  1696
  Preston can be issued before the end of the Session?
  MR. RITCHIE: I am afraid that the short time available before the close of the Session will make it impossible to comply with this request, but I shall be happy to present the reports if I receive them in time. The Inquiry into the 3rd accident has not yet been held.

  COAL MINES REGULATION BILL.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Lords' Amendments to the Coal Mines Regulation Bill will be considered?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I cannot say at present, as the Bill has not been returned yet from the Lords.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give such notice as will enable missing Members, who are greatly interested, to return to town—as, for instance, the hon. Member for Rhondda, who is detained elsewhere on mining business?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I will do so as far as I can, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is very difficult at this period of the Session to give much notice.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: Even a notice of two days would be useful.

LIMERICK POST OFFICE.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if the privilege of educational examination under the old scheme, which has been granted recently to an acting telegraphist at Limerick, will be extended to the numerous auxiliary sorting clerks employed in the postal department of that office?
MR. HANBURY: The privilege of examination under the old scheme will be given to such of the temporary sorting clerks and telegraph learners at Limerick as have been continuously employed on post office clerical duties from a date prior to December 1892.

LIMERICK POST OFFICE.

  EAST LONDON WATER SUPPLY.
  MR. PICKERSGILLhad given notice of the following Question:—
  "To ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether his attention has been called to the report of an inquest on a child held at Poplar on Monday last, when Dr. Cooper Harrison, the medical witness, attributed the existing prevalence of fatal cases of diarrhoea among children in the East End of London to the scanty supply of water, and also stated that in his own house the water was not turned on more than one hour a day, and that there was a filthy deposit in the water supplied; and, whether, in these circumstances, he will make further representations to the East London Company of the urgent necessity for improving both the quantity and the quality of the water which they are supplying to their customers?"
  The hon. Member said that, at the request of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin), he begged to postpone the Question, but he desired to take the opportunity of urging the extreme necessity of improving the quality and quantity of the water supply in East London.

  SLAVERY AT ZANZIBAR.
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, as stated in the Zanzibar Gazette of 1st July, Mr. Commissioner A. H. Hardinge has left Zanzibar for a six months' holiday, and what steps in that event Her Majesty's Government propose to take to carry out the pledge given to Parliament on 27th March last, that Mr. Hardinge would go back to Zanzibar in the autumn with instructions to carry out immediately the abolition of the legal status of slavery?
  COLONEL DENNY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action the Government intend to take in fulfilment of their promise to consider the abolition of the status of slavery in Zanzibar, in view of the fact that Consul General Hardinge has arrived in this country?
  MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Government are already engaged in considering, in consultation with Mr. Hardinge, the best method of carrying out the pledges which they gave to the House earlier in the year.
  MR. DALZIEL: I understood the pledge to be that this would be carried out during the autumn?
  MR. CURZON: No, that it would be carried out on the return of Mr. Hardinge to Zanzibar. I do not exactly know the date of his return.

  SLAVE TRADE IN MOROCCO.
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that large numbers of slaves are from time to time being openly sold in Mogador and other seaport towns in Morocco contrary to prohibition, Her Majesty's Government will communicate with the British Minister at Tangier with a view to representations being made to the Government of Morocco against the continuance of this traffic?
  MR. CURZON: Instructions have from time to time been sent to successive British Ministers at Tangier to take every favourable opportunity for urging on the Sultan the suppression of the traffic in slaves. As recently as March last Sir Arthur Nicolson was reminded of these instructions, which there is no doubt that he has borne in mind. He will however, be asked to report upon the matter.

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES.
  MR. T. R. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether any substantial progress has been made since the discussion on 24th April in the efforts instituted by the Secretary for Scotland to bring about an agreement for an extension of the territorial limit for fishery purposes on the North Sea?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: Communications on the subject are still in progress between the Department: concerned, but an agreement in the direction suggested in the questions of the hon. Member has not yet been arrived at.

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT (DUNDALK).
MR. DALY: I beg to ask the. Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aw" that the surveyor of taxes, Dundalk, has

1699
charged a man named Boyd Income Tax on houses he holds from Mr. Leslie, Ballybay, and that the landlord, Mr. Leslie, has also paid Income Tax on property mentioned; and, whether it is usual for landlord and tenant to pay Income Tax on the same property?
MR. HANBURY: I requested the hon. Member on Tuesday to postpone this Question till to-morrow, but the Inland Revenue Board inform me that they have had to send an inspector to examine into the case on the spot, and that they do not expect to receive his report till Monday, so perhaps the hon. Member will kindly postpone his Question till that day.

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT (DUNDALK).

  ALDERSHOT (TENT FLOOR-BOARDS).
  CAPTAIN PIRIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, as regulars have been, and in all probability will be, for some months encamped at Aldershot in what is practically a standing camp, he will consider the advisability of drawing the attention of the medical authority to the necessity of recommending the general officer commanding to make requisition for these troops being supplied with tent floor-boards, in place of their providing themselves at their own expense with these boards, as in many instances they are doing at present?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Secretary of State has every confidence in the discretion of the general officer commanding, who has power to move in this matter if he thinks right.
  CAPTAIN PIRIE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the men provide these from their own funds?
  MR. BRODRICK: No, I am not aware of that. I think the hon. and gallant Member, as a military man, must be aware that it is not desirable for the Department to interfere except at the desire of the commanding officer.
  CAPTAIN PIRIE: Quite so, but I will take an opportunity of pointing out that payments are now made from the canteen fund.

  WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the
  1700
  evidence given by Mr. Conacher, Manager of the North British Railway, before the Select Committee on the Invergarry and Fort Augustus Railway Bill, in which he stated that the earnings of the west Highland Railway were most disappointing, and had only amounted to about five guineas per mile per week, or less than half what was estimated; and whether, in view of these facts, he still intends to push forward a Bill by which £260,000 of public money is to be advanced to this company for their Mallaig Extension?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): I have seen the evidence referred to. Mr. Conacher put the traffic on the West Highland Railway for the year 1895 at five guineas per mile per week, and for the year just closed at £5 11s. per mile per week. It was only opened in August, 1894. He added that, having regard to the through traffic which the Mallaig line will command, he put the two lines very much on the same footing. On this basis the Bill would involve at the outside a charge on the Treasury of £2,000 a year for 30 years, not an advance of £260,000; but, as the receipts will certainly increase, the real cost will be much less. I certainly intend to proceed with the Bill.

NATIONAL GALLERY OF SCOTLAND.
MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government will renew the grant of £1,000 a-year for the purchase of pictures for the National Gallery of Scotland, or on what grounds they propose not to give to the Scottish Gallery a grant similar to that enjoyed by the other two National Galleries of England and Ireland?
MR. HANBURY: NO such proposal has been submitted to the Treasury, and there has therefore been no refusal on their part. Had it been brought forward when the Estimates were in preparation, it would of course have been considered on its merits.
MR. BUCHANAN: Are we to understand that an application, if made, will be favourably considered?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It will be considered on its merit.

NATIONAL GALLERY OF SCOTLAND.

  GAME LICENCES (SCOTLAND).
  MR. R. PIERPOINT: beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that in Scotland it is unlawful to shoot game on a Sunday, 14-day game licences are available for 14 days exclusive of Sundays?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The licences in question are granted under the Act 46 Vict. cap. 10, Section 5, which provides that they are to be granted for a continuous period of 14 days. They cannot, therefore, be made available for a period of 14 days exclusive of Sunday?

  QUEEN'S REIGN.
  MR. GALLOWAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government, in the distribution of honours in celebration of Her Majesty's long reign, will take into consideration the claims of officers of the police force, who by long and meritorious service are deserving of distinction at the hands of Her Majesty?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): There is a general rule, the propriety of which I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise, which forbids discussion in this House of the question of distribution of honours by Her Majesty; but the Prime Minister will, of course, give due consideration to any representation that may be made to him.

  INDIAN BUDGET.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state on what day the Indian Budget will be taken.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid the House would probably be asked to consider the Indian Budget on Friday next week.

  MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT.
  MR. CHARLES WILSONI beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he will have an Inquiry held into the result of the working of the Merchandise Marks Acts as affecting British trade and shipping, and the ad-
  1702
  vertisement it gives to foreign goods, resulting to some extent in the shipping trade of Hamburg already taking precedence over Liverpool?
  MR. RITCHIE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I think the matter is one calling for inquiry, and I will consider during the Recess whether it should be by a Committee of the House or otherwise. I must not, however, be understood as expressing any opinion on the cause of the increase of the shipping trade at Hamburg.

AGRICULTURAL LAND RATING BILL.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a question in relation to business. When the Agricultural Rating Bill passed there was a direction that the Local Government Board, by Order, should make regulations; that those regulations should be laid before both Houses of Parliament; and that if neither House within ten days passed a resolution adverse to the regulations they should be binding in law. It seems that those regulations, which are very complicated and require very close attention, were laid on the Table of the House on July 28. That is nine days ago, and they were only delivered to Members yesterday. Therefore, unless they are discussed to-morrow, they cannot be discussed at all; and, apart from that, they cannot be discussed without the co-operation of the Government, because under the Standing Orders none but Government business can be taken now. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will do all that he can; and I ask what arrangement he will be prepared to make to give us an opportunity of discussing these very important matters? [Cheers.]
DR. CLARKsaid that the President of the Local Government Board in Committee suggested that the regulations should lie on the Table only ten days instead of 30, in order that they might come into force in the present year: and the suggestion was adopted on the understanding that an opportunity would be given for discussing them.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the President of Local Government Board is not able to be here to-day,

1703
that I might have the benefit of his advice. It is a surprise to me that of I the ten days only one day remains, but that depends on the procedure of the House, over which I have no control, and we must make the best of the situation. In the ordinary course to-morrow would be sacred to Supply; but I feel the strength of the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman, and I shall be willing to put down, as a Government Order, second to Supply, a Motion on which these Rules can be discussed to-morrow.
SIR W. HARCOURT: That would be a most reasonable concession, subject to the condition that Supply is not driven so late that there would be no time to discuss the regulations at reasonable length. It is a very important question.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: As far as I am concerned I shall be willing to meet that view. It is not a Government interest that Supply should be discussed, except that there should not be too many Votes left over on the last day. If the Committee will co-operate with me in getting through Supply with reasonable rapidity, I will arrange to bring on the other question at a time convenient to the right hon. Gentleman.

AGRICULTURAL LAND RATING BILL.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. DALZIELasked whether it would be impossible for hon. Members to Divide against any of the Votes remaining over after the discussion of Supply had been brought to a close by the new Standing Order?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: It will certainly be possible for hon. Members to Divide against any Vote, though I hope it is a privilege of which they will avail themselves sparingly. [Laughter.] I shall endeavour to bring on the Report stage at a convenient hour next day, of those Votes which cannot be discussed in Committee. If the Committee stage is passed soon after 10 on Friday there will be time to deal that night with the Report stage.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether the London University Bill, which had just come down from the Lords, would be proceeded with?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir; there is no idea of
  1704
  taking it. It cannot be proceeded with if there is serious opposition.
  COLONEL HUGHESasked whether the Ordnance Vote would be taken first on Friday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes, Sir; and the Local, Government Board Vote will be taken first on Monday.

LOCAL TAXATION (IRELAND) ESTATE DUTY BILL.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR, in moving for leave to introduce a Bill for paying to the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account a share of the Estate Duty, said that the Measure was merely suspensory in character. It did not appropriate money to any specific purpose, but merely provided that nine-eightieths of the sums payable under the Agricultural Rating (England) Act should be carried to the Local Taxation Account of Ireland. He hoped that any questions would be deferred until the time came for distributing the money by another Bill next Session.
Bill for paying to the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account a share of the Estate Duty, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Balfour, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Attorney General for Ireland; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed.—[Bill 334.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  AGRICULTURAL RATES, CONGESTED DISTRICTS' AND BURGH LAND TAX RELIEF (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  Clause 1,—

  AGRICULTURAL RATES, CONGESTED DISTRICTS' AND BURGH LAND TAX RELIEF (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    CLASSIFICATION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND HERITAGES FOR PURPOSES OF OCCUPIERS' RATES.
    As from the fifteenth day of May next after the passing of this Act and during the continuance thereof the annual value of all agricultural lands and heritages in Scotland—

    (1) shall for the purpose of the occupiers' consolidated rate leviable by county

    1705
    councils, including the portion thereof leviable under the Public Health (Scotland) Acts, be held to be the nearest aggregate sum of pounds sterling to three-eighths of the annual value thereof as appearing on the valuation roll; and

    (2) shall for the purpose of the occupiers' share of the poor rate, the school rate, and other rates leviable by parish councils, be held to be the nearest aggregate sum of pounds sterling to three-eighths of the annual value thereof as appearing on the valuation roll, subject to the deductions in pursuance of Section thirty-seven of the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845.

    Provided that where lands and heritages are classified in terms of Section thirty-six of the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845, if it shall be certified by the Secretary for Scotland that the rates leviable on the occupiers of agricultural lands and heritages in pursuance of the classification are less than, or as nearly as may be the same as, the rates which would without classification be leviable on such occupiers in terms of this Act, such classification (hereinafter termed a certified classification) shall have effect, and this sub-section shall not apply.
    Provided always that, in the case of any holding in a crofting parish, the Crofters' Commission in fixing a fair rent for such holding shall not be entitled to take into account the relief effected by this Act from a proportion of the consolidated rate, poor rate, and other rates before mentioned.
    The expression "agricultural lands and heritages" means any lands and heritages used for agricultural or pastoral purposes only, or as market gardens, orchards, or allotments, but does not include woodlands or land occupied together with a house as a park, garden, or pleasure ground, or any land kept or preserved mainly or exclusively for sporting purposes. Provided that if any question shall arise as to the lands and heritages falling within the foregoing definition it shall be determined summarily by the sheriff, whose decision shall be final, except that where the decision is given by a sheriff substitute it shall be subject to appeal to the sheriff.
    The expression "parish council" includes school board where a school rate is levied directly by a board school.
    MR. CALDWELL MR. CALDWELL moved to leave out Clause 1. He said, that Sub-section (1) dealt with two rates collected by County Councils in Scotland. The first was the occupiers' consolidated rate, and the second was the public health rate. The combined effect of Clause 1 and Clause 5 was that for the future classification under Section 36 and deductions under Section 37 of the Poor
    1706
    Law Acts were abolished The practical effect of that would be to place the public health rate on all-fours with the consolidated rate; and as regards both rates, the valuation roll would be taken as the basis of assessment. There would only be two classes of ratepayers—the agricultural and the non-agricultural. The non-agricultural would be rated at full value and the agricultural at three-eighths of the full value. The consequence was that, as regards Sub-section 1, every occupier of agricultural and non-agricultural land in Scotland would, as far as the consolidated rate was concerned, reap the full benefit of the reductions under the Bill, while, as regards the public health rate, the occupiers of agricultural land would reap more or less benefit according as the parish was classified or unclassified. What were the purposes for which the occupiers' consolidated rates were levied? In the county of Stirling the total consolidated rate was 4¼d., and of that no less than 3¼d. was levied under the Roads and Bridges Act. Hence, as regards Sub-section 1, they were dealing mainly with the roads and bridges rate. Prior to the Roads and Bridges Act the farmer who paid £300 of rent and had about 150 acres, paid as much as £40 a year in tolls; now he paid no tolls whatever, but by the present road rate in Stirlingshire he paid a rate of 3¼d. on his rental, and the amount he paid now was only £4. The large householders who used the roads very little felt aggrieved also, because they were rated at the same rate per pound as the farmer who got the main benefit of the roads. If there was to be a classification it should be to reduce the householders' contribution as regarded the road rate to 3–8ths. Another class who suffered greatly were the mill tenants and manufacturers who sent goods solely by rail, but who were assessed equally with the farmers. If they were to go on the principle of classification on a just basis, the classification should be the reverse of that in the Bill—that was to say, instead of 3–8ths to the agricultural tenant, it should be only 3–8ths to the non-agricultural tenant. In the counties they had the exact converse of the case which existed in burghs. They had the road rate which was levied mainly in the interest of those who used the roads, and

    1707
    if householders in counties were treated as agricultural tenants were treated in burghs, then householders in counties should be rated only on l–4th of their valuation as regarded the road rate, which was the main rate under Sub-section 1. He felt, therefore, bound to oppose the injustice of this Bill, which not only charged the householder the full rate, but which actually let the wrong man off with paying only on 3–8ths of his valuation. And this was done out of moneys which were allocated to Scotland as Scotch moneys, belonging to every community in Scotland. It was an application of Scotch money for the purpose of relieving the wrong man in the county, the man who gets the full benefit of the rate and more than the full benefit as regards the heaviest consolidated rate of the county, the road rate. The result therefore was this, that the agricultural tenant who, before 1878 paid £40 a year for the use of the roads, by that Act his payment was reduced to £4 a year, and this Bill would reduce him to 3–8ths or 30s. a year for a farm which yielded £300 of rental for the purpose of maintaining the roads. Then on to Sub-section 2. Here also the Government had refused to reduce the amount to be given in relief to the agricultural tenant. There were Highland parishes in which the poor rate and school rate were far above the normal poor and school rates of Scotland, and this not from bad administration or any fault of the people who lived there, but simply from the circumstances of the Highlands. The result was that whilst in the more prosperous districts they might have a rate of 6d., they had a rate of about 7s. in the congested districts in the Highlands. If the Government had been going to relieve the inhabitants of those districts, they might have applied their money a little better. They might first of all have considered the case of the most neccessitous agricultural occupiers; they might have taken into consideration the case of those who were now overburdened through no fault of their own with heavy road rate, a heavy poor rate, and a heavy school rate, and yet the Government had refused any attempt made from the Opposition side of the House to show some little consideration so far as this particular section of Scotland was concerned. There could be
    1708
    no question that when leases fell in the benefit of the relief given would, under a system of competition rents, go to the landlords, because as they reduced the rates as a necessary consequence they would simply keep the competition at the same ratio, and the landlord would get more rent as the rates were made lower. Dealing with the argument that this Unionist Government had treated the agricultural tenant in Scotland exactly in the same way as it treated the agricultural tenant in England, he asked, what was the position of the tenant in England? The English Bill said that he should pay half the rates, but at the present time the Scottish agricultural tenant paid no more than half the rate; so that the English Bill simply brought the English tenant to the same level as the Scotch tenant. But now the Government were making the Scottish tenant pay three-fourths of the rate as against half in England. There was no Unionist principle in the matter. The present Government claimed to be a Unionist Government. But when they came to deal with the legislation of the United Kingdom, they always separated the counties into different nationalities, and always treated them as such. The only point on which they did not treat them as separate nationalities was when they went into the Division Lobby; and the author of that separatist policy was the First Lord of the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman began the principle in 1888 in the Local Government Act for England. That was the first time the Imperial finances of the country were separated into national finances. The only illustration before that time was the Union, when the Land Tax of Scotland was separated from the Land Tax in England. It was said that classification had the effect of assessing occupiers of property upon their means and substance. He was not an advocate of classification, and he did not think that the Lord Advocate had improved the Subsection by retaining classification, because they never could by classification bring about anything like an approach to means and substance. The Government classified all the shops together as one class, but in that class they had the most varied means and substance. The only correct principle was to take the rental of the community as a whole or to take it as a

    1709
    parish, and then they must make every man pay according to the rental of the parish or the county. The moment they departed from that principle, that moment they got into inextricable confusion, and injustice and great hardship were caused by dividing into different classes. Again, they had the statement of the Lord Advocate that realty in Scotland bore the whole brunt of local taxation. The Lord Advocate confounded two things—the man who paid with the amount determined by the amount of heritable property which he occupied. It was not realty that paid, it was industry that paid rent and taxes. Realty had only to determine the amount the tenant should pay out of personalty.
    MR. J. McLEODcalled attention to that part of the grant which would go to county occupiers. He agreed with the view expressed that the county occupier had undoubtedly received considerable ad vantages from the Imperial Exchequer within recent years, and that there were various classes, perhaps not directly depending on agriculture, who were in very much greater need of relief than the actual agricultural occupiers. The particular point to which he wished to call attention was the inequitable manner in which the classification with regard to county rates would operate. For this purpose the counties in Scotland were to be taken as a whole. They knew well that the rates varied in each county. In certain counties they were much higher than in other counties. It was also a peculiarity of the position that it was the counties least able to bear the burden that had to bear the charges—the counties of large area, sparse population, and very low valuation. It was proposed to adopt a plan under which exactly the same relief would be given to the rich counties as would be given to the poor counties. The average Lowland community would get exactly the same amount of relief as Highland counties whore the rates were higher and the people less able to pay them. In the Lowland counties, practically all the public works had been executed, many of them with money provided from the Imperial Exchequer. But in the Highland counties whole districts were with-
    1710
    out roads and they could only be provided with roads out of money from the pockets of the local ratepayers. If the House was going to subsidise local county rates they ought to give the money where it was wanted for the execution and completion of public works. Some method ought to be devised by means of which counties or districts of counties where there ought to be a large capital expenditure on public works would benefit to a greater degree under this Bill than Irish counties where public works already existed in a complete state. The small agricultural occupiers in the Highlands would not benefit at all under this Bill. The money would not go into his pockets, but into the pockets of the large capitalists. That would be the result of the particular form of classification adopted in the Bill. The clause might produce certain small advantages, but he nevertheless conceived it to be his duty to vote against it as a whole.
    DR. CLARKsaid that he had understood the Government to have three objects in view—namely, the relief of the occupier of agricultural land, the improvement of congested districts in the Highlands and the payment of Land Tax in certain burghs. It appeared, however, now, that the Government had a fourth object—namely, the Amendment of the law with regard to the classification of lands and heritages. In reforming the law of classification the Government were at the same time professing to relieve a class of men who were doing nothing for agriculture. The English Bill only relieved agricultural occupiers, and if this Bill were going in the same way only to relieve that class in Scotland, something might be said for it.
    MR. SPEAKER: It appears to me that the hon. Member is making a Second Reading speech.
    DR. CLARKsaid the first clause of the Bill contained in itself practically six clauses. The Bill had been so drafted that they had to discuss under this clause the proposed reform of the law of classification and the proposal to give relief to occupiers of agricultural land. Parishes where there were classifications under which agricultural ratepayers were only paying three-eighths of the rates were not to be affected by the

    1711
    clause. It was unfair not to treat agriculturists in Scotland exactly in the same way as they had treated agriculturists in England. He did not know that the Scotch agriculturist required assistance so much as the English; but the House was in this position, that the money which was given as an equivalent grant to Scotland in consequence of a certain grant having been made to a sdecial class in England, would not be limited to that class in Scotland. The fact was that in a great many parishes, had it not been for the Amendment of the Lord Advocate, unfortunate agricultural tenants, instead of having their burden reduced by this Bill, would actually have had it increased, for under the present classification, which was being abolished by the Bill, they would be paying less than they would when this Bill became law. They were farmers in certain parishes, who were only paying a quarter, and their burden would be increased by the Bill from a quarter to three-eighths. But, moreover, this money was not to be used exclusively for the agricultural tenants. In some parishes the money was to be used for the benefit of all ratepayers alike. And that was one of the reasons why some hon. Members objected to the clause. It was because under a Bill intended for the relief of agricultural tenants, a large portion of the relief in several districts where money was not wanted, was to be given to other ratepayers who had nothing at all to do with agriculture. He could not see any reason why these people should get this money, and nothing had been said by the Government in defence of it. This was a grant made to Scotland as an equivalent to that made to England, and it ought to be confined to the benefit of the same class of ratepayers.
    Question put, "That the words of the clause to the word 'Scotland,' in line 7, inclusive, stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided:—Ayes, 137; Noes, 58.—(Division List, No. 386.)
    MR. CROMBIE MR. CROMBIE moved, after the word "Scotland," to insert the words "in which the rent has not been raised since the passing of this Act." The
    1712
    Lord Advocate, in his exceedingly clear and succinct speech, stated that whatever was the purpose of the Bill it was certainly not to put money into the pockets of the landlords. He did not, of course, doubt the right hon. Gentleman's sincerity in committing himself to that statement. But he must be endowed with an extraordinary amount of guilelessness, and he proposed the Amendment, not so much to test the sincerity of the Government, as to remove the guilelessness of the Lord Advocate. It was perfectly evident that if rents were increased after the passing of the Act one of two things must have happened—either the man who could pay the increased rent had ceased to be a distressed agriculturist, and, therefore, did not deserve relief, or the landlord had pocketed the relief. No answer had yet been given to the argument adduced over and over again that the relief must go into the landlord's pocket. So long as the present leases remained, it was perfectly true that the tenant would get the relief meant for him, but as soon as these leases fell in that relief must certainly go to the landlord. In the days of 19 years' leases this would not have mattered so much, but these leases had fallen into disfavour, and leases were now only for five years. Many of these leases would fall in during the next five years, and in all these cases the relief would go into the landlords' pockets. It had been brought out that the sort of land which would most invariably fall in first was precisely the land with which none of them had much sympathy—namely, accommodation land. In this case the landlord would receive the relief almost at once, for these lands fell in generally in a year, and often within six months. The Government had expressed sympathy with the idea of excluding accommodation land, but their difficulty was to find a definition. By accepting the Amendment they would, to a great extent, cut out accommodation land. They would also prove the sincerity of their statement that they did not want the money to go into the pocket of the landlord, and he was hopeful and expectant that the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to adopt the Amendment.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid the hon. Member could scarcely expect him

    1713
    to accept an Amendment moved with the object of corrupting his present state of innocence. [Laughter.] The question whether the relief would go to the landlord had been discussed both on this Bill and on the English Bill. In England leases were from year to year, and yet, notwithstanding that fact, there were many on the Benches opposite who confessed that they did not believe that even under that system the relief would go to the landlord. If everything could be brought to a mathematical nicety in the way of competition, there would be a great deal to be said for the position taken up by the hon. Gentleman. But that was not so, and he did not know whether he could do better than take hon. Gentlemen opposite who were landlords and ask them whether they supposed that when their leases fell out they would really take into account this not very large relief given to the tenant. What hon. Members opposite seemed never to have realised was that in the real and true sense there was a partnership in the land between the landlord and the tenant. They always looked upon these two as enemies with daggers drawn, and taking advantage of the situation whatever it might be. ["Hear, hear!"] That might possibly be the case in Ireland, but he was happy to say it was not so in England or in Scotland. He would give one reason which, without any other, would be sufficient to prevent his accepting the Amendment. By accepting it, an absolute deterrent would be put to the making of improvements by the landlord, because if he made improvements upon which extra rent was to be charged, then at once the relief given under the Bill would be withdrawn.
    SIR GEORGE TREVELYANsaid this was a very important question. The circumstances of England differed from those of Scotland in this matter. There was no doubt that on a well-managed English estate the sitting tenant went on from year to year at the rent he was paying before. But in Scotland rents became more commercial as the date of the lease was longer, and in the case of five, 10, and 19 years' leases the revision was a very genuine revision. Scotch farmers felt deeply on the subject. A considerable number of
    1714
    five years' leases would expire in the course of the next five years, and they regretted that the Government had not recognised the fact that the benefits derived from the reduction of rates would be secured to the landlords in the form of increased rents. It would be an argument of considerable force if this could be shown to have the effect of checking landlords in making improvements, but he submitted this was not likely to be the case. There were two classes of landlords' improvements, and those which consisted in making a tenant comfortable in his holding, providing proper buildings, giving him a sound roof and giving him a comfortable habitation, these were improvements for which no good landlord expected to get a special rent. But it was another matter when the improvement was a distinctly agricultural improvement, carried out by expenditure upon which a certain amount of interest had to be paid. It was well known that landlords had borrowed money to carry out such improvements and had charged the tenant an amount that went towards a sinking fund for the payment of capital and interest. This was a simple transaction between landlord and tenant, as, for instance, the charging of five per cent. on the outlay for drainage works. If the Government would accept the principle of the Amendment it would be easy to find words excepting an arrangement of this kind. He did not think the argument of the First Lord of the Treasury was a sound one against a proposal to meet what practical farmers would recognise as a grievance with regard to the Bill.
    MR. CROMBIEexpressed his willingness to amend his proposal.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSONappreciated the argument against the Amendment on the Paper, but if the Bill was to carry out its ostensible object, the relief of the occupiers of agricultural land, some Amendment of the kind was necessary. In Scotland rents were far more competition rents than in England, and under a system of competition rents, at any lapse or breakage of lease, or re-arrangement of reductions for the bad times, the benefit must undoubtedly go to the owner and not to the occupier. This

    1715
    point had been brought into stronger relief by the Amendment with regard to the crofters.
    MR. J. B. BALFOUR MR. J. B. BALFOUR (Clackmannan and Kinross) moved to add to the proposed Amendment the words:—
    "unless in so far as increased rent is stipulated to be paid in respect of improvements made by the landlord."
    Words added to proposed Amendment.
    Question proposed, after "Scotland" to insert:—
    "in which the rent has not been raised since the passing of this Act, unless in so far as increased rent is stipulated to be paid in respect of improvements made by the landlord."
    DR. CLARKsaid he had had an Amendment of the same character, which he lost the opportunity of discussing in Committee, his object being to see that the Bill carried out the statement first made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—namely, that so far as the Scotch Rating Bill was concerned, every precaution was taken that only occupiers should get relief and the statement of the Lord Advocate that it was in no sense a dole to landlords. There were two or three forms in which landlords might get the benefit where they were occupiers, in cases where the land was held from year to year, and then, of course, the rents would very soon be modified; and thirdly, there was the case of expiring leases, where the new rents would undoubtedly give the landlords the benefit. Certain improvements were made by the landlord and paid for by the tenant, not as rent. Under the Crofters Act he had heard of a landlord who agreed to make certain improvements on a croft, on condition that, it being a commercial transaction, he should get interest for it. The argument that it would prevent improvements by landlords did not weigh, the addition would be interest and sinking fund, and not rent, for which he supposed the landlord could sue under commercial law. If the Government refused to take any precautions to carry out the Chancellor of the Exchequer's declaration, then Members were justified in saying this was a dole to landlords just as much as the English Bill was a dole to landlords.
    Question put,
    "That the words 'in which the rent has not been raised since the passing' of this Act, unless in so far as the increased rent is stipulated to be paid in respect of improvements made by the landlord' be there inserted."
    The House divided:—Ayes, 49; Noes, 119.—(Division List, No. 387.)
    On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval,
    MR. ALEXANDER CROMBIE MR. ALEXANDER CROMBIE (Kincardineshire) moved, in sub-section (1), after the word "Acts," to insert the words,—
    "in so far as the amount per pound of that rate does not exceed the amount per pound at which it was levied during the financial year ending the fifteenth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-six."
    This Amendment had been moved on a previous occasion, and in the division the votes of the Scottish Members were in the proportion of two to one in favour of it. The practice of the Scottish people, moreover, showed that the majority were rather in favour of the Amendment and its principle. The Bill of the Government, as far as it was understood in Scotland, was something like this. They believed the assessment of Agricultural lands was to be reduced to three-eighths, and that the hole created would be filled up by money taken from Government sources, and no one would therefore be a penny the worse. He hoped that the Bill was disapproved of in principle by the Scottish people, but the majority felt that their pockets were not touched, and accordingly they had no particular objection to the Bill. But if the rate should be raised and the Government relief was stereotyped, any excess in the rate, instead of being met by a Government giant, would have to be borne by the rest of the community, and the average man in Scotland would not approve of that. A large minority of Scottish parishes had enjoyed for 50 years power to do that which by the First clause of the Bill was provided as far as the poor rate and public health rate were concerned, but few of them had used it. Therefore they would object to the principle whereby agricultural tenants should pay three-eighths and the rest of the community should have to make up the deficiency.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid that this question had already been discussed in Committee and a Division taken on it. He was not moved by the considerations which had now been advanced by the hon. Member, though he believed that the Scottish people would be disposed to give effect to a policy which was consonant with the principles of justice. He feared he had nothing to add to what he had said in Committee.
    MR. ROBINSON SOUTTARsaid that a certain amount of dread was felt as to the results of this legislation. It was only in accordance with human nature that people should spend money more freely than they otherwise would when the money could be spent at other people's expense. Scotchmen were no freer from that fault than other people. It should be remembered that the landowners and farmers generally exercised a preponderating power in County Councils and other rural bodies, and it was hardly to be expected that they would forego spending money when they would know that they would themselves have to provide only a fractional part of it. This was a temporary Bill, and he feared that there would be a tendency during the next five years to make hay while the sun shone. He was, therefore, sorry that the Government had not entertained favourably the request that the poor rate should be excepted. Experience showed that farmers were not to be trusted in the matter of the relief of the poor, and it was well-known that some years ago in England the farmers gave out-door relief promiscuously in the counties. When the farmers of Scotland realised that they would have to pay only three-eighths of the poor rate, they would be tempted to be free in granting out-door relief instead of paying adequate wages to the labourers.
    DR. CLARKargued that, under the system of classification contemplated in the clause, the agricultural community would not pay their fair share of an increased rate.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid that the state of things would be the same as under the old classification.
    Amendment negatived.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid that the next proviso, that which had been
    1718
    moved by the hon. Member for the Hawick Burghs, was really not in its proper place. He wanted to give it a place to itself. He therefore proposed to omit it, undertaking to insert it as a new clause later on. He begged to move to omit the following proviso:—
    "Provided always that, in the ease of any holding in a crofting parish, the Crofters' Com-mission in fixing a fair rent for such holding shall not he entitled to take into account the relief affected by this Act from a proportion of the consolidated rate, poor rate, and other rates before mentioned."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. MCLEOD MR. MCLEOD moved to omit from the next paragraph of the clause the words "or pastoral," so that lands used for pastoral purposes only should be excluded from the scope of the Bill. The Bill, he understood, was intended for the relief of agricultural occupiers, but the effect of the clause as it stood would be that large pastoral tenants who did not carry on any agricultural pursuits in the proper sense of the term, would get the benefit of the grant. He might observe, in reply to some criticisms passed on this Amendment when it was moved in Committee, that there were no small occupiers in Scotland whose holdings were purely pastoral. They all more or less had agricultural land which would bring them within the provisions of the Bill. This Measure being for the encouragement and relief of agriculture, that House ought not to do anything to aid men who were buying up large areas of land upon which no cultivation of any kind was being carried on. But if those who had holdings of this description chose to cultivate a certain portion of them, he should not object to their getting relief. There were pastoral farmers and owners having land, not a single acre of which was cultivated. Thousands of these acres might be under crop, and by the policy which these owners and pastoral farmers were pursuing, they were shutting out a considerable proportion of the population from occupation on the land.
    MR. J. M. WHITEsupported the Amendment, because a large amount of agricultural land, as distinguished from pastoral, had gone out of cultivation in Scotland. It was, he thought, universally held that they ought to do

    1719
    everything in their power to encourage the highest development of the land. The more land was turned into pasture, the more labourers would be turned off the land, and on that ground he objected to this relief being given to pastoral land. Pastoral land was rated higher than agricultural land, for this reason, that supposing land was worth £2 an acre for agricultural purposes, when laid down in permanent pasture it was probably worth £3 an acre. In this way pastoral land had an undoubted advantage in the relief given. If this Amendment were carried, not only would it take relief off pastoral land, but it would leave more to be given in relief of agricultural land.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid that the Amendment now proposed was somewhat different to that proposed in Committee. It was now proposed to omit the words "or pastoral," so that the clause would read "lands and heritages used for agricultural purposes only." This would not only exclude the big pastoral farmers, It would also exclude the man who cultivated a small quantity of land along with his pastoral holding. He was, therefore, afraid he could not accept the Amendment. It was impossible in a general Measure of this sort to make these distinctions, and he hoped hon. Gentlemen would forgive him if he said that this Amendment seemed to be rather an attempt to get at those gentlemen in the northern counties who had more than one holding.
    DR. CLARKcould not see why pastoral land should get the benefit of the Bill. What they wanted to do was to encourage agriculture and to include pastoral land would rather tend to encourage more and more the laying down of land in permanent pasture. The result of that would be to lessen the production of the land, and so to lessen its value to the community and restrict the field of labour. Two classes of land would be affected by the Amendment, namely, the permanent pastures already in existence in the south, the landlords of which were now getting an increased value, though their creation brought loss to the community at large and to those who looked to agriculture for labour. The other class of land was the large grazing tracts in the north, which were used partly for raising sheep and
    1720
    partly for sporting purposes. It was true that the Bill excepted land kept or preserved mainly or exclusively for sporting purposes; but it was difficult to see how the rating authority was to determine the question of whether land was mainly used for that purpose. Probably, if the sporting rent was greater than the agricultural rent, the land would be treated as mainly used for sporting purposes. At any rate, he did not want to see the value of that class of land increased. It ought to be decreased, and this Amendment might have that effect. If the Government really wanted to encourage and aid agriculture they would do all they could to give relief where it would have the effect of keeping more men on the soil. Anyone who knew anything of agriculture in England and other parts of the world would admit that the best results had been got from the old Scotch system. It secured the maximum use to the community and employed the maximum of labour. Where the English system of having permanent pastures had been developed in Scotland, it had always been bad for that country. There was nothing at all to be said in favour of the pastoral system, and he wished the Government would accept the Amendment, and so strike a blow at a system which was lessening the power of production of the Scotch soil.
    MR. ROBINSON SOUTTARsaid he sympathised entirely with the economic view that had been taken of this matter. It was no doubt economically sound to say that the agricultural farm employed more men. But how would the country stand without pastoral farms now that cattle had been shut out? We must have cattle, and we must have sheep, and therefore it was beside the question to argue against pastoral land. The reason that weighed with him was that pastoral farmers had been suffering as much in the main as agricultural farmers. Hon. Gentlemen who had spoken had been judging from the pastoral farmers in the north of Scotland. No doubt many of them were very well off; but men who had been engaged in raising sheep had suffered especially. The price of sheep had not been at all good. Many sheep farmers lost money last year. In his county, certainly, there were a great

    1721
    many men who were accustomed to raise a few sheep, and who ought to have the benefits of the Bill if there were any to be got from it. He would not for a single moment say that his constituents ought to have doles if doles were going; he had not said that. What he said was that if farmers were to receive doles there was no more reason why the agricultural farmer should receive them than there was that the pastoral holder should receive them.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. MCLEOD MR. MCLEOD moved, after the words "pastoral purposes," to insert the words "and upon which the occupier resides." This Amendment, he said, was also discussed to some extent in the Committee stage, but it was admitted that the form of the Amendment then was defective, with the result that there was a considerable difference of opinion. Had the form of the Amendment been as he moved it now, he believed there would have been practical unanimity. The object of the Amendment was to insure that one of the objects of the Bill should be carried out, namely, that the actual bona fide agricultural occupier should get the benefit. There were a very considerable number of cases where the landlord was the occupier, and as the Bill at present stood he would get the benefit. As he understood, the object of the Government was that this relief should go into the pocket of the agricultural occupier. It was a notorious fact that since the rents of sheep farms had shown a tendency to go down, a large number of owners, instead of re-letting their farms at a reduced rent to the occupier or to a new tenant, had taken the lands into their own hands, and were endeavouring to keep up rents in that way. To give these owners relief under this Bill would be to defeat one of the objects of the Bill, namely, to encourage agricultural occupiers. The Amendment moved in Committee was in such form that it would have shut out small owners who bonâ fide occupied their holding. This Amendment would not have that effect. The words were very nearly the same as those in the Crofters Act. In that Act Parliament
    1722
    decided that no tenant should get the benefit of the Act unless he resided upon his holding. His Amendment did not affect owners of agricultural holdings who were bonâ fide occupiers, but it would be reducing the whole proceedings under the Bill to an absurdity to propose that men in the position of His Grace the Duke of Argyll and others he could mention should participate in this relief. He did not think it could have been the intention of the Government that that should be the case, and they could therefore have no difficulty in accepting his Amendment.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid he could not accept the Amendment. He would remind the hon. Member that the Act from which he had borrowed the expression, the Crofters Act, dealt with a very different matter. There the point was what persons were to have the right of being recognised by the Act, and the idea was that although they were not the owners of the soil, they represented persons who had been on an unwritten tenure from time immemorial. When that tenure was to be recognised it could be only in respect of persons who had been in bonâ fide occupancy of their crofts. In this case they were not dealing with personal relief, but with the question of how agricultural land was to be placed in the matter of rating, and he was afraid men like the Duke of Argyll would be just in the same position as anyone else. He did not think it was legitimate in this matter to look at the person who happened to be the occupier in his personal capacity. That was a principle which no taxing system could possibly follow. He recognised the temperate spirit in which the hon. Member had moved the Amendment, but he must refuse on behalf of the Government to accept it.
    DR. CLARKregretted that the Government were not prepared to make one or two of these desirable changes. If the Amendment of his hon. Friend was adopted, no poor man could suffer. The only persons that would suffer from it were a class of pluralist farmers in the north, who had big farms, and many of them, and who by virtue of their capital had cut out the people from the soil and caused those congested districts on which the Government proposed to spend money.
    DR. TANNER: Mr. Speaker, I beg to call your attention that there are not 40 Members present.
    MR. SPEAKER: I have recently satisfied myself that there are 40 Members present.
    DR. TANNER: "Hear, hear! Hear, hear! Hear, hear!"
    MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member does not behave himself in a respectful manner, I shall have to call the attention of the House to his conduct.
    DR. TANNER: Certainly.
    DR. CLARKsaid the House was not going to legislate directly, as in the Crofters Act, for cutting down these farms, but there was the opportunity of doing something to lesson the evils resulting from that system of pluralism. These men were large capitalists; a man who spent £3,000 or £4,000 yearly in rental was probably employing capital of 10 times that amount, and these men were not the men who required any relief under the Bill. Using their capital in any other way, they would take the chances of the market, and why on earth should this class be relieved when their very existence had a baneful effect on the community. The operations of a large manufacturer had a beneficial and a healthy effect, but in farming the reverse was the result, and those landlords who had displaced the working bees for these big drones would admit that the results had been bad for the community, and often attended by financial failure.
    MR. SPEAKERreminded the hon. Member of the Amendment, which did not admit of the discussion at large of the merits of large and small farms.
    DR. CLARKsaid the Amendment was a proposal not to pay the rates in cases where a man held more than one farm, and he was about to argue in support of this proposal that this pluralism had a baneful effect on the community. Going back to Tudor times, when there was a similar condition of things in England, the fact was recognised by legislation putting extra taxation on occupiers of more than one farm. In discouraging the system the House would be proceeding on good constitutional lines.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid if the Bill were founded on any strict and definite principle, he thought he could
    1724
    understand the argument addressed against the Amendment by the Lord Advocate, but he did not think there was so much principle in the Bill as to prevent the Amendment being considered from an empirical point of view. If landlords were ostracised under the Bill, as theoretically they were, he saw no reason why plural holders of farms should not be put in a similar position. It was a bad system of culture and not confined to the Highlands.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, in reply to the remarks just made, it was to be remembered that landlords were not theoretically ostracised by the Bill, and if a landlord was in occupation and paid an occupier's rates he would get the same relief as other occupiers would get. If it was a bad system in the interest of the land itself to have the same man tenant of several farms, why did landlords let their land in that way? He was not affected by the argument that they ought to do certain things in contradiction with the principle of the Bill in order to do good in other directions, and he could not accept the principle of the Amendment.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The House divided:—Ayes, 52; Noes, 132.—(Division List, No. 388.)
    MR. H. C. F. LUTTRELL, moved to leave out the words "together with a house," and to insert instead thereof the words "or used." He wished all land which was occupied as a park, whether with a house or not, to pay rates to the full extent. The Bill was mainly to relieve the occupier of agricultural land, and people who owned parks ought not to have the rates reduced. As it was, the man who cultivated his land had to pay far more in rates than the man who kept his land idle for the maintenance of deer and rabbits. By implication, a park without a house was to obtain the benefit of the Bill; and that would be an encouragement to owners to keep the land idle. He supposed that the word "park" meant a park in the English sense, and it was quite possible to have a park without a house. The house might have been burnt down.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEcould not accept the Amendment, because in the opinion of the Government the definition was very much better as it stood. The answer to the question of the hon. Gentleman was this—that "park" was a term which had no legal signification; it was merely a word of ordinary parlance which had to be interpreted according to the context. Moreover, if the Amendment were accepted, and the words "together with a house" left out, then "park" might mean a grass field, and that would not meet the object the hon. Gentleman had in view. Of course, there were infinite possibilities as to houses tumbling down and all the rest of it, but he was not aware of any deer-parks in Soctland not occupied together with a house. The object the hon. Gentleman had in view was fairly struck at by the clause as it stood.
    MR. MCLEODthought there were certain places where they would find deer parks without a house upon them, and he instanced on the spur of the moment a case in Skye and another in Sutherland. He thought, therefore, there was something in what the hon. Gentleman had urged; at the same time he was perfectly willing to accept the assurance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it was certainly the intention of the Government not to allow parks of the kind described to come within the purview of the Bill.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. DALZIEL MR. DALZIEL moved, after the words "pleasure ground," to insert:—
    "or any land which, owing to its being situate within or to its proximity to any Burgh, as defined by the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, boars an increased value over and above its ordinary value as agricultural or pastoral land."
    He said the question had been before the House on several occasions, but it was regarded by Scottish constituencies as so important, that it was the duty of Scotch Members to bring it before the House on every possible occasion. The Lord Advocate, in the previous Debate, had practically admitted the justice of the principle, but his difficulty seemed to be that it was impossible to frame a definition which would carry out the object in view. He thought it was not too much
    1726
    to expect that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, with his great legal experience, would be able to give them some definition which would be satisfactory to all parties. He proposed the Amendment to test the principle so far as the House was concerned, and to see whether the Lord Advocate had now made up his mind on the subject. If the House carried the Bill as it stood, he maintained that it would be taking a backward step, so far as the question of taxation of land was concerned. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in 1871, pointed out that land like that referred to in the Amendment, instead of escaping taxation, ought properly to bear increased taxation. The right hon. Gentleman said:—
    "The result of the present, state of things has been that many great improvements in the Metropolis, in Liverpool, Manchester, and other large towns, has been in the last ten years at the cost of the occupiers without the landlords contributing a single shilling."
    If that was true, then it was much more true at the present time, and the effect of the Bill without this Amendment would be to allow this class to escape taxation. The Royal Commission of 1884 and the Select Committee on Town Holdings in 1892 also passed recommendations that this land ought to bear more taxation, while the late Parliament unanimously passed a resolution that—
    "No system of taxation can be equitable unless it includes the direct assessment of the enhanced value of land due to the increase of population, wealth and growth of towns."
    He submitted that in face of these authorities it was reasonable to ask the right hon. Gentleman to exclude this land from the advantages of the Bill. In Glasgow, for example, there were 11,861 acres, 3,500 of which consisted of building land. That land was practically paying no taxation at present to the ordinary expenses of Glasgow, and yet it was going to obtain relief under the Bill.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid he was not prepared to accept the Amendment. The subject was fully discussed in Committee in the Debates on the English Bill. He was not much moved by the excerpts which the hon. Member had read. He did not remember the exact passage quoted from the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty, but he

    1727
    apprehended that the right hon. Gentleman was there dealing with capital value and the escape from taxation of land within burghs. In the same way the Resolution quoted must be taken as one entirely dealing with capital value. The hon. Member spoke about the increment value of Glasgow due to the industry of the community. He would not enter into the problem, but he believed that the increment value was nothing more than this—that a particular person who happened to hold a particular article secured an increased value through competition. He had never been able to see a distinction in principle between the right of a man who happened to own land near a town and found its value go up, and the right of a man who held cotton or any other commodity and found the market price rise. He thought that the value of the land rose, not because of the industry of the community, but because there were persons who wanted the land. According to that principle they ought just as much to tax increment in every commodity—cotton, wheat, and other articles held for the rise. But this argument dealt with capital value, which obviously had nothing to do with the Bill; the Bill had only to deal with the occupier's claim to be assessed at the agricultural value, which was being brought in at the moment. Nobody knew what agricultural value was, because it must obviously be different in different places. Agricultural value was enhanced or diminished by the advantages or disadvantages of every particular situation. It varied from year to year according to the means of transport, the water supply, and other circumstances. Accordingly, the difficulty before the Committee was not a difficulty of definition, but the difficulty that, in the nature of things, there was no standard which they could apply. To set up an arbitrary and artificial standard of agricultural value, and to say that land exceeded that standard because it was near a town or because it was supposed to have certain other advantages, would be a very inexpedient course, because it would involve complications and difficulties. He could not accept this Amendment because in his opinion it invited them to do something which was impossible.
    MR. MCLEODthought the Lord Advocate hardly showed his usual acumen when he said that he had never been able to draw any distinction between land and other commodities. The distinction was that, whilst land could not be increased or decreased by one single inch, other commodities—cotton, for example—could be increased or decreased according to the wishes of the community. The Amendment was intended to effect the release of land which was unhappily beng held back from the community for speculative purposes, The object of the Amendment was to discourage the system of holding land back with a view to obtaining an enhanced price for it subsequently. If the Government were serious in their avowed desire to benefit agriculture and to reform rating, they ought to accept this Amendment. In connection with the matter to which the Amendment related, there was no question of agricultural distress at all. The question of rating reform was alone involved. Instead of reducing local burdens upon land in the vicinity of large towns, and even villages, it would be even juster to put an extra tax upon such land, which had an enhanced value because there happened to be an industrial and industrious community in the vicinity.
    MR. J. B. BALFOURthought the difficulties of the question could be got over by their agreeing to exclude from the scope of the Bill land in or near to any town or village, which bore exceptional value as accommodation land over and above the ordinary letting value for such land occupied as an ordinary farm. It was a moot point in some quarters whether it was better as a matter of policy to rate an object upon some estimate of its capital value, or to rate it upon its letting value as estimated by the rent if it was let; or, if it was not let, upon an estimate of what it would realise, taking one year with another. Scotland had adopted the second of these methods. He did not understand that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy meant to limit his case to capital value, but undoubtedly the words of the Amendment would cover capital value. They might, therefore, be viewed as words intended to introduce an entirely novel basis for rating. It was to meet

    1729
    that criticism that he supported the alteration which he had mentioned. One of the objections of the Lord Advocate to his hon. Friend's proposal would be met if they were to agree to consider lettable value as implying annual value. A standard of comparison might be arrived at by comparing the letting value of accommodation land with the ordinary lettable value of land occupied as an ordinary farm. This problem ought not to be given up as insoluble, and he submitted that what he had proposed came, at all events, pretty near to a solution. The words he had put on the Paper had been framed with considerable regard to what men called town parks. Those who had to judge whether a particular piece of land fell within a definition or not, would, he imagined, go to look at the land; and if they came to the conclusion that it had urban uses, and so got a differential rate, they would then classify it as land falling within the exception, and he submitted that that should be so.
    MR. HALDANEthought that the Amendment provided a definition of accommodation land which was sufficient for practical purposes. The problem was not insoluble, as was clear from an admission made by important supporters of the Government on the English Rating Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Stroud laughed at the notion that it was not possible to frame a definition of this kind of land. His right hon. Friend had, he thought, suggested a definition which would be interpretable by any ordinary tribunal. Where he was not sure that he was in agreement with his right hon. Friend was in the notion that, because this land could be defined, the lands referred to by his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy ought to be excluded from the scope of the Amendment. This was a Bill for the relief of agricultural distress. It proposed to afford that relief by giving to the land which was subject to agricultural distress exemption from a portion of the rates. It was said by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy that at all events land which was near a town, and which, though not let at a high rent, had an excess capital value over the market value, owing to its proximity to a centre of population, ought to be excluded from the Bill. It was true, as his right hon. Friend said,
    1730
    that land of an increased letting value was clearly on a different footing to agricultural land. He wanted to know why land, the capital value of which had increased by the movement of population in its vicinity, was not also in the same position? It was land which did not come within the class of land the Bill sought to relieve. He was assuming that the principle of the Bill was right, but why should it be applied to land in the neighbourhood of towns, which had a capital value much in excess of the ordinary agricultural value? Why did the owner leave it in the category of agricultural land? Because he believed that as time went on he would get more and more for it, and would get a capital value far in excess of the number of years' purchase of ordinary agricultural and. For these reasons, it seemed to him that in such land they had got something, not only the subject of definition, but something which it would be a wrong to the taxpayers of the country to bring within the category of lands to be the subject of a special tribute; and he would be glad to see the House accept the Amendment, because they would only be doing an ordinary act of justice to the community.
    MR. ALEXANDER UREsaid the Lord Advocate did not oppose the Amendment as being against the principle of the Bill, which was to rectify the inequalities in rating. The right hon. Gentleman would be quite willing to admit the Amendment if he could realise a standard by which land which did acquire an adventitious value could be distinguishd from land with an ordinary agricultural value. The right hon. Gentleman went further and said that, if he could only get this standard, he did not despair of the draftsman being able to frame a clause which would meet the desire of Members on the Opposition side of the House. What was wanted was to ascertain whether a particular piece of land really was of the average value of agricultural land in the district, or had some adventitious value. It did not appear to him that there was any serious difficulty in ascertaining the difference, because they did find in a district that the average value of purely agricultural land was easily ascertained and well known to experts; and, on the other hand, that land which

    1731
    had acquired an adventitious value was equally easily ascertainable. Indeed, the Lord Advocate, in the latter part of this very clause, provided a means for ascertaining within what category a particular land should be placed. The Amendment would in no way interfere with the principle of the Bill, and he hoped it would be accepted.
    DR. CLARK, while supporting the Amendment, thought that not only should they refuse to give this aid where there was an increased annual value, but also where there was an increased capital value. Surely the Lord Advocate ought to be moved by the consensus of opinion which existed among the leaders of both Parties. The Commission which sat 12 years ago, and which contained many representative men, was unanimous in making this recommendation, and nothing had yet been done to carry it out. There had also been a unanimous expression of opinion on the part of the House in the same direction. He read the speeches of a great many Unionist candidates last year, and they were all very strong on this question, though, perhaps, these gentlemen had now changed their minds. He did not know whether the Lord Advocate pledged himself to it.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE: I pledged myself to nothing.
    DR. CLARKsaid he was afraid that the right hon. Gentleman was about the only candidate in the north and west of Scotland who did not pledge himself to this principle. This land had an annual value apart altogether from the ordinary agricultural value, and the class of men who held this land were not, in the ordinary sense of the term, farmers or agriculturists. A large portion of the land was in the hands of cow feeders and dairymen. The value of land was determined by two elements. The first was the value of the soil, and that the Amendment would not touch; then there was the value given by the site, and it was that value that they wanted to exempt from the operation of the clause. They wanted to exempt that class of land, both in respect of annual value and capital value, from having any benefit under this Bill, because Parliament and all the Select Committees and Royal Commissions that had been ap-
    1732
    pointed had recommended them to take that course.
    MR. JAMES BAILLIEdesired to point out to the right hon. Member for Clackmannan, that the Amendment might cause a considerable amount of hardship in some cases. For instance, on his own property he had a considerable number of crofters close to the town of Inverness, and he had no doubt that the capital value of that land, if he were to sell it for building purposes, would be very much enhanced owing to its proximity to Inverness. But he thought it would be very hard on those crofters that they should be deprived of the benefits of this Bill.
    MR. J. B. BALFOURsaid the hon. Member's point was that there might be capital value in certain lands which would not show itself in the rental. It was for that precise reason that he framed his Amendment so as not to touch capital value.
    MR. JOHN DILLONsaid this was a repetition of the struggle they had had in reference to Irish land, and it was hard to realise that, while Members of the Government in another place were arguing in favour of the principle of accommodation land having distinct treatment, Members of the same Government, and at the same time, in the House of Commons, adopted the opposite attitude, declaring they could not provide a definition.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid the hon. Member was probably absent during the discussion, or he would know that he (the Lord Advocate) never said it was impossible to supply a definition.
    MR. DILLONsaid as he understood, the difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman in the way of consenting to the Amendment was that it was impossible to fix a standard for accommodation land. In relation to accommodation land or town parks in Ireland the difficulty, apparently, did not exist at all. The princple had full operation in the Irish Act. The term as applied to land that bore additional value from the fact of its proximity to a town was well known in legislation, and had led to exemption from the Irish Land Act. It was monstrous that a Bill intended for the relief of agricultural distress should apply to accommodation land, as to which

    1733
    there had been no fall in rent or value, and there was no ground upon which such land could claim any share in the relief granted by the Bill.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid his right hon. Friend had described himself as being in the happy, and, it might be said, the unique position of having pledged himself to nothing. He was the only Member of the Government in the House who could honestly make this avowal, and he was to be congratulated on his position. Ever since he (Mr. Robertson) had been in the House—eleven Sessions—he had been pledged to protest against a system whereby land in or near a great town was rated and valued as available for agricultural purposes only, while, in fact, it was held for building purposes, and withheld from the market for the sake of obtaining a higher price. One obvious consequence of this was to produce congestion in the town, and so it was in Dundee, where thousands of people were huddled together in one particular part of the town paying high rents for very meagre accommodation. The question before the House was whether this kind of land, treated with such monstrous partiality by the present system, should have the special relief provided by the Bill. Why should it have this special privilege? His right hon. Friend, whose ingenuity was only equalled by his courtesy, had, night after night, thrown out one principle after another in defence of the Bill. With all his ingenuity, the Lord Advocate had not mentioned one reason which justified opposition to the Amendment. He should vote for the Amendment in defence of a principle which no single Liberal or Liberal Unionist in Scotland would be prepared to deny.
    COLONEL DENNYthought that in all the arguments used by the hon. and learned Gentleman who had spoken, they had erred in treating the question as one solely connected with landlords. They
    1734
    were endeavouring to put into the Bill provisions for dealing with a certain class of landlords. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had been pouring water on a drowned mouse. No one on this side had any sympathy with landlords who prevented towns from ex tending, or otherwise used their power, detrimentally to the public interest in connection with their lands. One of his election pledges was to deal with that state of things as soon as possible. It was right, however, that the House should clear its mind thoroughly on the subject, and recognise that the special provisions had nothing to do with the landlords. The hon. Member for East Mayo erred in thinking there was any similarity between the Government Measures affecting town parks in Ireland and those affecting accommodation lands in Scotland. In Ireland it was a question between tenant and landlord, while in Scotland it was simply between tenant and taxpayer.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid that land round towns was invariably held for a period not longer than a year, and generally not longer than six months. Whereas most Scotch Members on the Ministerial side of the House were pledged to increase the taxation on land of this character, the Government proposals would lighten that taxation.
    MR. J. G. HOLBORNsaid that this land was not held in any sense as agricultural land, nor was it held on lease. The bulk of it, moreover, was in the hands of the proprietors themselves, and not in the hands of tenants. There was a strong feeling in Scotland that this land should not be rated at its annual value, but at the landlord's estimate of its rateable value. There was a fair claim for some concession from the Government. It was not that the Lord Advocate could not fix a standard; it was that the Government were unwilling. However, it was not too late yet for the Lord Advocate to make some concession on this point,

    1735
    even if it was more limited in character than the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted.'
    The House divided:—Ayes, 61; Noes, 143.—(Division List, No. 389.)
    MR. URE*MR. URE moved, after the word "final," ("whose decision shall be final") to leave out the words "except where the decision is given by a Sheriff-substitute it shall be subject to appeal to the Sheriff." He said that he entertained a very strong preference in favour of the machinery as provided in the Bill when originally drafted. He had a strong preference, also, for the decision on this simple question being pronounced by the Sheriff substitute and his judgment being accepted as final. It was providing far too elaborate, expensive, and tedious a procedure to give appeal against the decision of the Judge of first instance on the question whether lands were agricultural lands or not, when the question was susceptible of ready and easy ascertainment by the Sheriff-substitute, who was resident on the spot. He had simply to go to the lands, see them, and give his judgment. In 99 cases out of 100 it would be unnecessary for the Sheriff-substitute to take any evidence at all. It would be sufficient for him to see the lands and decide the question there and then, and it would be desirable that his decision should be made final. This was not a question of principle, but a question of fact and circumstances; and there was no risk whatever of diverse principles being settled in the various Sheriff Courts of Scotland. He did not propose to move the Amendment on the Paper, but to move his Amendment in the above form, the effect of which would be to restore the clause to the shape in which it was originally presented to the House.
    MR. J. B. BALFOURsupported the Amendment on the ground that it was highly important that disputed questions should be determined speedily.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid that, as hon. Members wished apparently to revert to the original form of the Bill, he was quite ready to accept the Amendment.
    MR. CALDWELLobserved that, though he was responsible for the change made in the clause in Committee, he should not oppose the Amendment.
    DR. CLARKbelieved that the people generally would be better satisfied with the decisions of the Sheriff-substitute than with those of the principal sheriff.
    Amendment agreed to. Clause 4,—

    APPLICATION OF PAYMENT TO LOCAL TAXATION (SCOTLAND) ACCOUNT.
    The sums paid to the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account under this Act in respect of any financial year shall be applied by or under the direction of the Secretary for Scotland in manner following (that is to say):—

    (1.) In paying to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue the sums payable during that year for land tax by Royal burghs and burghs of barony or regality in Scotland; and in paying to any burgh a sum equal to the annual amount of the land tax redeemed by such burgh; and

    (2.) In transferring to an authority to be hereafter determined by Act of Parliament the sum of fifteen thousand pounds for the Improvement of Congested Districts in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, such sum to be applied as may he provided in the said Act, and until so applied to remain to the credit of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account; and

    (3.) In distributing the balance among county councils and parish councils in Scotland in proportion to the amounts ascertained and certified as hereinbefore provided, for the purpose of regulating such distribution.

    (4.) Every sum paid or payable under this Act out of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account to any authority in respect of any rate shall for all purposes be deemed to have been raised or to be raisable from occupiers by the said rate.

    MR. MCLEOD MR. MCLEOD moved, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "Congested Districts." He said that people in the Highlands had no knowledge of the term "congested district," which had been imported from the sister isle. He thought that the inclusion of that expression might hamper the authority charged with the application of the money. If the words were left out the object of the Government would not be interfered with, and a large body of public opinion would be satisfied.
    Question put, "That the words 'congested districts in' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided:—Ayes, 135; Noes, 54.—(Division List, No. 390.)
    MR. URE*MR. URE moved to omit Clause 5. His object, he said, was to insure to parish councils in Scotland the powers which they at present possessed of apportioning the rate amongst the various classes of ratepayers according as they thought just and equitable. This was the clause which provided that classification from the date when the Act came into operation should cease, and accordingly it was the proper point at which to raise the question whether they were going to deprive the parish councils of Scotland of this important function. It was a power which had been possessed by the predecessors in title of the present parish councils, the old parochial boards, fur a, period of upwards of half a century. It was a power which they had exercised without any complaint of harshness or injustice. He did not for a moment doubt that opinions would differ as to the propriety, expediency, and perhaps even the justice of the various classifications which had been adopted in the 158 classified parishes in Scotland. But he did not think it could be fairly alleged that the parochial boards, much less the parish councils, had been guilty of any gross injustice in their exercise of this power, or of any act which would war-
    1738
    rant their deprivation of this power, at all events at this stage. Indeed, it could hardly be alleged that injustice had been committed, because the powers could only be exercised with the assent and approval of the Board of Supervision, now the Local Government Board of Scotland, a body which had exercised this function in a way which elicited yesterday from the Lord Advocate the very highest encomiums. Therefore they inquired with some surprise why it was that in this Bill, with its long and complicated title, which disclosed no such design as was here sought to be put in force, they should deprive parish councils of their power of classification. The sole objection to the Amendment which had been urged by the Government in committee, was the preservation of the status quo ante. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would not be surprised to know that the preservation of the status quo ante, abstractly considered, did not exercise a singularly magnetic effect on that side of the House. They were not subscribers to the theory that it was preferable to do a stupid thing which you had done before rather than a wise thing which you had never done before, and, whilst they condemned change for the mere sake of change, they were equally strong in their objection to being stationary for the mere sake of standing still. At the same time they recognised that the Bill emanated from a Conservative Government, and had been supported throughout by Conservative majorities, with whom, very naturally, the principle of status quo ante had a much more alluring and seductive effect than it could possibly have upon members on his side of the House. Accordingly, if, upon fair examination, the Bill had disclosed the principle of a desire to maintain the status quo, they should have accepted that probably in the present condition of affairs as quite a sufficient answer to their objections. He thought the Solicitor General understood what Members on that side meant by the status quo, as they understood

    1739
    what he meant, and it would serve no good purpose to go on deliberately misunderstanding each other. Each side claimed to champion the status quo, the one side claiming it to mean the maintenance of the existing law, the other, the maintenance of the system of classification now existing. But even understanding the status quo as expressed by the Solicitor General, the existing classification, the Bill did not contain that principle. For description of the true aim and objects of the Bill the prosaic language of every-day English had been abandoned and metaphor resorted to. The region of biological classification had been entered upon, and even then they had failed to find a species or class adequate to describe this nondescript, kaleidoscopical Measure. But of all principles which at one time or another had been claimed as underlying the Bill, the maintenance of the status quo was the most ridiculously wide of the mark. What was the status quo? This and only this. In more than three-fourths of the parishes in Scotland all classes of land were rated alike, and in the remaining parishes this property was separated into distinct categories, diverse no doubt but alike in this, that agricultural land was rated lower than its rent as appearing on the valuation roll. What did the Bill propose to do? As originally presented, the Bill made a very serious inroad on the present state of affairs. It proposed in the first place to knock on the head all classification, and to substitute in every parish in Scotland a compulsory statutory classification uniform throughout all rating districts. He would not argue whether that was right or wrong, but no one could dispute that it was a very serious innovation on the status quo. Between the Second Reading and the Committee Stage, the Lord Advocate in deference to the views of the Opposition perhaps, but certainly not with the hearty approval of hon. Members behind him, introduced a radical change in the Measure as originally pre-
    1740
    sented to the House and retained all classification where he found agricultural land rated as low as the magical three-eighths. He agreed that the relief given under the Bill had nothing to do with classification; but it was just for that reason that he could not comprehend why the Lord Advocate was so rigidly hostile to the preservation of the present powers of the Parish Councils. If there were no objection to preserving existing classifications, what was the objection to adding new classifications? He contended that they had heard no justification whatever for depriving Parish Councils of the powers in question. It might be said that Parish Councils had not yet exercised the powers and that parochial boards had only exercised them to a comparatively limited extent. His answer to that was that the Parish Councils had scarcely yet had time to realise their powers, but after this discussion they would wake up to the very important powers which they at present possessed of apportioning parochial burdens, equitably as they thought, among the various classes of ratepayers. But, if they were not going to exercise the powers, what in the world were the Government afraid of?
    MR. MCLEODcited, by way of illustration, the case of a parish in Inverness-shire. In that case, under the operation of the Bill as originally brought in, the position of the agricultural occupiers would not have been altered to any material extent, but the classification operated against the small householders; and unless an Amendment had been moved this result would have remained. But during the next five years, in all probability the Parish Councils might desire to vary the inter-classification. They would have no desire to interfere with the valuation of the agricultural occupiers, but possibly they might wish to make some slight alteration as between the other classifications. He was not clear whether Parish Councils in the position he had

    1741
    indicated would have the power during the next five years to vary the inter-classification so long as they did not interfere with the three-eighths dealt with in the Bill.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, they would not have that power. The Government looked upon the Bill as the precursor of a general financial reform, and they proposed to suspend classifications during the five years of the continuance of the Measure. There was no thought of distrusting Parish Councils. As there was no pressing necessity for further classifications, it was reasonable to suspend the power of making them until the whole question could be dealt with in a uniform manner. Any uniform system would probadly arouse local prejudice where it clashed with local systems. Therefore it was desirable that to the different classifications existing already there should not be added others, based perhaps on no very consistent principles and due to the possibly transient views of persons who happened to be the majority for the time being.
    Question put, "That the words of the clause to the word 'any,' in page 4, line 9, stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided:—Ayes, 131; Noes, 52.—(Division List, No. 391.)
    THE LORD ADVOCATE*THE LORD ADVOCATE moved, "That the Bill be read the Third time."
    SIR GEORGE TREVELYANremarked that no one who had general sympathy with his colleagues in the House would put any hindrance in the way of this Bill being read a Third time to-night if the House of Commons wished it. They had now come to the end of proceedings, which had been good humoured, but thoroughly in earnest on both sides, and he hoped they would continue to be good humoured to the end. He and Members on his side of the House thought that Scotland had not been well treated in this matter. The three countries had had three Bills
    1742
    this year. England had had a rating Bill which, whatever they on that side of the House might think of it, was accepted and supported by an enormous majority of English Members. Ireland had had a Land Bill which was supported, he believed, by only about one-eighth of the representatives of Ireland. On the other hand Scotland was put off with this Bill which, on the Second Reading, received only about two-fifths of the support of the Scottish Members, being opposed by the remainder. The point was what the feeling of Scotland was, as given through her representatives, on the very important questions of detail in this Bill. When his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee moved that the provisions of the Bill should apply only for two years instead of five, 31 Scotch Members voted for him and 16 against. When the Member for Kincardineshire moved that future rates should be levied as they were levied now, instead of being levied the whole on occupiers of house property and three-eighths on the occupiers of land, he was supported by 31 Scotch Members to 17. The hon. Member for Sutherland-shire moved that agricultural land should pay one-half instead of three-fifths, and he was supported by 28 Scotch Members to 14; and on the extremely important Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock for excepting accommodation land, he was supported by 32 Scotch Members to 16. He thought those were rather serious figures, as showing that Scotch opinion on the most important details of this Bill had not been consulted. This Bill established classification everywhere. In Scotland there were two classes of modification of rating. One was deduction which might be said to be universally popular. It was obligatory, but it was carried out con amore by all the parochial boards. Deduction gave an advantage to houses as against the land. But classification, so far from being popular in Scotland, was adopted only by 166

    1743
    parishes out of 900. There was no demand for this Bill in Scotland. It was a mere afterthought. At the end of five years they would revert to the old conditions, with all sorts of new interests and new combinations, new habits and new proceedings, all of which would have to be abandoned the moment this Bill came to an end. They objected to what they could not but consider the scant honesty of the clause, in which it was said that the rate-in-aid came out of the Estate Duty on real property. It came not from the Estate Duty, but from the entire body of the taxes. They had contended, and they would contend until the Bill was out of the House of Commons, that there was no special agricultural distress in Scotland. Since the Debate began, a Blue-book had been issued by the Commission on Agricultural Depression. That Blue-book proved that Scotch estates were in an entirely different position to English estates. On the immense Scotch estates the fall in rent had been very small indeed. The Blue-book also proved that the net income of the Scotch landlords was very much larger generally than the net income of English landlords. But there was one class of landlords in Scotland for whose benefit he and his friends especially objected to the taxpayers being called upon to pay, and that was the class who had not proceeded on the principle of reducing the gross rental. It was for such purposes that the people of the great burgh constituencies were to be taxed. They were to be taxed, and they would get nothing back but a mere pittance. It was not these constituencies only; in every county there were large numbers of men considerably exceeding in number the agriculturists—weavers, coal miners, shopkeepers—who would get nothing of this relief, which would go altogether in a partial and privileged manner. In so doing, it established an injustice against which they felt bound to protest. But there was a wider idea in their minds than
    1744
    this. They regretted the unfortunate system of doles from the Exchequer which had already gone to such an extent, which had already demoralised the ratepayers, and which had already excited hopes which he trusted would never be gratified. They regretted deeply that this ill-omened system had been carried further. They saw in Scotland that this system would result in extravagance, and they looked with dissatisfaction on the moral character of the Scotch ratepayer being somewhat impaired and the old method of thrift relaxed. He begged to move that the Bill be read a Third time that day three months.
    MR. HALDANEdenied that the Bill was one for the effectual removal of agricultural distress. So far as any real benefit to the class they professed to relieve was concerned, they might as well throw the money into the Forth or Clyde. What the farmer wanted was not his rates helped, but his rents reduced. He did not say that the House could give the farmer what he desired, but this Bill constituted no substantial measure of relief. It altered materially the existing system of rating in Scotland; it abolished the freedom of classification—that freedom to rate people according to their ability to bear the rates, which had been recognised as a just principle, and which till now had been the salient feature of the rating system of Scotland. Surely, they should have consulted Scotland first as to this sum of money, but they did not do so, because there was an ulterior purpose. He believed that the real motive of the Bill was to mangle the new Parish Councils. The Parish Councils had taken the place of the old Parochial Boards, on which those who had rights or privileges which they did not wished interfered with were represented. But the new system of Parish Councils had been established, and hon. Members opposite professed to be as strongly in favour of it as they were, and yet they now intro-

    1745
    duced a Bill to take away from these bodies the most important power they had of rating people according to their ability to bear the rates. He feared that they were taking away these powers in mistrust of the men who exercised them, but, as anybody who was acquainted with the Parish Councils of Scotland knew, a greater mistake could not be made. As one of the majority of Scotch Members opposed to this Bill, he begged to Second the Motion.
    MR. WYLTEsaid that he desired to remove some misapprehension in respect of his position with regard to this Bill which appeared to exist in the mind of the hon. Member for Leith, and other hon. Members opposite, who had said that he was one of the supporters of the Government who did not support the proposal that the Bill should be immediately proceeded with.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid that his words were that the hon. Member had stated that he would have preferred a full to a half measure upon the subject.
    MR. WYLTEsaid he had stated that under normal conditions he would have preferred to have waited for the Report of the Commission on Rating, but, as he had strongly expressed during the different stages of the Bill, he cordially supported the present Measure on account of the entirely exceptional depression of agriculture in Scotland as compared with the other leading industries. In order to arrive at an accurate conclusion as to the progress or decadence of any industry, and its position relative to other industries, we must note the facts throughout their whole areas and over a considerable period of years. Hon. Members opposite had taken only the small areas and short periods coming within the narrow scope of their own recent personal observations, but, if they took the wider view, he was sure they would come to the same conclusion as he had. He entirely concurred with the observation of the right
    1746
    hon. Member for Bridgeton that agricultural distress in the Lowlands of Scotland was not so severe as it was in the English counties. He believed that the greatest mistake that had been made in regard to this Bill was the adding to Clause 1 the Amendments which had been made by the Lord Advocate. Many hon. Members opposite had professed a great admiration for the system of classification. They had spoken of it as being both scientific and just; but his experience of it had been that it was the very reverse of scientific and most unjust. With all its errors and omissions, he believed this to be an admirable Bill, and one which would be a standing monument to the ability, skill, and tact of the Lord Advocate. He gave it his hearty assent.
    MR. HEDDERWICKwished to acknowledge the skill, ingenuity, and unfailing courtesy exhibited by the Lord Advocate in conducting this Measure; but when he had said that, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not misunderstand him if he added that a drearier or more unnecessary Measure had never been introduced. The only particular in which it touched on common humanity was that portion which dealt with the crofters of the Western Highlands. The idea contained in Clause 4 was, no doubt, an admirable one, as setting forth apparently the wish of the Lord Advocate and the Government to do something for those congested districts; but the means which had been adopted were of the most feeble description. It was proposed to devote the sum of £15,000 to cure the congestion, but that sum was utterly inadequate, and he could not help wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies was ever consulted on that part of the Bill during its incubation. If he was, he must have changed very much within recent years, for he recollected the time when the right hon. Gentleman took a deep interest, or

    1747
    what appeared to be a deep interest, in the forlorn and penurious lot of the Highland crofter. It seemed but the other day that the right hon. Gentleman undertook a pilgrimage to what he called the misty islands of the north, either to paint in his masterly way the sorrows of the inhabitants or to acquaint himself with the nature of their social problems—he didn't know which, and it was, perhaps, now of little consequence. But, at all events, the right hon. Gentleman left behind him hopes, inflated by sympathetic words and by suggested Measures of relief never destined, he feared, to be realised through the instrumentality of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman was now a Member of the Government that offered these suffering people the munificent sum of £15,000. To what purpose was that fund to be applied? The Lord Advocate did not know. His mind, he said, was open on the subject. He (Mr. Hedderwick) could admire an open mind so long as it was not a mere vacuity. The money, the Lord Advocate declared, had been well considered. Surely then he must have in his mind the purpose that exercised his consideration and enabled him to arrive at so nicely calculated a sum. The country was entitled to know something of the purpose for which this sum of money, apparently so inadequate for any real efficacious relief, was destined. The Lord Advocate only enlightened them to this extent—that he admitted its inadequacy, and said it was to be a nucleus. A nucleus for what? Would a nucleus fill an empty stomach or give an acre to a landless man? The whole idea of curing the congested districts of Scotland by a gift of £15,000 was an absurdity, and he should like to throw out a friendly challenge on the subject to the Lord Advocate. Would he leave the pleasant shores of Bute and go up to the Highlands of Scotland; would he visit the constituencies that were addressed with so much alluring eloquence by the
    1748
    Secretary to the Colonies, and seek the suffrages of the people upon his nucleus of £15,000? He could imagine the scene—the Lord Advocate with his loaves and fishes and the multitude waiting for the miracle. Why should the Government invite starving men to so Barmecidal a feast? It was a cruel farce, to which he would be no silently acquiescing party. If the Government were bent upon devoting the money at their disposal to the relief of agricultural distress, they had enough to make their relief in this direction real. The opportunity was a golden one. Why should they have persistently declined it? There was another ground of objection against the Bill; the people of Scotland had never been consulted upon it, and what would happen would be this: The grant would be received without gratitude; the money would be expended without satisfaction, and the people of Scotland would feel justified in supposing that the Government did not really understand the wants of those for whom they were legislating.
    MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid he proposed to call attention to one or two points that had not been adverted to in previous discussions. The Bill had the longest description of any Measure that had passed through the House, and yet this portentous title was absolutely ineffective in its description of the Bill. The House had been directly and definitely forbidden to extend the relief of rates to subjects other than agricultural land, but that which they were not allowed to do the Government itself had done in the Bill, and this Bill which professed to give relief to agricultural land gave relief to subjects other than agricultural land, and did so in a partial and utterly unprincipled way. The Government had done on a small scale that which he and his friends proposed to do as a matter of principle in the first instance. In its language the title did not give a correct description of the Bill,

    1749
    and he thought it was a result of the Rules of the House, of which they had a right to complain, that that which the House could not do as matter of principle, the proposers of the Bill could do as matter of convenience. Another point he wished to advert to was the connection of the Measure with the mighty programme with which the Government approached the House at the beginning of the Session. This was one of a trilogy of Measures which the Government were going to carry away as the result of their Parliamentary Session, the English Rating Bill, this Bill, and the corresponding Measure for Ireland. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the Irish Land Bill!"] Of the Irish Land Bill he would say nothing. The three Measures for England, Scotland and Ireland were parts of a whole. In the title of the Bill would be seen what the Government chose to regard as its substance and effect; but what was the pretence with which the whole scheme was laid before the House at the beginning of the Session? Once again he read a sentence of the Queen's Speech to contrast the Bill with the pretence of the Government. The President of the Local Government Board changed sides more than once in the conduct of his Measure—he could instance it; and the Lord Advocate had changed horses at every stage of his Bill, so that now it was difficult to say upon which animal he was riding home. What did the Government undertake to introduce? Mark the difference between the programme and the performance. Her Majesty was made to say "I regret to say that the position of agriculture is disastrous "—disastrous let the hon. Member for Dumbarton note that—beyond any recent experience." It was the hon. Member for Dumbarton who stood up for agricultural distress at this stage, but would he contend that this language of exaggeration truly described the position of agriculture in Scotland? But this was not the sen-
    1750
    tence in the Queen's Speech to which he wished to call special attention.
    "Measures will be laid before you of which the object will be to mitigate the distress under which the classes labour that are engaged in that industry."
    ["Hear, hear!"] Did hon. Members cheer that as a description of this Measure? What classes were engaged in the industry in Scotland? There were three. The landlords were a small class who were bound to get some, and in the end would get all, the benefit from the Act. There was a larger, but still small, class of tenant-farmers, who would get some benefit for a time; but the largest class of all were the agricultural labourers, and he appealed to Members who had sat through these Debates to say if the agricultural labourers of Scotland had been so much as once mentioned. The agricultural labourer had no concern in the Bill. He had just as little interest in it as the artisan of the towns. He did not get a farthing of the £200,000 a year of which as an individual he had as much right to a share as any farmer or landlord in the land. The Bill was past praying for now so far as the House of Commons was concerned. Normally there was no hope that the decision of the House would be reversed in another place. But recent events had shown that, even in the time of a Unionist Government, they could find in the House of Lords a Court of Appeal. [Opposition cheers.] He hoped that same spirit of independence with which he sympathised would induce the Lords to reform this Bill.
    MR. MCLEODsaid the intention of the Bill was, as far as possible, to render nugatory the Finance Bill of 1894. Besides, Scotland did not get under the Bill her fair share of the money. Scotland was not getting her fair share, and the Bill proposed to divide the money in a particular way, and to give a certain sum to relieve the borough land tax, which should be charged on the Imperial Treasury, and not on any special Scotch

    1751
    equivalent grant. There was an important new departure in the Bill. Hitherto, when special grants had been given to the Highlands for the relief of distress, the Imperial Exchequer had been called upon to find the money inasmuch as the Imperial Parliament was responsible for the laws that produced the distress; but now, England was taking good care the Imperial Exchequer was no longer to be called upon to make up any money that might be required. This now departure would not commend itself to the majority of the Scotch people, and if it was any criterion of the kind of legislation which Scotland was to get during the continuance of the present Parliament, it was not in accordance with the election pledges of hon. Members from Scotland. He had gone through the whole of their election addresses. [Laughter.] They were simply endeavouring to render nugatory the legislation passed in the last Parliament.
    Question put, "That the word 'now,' stand part of the Question."
    The House divided:—Ayes, 124; Noes, 45.—(Division List, No. 392.)
    The announcement of the figures was received with Ministerial cheers.

WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY GUARANTEE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
On the Question, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill,"
MR. H. C. F. LUTTRELL MR. H. C. F. LUTTRELL (Devon, Tavistock) moved to report progress. The Bill before them was full of contentions, and there were a large number of Amendments to it, and he thought that to ask the Committee to commence the consideration of such a Measure at
1752
that hour of the morning was somewhat unreasonable.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he quite sympathised with the desire of the hon. Gentleman to go to bed—a desire which he shared—but he thought the hon. Member would feel that the Committee might make a little exertion to get through the Bill. It was put down in accordance with the understanding that they would be allowed to take the Third Reading of the Scotch Rating Bill and this stage of this Bill. He was not suggesting for a moment that it was a breach of faith, but there was a discussion last night across the floor of the House as to the general course of business to-night, and he certainly was given to understand that they should be allowed to get tonight the Third Reading of the Scotch Bill and the West Highland Bill. There was certainly an informal view expressed which justified the Government in hoping they would get the Bill to-night.
MR. DALZIELsaid there were Amendments on the Paper in the names of three or four hon. Members, and not one of those Members were consulted with regard to the suggested understanding. He put it seriously to the right hon. Gentleman whether at this time of the morning it would not be wise to adjourn. There were many points of contention, and if they divided on all the Amendments they would be sitting at five o'clock. He should not think it fair for the Government to overload their programme so that they had to keep Members at the House all day and all night. He would much rather extend the Session another fortnight than be called to sit up so late night after night. He was sure that if the right hon. Gentleman met them now they would not be unreasonable when the Bill was put down on another occasion.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid his impression was that it was arranged there

1753
should be no opposition to the Third Reading. There was considerable opposition to the Railway Bill, but he understood the opposition to the Scotch Votes would not be very prolonged.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he hoped they would make some little progress, otherwise he was afraid they must have a Saturday sitting.
DR. CLARKsaid it would be better to have a Saturday sitting than to rush the Bill through at that hour of the morning.
MR. T. P. WHITTAKERalso objected to the Bill being discussed at that hour.
MR. MCLEODsaid the Scotch Members had been kept there for the convenience of the Government. They had dealt with one Bill, and now they were asked to go on with another.
MR. WARNERwho was heard with difficulty amid ironical cheers and cries of "Divide," objected to the Bill being taken as it affected English as well as Scotch Members, and a considerable number of the English Members had had to go away from sheer exhaustion. He did not think it was fair to ask them to take these Amendments, which would take a considerable time to discuss.
MR. MCLEODsaid the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which had been referred to would practically abolish the whole Bill. It was a most contentious point, and he did not think it was fair to ask them to enter upon a prolonged discussion at that hour.
MR. DALZIELhoped they would be able to make a satisfactory arrangement. He suggested that they should take the non-contentious Scotch Votes instead of proceeding with this Bill. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment to the Bill were reached, they would have gone a good way towards getting the Bill.
MR. HERBERT LEWIShoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to accept the suggestion of his hon. Friend. The Amendment which had been referred to was an extremely important one.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that he should prefer to take certain Scotch Votes rather than the West Highland Railway Guarantee Bill, and, therefore, on the understanding
1754
that those Votes would be passed, he would consent to the Motion to report Progress. ["Hear, hear!"]
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Saturday.

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]

SUPPLY.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1896–7.

    CLASS II.
    1. £3,573, to complete the sum for Lunacy Commission, Scotland—Agreed to.
    2. £3,175, to complete the sum for Registrar General's Office, Scotland—Agreed to.
    3. £7,591, to complete the sum for Local Government Board for Scotland—Agreed to.

    CLASS II.
    4. £26,295, to complete the sum for Register House, Edinburgh—Agreed to.
    5. £55,356, to complete the sum for Prisons, Scotland—Agreed to.

    CLASS IV.
    6. £1,960, to complete the sum for National Gallery, etc., Scotland—Agreed to.

    CLASS VII.
    7. £24,200, to complete the sum for Highlands and Islands of Scotland (Public Works and Communications),—
    MR. MCLEODsaid that, according to the Estimates, there had been a considerable reduction in the amount of grants for this purpose, and there seemed to be an inclination on the part of the Treasury to dry itself up as to matters affecting both Scotland and

    1755
    Ireland. He asked for an assurance from the Government that this was a temporary defect, and that there was no intention on the part of the Scottish O the purpose of bettering the condition of the Highlands of Scotland, particularly in regard to harbour accommodation.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid that, as far as he knew, the works being carried on were of a very diverse character, and the amount to be spent year by year simply varied according to the work which had to be done. He was unaware of any policy or intention to reduce the sum which had been allocated.
    Vote agreed to; reported to the House.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

SUPPLY [31ST JULY] REPORT.
Postponed Resolution further considered.
SUPPLY [31ST JULY] REPORT.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1896–7.

    CLASS II.
    5. "That a sum, not exceeding £26,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Civil Service Commission."
    Resolution agreed to.

PARLIAMENTARY COSTS BILL [H.L.]
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
TELEGRAPH MONEY BILL.
Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.
TELEGRAPH MONEY BILL.
  OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [26th June] further adjourned till To-morrow.
  VEXATIOUS ACTIONS BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  BURGLARY BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
LARCENY BILL [H.L.]
Read a Second time, and committed for To-morrow.
LARCENY BILL [H.L.]
  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.
  MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.
  STANNARIES BILL [H.L.]
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.
PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND) (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
As amended, considered; Bill read the Third time, and passed.

LONDON UNIVERSITY COMMISSION BILL [H.L.]
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 20th day of July last, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
House adjourned at a Quarter after Two o'clock