Commons Sitting of 29 June 1896

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  SCOVELL'S DIVORCE BILL [H.L.]
  Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  TODD'S DIVORCE BILL [H.L.]
  Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

  EAST SURREY WATER BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill to be read the Third time.

EAST INDIA (KAFIRISTAN).
Return [presented 2Gth June] to be printed.—[No. 262.]
EAST INDIA (SIAM AND THE UPPER MEKONG).
Return [presented 26th June] to be printed.—[No. 263.]
FINANCE ACCOUNTS.
Copy presented, of Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom for the year ended 31st March 1896 [by Act] to lie upon the Table, and to he printed.—[No. 264.]
POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.
Accounts presented, of all Deposits received and paid during the year ended 31st December 1895, and of the Sums received and paid by the National Debt Commissioners on Account of the Fund for the Dost Office Savings Banks in the same year [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to he printed.—[No. 265.]
WOODS, FORESTS, AND LAND REVENUES.
Copy presented, of Seventy-fourth Report of the Commissioners: dated 26th June 1896 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 266.]
QUESTIONS.

  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, (1) whether he has any further information in regard to the knowledge possessed by Mr. Rhodes of the contemplated raid into the Transvaal before that raid took place since the publication of the "cyphered telegrams;" (2) whether, since these telegrams have been made public, the Directors have had under their consideration the acceptance of the resignation of Mr. Rhodes as Managing Director of the Chartered Company of South Africa, and whether they have come to any decision in the matter; and, (3) whether Herr Beit is still a Director of the Company, and whether he has furnished any explanation of the "cyphered telegrams," in so far as he was connected with them, to the Board of the Company?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The answer to the first Question of the hon. Member is in the negative. In reply to the second and third Questions I am informed by the Solicitor to the British South Africa Company that the Directors named and Dr. Rutherford Harris have tendered their resignations, which have been accepted by the Board.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exechequer, what is the amount of public money, if any, already expended in regard to the Military operations now taking place in Rhodesia, and what is the amount of obligations, if any, for which the Treasury is liable in regard to these operations; whether he is aware that the liability of the Chartered Company of South Africa is limited to the amount of its paid up capital; and whether, he has under

  253
  these circumstances taken steps to insure that all public moneys advanced in respect to the Military operations, or for the payment of which the Treasury has assumed liability, will be repaid by the Company; if so, what these steps have been?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): The only extra expense that can have been incurred in this matter up to the present time would be for the transport of about 600 men from Natal and Cape Town to Mafeking. Returns of this have been asked for but have not been received, but the whole could only amount to a small sum. Nothing is being advanced for the operations in Rhodesia, and the Treasury has undertaken no obligations with respect to them. The obligation on the Chartered Company to discharge claims rightly made on it is co-extensive with its assets, and I have no reason to question its ability and willingness to discharge them.

  MADAGASCAR.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether it is the case, as stated in the French Chamber, that the United States have given up their Treaty with Madagascar, or whether Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States continue to hold the same view with regard to the recent change in the international relations of that country?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): We have not heard that the American Government have given up their Treaty with Madagascar as stated in the Question, but have reason to believe that communications are passing between them and the French Government. The American Government and Her Majesty's Government have not taken concerted action, their position not being identical as regards engagements.

  ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE.
  MR. G. W. WOLFF: On behalf of the hon. Member for
  254
  Tynemouth (Mr. R. S. DONKIN), I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether, to enable H.M.S. Medusa, now stationed on the Tyne, to make a short cruise at sea, the Admiralty have been compelled to send to Chatham for some 30 men, although daily some 20 to 80 Naval Reserve men are exercising on board?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): No, when H.M.S. Medusa recently proceeded to sea for a short cruise not a man was sent to her from Chatham. Twelve Coastguardmen of the non-embarking section were embarked in the Medusa to carry out their annual 10 days drill, and 33 Royal Naval Reserve men went out in her.

  TEACHERS' REGISTRATION BILL.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, if he intends to proceed this Session with the Teachers' Registration Bill?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,)said he was very anxious to proceed with this Bill, but he confessed he did not see any prospect of doing so before the close of the Session.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODasked, if the Bill were made non-contentious could he see his way to proceed with the Bill?
  SIR J. GORST: Oh, yes, certainly, if the Bill could be treated as entirely non-contentious, but I have always been stopped after Twelve o'clock when I have tried to take the Second Reading. [Laughter.]

  SALE OF HOLDING (CASTLEBLANEY).
  MR. JAMES DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether the Irish Land Commission intend to evict Patrick McGinn, Corryogan, on decree got recently at Quarter Sessions, Castleblaney; (2) whether he is aware that McGinn sold his farm by auction in January last, and that Mr. Bailie, Crown Solicitor, Castleblaney, by letter dated 1st February 1896, directed the auctioneer to return the deposit to the

  255
  purchaser, as the sale could not be carried out owing to McGinn not having the title-deed of his farm; (3) whether the deed of McGinn's farm has been with the Irish Land Commissioners since 1894; (4) whether he is aware that if McGinn had had his deed in January last the recent law proceedings would have been unnecessary; and, (5) whether he will stay the eviction of McGinn until he gets the deed of his farm and enable him to sell, seeing that only 12 months annuity was due against McGinn up to 1st May last?
  *THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The object of the proceedings referred to in the first paragraph was to recover on the decree, through the Sheriff, three instalments due by Patrick McGinn. The Commissioners do not intend on that decree to evict McGinn, but if the Sheriff fails to levy the amount, they will have to consider what further proceedings should be taken with a view to the sale of the holding. There is nothing at present to prevent Patrick McGinn selling the holding himself, and the Commissioners would much prefer that he should do so than that they should be forced to sell the holding for default. As to the second paragraph, it does not appear to be correct to say that Mr. Bailie "directed the auctioneer to return the deposit to the purchaser, as the sale could not be carried out owing to McGinn not having the title-deed of his farm." It does, however, appear that the sale fell through, partly, at all events, in consequence of Mr. Bailie's failure to ascertain that an application for registration had been duly lodged. Mr. Bailie was not acting in his capacity as Crown Solicitor, nor was he acting on behalf of the Land Commission. The Questions in paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 seem to have been put under a complete misapprehension. McGinn could have sold his farm on the occasion referred to if proper searches and inquiries had been made in the Local Registration of Title Office. In no case, as has been before explained, are copies of deeds returned under such circumstances. As before indicated, the Commissioners are prepared to consider an application from McGinn to allow him a reasonable time to sell his holding before they take steps for that purpose. They are in no way
  256
  responsible for the failure which appears to have occurred.
  MR. DALYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that he had in his possession a letter from the secretary to the Land Commission, stating that only 12 months' rent were due, and also that he had a letter——
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is replying upon the answer. The Question has been fully answered.
  MR. DALY: I shall forward the letters to the right hon. Gentleman.

  PENSIONS COMMUTATION TABLES.
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the Tables of the Pensions Commutation Board have been revised since the reduction in the rate of interest on Consols; if he will state when the Tables were last revised; and whether he will now consider the advisability of ordering a revision of the Tables?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No such revision has taken place since the Tables were promulgated, immediately after the passing of the Pensions Commutation Act of 1871. There is no power to revise the Tables so far as regards a reduction of the rate of interest on which they are based, which is prescribed by Section (4) (1) c. of the Act of 1871.

  WATERTIGHT DOORS (AUTOMATIC APPLIANCES).
  MR. T. B. BOLITHO: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether the attention of his Department has been called to the desirability of supplementing the closing of watertight doors in Her Majesty's ships by automatic appliances; and, if not, whether he will cause an independent Inquiry and Report to be made on the subject?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes; the attention of the Admiralty has been frequently called to the adoption of automatic appliances for closing watertight doors, and no independent Inquiry is considered necessary. Stringent orders are in force as to the closing of

  257
  watertight doors and automatic valves for closing apertures in watertight bulkheads and decks.
  MR. BOLITHOasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the appliance which had been submitted to and refused by the Admiralty was now being tried in the American Navy?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that personally he was not aware of that fact.

  LANARK MOOR (MILITARY CANTEEN).
  MR. J. COLVILLE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that the canteen on Lanark Moor of the 3rd and 4th Battalions Scottish Rifles is open to supply civilians with excisable liquors on Sunday; and whether he will take steps to prevent this in future?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The officer commanding the 3rd and 4th Battalions Scottish Rifles reports:—
  "The canteen (of those battalions) on Lanark Muir is not open to supply civilians with excisable or any other liquors on Sunday, or any other day ";
  and he adds that any statement to the contrary is absolutely false.

  VACCINATION PROSECUTION (BRADFORD-ON-AVON).
  CAPTAIN CHALONER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to certain cases tried at the Bradford-on-Avon Petty Sessions on 27th May last, under the Vaccination Acts, in which Mr. William Grove Pariss appeared on behalf of George Henry Banks and others, under the powers conferred on him by the Vaccination Act, 1871, Section 11, final Clause, when the presiding magistrate refused to allow Mr. Pariss to be heard on behalf of the defendants, and proceeded to make vaccination orders without hearing any defence; and, whether he was within his rights in this action; and, if not, whether the Secretary of State will cancel the orders so made, and direct that the costs imposed shall be refunded?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): I have already inquired into these cases. With regard to that of George Banks, I understand that he appeared in person to answer the charge, and the Justices, holding that Section 11 of the Act empowers only an absent defendant to appear by a duly authorised representative, decided that he could not be represented or assisted by a person other than a solicitor. I see no reason for questioning this decision. With regard to the other cases, I am informed that the Justices only declined to hear Mr. Pariss on his attempting to raise a discussion about them collectively, expressing the opinion that each case must be dealt with singly and on its own merits, but that Mr. Pariss left the court before they were taken.

  POSTAL FACILITIES (COUNTY CLARE).
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Postmaster General has received a memorial from the inhabitants of Morris's Mills, county Clare, asking for the establishment of a post office in this district; and, whether it is proposed to grant the prayer of the memorial?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The memorial referred to by the hon. Member has been received, and inquiry is being made in the matter. The result shall be communicated to the hon. Member.

  ANNALY ESTATE (COUNTY LONGFORD).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, what is the cause of the delay in the carrying out of the sales to the tenants of the Annaly Estate, county Longford; has the Inspector yet made his Report to the Land Commission; and is it the Land Commission that is causing the delay of completion of these sales?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed by the Registrar of the Land

  259
  Judges Court that since the 12th March last, when I replied to a somewhat similar question addressed to me by the hon. Member, some progress has been made towards a settlement of the rental. To facilitate the preparation of the rental and the sale of the holdings the Land Commission departed from their usual course and had the estate inspected prior to the preparation of the rental, and, as a rule, the Inspector's Report of his inspection was favourable. The Land Commission are in no way to blame for the delay that has occurred, and until the rental has been settled they cannot make an offer to purchase. Any delay that may have taken place rests, I am informed, with the solicitor who has charge of the proceedings.

  IRISH LIGHTS (COAL SUPPLY).
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he can state if the Commissioners of Irish Lights when inviting coal tenders this year confined the competition to Whitehaven coal only; and, whether he will direct the Commissioners of Irish Lights in future, when inviting tenders for coal, to make the race open to all collieries that produce good house coal?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that tenders were invited by them for Whitehaven coal only, because they consider that that coal is most suitable for the special purposes for which it is required. The Board of Trade cannot interfere with the discretion of the Lighthouse authority in making a selection as to the coal best suited for their purposes.

  ARMY CONTRACTS.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether Messrs. Ross and Co., of Bermondsey, are to be placed on the list of Government contractors, although, owing to the Report of Sir W. Marriott's Committee on the adulterated and inferior goods supplied by them, they were in 1887 struck off the list by the Secretary of State for War and First Lord of the Admiralty ("Hansard," 854, vol. 327); and, whether this is the firm
  260
  referred to by A. Wight in evidence before the Sweating Committee as the worst sweaters he was acquainted with?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): The firm of Ross and Co., which was struck off the list in 1887, and to which Mr. Wight's evidence may have referred, has ceased to exist. A limited company using the old title was placed on the list of contractors at the time of its formation in April of last year, but no member of the former firm has any interest in that company.

  ATTACKS ON BRITISH SEAMEN AT NICOLAIEFF.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether his attention has been called to the inability of the British Consulate authorities at the port of Nicolaieff, South Russia, to induce the local authorities to take proper measures to prevent attacks by natives on British seamen landing at that port; and, whether instructions will be given to Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg to secure efficient protection from ill-treatment for such British sailors?
  MR. CURZON: No information on the matter to which the hon. Member calls attention has been received at the Foreign Office; but a report will be called for from Her Majesty's Vice-Consul at Nicolaieff.

  CORK AND COACHFORD RAILWAY.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Cork and Coachford Railway is being utilised in any way for postal purposes; and whether, having regard to the long and hilly road between Coachford and Cork, he would take advantage for the postal system of the railway in question?
  MR. HANBURY: The Cork and Coachford Railway is not made use of for postal service. By mail cart the mails reach Coachford at 5.25 a.m., and are dispatched at 7.20 p.m., while the first train from Cork does not arrive at Coachford until 9.47 a.m., and the last

  261
  train at night is dispatched as early as 4.35 p.m. There would be no advantage, therefore, but the reverse, in resorting to the use of the railway.

  TELEPHONE EXAMINATION.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what is the sum spent annually by the Post Office on examination of telephones, and by whom is such examination made; and whether such examination is made by experts, and how are they selected?
  MR. HANBURY: The examination of telephones is carried out as part of the examination of telegraphic apparatus, and no separate account is kept of the cost incurred in respect of telephones. The examination is made by officers of the engineering staff, who are selected for their special fitness for the duty.

  POSTAL SERVICE (DONOUGHMORE).
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain why the postal service to Donoughmore is still conducted by a mail car service, although the present light railway to Donoughmore could be utilised to facilitate and accelerate the service in question; and whether any additional cost would be incurred in utilising the railway for parcel post purposes?
  MR. HANBURY: Donoughmore is served, not by mail cart but by a postman using a bicycle, who reaches Donoughmore at 9.20 a.m. and leaves at 4.30 p.m. The trains available would afford no acceleration, but on the contrary there would be a slight curtailment of hours, and the change suggested is not therefore expedient. The Post Office would have to pay for the use of the railway for the conveyance of letter mails, but if used for parcel post purposes, little or no additional cost would be incurred.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he has received a resolution passed at a meeting of flax and corn millowners,
  262
  held at Monaghan on Monday the 22nd instant, complaining of being excluded from the proposed benefits of the Irish Land Bill, and claiming to have the same privileges as other agriculturists; and, if he would re-consider this matter, and devise some means by which the owners of flax and corn mills will not be debarred from the justice which they claim of inclusion in the advantages of the pending land legislation?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have received a copy of the Resolution. Owners of flax and corn mills, as such, have never been included in the scope of the Land Acts, and the Government cannot undertake to include them in the Bill now before Parliament.

  KHARPUT.
  MR. ABEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Report of the British Vice Council at Kharput, relative to distress and acts of oppression committed by local authorities in that district, will be laid upon the Table?
  MR. CURZON: Whenever a further collection of papers relative to the condition of the Armenian population of Asiatic Turkey is presented to Parliament, the reports received from Her Majesty's Vice Consul at Kharput will be included.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES (IRELAND).
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Guardians of the Rathdown Union have commenced to build the labourers' cottages which they have long since been urged to build by the Local Government Board; and, if so, how soon will they be completed?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Provisional Order of the Local Government Board authorising the erection of three cottages in this Union was published on Saturday. Should an appeal be lodged against the Order within a month from the date of publication the case would then have to go before the caivy Council, but if, as seems likely, no

  263
  such petition be presented the guardians would, at the expiration of the month, be in a position to proceed with the erection of the cottages without further delay.

  LINLITHGOW LOCH (SUNDAY BOATING).
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, if he is aware that, in granting permission lately allowing boat-hiring on Linlithgow Loch during certain hours on Sundays, he has roused the feelings of the great majority of the people of the locality, as evidenced by a petition put into his hands signed by no less than 1,424 persons, including the provost, magistrates, and two-thirds of the Town Council, the whole of the Protestant clergy of the burgh and parish, and most of the residents of the districts, including a large body of working men; and if he will withdraw said permission.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): The petition alluded to reached me on Friday last and is now under my consideration. I am bound to say that, as at present advised, I am not prepared to withdraw the permission.

  ROYAL IRISH MILITARY TOURNAMENT (DUBLIN).
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether pensions will be granted to two artillerymen who were severely injured last week while engaged in a military display under the orders of their officers at the Royal Irish Military Tournament in Dublin?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: If the injuries received by these men should unfortunately prove sufficiently serious to prevent them from continuing in the service they will be pensioned.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether they will receive any money grant as compensation for their injuries?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: No, Sir. The matter would depend to some extent upon the nature of the injuries, and it is impossible to say at present.

  HAULBOWLINE DOCKYARD.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, if he can say when a commencement will be made with the new works at Haul-bowline, and what works it is proposed first to proceed with; and, whether the machinery required to equip the Dockyard will be placed in position during the present year.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Orders have been given for the commencement of the following works as early as possible:—Roadways, tramlines, etc., pitching slopes at south-east corner of yard, dredging cambers, slipway, new building to serve as smithy, and supply of fresh water to dockyard. The sheers and crane have been already ordered, and the remaining machinery will be obtained during the financial year and fixed in place as early as possible.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, when these works are commenced, they will be proceeded with until they are completed?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINreplied that the works would be proceeded with as rapidly as possible.

  MASHONALAND.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether Her Majesty's Government will, in view of the critical position of British Colonists in Mashonaland, send a force of Her Majesty's Indian Army via Beira.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: If more troops are required for the suppression of the rebellion I am advised that it will be undesirable to employ Indian regiments, as this would be accepted by the natives as a confession of weakness on the part of the whites. General Good-enough and Sir F. Carrington have been informed that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to send any reinforcements which they may consider necessary, but they agree that no more troops are required at present. ["Hear, hear!"] Her Majesty's Government, however, propose to keep the Cape garrison at its full strength, and will supply the places of any troops which have been or may be moved to the front. With this object

  265
  a battalion of the King's Royal Rifles has been ordered to the Cape from Malta. ["Hear, hear!"]

  ARREST OF MR. HARRISON.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he can inform the House as to the reported arrest of British subjects by Venezuelan authorities, and as to the action taken in consequence by Her Majesty's Government?
  MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Government were informed by the Governor of British Guiana of the arrest of Mr. Harrison while engaged in survey work on the left bank of the Acarabisci River on 15th June. A protest was made against this action of the Venezuelan authorities; and information has since been received that on news of the occurrence reaching Caracas, orders were sent for Mr. Harrison's release.

  VENEZUELAN BOUNDARY.
  MR. MICHAEL DAVITT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he will explain the present stage of the negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Republic of Venezuela in relation to boundary disputes in that country; whether the Venezuelan Government has repeatedly offered to submit the whole matter in dispute to arbitration; and, if so, why these offers have not been accepted by Her Majesty's Government; and, whether Papers relating to these proposals for arbitration will soon be laid before Parliament?
  MR. CURZON: No recent communications or negotiations have passed with the Venezuelan Government in regard to the boundary dispute. The offers of the Venezuelan Government to submit the matter in dispute to arbitration have all been laid before Parliament in the Blue-book, Venezuela No. 1, of this year.

  GIANT'S CAUSEWAY.
  MR. EDWARD M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) if he is aware that a syndicate has been formed to erect railings and a gate at the path
  266
  leading to the Giant's Causeway, with the object of excluding visitors from the Cause way sights, except upon the payment of toll; (2) that workmen are actually engaged in the making of preparations to exclude the public from the Causeway, except upon the payment of toll; and that the services have been secured of an ex-sergeant of constabulary who is to act as toll collector; and, (3) what course does the Irish Executive intend to pursue in regard to this invasion of an old and important public right?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: So far as I can ascertain, the facts are substantially as stated in the first paragraph. As to the second paragraph, suggesting that a public right of way will, or is being, encroached upon, this is a matter in which the Crown is not entitled to intervene.

  SILVER PRICES AT SHANGHAI.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether there is any foundation for the report that the rise of silver prices of produce has been steadily increasing for the past few years in China and notably in the district and port of Shanghai, and whether the low rate of exchange so long ruling is raising the prices of local produce?
  MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Consul at Shanghai, in his Report for 1895, which has just been issued, states that the low rate of exchange so long ruling is gradually having the effect of raising the prices of local produce. But exchange has been steadier in 1895 than it has been for a long time. At the beginning of the year the rate opened at about 2s. 8½d. per tael; by May 1st it had risen to 3s., and continued at about that point during the remainder of the year.

  INCIDENCE OF LOCAL AND IMPERIAL TAXATION.
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he is now in a position to say when a Committee or Commission will be appointed to inquire into the subject of the incidence of Local and Imperial Taxation, as between movable and immovable

  267
  property; and, whether the proposed Inquiry will extend to urban as well as to rural districts?
  MR. F. A. CHANNING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he can now state what will be the form of the proposed Inquiry into the incidence of the local and Imperial taxation on the several classes of rateable property, and when the Inquiry will be begun?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Committee has not been finally appointed, but the reference to the Committee is settled, and the reference is as follows:—
  "To inquire into the present system under which taxation is raised for local purposes, and report whether all kinds of real and personal property contribute equitably to such taxation, and, if not, what alterations in the law are desirable in order to secure that result."
  MR. CHANNING: Am I to understand that this will be a Select Committee of the House of Commons?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir; it will be a Commission.
  MR. J. H. DALZIEL: Will the Inquiry be limited to England?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir; it will be a general Inquiry.

  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1886.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he has received a copy of a Resolution from the Mulbuie Highland Land Law Reform Association, pointing out the injustice of excluding from the benefits of the Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886, leaseholders whose rentals do not exceed £30; and, whether, seeing that the Education Bill has been withdrawn, and that there is more time at the disposal of the Government, he proposes to amend the Crofters' Act this Session, so as to give small tenants holding under lease the benefits of the Act?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Resolution to which the hon. Gentleman refers has been received, but I have been obliged to say, in answer to other questions of a similar kind that
  268
  I do not at present see much chance of the Government finding unexpected leisure to deal with Bills not at present on the Paper.

  FOREIGN OFFICE VOTE.
  SIR ROBERT REID: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether there will be an early opportunity of discussing the present condition of affairs in Crete?
  MR. C. J. MONK: I bog to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will take the Foreign Office Vote on Friday?
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury on what days it is proposed to make progress with Class 2 and Class 5 of the Civil Service Estimates?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Government have no objection to take on next Friday or the Friday following the discussion on the Foreign Office Vote.

  EDUCATION CODE, 1890.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government will take the necessary steps to suspend or amend the Education Code of 1890 in regard to the increased expenditure upon teaching staff required of schools in August of the present year, pending the passing of a Measure for the permanent assistance of Voluntary Schools?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he understood the Education Office thought it would be of advantage to suspend Article 73 pending further investigation as to its probable effects.

  TEACHING UNIVERSITY (LONDON).
  MR. JAMES BRYCE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government have now come to a decision regarding the course which they will pursue on the question of the establishment of a Teaching University in London, as recommended by the recent Royal Commission; and, if so, whether he can state what that decision is?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes, Sir. A Measure on this subject will, I understand, be introduced in the House of Lords.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  MR. D. H. COGHILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will include on any Commission or Committee appointed to consider old age pensions a representative from each of the great Friendly Societies of the country, such as the Ancient Shepherds, Foresters, Oddfellows, Buffaloes, etc., etc.?
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, seeing that the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows, and several other important Friendly Societies, have declared themselves, by resolutions carried at their annual meetings, to be in favour of State-aided old age pensions, will the Government recognise such an important expression of opinion by including a representative leader in favour of such State-aid upon the Commission or Committee now being appointed?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid the reference to this Commission was as follows:—
  "To consider any scheme that might be submitted to them for encouraging the industrial population, by State-aid or otherwise, to make provision for old age; to report whether they could recommend any proposals of the kind, either based upon or independent of such schemes, and, with special regard to any proposals of which they might approve, the cost and probable financial results to the Exchequer and to the local rates; their effects in promoting habits of thrift and self-reliance; their influence on the prosperity of friendly societies, and the possibility of securing the co-operation of these institutions in their practical working."
  He could not at present give the names of the small Commission of experts who would have to deal with this reference, but care would be taken that some members of it were thoroughly cognisant of the views and wishes of the Friendly Societies. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. L. R. HOLLANDasked whether the evidence taken by this Commission would be laid upon the Table of the House?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYreplied that it was not usual to make a promise with regard to the proceedings of a Committee or Commission before the appointment of such a body.

  ORDNANCE FACTORIES VOTE.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he proposes to take the Army Estimates on Friday next, and whether, in that case, he will take the Ordnance Factories Vote first?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have already indicated in an official Resolution the intention of the Government to take the Foreign Office Vote on Friday, so the hon. and gallant Gentleman will see that his Question does not arise.

  IRISH TREASON-FELONY PRISONERS.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDasked the Secretary for the Colonies whether his attention had been called to the statements in Saturday's newspapers that the Legislative Council—which meant the Upper Chamber—of Cape Colony had adopted a resolution calling upon the Government of the Colony to approach the Imperial Government in order to ask them to extend to the Irish political prisoners similar clemency to that extended by President Kruger to the Reform leaders—[Nationalist cheers]—and whether that resolution had been supported by the Attorney General and adopted by the Legislative Council unanimously; and whether Her Majesty's Government had yet received any representation of the nature referred to from the Cape?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The Question was only put into my hands since I reached the House. Therefore, I have been unable to make inquiries. I have no information on the subject.
  MR. REDMONDsaid he would repeat the Question in a couple of days.

  RHODES (MR. CECIL).
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid he desired to ask a Question arising out of an answer given by the Secretary for the Colonies in reference to Mr. Cecil Rhodes. He wished to know whether

  271
  the House was to understand that the resignation of Mr. Rhodes was accepted by the British South Africa Company in consequence of advice given by the right hon. Gentleman to the Chartered Board?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that Question arises out of the answer I have given, and I prefer to have notice.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I will give notice.
  MR. A. LAFONE:said he wished to put a Question arising out of an answer——
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The practice of making inquiries at the end of Questions on matters arising out of answers previously given is irregular. If Questions are not put at the time they should be put on the Paper.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. HOLLANDasked whether, in view of the fact that two matters of importance, in regard to the allotment of naval contracts and the conditions of dockyard employment, in respect of which notices for reduction had been given, had failed to be raised on Supply last Friday, owing to some misunderstanding, the First Lord of the Treasury could arrange to take the Report stage of these two Votes before 12 o'clock on any night?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am afraid I cannot promise to take the Report stage of those Votes before 12 o'clock; but if other business extends beyond 12 I will not take them later. As I have been asked a question about the business of the House I may say that, after consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I find it will be inconvenient to break into the discussion on the Finance Bill. It is very important for financial reasons that we should proceed rapidly with the Uganda Railway Bill. Under these circumstances I shall take the Uganda resolution To-morrow as the first Order, then the Coal Mines Bill, and afterwards the Light Railways Bill.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: What arrangement does the right hon. Gentleman propose with reference to the Finance Bill ?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I think in all probability it will come on on Tuesday next week. Probably Monday next week will be most convenient.
  MR. T. LOUGH: It will not be taken this week?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: In all probability it will not be.
  MR. J. W. CROMBIE: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take the Scotch Rating Bill To-morrow?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes, I must apologise to hon. Members for having misled them. I said the Scotch Rating Bill would be put down as the first Order To-morrow and dealt with under the Standing Order, which limits Debate to one speech for and against. I find, however, that the Government have no power to put down Bills on Tuesdays for that purpose. Therefore I must defer the Scotch Rating Bill until Thursday.
  MR. DALZIEL: Does the Bill come under the Standing Order?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes, Sir.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: Will the Bill be taken as the first Order on Thursday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes, Sir. Under these circumstances it will necessarily come "at the commencement of public business."
  MR. J. WILSONasked whether, considering the importance of the Coal Mines Regulation Bill, the right hon. Gentleman had resolved to withdraw the contentious clauses and restrict the Measure to simply dealing with the life-saving clauses?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: In answer to that question I have already stated that I hope the House will read this Bill a Second time, and when it has reached Committee I shall propose to omit the check-weighing clause altogether.
  MR. LOUGH: Will the Irish Rating Bill immediately follow the Scotch Rating Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Irish Rating Bill will not be introduced the same day as the Scotch Bill.
  *SIR C. DILKE: Having regard to the important nature of the 9th clause—the definition clause—in the Agricultural Land Rating Bill, and the very brief discussion it received on a former occasion, I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is his intention to take that clause at any hour tonight?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The clauses preceding Clause 9 are not very important, and there is no reason at all why we should not reach that clause at an hour which will permit of ample and adequate discussion of it. [Cheers.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION FROM THE STANDING ORDER).
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY moved:—
"That the Proceedings on the Agricultural Land Rating Bill, if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order, Sittings of the House."
The House divided:—Ayes, 206; Noes, 116.—(Division List, No. 282.)
The announcement of the figures was received with Opposition cheers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  AGRICULTURAL LAND RATING BILL.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [25th June] on consideration of the Bill as amended.
  Clause 4,—

  CERTIFYING OF ANNUAL SUMS PAYABLE IN RESPECT OF DEFICIENCY.
  (1.) The Local Government Board shall, as soon as may he after the passing of this Act, certify the amount—

  (a) of the annual grant to he paid to the Local Taxation Account; and

  (b) of the share of such grant to be paid annually to each spending authority,

  under this Act, and for that purpose shall determine in the prescribed manner the amount which for the purposes of this Act is to be taken as having been raised during the last year before the passing of this Act by any rate to which this Act applies for the expenditure of each spending authority.
  (2.) Such proportion of the whole amount so taken to be raised in respect of any hereditaments or parishes as the Local Government Board estimate to be the proportion of the total rateable value of those hereditaments or parishes which represents the value of agricultural land, shall be taken for the purposes of this Act as the amount raised during the said year, by the said authority, by the said rate, in respect of agricultural land, and one half of that amount shall be taken as the deficiency which will arise from the provisions of this Act in the produce of the said rate.
  (3.) A sum equal to the total amount of the deficiencies thus estimated for all the spending authorities in England shall be the amount of the annual grant, and a sum equal to the deficiency thus estimated in the case of each spending authority shall be the share of that spending authority in the annual grant, and the Local Government Board shall certify the same accordingly.
  (4.) The Local Government Board, in acting under this section, shall obtain and make such information and inquiries, and in such manner as they think fit.
  (5.) The Local Government Board may amend, or for the purpose of meeting any alteration in an area or authority to which a certificate relates may vary, a certificate under this section, and any such Amendment or variation shall have effect from the date of the original certificate, or any later date fixed by the Board; but save as aforesaid, a certificate shall be final and binding on all persons.
  (6.) The Local Government Board may give a provisional certificate, if they think necessary, for the purpose of enabling the first payments to the Local Taxation Account under this Act to be made, before they have sufficient information to enable them to give a final certificate.
  And which Amendment was, after the word "rate," to insert the words—
  "In estimating the value of agricultural land for the purpose aforesaid in cases where such land is rated together with buildings, the Local Government Board shall take as the value of such buildings the sum it would cost to rebuild them, and the rateable value thereof shall be taken to be a sum equal to five per centum per annum on the said cost."—(Mr. Robson.)
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Debate resumed.
  MR. JOHN DILLONwhose speech was interrupted at midnight on Thursday 25th June, said the clause as it stood was calculated to produce disastrous results. It might be said that the Assessment Committees were upright and honest, but there was abundant evidence in connection with the old poor-law administration that

  275
  Englishmen, like other people, fell victims to temptation. There was at present no guiding principle on which Assessment Committees were to act in dividing the assessment between the land and the buildings. The President of the Local Government Board, when pressed on the question, said the only principle he could think of was that they were to assess farm buildings at what might reasonably be expected to be their fair letting value divorced from the land. Many Assessment Committees might take the view that the value of the buildings, on that principle, was nothing at all, more especially when by taking that view they would largely increase the grant to which the parish was entitled from the Imperial Exchequer. It might naturally be argued by Assessment Committees that as the Bill provided a totally inadequate amount of relief from an agricultural point of view, there was no harm in so arranging the assessment as to draw the largest possible amount from the Imperial Exchequer. The House was entitled to know definitely what limitation the Government intended to place upon the power of Assessment Committees in this respect. As the clause now stood it would have a most injurious effect upon the moral tone of Assessment Committees. It would give a direct incitement to rearrange and "rig" the valuations with a view to getting more money from the Treasury. In regard to the criticism of the Amendment by the President of the Local Government Board, he maintained that the necessity for some Amendment had been shown, and if the right hon. Gentleman would propose some alternative it would meet with most careful consideration.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid this was a question which was specially reserved for Report. It would be remembered that the hon. Member for Hampshire and the hon. and learned Member for Stroud urged that it was impossible to distinguish between land and buildings. That was a view that was entirely rejected by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill stated that there was nothing-easier than to distinguish between land and buildings. [Mr. CHAPLIN dissented.] He did not wish to misrepresent the
  276
  right hon. Gentleman in any way, but, at all events, he said that the Bill as it stood would be perfectly workable as regarded the separate valuation of buildings. The Chancellor of the Exchequer opposed it very strongly upon financial grounds, and went so far as to say that it would be impossible to take the course recommended by the two hon. Members. It was obvious that the Imperial Exchequer might be, and probably would be, very seriously affected by the manner in which the assessment of buildings and land was dealt with. It was quite obvious, as his hon. Friend had said, that it was possible to manipulate this Bill—["Hear, hear!"]—and unless some precaution was taken to protect the Exchequer in regard to the assessment of buildings there would be very great danger, and no man could estimate the sum which might be extorted from the Exchequer. There would also be an injustice in regard to householders who were not leaseholders. Although objection might be taken to the Amendment now before the House, as there were a number of proposals upon the Paper with reference to this question, it would very much assist the House to know what was the view the Government took upon this subject of the assessment of the buildings and the land.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,)said the Amendment which was now before them was one for a specific purpose, and laid down that in valuing buildings which were rated together with agricultural land the sum should be taken which it would cost to rebuild them new, and that the rateable value should be 5 per cent on that cost. He did not think the question put by the right hon. Gentleman arose on this Amendment, but he would explain the views of the Government in regard to the matter on the next Amendment that stood on the Paper.
  DR. CLARKsaid he thought the right hon. Gentleman explained on Thursday that the intention of the Government was that one-eighth should be taken as the value of the buildings, and the other seven-eighths as the value of the land. At present every valuation was on letting value, but now they were going to have a

  277
  special valuation of land and of buildings not upon letting value. If they were going to give up letting value they must adopt some new principle, and his hon. Friend's Amendment proposed that they should take capital value. He thought that was a very wise suggestion. It had the approval of the head of the Government and the First Lord of the Admiralty. Several Members of the Government, when they were members of the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes, recommended, not a 5 per cent., but a 4 per cent. basis upon the capital value, and the Marquess of Salisbury signed the Report of that Commission although he dissented from its being applied only to this kind of land. Had anyone any power of determining what new principle should be carried out? If they turned to Clause 6 of the Bill, they would find that there was an indication given under Sub-head A of the third section which provided that the Local Government Board might, by order, make regulations for fixing the minimum gross estimated rental and rateable value of the buildings and other hereditaments. The First Lord of the Treasury thought this was only a Bill of one clause, and some other clauses for machinery—[The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: "Hear, hear!"]—and all the machinery and several of the principles were not to be considered at all by Parliament. There was nothing in the Bill to determine upon what principles the valuations should be made. If they were made, they must either be made on capital value, or they might take what was called the theory of use value. In the county which he represented, and in some others, there were buildings which cost about half-a-million which were only rated at about £500 a year. He thought that Parliament in determining a matter of this kind ought to lay down some uniform system throughout the three kingdoms, otherwise they would have in one district one system of valuation, and in another district another system. If this was really a fight for one-sixteenth he did not think it was worth while fighting for, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer might well give in on that one-sixteenth. Anyone who had any experience in regard to the matter knew that the surveyors went as
  278
  near as possible to the capital value. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, who knew something about agriculture, especially from the landlord's standpoint, what he thought the bulk of the landlords of England were getting as land rent separate from buildings. He could assure him that in a great many farms, especially in the heavy clay lands of Essex, the land rent had entirely disappeared. Just as economic rent had disappeared in Ireland, so it had disappeared in a great many portions of England. The only fair and intelligible method of valuation was to value on the cost; and he hoped they would get rid of those vague phrases which in the past had enabled landlords to escape their fair share of the rates. The great bulk of landlords were not getting more than 3 or 4 per cent. on the capital value of the buildings and improvements which they themselves had made.
  MR. C. A. CRIPPSpointed out that the clause under discussion was not a rating section at all, and that none of the arguments raised were applicable to it. They were applicable to Clause 5. The clause only dealt with the certificate of the Board of Trade.
  *MR. CHARLES HARRISONthought the clause could not be regarded as other than a rating clause, because it assumed the rating of the hereditament under the Poor Law Act remained undisturbed, and to be taken as that out of which the valuation under this clause was to be made out. Under the Poor Law the test of what was known as "separate assessment" of a hereditament was, and only took place in, those cases where the hereditament assessed was capable of being let and occupied separately, and without such separation of occupation there was no power under the poor-law rating to sever or divide the hereditament, or to sever buildings on the land from the land itself. The word "land" in poor-law rating covered buildings, and they could only be separately valued when separately occupied. The whole object of this clause was to direct the Local Government Board to certify the division for poor-law purposes of that which was not yet in law divided into two parts, and to make two separate valuations, one for land and one for

  279
  buildings. For the first time in a Bill relating to rating, including poor-law purposes, it was proposed to introduce a valuation of buildings by themselves. In the Rating Act of 1833, relating to lighting and watching rates, the word used was not buildings, but "buildings rateable" according to the valuation list for the poor rate. So that there was no greater power of division of buildings from the land than what existed under the poor-law rating, namely in those cases where the hereditament was capable of separate occupation. In the Act of 1875 the word "buildings" was not used at all, but "land," which carried buildings not separately occupied; and by the Act of 1875 buildings were not to be separately valued, but land was to be assessed at ¼ only of the net annual value thereof as entered in the poor-law valuation. Buildings did exist for the purpose of assessment to Imperial taxation, but that was quite separate, and they were under the two Acts—the one relating to the Property Tax, and the other to the Inhabited House Duty. In the Act of 1842, relating to the Income Tax, there were pages devoted to laying down rules for the separate assessment and valuation of buildings. So also, with respect to the Inhabited House Duty, there were statutory provisions for ascertaining how that which was to be divided ought to be divided. But there were no such provisions in this Bill; and, unless the division was made most carefully by competent persons, the result might be that the valuation of the land would be wholly inadequate to the real value. Whether the percentage laid down in the Amendment was correct or not, some such principle ought to be adopted, and the separate valuations ought to be carried out by those who had to do the work for the purposes of assessment to Imperial taxation.
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILLpointed out that, in order to work out the sums which were required under Clause 4, the Local Government Board had to determine the separate value of buildings as distinguished from the land, and therefore he submitted that it was very relevant to consider upon what rules, or according to what principles, the value of buildings as distinguished from land in an agricultural holding were to be determined.
  MR. JAMES STUARTsaid that what he complained of was that there was no principle whatever foreshadowed in the Bill for dealing with the valuation now under consideration. While it was extremely important that the future valuation should be made on fixed principles by the overseers, it was also extremely important that it should be made upon some principles, whatever these might be, in the present instance. The two valuations they were discussing affected very different portions of the public interest. The valuation by the local authority which had been so much referred to, would affect only the relative amount that had to be contributed by the ratepayers in each locality. But in the initial valuation, where the Local Government Board had to separate between the values of lands and buildings in the first instance, the persons who would be affected would be not the local ratepayers at all, but the general body of taxpayers—that was to say, what would be determined would be the sum total that had to be given in each locality for the next five years from the central fund. The latter was much the more important as affecting the sum total which would be required in order to carry out the Bill. He pleaded, therefore, that the House should settle exactly what was to be the principle of separation between lands and buildings, in order to protect the public purse. If it were not settled beforehand what was to be the division between those two portions of the property concerned, then they had nothing but the absolute fiat of the Local Government Board. As to the particular Amendment, he could conceive considerable amendments to it. He did not think it was in the happiest form, but it would give definiteness to the matter. He would submit, however, that it was a fair plan to take what it would cost to erect the buildings, to take a percentage on that, and for his part he should like to see the percentage varied in proportion to the age of the buildings. But something of the kind would have to be done by this House, and should not be left to the Local Government Board. That Department must have made up its mind by this time as to the general lines they intended to go upon, and if the House were informed what those lines were, they would then

  281
  know how far it was necessary to pursue the present Amendment.
  *MR. E. STRACHEYwas strongly opposed to the Amendment, but only intervened in the Debate because its hollowness was not exposed by hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House, and people in the country would naturally suppose that no arguments could be offered against it because of the silence of hon. Members opposite. Now, in supporting the Amendment the hon. Member for Caithness laid it down that in making the calculation referred to the cost value of the buildings was the only value that ought to be taken. That was an entirely fallacious argument to use as regards farm buildings, inasmuch as buildings which might have had a high value 20 years ago might be of no practical use now at all. To say that such buildings should be valued at their cost of rebuilding and that the rateable value should be taken to be five per cent. of that cost would be very unfair. There was a general desire on the part of landlords at the present time to give all the advantages they could to their tenants by erecting and providing good and suitable buildings on their farms, but he believed the effect of the Amendment, if it were carried, might be to discourage them from doing so. He could give instances in which large and expensive buildings that had been used for cheese-making were now lying idle through the effects of foreign competition, the farmers having now to dispose of their milk by sending it to London instead of making it into cheese. The hon. Member for East Mayo, on the previous Friday, made a statement which, if accurately reported in The Times, entirely killed the Amendment. The hon. Member said that the buildings without the land would not let—that they would be useless. He believed that statement to be in accordance with the fact, and therefore he held that to value those buildings at the cost of rebuilding and to fix the rateable value upon that cost was unfair and unjust. He would only further repeat that he should not have intervened in the Debate, if any hon. Gentleman opposite had risen. He should have the greatest confidence in going into the Lobby against the Amendment, because he believed it would, if carried into law, set up a dangerous principle
  282
  and inflict considerable damage on the agriculture of the country.
  MR. HENRY LABOUCHEREsaid that it was surprising that the Members who assumed to be friends of the landlords did not perceive the injury they were doing the landlords at times by the course they took. The hon. Member who had just spoken had stated in effect that, if any division of value was made between land and buildings, the landlords would not in future erect good buildings on their farms.
  *MR. STRACHEYsaid he did not state that the landlords would not do so, but that the effect of the Amendment, if it was carried, might be to discourage them from expending large sums of money in erecting large buildings.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid the effect of the correction was to say that unless the landlords were encouraged by a sort of bribe from the Treasury they would not do their duty. He felt that he was bound to defend the landlords from any such insinuation. [Laughter.] He did not think they would be influenced by such sordid considerations, but believed that if a fair estimate was established between the value of buildings and land as regarded the proposed assessment they would act fairly in the matter. He supported the Amendment, as other hon. Members had done, because no definite plan, or any plan at all, was laid down in the Bill as to the distinction between buildings and land in regard to valuation. As to the statement of the hon. Member for East Mayo, quoted by the hon. Member for Somerset, of course the buildings would not let, as he said, without the land. Both had to be taken in relation to each other. The value of the buildings was their position—the value of their power of use, and in that sense they certainly had a considerable value. But the objection to the Bill as it stood, and the reason why he and other hon. Members supported the Amendment, were that no distinction—no definite plan—was laid down in the Measure as to any rule of valuation in regard to the buildings and the land. The valuation must be based on either the capital or the letting value. The calculation on the letting value would of course involve great difficulty; for it would have to be left to the decision of each Board of Assessment in

  283
  the different parishes. In that case would it not be better to take the capital value? But the Bill set forth no principle of action at all. It seemed to him that the best course to pursue was to adopt the Amendment, and make it the basis for further action if it were thought advisable to do so. Some clear and specific basis of action ought to be laid down in the matter. ["Hear, hear!"]
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 97; Noes, 257.—(Division List, No. 283.)
  MR. PICKERSGILL MR. PICKERSGILL moved, after the word "rate" to insert the words:—
  "In estimating the value of agricultural land for the purpose aforesaid, where any hereditament consists partly of agricultural land and partly of a house with or without buildings, the rateable value of the house, whether with or without buildings, shall not be less than one-eighth of the gross estimated rental of the hereditament; provided also that the rateable value of the house and buildings (if any) shall in no case be loss than three pounds, nor shall the rateable value of the house and buildings together be less than the assessment of the house to the house duty when the house is so assessed."
  The object of the Amendment, he explained, was to limit the amount of the grant payable out of the Exchequer indirectly, and it sought to attain that object by fixing the value of agricultural land relatively to the agricultural building. The Amendment had the great advantage of simply adopting the rule which had been laid down by the President of the Local Government Board himself. The right hon. Gentleman stated on Thursday that it was his intention to issue a provision to the effect embodied in the Amendment as one of the rules under the Bill, and, of course, it was obvious that it would be most unreasonable for the right hon. Gentleman to impose one rule of valuing agricultural buildings upon the local authorities and to apply and adopt a different rule at the Local Government Board, because it was the purpose of the Bill that there should be established a balance between the two, and the grant from the Exchequer was to apply to the deficiency created by the provisions in this Bill. This House was the guardian of the national purse, and, apart from ordinary
  284
  considerations of financial prudence, they were bound by their duty to their contituents to limit the amount of the grant from the Exchequer. He had a reason for desiring to embody this rule in the Bill itself arising out of what happened the other night. When the right hon. Gentleman declared his intention of issuing a rule to this effect, what occurred? They all knew with what close attention the hon. Member for Basingstoke had followed the whole course of this Bill, and no sooner had the right hon. Gentleman made the announcement to which he had referred, than the hon. Member immediately rose, made a strong protest on behalf of the agricultural interest, and even went so far as to suggest that when the right hon. Gentleman said less he meant more, and that the object of the rule was not to impose the minimum on the relative value of the buildings but to impose the maximum. That was a most significant demonstration on the part of the representative of the agricultural interest, and one which made it all the more desirable to have statutory security for this provision, whatever its value might be. There was another reason why it was expedient to include this rule in the Bill itself. If it was not included in the Bill, then, in order that the Bill might be effective, they would require the concurrence of two Government Departments. It was not always possible to get two Departments to agree upon a particular line of action, and difficulties might arise through the provision that the rule could not come into force except with the concurrence of two Government Departments. For these reasons he begged simply to apply the rule which the right hon. Gentleman had expressed his intention of making operative in the country, and to compel the right hon. Gentleman to apply that rule at the Local Government Board in estimating the amount of the Government grant. He begged to move the Amendment.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid he would take the opportunity on this Amendment to make a general statement as to the intentions of the Government on the subject. The questions put to him on the other side of the House amounted practically to this: Could a separation of the values of land and buildings be made as was proposed; secondly, if it could,

  285
  what should be the proportion; and, thirdly, how was it to be done? Upon the first point, as to whether it could be done, he had received a good deal of information upon the subject, which proved conclusively that it could. The Clerk to the North Witchford Union, in Cambridge, wrote to him that throughout the whole of the Union farmhouses and buildings were separately assessed from the land occupied with them, and this practice had prevailed since 1881. He had received a letter from a gentleman in North Lincolnshire, who stated that for 30 years they had in his district valued houses, buildings, and land and farms separately. In an interesting communication, the Clerk to the District Auditor of the Nottinghamshire Audit District said his experience was that land only, exclusive of the buildings, was assessed at the reduced rate—namely, one-fourth of the rateable value thereof; and Lord Justice Lopes, in a judgment delivered some years ago, expressed the opinion that the scale of rating of one-fourth of the annual value was confined solely to land. The Clerk to the Sleaford Rural District Council wrote stating that the question had arisen in connection with the Agricultural Land Rating Bill as to how far it was practicable to separate farm buildings from farm land for the purpose of assessment to the local rates, and he added: "In this Union we divide farmhouses and buildings from the land." He would just quote from a section of the Lighting and Watching Act of 1833 to show that the existing law on this subject was perfectly explicit:—
  "It shall be lawful for the overseers of the poor in such parish and they are hereby required, whenever, according to the rate made for the relief of the poor, one and the same person shall he rated one and the same in respect of land and also houses, buildings, and other property, to cause such land and also such houses, buildings, and other property, to be separately assessed, and the sum hereby authorised to he levied shall be assessed accordingly."
  Upon the point whether it was practicable and could be done, he thought he had said sufficient, because he had shown the House that, as a matter of fact, in certain cases, perhaps in very many, it-was done already. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for Plymouth, who spoke on the last Amendment, asked how
  286
  was it to be done unless they laid down instructions in the Bill. The answer was that it was to be done as it was already done. There appeared to be no difficulty in doing it in the cases he had mentioned, therefore, anything in the nature of instructions in this Bill would be quite unnecessary and out of place. With regard to the proportion which ought to be borne by the one to the other, some alarm was expressed by an hon. Friend sitting behind him when he explained what the Government had in their mind in regard to the separation of land and buildings for the purpose of these returns and the statements which were to be made. He admitted that, for the purpose of their statement and the estimate for the grant that was to be made, there must be some protection to the Treasury, and for this reason. The returns were made for the purpose of the grant, and if would he the object of any one, he imagined, in the first instance, at all events, to put the building as low as possible in order to get as much money as possible. ["Hear, hear!"] It had consequently been necessary to provide safeguards against that operation, and in the course of the observations he made the other day he pointed out the various safeguards that were in the Bill. The Surveyor of Taxes was called in, for instance, and the matter had to be submitted to him, and there were various powers of appeal. In answer to the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire, he stated, roughly, what the Government had in their mind on that subject, and he read out some extracts from the Regulations which had been prepared just before for his consideration. These Regulations only applied to the returns which were to be made for the purpose of the Government grant. But if anyone felt himself unfairly rated in the future, after these returns were made, he would have the same remedies in future under the ordinary law that he had at present. The one-eighth must remain the general rule under the Regulations. Upon that the Government were quite decided. But there must obviously be some qualification and provision for exceptional cases, and it was impossible to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member and insert a hard-and-fast line. With regard to the Treasury, if hon. Gentlemen who were so alarmed had half

  287
  the experience he had had of the Treasury they would find that their fears were unfounded, and that the Treasury were quite able to take care of themselves without the adoption of the Amendment. In some cases buildings and houses might be rated too low, and in others, in urban districts, where the Assessment Committee was composed of a large majority of the representatives of rateable property, and in others of the representatives of agricultural land, there might be a disposition to rate buildings unfairly high. With regard to this he could only repeat that he was disposed to look favourably on the Amendment of his hon. Friend behind him, and when it was reached he would give it his support.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken referred to the powers of resistance of the Treasury. He himself had great confidence in the powers of resistance of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he had not confidence that all Chancellors of the Exchequer would be able to resist the pressure that would be put upon them. There were many other points of finance in which he had entire confidence in the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. But this matter ought not to rest on personal credit alone. They were dealing with millions of money and an exceptional system of rating, and to leave them in the condition which the President of the Local Government Board would leave them was not sound or proper. He was alarmed at what the right hon. Gentleman said of the Amendment that was to come. It would not be in order to discuss it, but anything more inadmissible he could not possibly conceive. It was fundamentally destructive of all the principles that should be embodied in this Bill. Where there was a disposition to rate houses too high the right hon. Gentleman was going to put security into the Act by accepting an Amendment in that direction; but where there was a danger of rating houses too low, he would not have security at all. It was impossible to conceive anything more inconsistent. He said there might be persons in an urban district who would rate houses high because they thought they should be rated high. Of course they thought they should be rated high, because they knew the land
  288
  was highly rented, and had an exceptional value which they had created. So they were not likely to favour the notion that these men should be absolved from the rates the value of whose property they had created, and who were probably the richest persons in the whole district. The Member for Shropshire in Committee made some sensible remarks on the point, and said:—
  "Take care what you are about! If you are going to rate the house of the farmer so low, what will the blacksmith, the carpenter, the village shopkeeper say when he finds his house rated two or three times as much as other persons who shared equally with him the result of agricultural depression?"
  His own greatest difficulty in this matter was fixing a particular fraction. It must depend on the size of the farm. They could not touch the system of rating without falling into dangers to the public revenue, and the whole system on which the local taxation of the country rested. Yet this was the essence of the Bill. The Government were dealing with a subject they had not considered. They had brought in this Bill without any provision on the subject, and they were fishing among Amendments to see how they might meet difficulties they ought to have foreseen. Then they said the Opposition were taking too much time in considering questions they had not considered themselves. Here was a matter which lay at the root of their Bill, upon which the amount of contribution to be made by the Exchequer and the owners of house property depended; and the Bill would go forth with that blot upon it, and leak in it, which must inevitably work injustice to one kind of property or the other. It might work injustice by giving less than they intended to the land and more to the houses. It was more likely to work in the direction of giving more to the land and less to houses. But it was certain it would create a grievous amount of friction in all Local Government and Assessment Committees, and be the subject of the most bitter controversy. The Government had introduced for the relief of agricultural distress a "rate war" in every parish. One would say his house was being rated too high, and that another's land was rated too low. This battle would be fought out and would come

  289
  home to every man in every parish. The Government had not taken the trouble to think out and consider these matters which lay at the root of the Bill, They did not seem to know their own mind on the subject. The President of the Local Government Board said he would favourably consider certain Amendments. That was not the way to deal with the reform of the rating system of this country, involving questions which affected millions of public taxation and the absolute necessity of every householder in this country to know what they would have to pay under the Bill and what differences would be made between one class and another. All this was in a liquid state, utterly unformed in the mind of the Government. They had not taken the pains to examine a question of this kind, which vitally affected the whole financial aspect of the Bill.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,)said he could not help thinking, when listening to the denunciation of the right hon. Gentleman that he had not considered the effect of one part of his speech upon another part of it. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman wanted them to define, either by this Amendment or by some other Amendment, how these matters were to be dealt with, but he had himself shown the extreme difficulty of any attempt of the kind.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: My objection to your Bill is that it creates these difficulties, and that you ought to have left rating alone. [Cheers.]
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, with all respect, that that was a Second Beading speech. [Cheers.] They had had an almost unreasonable number of Second Beading speeches on the Bill. He asked the House to put aside the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's eloquence and consider the Amendment. They had, no doubt, a very difficult matter to deal with, but the President of the Local Government Board had shown, from practical cases, that where an Assessment Committee under the existing law had felt it its duty to do this very thing, the thing had been done without difficulty or friction.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: You are going to lay down Regulations.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid they were going to attempt to lay down a general Regulation for the guidance of Assessment Committees, and it would rest with the Committees to apply the Regulation by the light of their knowledge of the circumstances of each case. He would take care—and he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his confidence in him in this respect—that the Treasury would be adequately represented in the consideration of this matter by the Assessment Committees. [An HON. MEMBER: "How?"] By the Surveyor of Taxes. There was power to do that without any legislation at all. So far as the Treasury was concerned, he believed that would be a perfectly sufficient and satisfactory safeguard. The House must recollect, what he thought the right hon. Gentleman for the moment forgot, that, so far as the Treasury was concerned, the matter would be settled within the next nine months. The grant would be fixed for five years by the decision then arrived at, and whatever variation the Assessment Committees might subsequently make in the proportion of the valuation, as between land and buildings, would in no way affect the amount of relief given by the Treasury in future years. He hoped, in the circumstances, they might be able to dispose of the Amendment without undue delay. He thought it had been satisfactorily and fully shown by the right hon. Gentleman himself, that it would really interfere with a fair settlement of the question both as regards the Treasury and as between different classes of rateable property in the country if they were to attempt to lay down by an Amendment to the Bill a hard-and-fast rule upon a subject which could only be dealt with properly with reference to the particular circumstances of each case. [Cheers.]
  MR. J. STUARTsaid the question they were dealing with was what the Local Government Board were going to do in connection with this assessment which they were going to make. The Local Government Board was going to say in the first instance what amount was to be reckoned for land and what for buildings, and on that would depend the whole grant which the House was to make. Was the Local Government Board going to lay any Regulations

  291
  before the House? The right hon. Gentleman had said that, generally speaking, the buildings were to be taken at one-eighth, and so, generally speaking, he accepted the principle of the Amendment. But he said there were many exceptions. What were the general lines of these exceptions? The House had a perfect right to know on what principle the Local Government Board was going to decide this matter. If the Government could not make up their mind now, let them take the rest of the Session to do so. It was more important that the House should know the Regulations which were to guide the Local Government Board in its decision in the first instance than the Regulations by which, under Clause 6, the Overseers were to be guided in making any further valuations. They wanted to know what were the considerations to which the right hon. Gentleman referred as justifying a departure from the proportion of one-eighth, and what was to guide the Local Government Board in its determination upon those considerations.
  *MR. CHAPLIN: We have already undertaken to lay the Regulations as soon as they are ready.
  MR. STUARTsaid the Regulations that were to be submitted were Regulations that affected the action of Clause 6. What he desired to know was this—would the Regulations which were to be submitted to the House deal fully with the separation of the valuation of land and buildings by the Local Government Board for the purposes of Clause 4?
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid there appeared to be some misunderstanding as to the operation of the Amendment. It did not fix, but limited, the amount to be allowed for buildings. It said that the amount "should not be less than one-eighth," not that "shall be one-eighth." If the House was not to put a limit in this way to the amount, it would simply be transferring its legislative powers to the clerks of the Local Government Board, who were to do as they thought best in the matter. If the clause were allowed to remain as it stood, it was certain that in urban districts, where the relief was least wanted, the Assessment Committees would make the assessment of the houses as low as possible, in order that they might get a
  292
  big share of the Government grant, while in the purely agricultural districts, where distress really existed, and where the laud was worth little for rating purposes—such as in Essex—they would have to make that assessment on buildings as high as possible in order to get something out of the grant.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid the question at issue was whether the principle of fixing a limit should be in the Act or in the Regulations of the Local Government Board. The precedents were in favour of those who thought it should be in the Act. In the Taxation. Arrangements Act of 1888 there was an elaborate code for the arrangement of such business. The Regulations of the Local Government Board were either to be binding or were not to be binding. If they were not to be binding, that would be a most objectionable course to take; but if they were to be binding, why not put them in the Act? In regard to the proposal that one-eighth should be allowed for buildings, he did not think that it would be a fair allowance in the case of big farms, but as a rough average in the case of all the farms of a union it might fairly be accepted.
  DR. CLARKdid not think that one-eighth was a fair sum to allow for buildings on an average. Rents were falling, but why?—not because buildings were deteriorating in value, but because land was deteriorating in value, owing to the stress of competition with the rich and cheap land of foreign, countries. As a matter of fact, buildings, houses, farms, roads, and other such improvements formed the only value that was left, generally speaking, to agricultural land, and if the two values—the value of the land and the value of the buildings—were fairly separated, it would be found that the agricultural value in the economic rent was gone altogether. In his opinion, seven-eighths was the value of the improvements, and only one-eighth that of the land itself. But things were to be reversed, and a fictitious value was to be given to land in the interests of the landlords.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERasked whether, if the Regulations to be laid on the Table would not include Clause 4 in their purview, the Government would accept an Amendment which should secure the presence of

  293
  an official assessor at the assessment of agricultural land and buildings for the purposes of the Bill? He thought that ought to be done for the protection of the general taxpayer. It would be most unfair to the general taxpayer to leave the making of the assessments entirely to a local body whose object would be to depreciate buildings in order to get as much as possible of the money advanced by the State.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,)said the Government were not prepared to accept the principle that there should be an official assessor present at the making of the statements and returns by the Assessment Committee. Clause 6 provided what they considered to be sufficient safeguards in the interests of the ratepayers. The statements and returns to the Local Government Board were to be made by the Overseers of every parish, corrected by the Assessment Committee, and sent to the Surveyor of Taxes, who was to have the right of appeal, and it was stated by the Attorney General in Committee on the Bill that he was prepared to accept an Amendment providing that any aggrieved ratepayer might also appeal. He would also point out, in answer to other objections, that Sub-section 3 of Clause 4 provided that the Regulations to be made by the Local Government Board for the purposes of the Act were to be—
  "for fixing, with the concurrence of the Treasury, for the purpose of the division, in the statements, of agricultural land from buildings or other hereditaments, the minimum gross estimated rental and rateable value of the buildings or other hereditaments."
  It was obvious that when that regulation was made it would control the statements which were to be prepared for the purpose of enabling the Local Government Board to give its certificate. Further regulations were not wanted. It would be preposterous to enact that the Local Government Board should make regulations for itself in dealing with each individual hereditament. It had not to deal with individual hereditaments; it had to give certificates of the share of the grant which was to be paid annually to the spending authority.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: How is the Local Government Board to judge
  294
  supposing that the directions given to the Assessment Committee are not fulfilled?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid that the Surveyor of Taxes was there for the purpose of seeing that the regulations were observed, and if they were not he might appeal. The statements were furnished to him. The right hon. Member for West Monmouth had said that while he had unbounded confidence in the present Chancellor of the Exchequer he was doubtful as to his possible successors. But the right hon. Gentleman forgot that this grant was to be made once for all, and would be made within the next six months. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman must have unbounded confidence in proper precautions being taken to secure that this grant should be adequate and not more.
  MR. F. A. CHANNINGsaid that there was one material question which had not been answered. When were these regulations to be laid before the House? For the sake of the taxpayer and of the people whose property was to be assessed the regulations ought to be considered before the close of the Session.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: They must be, to bring the Act into force.
  MR. CHANNING: Have we an assurance that there will be a discussion of them in the present Session?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: Yes.
  MR. CHANNINGhoped the discussion would be taken before midnight.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGErose to continue the discussion, when
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYclaimed to move "That the Question be now put." [Cheers.]
  *MR. SPEAKER: As the Debate is apparently drawing to a conclusion, I will not stand between the hon. Member and the House. [Opposition cheers.]
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEpointed out that the appeal of the Surveyor of Taxes would be to the Court of Quarter Sessions—the very people who were likely to be offenders in raising the value of land and lowering the value of buildings. Further, as to the amount of the grant being fixed, the Local Government Board was given power to amend the certificates; so that provision was practically worthless.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted." The House divided:—Ayes, 133; Noes, 263.—(Division List, No. 284.)
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENproposed, after the word "accordingly," to insert the words:—
  "(4) The Local Government Board shall lay before Parliament a statement showing the amount of the share of the annual grant to be paid annually to each spending authority."
  *MR. SPEAKERsuggested that, as the statement referred to was not one to be made up annually, but once for all, the proper course would be to move for it in a Return which, no doubt, would be granted.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENexplained that the figures would be at the disposal of the Government a considerable time before the end of the financial year, and he wished to know whether the President of the Local Government Board would consent to present such a Return to Parliament at as early a date as possible.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I hope the hon. Member won't press this. There will not be the slightest objection to give the information as early as required.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE MR. LLOYD-GEORGE moved, after the word "fit," to insert the words:—
  "and with this object in view the Local Government Board shall obtain an independent valuation of the agricultural land in each parish."
  He said that his object was to secure that the Treasury should not be absolutely at the mercy of the Assessment Committee and the overseers. The overseers were simply the nominees of the very persons whom the Bill proposed to benefit, being appointed at parish meetings or Parish Councils. The Assessment Committees were not an independent authority, for the reason that landlords and farmers were appointed upon them in large numbers. He insisted that in the working of a Bill of this kind the Treasury ought to take steps to secure that the assessment on the buildings should be perfectly fair, and the only way in which this could be secured was through an entirely
  296
  independent valuation. For his own part he could not see any difficulty in the matter. What was there to prevent the Treasury from utilising for the purpose in question the services of the officers already appointed to assess land and buildings in connection with general taxation? Surely the machinery in existence for the separate valuation of lands and houses could be utilised in the working of the present Bill, and he thought it might be done without great expense. ["Hear, hear," and Ministerial laughter.] Unless some means of an independent valuation other than the Assessment Committees were provided, the tenant-farmers would be at the mercy of the local authorities. ["Hear, hear!"] The case he wished to make out rested wholly on this—that the assessment should be left in the hands of the people whose interest it would be to make it as large as possible in order to ensure as heavy a contribution as they could get from the Imperial Treasury. ["Hear, hear!"] For the protection of the Treasury itself, the work should be in the hands of an independent body. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. CHAPLINsaid the Amendment amounted to this—that the Local Government Board should undertake the enormous task of making an independent valuation—whatever that meant—of the whole of the agricultural land in the country. Surely the hon. Member must see that that would impose on the Board a task which it was practically impossible for the Department to fulfil. Moreover, it would entail an enormous expense. There was not, however, any real justification for the Amendment, because, as had been already shown, ample safeguards had been already taken against any unfair treatment in the matter of the assessments.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid he thought the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill could not have heard the reasons given by the hon. Member for Carnarvon in support of his Amendment, and no wonder, considering the loud conversational interruption designedly carried on by hon. Gentlemen opposite while the hon. Member was speaking. ["Hear, hear," and Ministerial laughter.] If the right hon. Gentleman had heard what the mover of the Amendment had said, he

  297
  would at least have appreciated the argument that it was in the interest of the Bill itself that no opportunity should be given to localities to make unfair assessments in their own interests. ["Hear, hear!" and interruption.] The hon. Member for Carnarvon had shown how the difficulty might be provided against, but no reply had been given to his arguments.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid the reply of the right hon. Gentleman to the Amendment did not commend itself to him. It was by no means satisfactory. ["Hear, hear!"] Both as to the great expense which the right hon. Gentleman alleged would be involved in providing for an independent valuation and as to efficient safeguards in the Bill against unfair assessments being made, he differed from him altogether. ["Hear, hear!" Amendment after Amendment had been submitted with the view of meeting obvious defects in the Bill, but no attention had been given to them by the Government. The object of the present Amendment was to ensure a protection against injustice, which the Bill did not give, and which was certainly necessary. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. HENRY BROADHURSTsaid hon. Members of the Opposition only wanted some sort of security that a fair valuation, or assessment, would be made under the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] The fact that the Bill did not give that security was a defect in the Measure which had been pointed out again and again, and if that defect could be removed he believed the passing of the Bill would be greatly facilitated. [Cries of "Divide!" and interruption.] Unless some precaution was taken, there would undoubtedly be great danger of injustice being done in the work of assessment under the Bill.
  MR. ARTHUR JEFFREYS (Hants,)hoped the country would take note of the distrust which hon. Gentlemen showed in the Assessment Committees. ["Hear, hear!"] The Parish Councils and the District Councils were created by the Party of the hon. Gentlemen opposite; the former appointed the Overseers, and the latter appointed the Assessment Committees, and both bodies were freely elected by the people, in whom Radicals pretended to feel such
  298
  confidence. [Cheers and laughter.] Yet by their arguments in this case they practically declared that they had no confidence in the action of the public bodies elected by the people. [Cheers.] There was not, however, any solid reason to suppose that the Assessment Committees, under the operation of this Bill, would be composed largely of those who had a direct interest in the work—namely, landlords and farmers, and in illustration of what he said he might mention that he had just received a letter from a gentleman who stated that out of 12 persons appointed to form an assessment in his district, he was the only representative of the agricultural interest among them. ["Hear, hear!"] The distrust which had been expressed of the Assessment Committees was, in fact, very unjust, for, as a rule, they carried out their duties in the country with great judgment and fairness. The demand made by the Amendment for independent machinery to carry out the work of assessment under the Bill was, therefore, entirely unnecessary, apart altogether from the enormous expense it would involve. ["Hear, hear!"] In those circumstances he hoped the Amendment would not be accepted.
  *MR. HARRISONcontended that whenever the Imperial Exchequer was concerned in assessments on rateable property it was always protected by its own assessors, and by certain statutory provisions or rules laid down as to the mode or standard to be adopted for fixing the assessment. That was the case as regards assessments of lands, houses and buildings to property tax under Schedule A, and as regards houses, farmhouses and buildings under the Inhabited House Duty Acts. Here the Imperial Exchequer was interested in the first valuation of the land and buildings; and after the first valuation their assessors, rather than assessment committees, were the better authority for ascertaining the relative valuations as between the landowners and occupiers and those interested in buildings and houses. These Government assessors worked under the Inland Commissioners, and the Local Government Board had no such similar staff. If the officials proposed by the Amendment were good enough for the assessment of property to

  299
  Imperial taxation, they were good enough to be intrusted with the apportionment of the poor-rate as between houses, buildings and land, though in the same occupation.
  MR. T. LOUGHsaid that no attack was made on the Assessment Committees in the discharge of the duties they had been called upon to discharge up to the present. The Bill threw new duties upon them which might lead them to swerve a little from right and justice. He contended that his hon. Friend was absolutely right in asking that, as large Imperial funds were to be given out under this Bill, there ought to be an independent valuation. Somebody would have to make that valuation, and if the Government would say that the Local Government Board would take steps to see that a satisfactory valuation should be made by someone of whom they approved, the object of the Amendment would be secured. If some right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench would say that some such independent and reliable valuation would be made, he thought this discussion might come to an end.
  MR. J. W. LOGANthought the Amendment was a most serious one, and he hoped the Government would give a better answer. The Amendment sought to do nothing unreasonable, unjust, or unfair to anybody. It only sought to provide that a really effective valuation of agricultural land should be made by an independent valuer. The Assessment Committees were composed of men vitally and financially interested in this Bill, and, therefore, they were not the men to make the valuation. The real point of the Amendment was that these Assessment Committees, whether composed of farmers, tradesmen, landowners, or agricultural labourers, would all of them be desirous in the interest of the ratepayers they represented to get as large a subsidy from the Imperial Exchequer as possible. Therefore it was only right and reasonable that the Government should concede the point asked for in the Amendment, and make some arrangement whereby an independent tribunal should assess the value of the land to receive the benefit under this Bill.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 112; Noes, 220.—(Division List, No. 285.)
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEproposed to leave out the words "may amend or." He explained that it was proposed that the Local Government Board should have absolute power to amend at any time the certificates respecting the amounts to be paid to spending authorities. The Department would be able to alter the valuation of buildings and lands in any part of the country by the simple expedient of amending the certificate. That was a very arbitrary power to confer upon the Local Government Board, and in no previous Bill had it ever been proposed to give such extensive power to a Government Department. In what cases did the right hon. Gentleman propose that this power of amendment should be exercised? Supposing that the rateable value of a parish went down with the result that the Treasury contribution became more than sufficient to meet the grant, did the right hon. Gentleman propose that the Local Government Board should have power to amend the certificate so as to reduce the amount contributable to that particular parish?. Or, supposing the rates went up in a parish, and the Treasury contribution was not enough to pay half the rates upon the agricultural land, would the power of amendment conferred by this section be exercised for the purpose of increasing the Treasury contribution? As far as he could understand, the section would give the Local Government Board unchecked power to increase or decrease, as it thought proper, the amount certified as that which a parish ought to have. He held that the clause ought to be amended in such a way as to protect the Treasury against attempts by the Local Government Board to make alterations in the certificates for the purpose of arbitrarily increasing the Treasury contributions. With that view, he begged to move his Amendment.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid that he did not know why the hon. Member should imagine that the Local Government Board would be governed by any sinister motives. Why should the Department

  301
  wish to increase grants unjustifiably and without the knowledge of the House of Commons? He could assure the hon. Member that the Department had no intention of the kind, and he could not understand why the hon. Member should attribute to it a desire to do absurd things. ["Hear, hear!"] If this Amendment were accepted, the effect would be that the Board would only be able to alter a certificate for the purpose of meeting a case of alteration in an area or authority. It was obvious, however, that other circumstances might occur rendering amendment of a certificate necessary. Mistakes, for example, might be committed, and might have to be rectified. The Board might find that in consequence of some inaccuracy in a Return a certificate provided for a payment in excess of the sum that ought to have been certified originally. Similarly the sum originally certified might be too low. In such cases power of amendment was, of course, necessary. It was desirable to amend and rectify the certificate, and he thought that the hon. Member would see that the power to do so was only reasonable and right.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid there was no suspicion of the right hon. Gentleman's intentions, though according to his observation the greatest mischief in the world was occasionally done by relying on good intentions. The House had been assured that this matter was going to be settled within six months, but, considering the nature of the transaction, he thought it would take a great deal longer than that to settle whether the assessments over the country were or were not properly made. The right hon. Gentleman must see that this clause as it stood opened the whole question for the future. [Cheers.] The door, so to speak, was not closed in six months, and how wide it might be opened depended entirely on the discretion of the Local Government Board and its head. He thought that some limitation ought to be introduced in the clause.
  MR. LEWISsaid that the Opposition did not attribute any sinister motives to the right hon. Gentleman, but it was needful to remember that the policy of the Department was controlled by its head. The head of that Department was naturally influenced by his political
  302
  opinions in regard to agriculture, or what might be done for its benefit by the general community. It was possible that the Minister's opinions might be unconsciously coloured in that way, and in consequence the community might suffer. For example, the right hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. James Lowther) might be at the head of the Local Government Board, and the country might see some extreme things done in the interests of agriculture. It was dangerous to entrust the extensive powers of this clause to any Government Department.
  DR. CLARKthought that the right hon. Gentleman had missed the point. He suggested, however, that the certificate should be amended "in case of error." The clause as it stood was far too vague, and gave too much power.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid that he and his hon. Friends were not supporting this Amendment on the ground that they suspected the future action of the right hon. Gentleman. But they mistrusted his heart, and were suspicious of the fact that he was being pressed from behind by a greedy body of supporters. He asserted that amendment of certificate should only be "in case of error."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid the Government would accept those words and insert "in case of error."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Words "in case of error" inserted.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS MR. HERBERT ROBERTS (Denbighshire, W.) moved to omit Subsection (6). He pointed out that before March 25 these things had to be done—new valuations had to be made; separate valuation lists had to be produced; separate valuation lists had to be adopted by the Assessment Committee and confirmed: and two kinds of appeals were open in the case of valuation lists. It was practically impossible to carry out these arrangements between now and March 25, and the certificates made before that time would practically be provisional. It would be far better in the interests of the Imperial Exchequer and the rates that this transaction should be delayed a certain number of months in order to enable the Local Government Board to issue final certificates once for all for each amount to the various spending authorities.
  MR. CHAPLINthought that the reasons urged by the hon. Member were arguments in favour of the retention of the sub-section. Whatever date was selected, he should feel it necessary to insert a provision of this kind in order to guard against contingencies impossible to foresee or absolutely to prevent. If it was to be a final certificate, as was proposed by the hon. Member, delay on the part of a single authority to furnish the necessary Returns would prevent the certificates being given before the date named, whatever it might be, and under those circumstances the whole grant would be delayed. It was absolutely necessary to have some provision of this sort in the Bill, and he must therefore decline to accept the Amendment.
  SIR W. HARCOURTreally thought the Government ought, out of respect for their own reputation, to accept this Amendment. What did the sub-section say? That the Local Government Board were to grant a provisional certificate if they had not got sufficient information! He would suggest that this clause should be put as the preamble of the Bill and that, not having sufficient information, this should be a provisional Measure. [Laughter and cheers.] That was really the history of the whole thing. ["Hear, hear!"] The Government were obliged to provide that this grant should be given upon provisional certificates. Why? In order that they may get the money before the Local Government Board had got the information. He was sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in his place, otherwise he would have appealed to him not to let them have the money until the information had been obtained. ["Hear, hear!"] This was carrying the greediness of the class for whom this Bill was promoted to an extent that was almost intolerable. [Cheers.] They were so greedy to swallow this money that there was actually a clause introduced into the Bill providing that there should be a provisional certificate to enable them—what should he say?—to collar this money, to use a vulgar expression, before they had the information which would justify the giving of it. [Cheers.] Who ever heard of a proposal being made in a Bill such as that? What would be the result of this provisional
  304
  certificate and this giving of the money? It assumed that they did not know who had to pay what share of the rate. Nobody who was acquainted with a rural parish could conceive what a condition it would be thrown into by this Bill—a rural parish with a provisional certificate for a rate which nobody understood. This showed that this Bill had been drawn without information—[cheers]—and that, in its construction there had been no proper consideration of the question dealing with the rate. They had, in an old legal saying, "the culprit confessing" on the very face of the Bill. There was a blank cheque upon the Exchequer to be drawn without information by a provisional certificate! Was ever such a proposal made to the House of Commons, which was supposed to be the guardian of the public Exchequer? [Cheers.] Under this provisional certificate, was there money to be paid which, if it was too much finally, was to be repaid? And to be repaid by whom? If there was not enough money paid, how was anybody to discover, among the classes of ratepayers, who got too much and who got too little? In such a hurry were these gentlemen to get hold of this money that they would not wait until the case had been ascertained and a proper certificate could be given. If ever there was an Amendment to a Bill which was justified by the character of the Bill, it was the present Amendment; and certainly, whether they succeeded in the Lobby or not, the arguments in its favour appeared to be quite unanswerable. [Cheers.]
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid the right hon. Gentleman opposite regarded this Bill with so much antipathy that he could never resist the temptation to make an attack upon the general principle of the Bill. [Cheers.] He thought it was not out of place to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the consideration of every Amendment was not a proper occasion for attacking the principle of a Bill which had been sanctioned by the House. [Cheers.] With the permission of the right hon. Gentleman—[laughter]—he should like to recall the House to the question of what the Amendment was. The right hon. Gentleman asked, were certificates to be granted without information? Surely there was such a thing as having

  305
  enough information to know that the amount of the grant was certain to reach a certain figure and would probably be more than that. They did not know exactly what would be the amount, and they could not therefore give a final certificate, but they had enough information to be certain that a certificate for, say, £1,000 would be in the mark. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment spent a good deal of time in pointing out that it would be difficult to have the certificates ready by March 31. Was that not an argument in favour of the power to grant provisional certificates? [Opposition cries of "No!"] It might be an argument for throwing out the Bill altogether, but that was not the question they were now discussing. They were now debating this Amendment, and if they could not have these certificates ready, as the hon. Gentleman argued, by March 31, surely the right and sensible thing was to say that, as soon as they were able to see that the amount to be certified would certainly reach a certain figure and would probably go beyond it, they might give a provisional certificate. There was not, he submitted, as soon as the real character of the Amendment was looked at and as soon as the question was divested of the irrelevancies imported by the right hon. Gentleman opposite—[cheers]—the slightest ground for saying that this was intrusting any novel or arbitrary power to local authorities. [Cheers.]
  MR. LOUGHsaid he would like to suggest another reason to the right hon. Gentleman for looking favourably on the Amendment. If they did not strike out the sub-section the right hon. Gentleman would, when they came to discuss it, find himself in very considerable difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman had himself put down Amendments to it, and if the sub-section was bad as it stood, it would be infinitely worse if they considered it in the light of those Amendments. The sub-section said one certificate. The right hon. Gentleman was going to suggest in his Amendments that many certificates should be given.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The proper time to discuss those Amendments will be when they are reached.
  MR. LOUGHthought it might abbreviate the discussion when the time
  306
  came. All he suggested was that the right hon. Gentleman himself had seen the difficulties of this sub-section. It had received a good deal of his attention, and he was trying to lick it into shape by the Amendments of which he had given notice. It was a bad job making these payments at all, but if they had got to do a doubtful act they should do it at once, shut the door behind it, and forget all about it. Instead of adopting that policy, the Government were now opening the door to payments of cash on account continually. Once they got that door open, they would never be able to shut it.
  *MR. HARRISONsaid they were asked now to pay out a total sum from the Exchequer into the Local Taxation Account on a provisional certificate. To what did the certificate as in the Bill defined refer? Evidently to a certificate of the sum total of the deficiency mentioned in Clause 2—after examination of the amounts due to all the spending authorities had been ascertained. Now it was asked by the Amendment to substitute for this certificate of a total sum provisional certificates for each particular payment to each spending authority. It was irregular enough to ask that the Imperial Exchequer should be operated upon by even a provisional certificate of the total sum of deficiency, which could only be arrived at after careful investigation of the sums required in the case of each spending authority. If the Standing Orders had been amended so as to apply to this Bill, no dealing with Imperial funds would have been possible except after a Vote in Committee of the House specifying the total. But now provisional certificates were asked to be sanctioned. There should be no dealing with total expenditure except by a certificate relating to a total, and not to its component parts.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYANsaid that whoever was to blame in this Debate it was most certainly not his hon. Friends below the Gangway. They thoroughly foresaw what was coming when they proposed to alter the date of the Bill, and they had proved themselves responsible guardians of the public purse. This was a perfectly novel transaction that was now taking place, and for the very first time public money was going to be paid by a

  307
  portion, instead of by the whole, in relief of public burdens. Under these circumstances all those guarantees and precautions provided in previous parts of the Bill should take place in their full chain of proceeding before one single halfpenny was paid out of the Treasury, and, therefore, it was proposed to alter the date in order that the process might be carried out in its entirety. Of course mistakes must occasionally be made, and for that reason the House passed the previous sub-section in this clause. This, however, was not a question of mistake, but of money being paid out of the Treasury at an earlier or later date. It did not concern the public that it should be paid at an earlier date; it concerned only the individuals, and when these individuals were receiving a large, immense, and anomalous advantage by this Bill, certainly Parliament ought not to disturb the course under which public money had hitherto been paid out of the Treasury for their advantage.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEagreed that this sub-section was a mischievous one. It was to the interest of the Treasury and the Local Government Board, and it ought to be to the interest of everybody, to expedite the proceedings in order that when the time came the amount could be ascertained and fixed before it could be paid. If the local authorities knew that unless the valuation was complete, and had been submitted to the Assessment Committee, unless the appeals were disposed of they would not get a penny of the money, they would be more likely to make a fair valuation; they would be tempted to come to terms with the Surveyor of Taxes, not to court appeals, and get the whole machinery in order before the 31st March. But when they knew that there was a provision in the Bill that whether they got the machinery into order or not, whether they made an extravagant demand on the Treasury or not, there was a power of appeal, and when they knew they had a President of the Local Government Board who would regard every claim that came from the agricultural interest with indulgence, they would prefer dealing with provisional orders based upon insufficient information to orders which had been made after full examination, after appeals had been disposed of and after
  308
  the Surveyor of Taxes had been consulted. They would prefer to deal, not with the Surveyor of Taxes, but with the President of the Local Government Board, and that was why this sub-section had been inserted. The Solicitor General had not answered the question how he was going to guess the figure for which he was going to make this provisional certificate. Suppose a local authority made a valuation which was too high, and the Government insisted on a repayment of the amount in excess, the whole local finance of the country would be disarranged. He prophesied that those provisional certificates would come into operation in hundreds of cases throughout the country, and if at the end of the year they were either in excess or less than they ought to be, the whole system of local finance would be thrown into utter confusion.
  MR. J. H. DALZIELdesired to know whether under the Bill as drafted it was possible for the money to be paid out of the Local Taxation Account to the spending authority?
  MR. CHAPLIN: Certainly.
  MR. DALZIEL: Then we are in this position—the right hon. Gentleman does not understand his own Bill. He has said it is possible for the money to be paid out of the Local Taxation Account to the spending authorities. I say it is not possible.
  MR. CHAPLIN: That is the object of the Bill.
  MR. DALZIEL: Then I will read for the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill what this subsection is:—
  "The Local Government Board may give a provisional certificate, if they think necessary for the purpose of enabling the first payments to the Local Taxation Account under this Act to be made, before they have sufficient information to enable them to give a final certificate."
  Your provisional certificate does not deal at all with the spending authority. I say that as the sub-section stands you have no power at all under the Bill to pay from the Local Taxation Account to the spending authority. Will the right hon. Gentleman point out where he takes that power?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is discussing an

  309
  Amendment different to that at present under discussion. He is discussing a subsequent Amendment which proposes to add the words "and out of."
  MR. DALZIEL: I at once bow to your ruling, Sir. I will point out that the right hon. Gentleman said this subsection gives him the power, and I am pressing him to tell us where that power is.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I did not under stand him to say that, but what I think he said was that the Bill gave such power.
  MR. DALZIELcontended that the Bill as drafted, and as it now stood, did not give the right hon. Gentleman power to pay money from the Local Taxation Account to the spending authority so far as the provisional certificate was concerned. He complained that the intention of the Government, in the first place, was evidently to limit the provisional order certificate to the Local Taxation Account, and that now, for some reason they had not explained in the course of the Debate, they intended it also to apply to the spending authority.
  MR. R. WALLACEobserved that by this clause the Local Government Board might give a provisional order certificate before they had sufficient information. He attacked a clause of this kind upon general principles. He thought such certificates ought not to be given before they had the information, and he had always had an idea that sufficient information was necessary to take any proceedings that might ultimately be found to be valid or safe. He listened with intense interest to the explanation made by the learned Solicitor General. He knew the value of a statement coming from his mind, and as far as he could make out the illustration the hon. and learned Gentleman gave them, was that if the Local Government Board thought they were safe up to, say, a thousand pounds, to be under the mark, they could proceed to give the certificate without sufficient information. But the hon. Gentleman was assuming that the Local Government Board with insufficient information would always be under the mark. But what security had they for that? None whatever. If they could proceed under the mark with insufficient information, they
  310
  might also go above the mark, and he objected entirely to the Local Government Board, or any Board, or any people, or any authority whatever being intrusted with the power to do what they liked upon insufficient information. If a cause of this kind was set up by the authority of Parliament, there was no saying what it might lead to. He knew that when any authorities actually proposed to legalise procedure upon insufficient information, it would never lead to good, but could only lead to evil. He listened with great respect the other night to a lecture by the Leader of the House on the decadence of Parliament, and he would say that if a clause of this kind were to be legalised, there could not be a more perfect supplement to the observations which the right hon. Gentleman then made. He desired to speak in the most serious way he could, and to warn the House that if legislation of this kind were carried out, and authorities were to be armed with the power of doing what they liked upon insufficient information, Parliament would certainly become decadent to a degree that he, for one, had not before feared.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERobserved that in the course of the Committee stage of the Bill he had felt it necessary to call attention to the unbusinesslike arrangements in connection with it, and there could be no more unbusinesslike arrangement than that of authorising for the future the granting of a number of provisional certificates in order that a certain class of the community might receive money from the rest. The Local Government Board would have a lot of work to do under this section, and the Opposition had pointed out all along that the date fixed in the Bill was hardly remote enough for that work to be accomplished in. They were assured it was, and that all would be finished by March 31. They now found that the work could only be done by acting upon information which was incomplete. Even by the confession of the Solicitor General himself these certificates were to be made on a conjectural basis. This was a method of conducting business which would bring a private firm to ruin at once. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL said there was nothing conjectural about it.] The spending authority would

  311
  give the information to the Local Government Board, and before there was time to analyse it they had to pay the amount. They had nothing to show they would be under the mark, and the tendency and interest of local authorities would be to make their certificates above the mark. No business could be successful which was conducted on a system of this kind, by which payments were made based on what were practically conjectures, because if there were not conjectures the Local Government Board would have sufficient information to make the proper amount payable. In the interest of the proper conduct of public business the Opposition were bound to protest against this provision of the Bill and to divide upon it. ["Hear, hear!"]
  Question put, "That the words '(6) The Local Government Board may give' stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 167; Noes, 92.—(Division List, No. 286.)
  On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval,
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALproposed to leave out the words "a provisional certificate," and to insert instead thereof the words "provisional certificates," for the purpose of enabling the first payments under the Bill to be made to the Local Taxation Account before they had sufficient information to enable them to give a final certificate.
  MR. BROADHURSTthought that the evils of which complaint had been made would be multiplied indefinitely by the Amendment. During the five years the Act was to be in operation the Local Government Board was to be allowed to issue any number of preliminary certificates without sufficient information. That made the case against the clause all the stronger. And this indefinite multiplication of the gross, glaring, and enormous evils of the Bill—making the chaos of local government already created by the Measure worse confounded—was sought to be rammed down the throats of the House without a word of reason or explanation from the President of the Local Government Board. [Laughter.]
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALwas sorry the hon. Member felt it to be his duty to expend so much oratory on this Amendment. Complaint had been made that his right hon. Friend had not explained it; but the fact was, the matter had been so fully discussed that it was felt not to be necessary to enlarge upon it. They had a series of Second-Reading speeches——
  MR. FLYNNasked if the hon. Member was in order in speaking again on this Amendment.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member is not in order in speaking again except by the indulgence of the House.
  MR. FLYNNsaid the hon. and learned Member had not asked the indulgence of the House. If he had done so, no doubt it would have been extended to him.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid he should not have spoken but for the invitation extended to him by the Member for Leicester.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid he understood that the Member in charge of the Bill had moved the Amendment,
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Certainly not. ["Hear, hear!"] Of course he could only speak with the indulgence of the House, but it seemed to be thought necessary that someone should make an explanation. The House had already discussed whether it was necessary that the money should remain tied up to the last moment. He was quite aware of the objection taken, but it was not necessary to make these speeches over and over again.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid what they really liked to have was an explanation by the right hon. Member who put the Amendment down, not a vicarious oration from the Attorney General. They should discuss that Bill as often as they thought fit. [Cheers.] When the Attorney General indulged in the foolish taunt that they were making Second Reading speeches he only showed his inexperience and ignorance of Parliamentary practice. [Cheers and counter cheers.] They had a perfect right to discuss any clause which affected the complete texture of the Bill. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman in bringing forward an Amendment on his own clause. [Laughter.] The clause

  313
  was closured against amendments proposed by the authors of the Bill.
  MR. CHAPLIN: The amendments were not then on the Paper.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid that all the amendments down were excluded, and he was glad that these discussions had opened the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, so that he was able to see the defects of his own Bill. Do not let them be charged with a factious opposition to the Bill. This Amendment showed that the Bill wanted amending. What they objected to was the multiplication of the provisional certificates; they might have a succession of them. He could not conceive why these words were introduced.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid he could quite understand the irritation of the right hon. Gentleman at being reminded that he had made so many Second Beading speeches. The way in which the Bill had been discussed was an entirely novel feature in Parliamentary proceedings. The right hon. Gentleman had taunted the Attorney General with not being so long in Parliament as himself. Well, he had been as long in Parliament as the right hon. Gentleman.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Yes, we were born together. [Laughter.]
  MR. CHAPLIN: No, the right hon. Gentleman has the advantage of me by more than a dozen years. [Laughter.]
  SIR W. HARCOURT: May I ask what is the Amendment before the House?
  MR. SPEAKERhaving read the Amendment,
  MR. CHAPLINsaid he had expected that the Bill would be discussed in Committee in the ordinary way. He never anticipated that anything approaching this kind of discussion would take place. He was willing to introduce some provision to allow for exceptional cases which might give rise to difficulties. The Local Government Board would get the information on which to issue the provisional certificates as soon as the Assessment Committees has settled the revision in the existing valuations between houses and buildings on the one side and land on the other. But under the Bill there might be all sorts of appeals, and some of them might require a great expenditure of time. The Bill, as originally
  314
  drafted, contained a provision that the Local Government Board might issue the provisional certificates for payments into the Local Taxation Account, which would be absolutely necessary, whatever date was fixed for the Act coming into operation; and he thought it necessary to promise a similar provision with regard to the payments out of the Local Taxation Account. He did not think these cases would be very numerous; but the proposition was a reasonable one which would commend itself to the general sense of the House. He was perfectly well aware, however, that it would not commend itself to the sense of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, the course of these Debates had convinced him, were only too glad to fasten upon anything and everything which they thought could possibly lead to the destruction of the Bill either in the House or in the proceedings elsewhere. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. DILLONsaid if the principle of the Bill was vicious and impracticable, it was not the fault of the Opposition. Under the guise of a very simple Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make an extremely important change in the Bill. The Bill as originally drafted provided for one provisional certificate for payments into the Local Taxation Account, which would be under the control of the Government. The Amendment provided for the issue of an unlimited number of provisional certificates for payment out of the Local Taxation Account. The right hon. Gentleman had no right to complain of prolonged discussion of such an Amendment. It was useless to make an appeal to the Opposition when—
  MR. CHAPLIN: I made no appeal.
  MR. DILLONsaid that the right hon. Gentleman was extremely irritated by the attacks on the Bill. It could be no hardship on the Local Authority to wait for the payment from the Local Taxation Account until the Amendment had been finally determined. It might turn out that too much had been said, and then there would be no remedy at all. As to the appeal from the Assessment Committee—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! that question does not arise on this Amendment.
  MR. DILLONsaid, that he was led into the digression by the right hon. Gentleman, who founded his argument on the possibility of these appeals causing long delays. Some reason ought to be given for this proposed extension of the provisional orders, which had not occurred to the Government when drafting the Bill.
  MR. DALZIELsaid that, as to the charge against the Opposition of having unduly prolonged the Debates the recent course of the discussion had had a remarkable effect upon the attitude of the Government. Before the dinner interval the right hon. Gentleman said that there were provisions in the Bill for the payment of money from the Local Taxation Account to the spending authority. Now he was altering the Bill to effect that very purpose, while he explained that the original intention was to allow provisional orders only for payments into the Local Taxation Account. The hon Member here read Sub-section 3 of the clause, and, continuing, said that the question to be decided was under what conditions the money was to be paid to the spending authority from the Local Taxation Account.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The only question now before the House is whether provisional certificates may in certain cases be issued.
  MR. DALZIELsaid that they were now discussing the question of one or of several certificates.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I understand the question to be that in addition to the certificate for payment into the Local Taxation Account there shall be power to give a further provisional certificate for payment out of the Local Taxation Account. That will be only one pair of certificates.
  MR. DALZIELsaid, that if the Amendments were adopted even as they stood on the Paper, they would enable the amount to be paid into the Local Taxation Account by means of not one only, but perhaps half-a-dozen certificates. He contended that the case for the several certificates had not yet been made out. They had had at an earlier period of the Bill practically an intimation that they would have the information by the 31st March. The money had to be paid by then, they had authority to pay it
  316
  within the six months preceding the 31st March. Why, then, between now and the 31st March, should they require several certificates? They had abundance of time, and unless they had stronger reasons for the issue of several certificates they ought to reject the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. LEWISopposed the Amendment because he believed it would lead to in-definite prolongation and delay. On the Committee stage he had had an Amendment to omit Sub-section 6, but owing to circumstances over which he had no control, he was unable to move it. The Amendment would certainly make the Sub-section worse than it was originally, because it would only give the Local Government Board the opportunity of indefinitely prolonging the issue, of the final certificate. Their object at earlier stages of the Bill, in wishing to fix some definite date, was that they might have a limit within which the local authority might know exactly what they expected to obtain; when they attempted to fix that date they were met with the reply that there was plenty of time. Their opinion was overborne. Now they were told that the time would not be long enough, and that it might be necessary to issue provisional certificates, not only with regard to payments made into the local taxation account, but also with regard to payments to be made out of the local taxation account as well. He be believed it would lead to the greatest inconvenience to local authorities; and would almost put a premium upon delay on the part of the Local Government Board,
  SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid that they had on another occasion divided against this section on the ground that a single provisional certificate was objectionable, and it was now proposed that this condition should be doubled. ["Hear, hear!"] The confusion would be worse confounded, and the unbusinesslike arrangement contemplated by this clause had, in his experience, never been equalled. Here was a great public Department, which was the guardian of the public money, actually arranging to pay out money without knowing what the final charge upon it would be. These certificates were of two kinds, and the whole objection to the scheme was multiplied by the Amendment of the right

  317
  hon. Gentleman, and they could not, therefore, consent to it.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (MR. RITCHIE,)said he was astonished that the hon. Gentleman should have made such a speech, because he must know from his connection with the Local Government Board that with regard to matters of this kind there was always a certain amount of elasticity. Parliament in the Act of 1888 gave into the hands of the Government a power infinitely greater than any power asked for now. In the Local Government Act the Government took power to vary Acts of Parliament. [An HON. MEMBER: "That's not taking money."] It was a much more important question—[cries of "Oh!"]—as Parliament put into the hands of the Government the power of varying that Act and other Acts connected with Local Government for the purpose of correcting errors and mistakes. So much was the House impressed with the necessity of this elasticity, that they continued that power year after year by a continuation Bill. The hon. Gentleman ought to know, and no doubt did know, that the money was distributed not after all the accounts had been closed, but from time to time by certificate of the Local Government Board, it being impossible to say what the accounts would ultimately result in.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: That is money distributed over the whole community.
  MR. RITCHIE: I do not see what that has to do with it.
  SIR W. FOSTER: I say we are bound to be extra jealous here, because this is money taken from the whole community and given to a class. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. RITCHIE: That is one of the most irrelevant observations of the many which I have heard from that Bench (the Front Opposition Bench). [Cheers.] The question whether the money was taken from one class or another was one for Parliament to decide, and what they were discussing now were the precautions to be taken as to the distribution of the money. To say that inconvenience would result was perfectly absurd. If it turned out that too little had been distributed, then the remainder could be made up; if too much, then the excess would be taken off from the next allocation.
  318
  The hon. Gentleman and the House must know that every one of these payments might possibly be appealed against, and were they to retain the money in the Local Taxation Account before one single penny was distributed to the local authorities? ["Hear, hear!"] Such a proposition bore its own refutation. This was an innocent Amendment, and the right hon. Gentleman must be well aware that it followed the precedents.
  MR. EDWARD MORTONsaid the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had told them that if the Local Government Board certified for too great an expenditure in any one year, the excess would be deducted from the money of the following year. But how was it possible for the Local Government Board to avoid certifying for too much, even in the second year, and how could they make a deduction for the second year to balance the account of the first-year, unless they had the complete accounts before them? But if they had to wait for the complete accounts, why should they not wait before they certified for any money at all in the first year?
  *MR. HARRISONsaid no provisional certificates would be necessary for the purpose of paying in to the account, except one, that was to say, the total amount, because the Bill did not provide for a payment out of the fund or anything more than a transfer from the Exchequer to the Local Taxation Account, which was equally a Government fund. This being the case, it was obvious that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not require to know from time to time what were the demands to be made on the Exchequer. The Central Authority in London, through the Local Government Board, annually received upwards of one and a half millions, but not on provisional certificates, and they were continually in arrear, and the guardians and the local authorities in London were continually complaining that the Central Authority did not distribute the Imperial grant quickly enough. It would be perfectly monstrous to operate upon a fund—which it was only proposed on future occasions to operate upon after a Resolution of the House—upon a mere provisional certificate. For these reasons he strongly opposed the Amendment.
  Question put, "That the words 'a provisional certificate' stand part of the Bill.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 104; Noes, 221.—(Division List, No. 287.)
  Words "provisional certificates" inserted.
  MR. CHAPLINproposed, after the first word "to," to insert the words "or out of."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGErose to discuss the Amendment, when——
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid that this and the next Amendment were consequential on the previous one, and all of them hung together. On those lines the Debate on the previous Amendment had proceeded, and many hon. Members, in speaking on the previous Amendment, had discussed the question of the impropriety of paying out of the Local Taxation Fund. He must say that in these circumstances a discussion on this Amendment was very much to be deprecated.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Very well, Sir, I accept your ruling.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 239; Noes, 113.—(Division List, No. 288.)
  MR. CHAPLIN MR. CHAPLIN moved to leave out the words "a final certificate," and to insert instead thereof the words "final certificates."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 5,—

  SEPARATE STATEMENT IN VALUATION LISTS, ETC., OF VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND.
  "In every valuation list and in the basis or standard for any county rate, and in any valuation made by the council of a borough or any other council for the purpose of raising the borough or other rate—

  (a) where separate hereditaments are specified therein, the value of agricultural land shall be stated separately from that of any building or other hereditament; and

  (b) in every case the total rateable value of the agricultural land in each parish shall be stated separately from the total rateable
  320
  value of the buildings or other hereditaments in such parish; and whenever a copy of the total of the rateable value of any parish is required to be sent to any person, such copy shall state both the above-mentioned totals."

  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE MR. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to leave out Clause 5. He said that his first objection to that clause was that it was unnecessary as a matter of drafting, for the sixth clause provided practically for the same thing as this clause provided for. In fact the whole machinery for separate valuation was set forth in Clause 6. But he objected also to this clause on its merits, on the ground that it was proposed that the separate valuation should be made by the same officers who prepared the ordinary valuation lists. There was, he would point out, a very substantial difference in the character of these valuations. When an ordinary assessment was made it was made for the purpose of a particular rate to be levied in a particular parish or district, but this separate valuation was to be made for the purpose of a contribution from the Imperial Treasury. [Interruption and cries of "Order!"]
  MR. LEWISrose to order. He said it was evident that there was a determination in that quarter of the House (pointing to the Ministerial Benches below the Gangway) to interrupt his hon. Friend.
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order. I trust that hon. Members will give a hearing to the hon. Member. [Cheers].
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEurged that the reasons why the ordinary valuation list should be left to the overseers and and assessment committee did not apply-in this case. Here there was to be a separate valuation made for the purpose of this Bill, and if this separate valuation were to hold good for the general district rate, the School Board rate, or drainage rate, then the parishioners in that district would be interested in seeing that the separate valuation was made on an equitable and fair basis. But this was to be a separate valuation for the purposes of the Treasury alone, and yet the Government proposed to intrust it to the very people who were to benefit by it. The proposal was a monstrous one.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid that the question of the retention of the clause was not

  321
  alone one of drafting; it was absolutely necessary to the working of the Bill. The work prescribed in Clause 1 could not be done unless the valuation lists were prepared as prescribed in this clause, and the same remark applied to the provisions of Clause 3. It was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment. [Cheers.]
  MR. REGINALD McKENNAsaid that the right hon. Gentleman could hardly have appreciated the nature of the Amendment. [Cries of "Divide"!] As a matter of fact, Clause 5 was totally unnecessary in as much as Clause 6 carried out its object in similar language. Clause 6 provided for the valuation which was necessary for the purposes of this Bill, and, therefore, it was simply absurd to insert two clauses to accomplish one object. [Cries of "Divide"!]
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH,who spoke amid continuous interruption, was understood to say that the Government ought to have some controlling voice in respect to the amount which it would be called upon to pay under this Bill.
  MR. LOUGH,who also spoke in support of the Amendment amid cries of "Divide," said the strongest argument against the retention of Clause 5 was the fact that all it enacted was provided for in Clause 6. The fact was that a great deal of the opposition to the Bill had been provoked by redundancy of language in drafting, for there were whole sections and sub-sections which were altogether unnecessary.
  Question put, "That the words of Clause 5 to the end thereof stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 257; Noes, 118.—(Division List, No. 289).
  MR. JEFFREYS MR. JEFFREYS moved to add, after the word "totals," the words:—
  "Where any hereditament consists partly of agricultural land and partly of a house and buildings, the gross estimated rental of the house and buildings when valued separately in pursuance of this section from the agricultural land shall, while the house and buildings are used only for the cultivation of the said land, be calculated not on structural cost, but on the rent at which they would be expected to let to a tenant from year to year."
  322
  He said he proposed the change for the sake of uniformity. There were three separate ways of assessing property. In a great many unions the farmhouse, buildings and land were all assessed together as one farm. The most common practice was to assess the farmhouse separately and buildings and land together, and this occurred in nearly all the rural unions of the kingdom. The third way was assessing houses, buildings and land separately, which was almost invariably followed in urban districts where the Public Health Act of 1875 was in force. The Chamber of Agriculture had communicated with the unions in England to ascertain their practice; and from 230 answers already received it seemed that land and buildings were assessed together. What was wanted was a uniform system of rating. In two unions, side by side, there might be a totally different system in each. It would be very unfair to assess farmhouses at structural cost, as they were often large houses built in days when farming was flourishing and now occupied (though only partially) because they were the homesteads. There were a good many cases in which a separate valuation was made, but in nearly every instance it was for special purposes; and the unions in which it had taken place were nearly all more or less urban. An instruction of the kind given in his Amendment was absolutely necessary in order that rural districts might know how to carry out the law in future.
  MR. CHAPLINadmitted that the majority of cases in which buildings were now valued apart from the land were cases where they had to contribute to special expenses. But he thought he had disposed effectively of the argument as to the difficulty of carrying out this operation by numerous instances which he quoted earlier in the evening where the thing was done already. His hon. Friend had stated that one of the great objects he had in view was to insure greater uniformity in the method of valuing land. Having given careful consideration to the proposal contained in his hon. Friend's Amendment he thought it was warranted by expediency and by justice, and therefore he was prepared to accept it. [Cheers.]
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid he could not undertake to reconcile the differences between the hon. Member for Hampshire and the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. [Cries of "They are agreed."] This was an Amendment coming from the Government side. Hon. Members opposite might allow them to discuss it. [Cheers.] The Amendment was of a most important character, and this determination not to listen to discussion was not reasonable. [Cheers.] There were circumstances which might induce the House, if they were so impatient of discussion, to postpone it till to-morrow. [Cheers.] The Amendment had been moved in a moderate, temperate, and clear speech by the hon. Member for Hampshire, and he hoped the House would allow a matter of this importance to be patiently and reasonably discussed. [Cheers.] The hon. Member had laid it down that there was great difficulty in assessing lands and buildings separately. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had repeated on this Amendment what he said earlier, when the House was not so full or so impatient. ["Oh!" and cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman said there was no difficulty in this matter, and read him a lecture for having suggested precisely what had been proved by the 130 Unions referred to by the hon. Member for Hampshire. [Cheers.]
  MR. CHAPLINsaid that he did not read the right hon. Gentleman a lecture and had not the slightest intention of doing so. He merely pointed out some reliable information he had received from various quarters which showed that not, only could this be done, but that it was constantly done, and actually was in practice at the present time.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid that it was not for him to reconcile the differences between such distinguished authorities as the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Hampshire, but what he wanted to call the attention of the House to was that now, nearly Twelve o'clock at night, the hon. Member for Hampshire was proposing what he avowed to be a complete reform in the practice of Assessment Committees. That was rather a serious matter, because if they told the Assessment Committees throughout the country that they were to follow a practice they had
  324
  not been in the habit of following they would assuredly introduce great confusion into the work of the Committees.
  MR. JEFFREYSsaid the Bill told the Assessment Committees to assess in three different ways; he wished to simplify the matter.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid he had no doubt that was so, and he supposed if he were to condemn the Bill it would be said he was making a Second Reading speech. [Cheers.] In short this was a proposal to reform the whole system of assessment not proposed in the Bill which had been so maturely and carefully considered by Her Majesty's Government—[a laugh]—but embodied in an Amendment which, according to the hon. Member for Hampshire, was practically a reversal and condemnation of the proposal which the Government had made. Personally he was not prepared to accept the new principle of assessment which the hon. Member for Hampshire proposed without much further consideration and discussion than they could give to it to-night.
  MR. DALZIELsaid the hon. Member for Hampshire was to be congratulated upon the ingenuity of his Amendment. The hon. Member recognised as they all did that the Bill changed the whole system of local rating, and that under certain circumstances it was possible that a valuation would be increased. The hon. Member proposed that if there was a dwelling-house on a particular farm it was to be rated as if it were for the cultivation of the land and nothing else; if the house were let apart from the land, it was, no matter how high the rent might be, to be rated as if it were occupied by the tenant himself. The hon. Member disputes that interpretation of the Amendment. Would the hon. Member say that Eaton Hall was used for the cultivation of the estate in its neighbourhood? [Mr. JEFFREYS: "No."] Then who was going to decide the question whether or not the mansion-house was used for the cultivation of the land? If a tenant lived in a house, the proper interpretation was that the house was used for the cultivation of the land. It was also reasonable to assume that where a proprietor lived on his estate he would be directly interested in the cultivation of

  325
  the land. But what he wanted to arrive at was, who was to decide that question?
  MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid the hon. Member who moved the Amendment assumed that farm-houses were used only, and could only be used, for the cultivation of the land. But farm-houses were, to a large extent, used in summer as lodging-houses—to such an extent, indeed, that the various railway companies issued a list of the farm-houses in their districts in which lodgings might be had. The Amendment left out of consideration all such farm-houses, because it said that the method of valuation it proposed should only be applied to houses used for the cultivation of land, and which could only be used for such a purpose. How did the hon. Member propose to meet the cases of those farm-houses? It was clear that the system of valuation embodied in the Amendment would not meet them. Worse than that, an Amendment that had been incorporated into the Amendment provided that a house should not be valued on its structural cost. These words were not only unnecessary, they were mischievous. Large mansion houses were not valued according to their structural value. They were valued on their letting value, which, of course, was much less, as it was difficult to let houses of that class when they came on the market. Eaton Hall—which had been mentioned already—would under this Amendment have to be valued according to its structural value, which would cause a very great deal of litigation and confusion. To meet the first point he raised, he moved to amend the Amendment by the omission of the words—"while the house and buildings are used only for the cultivation of the said land."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALdid not think that the mover of the Amendment fully realised what the effect of the Amendment would be, and suggested that it should be withdrawn.
  SIR W. HARCOURTconcurred.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. H. C. F. LUTTRELLsaid he did not propose to take up the time of the House for more than one or two minutes. He had, at
  326
  a previous stage, moved an Amendment that all agricultural buildings should be included, and he still believed it would be extremely difficult to make assessments separately. But the Government had refused to accept this, and the stage was now passed. They must now take the Bill as it was, and try to make it as good as possible. He begged to move to leave out all the words after "calculated," and to insert instead thereof the words—
  "as occupied with the land and not as if they were severed therefrom and separately occupied. He thought this language was better than that of the Amendment, and he thought the latter part of the Amendment was unnecessary and somewhat objectionable, in that it implied a lack of confidence in the Assessment Committee."
  He appealed to the hon. Member to have confidence in the Committee all in all, or not at all.
  MR. CHANNINGattached importance to the words which his hon. Friend proposed to leave out, and thought that the words now proposed might be inserted without leaving out the words at the end of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Basingstoke. Without the words in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hampshire which his hon. Friend proposed to omit, the burdens on the farmer might actually be increased by the Bill, and it might take away more than it gave.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENagreed with the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Channing) that the words "shall not be increased by the said separate valuation" should be retained.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Devon would go further than he intended. It would cover land occupied for residential purposes, as well as land occupied for the purposes of cultivation. The words in the original Amendment "shall not be increased by the said separate valuation" were absolutely necessary.
  MR. LOUGHput a point of Order. He wished to know whether this Amendment did not interfere with the general law of rating by instructing the Assessment Committees to assess differently from the way in which they would assess but for the Amendment.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid it did not interfere with the general law of rating. This was an Amendment moved with respect to a particular change in the law of rating which was rendered necessary by this Bill. The Bill for the first time rendered it compulsory to rate separately lands and buildings in cases where it was not necessary before, and an Amendment to provide for that compulsory separation was in order.
  MR. LOUGH,who continued to speak amid cries of "Divide," said the House ought to look at this proposal with very great care. Did they want to exclude the case of the urban sanitary districts, and was the metropolitan police district to be excluded from the Bill?
  MR. H. H. ASQUITHsaid in the discussion upon an Amendment which had been moved on the other side of the House, and had been accepted in principle, he thought a little more patience and conciliation might be shown towards the views of hon. Gentlemen who had spoken with tact and knowledge on the subject. [Ministerial laughter.] The whole question was, first, whether or not this Amendment was necessary; and, next, whether it was happily conceived for the purpose for which it was intended? The point upon which he believed they were all agreed was that where a house, or buildings, physically or structurally connected with a farm, were used, as they very often were, during certain periods for purposes not connected with the occupation of the land—for instance, if let as lodgings or for a summer residence—clearly they ought not to come within the purview of this Amendment. The real question was whether or not it was necessary to introduce into the Bill an Amendment of this kind. He was not satisfied that it was. Ever since the passing of the Public Health Act of 1875, and before that, they had had in all our urban and rural districts, as far as special expenses were concerned, a partial and qualified exemption of agricultural land from the full burden of the general district or special district rate. That being so, he could not help thinking that the provisions of that Act were to the effect that, where land was occupied substantially for agricultural purposes, it was to be assessed in the proportion of one-fourth only of its annual value. That being
  328
  so, he could not help thinking that to introduce the qualification now proposed was not only totally unnecessary and unfounded in experience, but it might throw the whole law of rating both of urban and rural districts into confusion. Under these circumstances he would suggest to the Government and the House that the Amendment might be withdrawn. It might save a great deal of time and unnecessary space in our statutes to leave the general law to apply to this particular case in the sense in which it had been understood hitherto.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALpointed out that the Bill proposed to introduce the division of the rates into many districts for the first time, and that, although he agreed that the clause merely embodied the existing law on the subject, it was advisable to introduce into the Measure some explanation of the matter for the guidance of the overseers. In his view it would be highly desirable to adopt such a course. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. STUARTthought that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General had made it quite clear that it was unnecessary to put this proviso into the Bill, and that it should form one of a series of regulations that should be issued for the guidance of the overseers.
  *MR. HARRISONpointed out that the 28th clause in the Union Assessment Act of 1862 dealt with this matter in a perfectly clear manner, and provided that where, after the valuation of a hereditament was inserted in the list, the hereditament was physically or in fact divided into two separate occupations, then that each of the parts should be inserted in a separate valuation list, and should be a fair apportioned part of that valuation out of which the two parts had been constituted; and that principle ought now to be adopted. For if the valuation was made separately of each part, the two parts would not amount to the present undivided valuation of the whole.
  DR. CLARK,who rose amid loud cries of "Divide," said that many farmers let several of the rooms in their farmhouses for three or four months every year, and he should like to know whether that would deprive them of the benefit of the Bill?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid that in such cases the buildings would not be used solely for the purpose of the cultivation of the land.
  DR. CLARKthought that in such cases, gentlemen farmers having handsome and comfortable houses, and who were not obliged to let their rooms, would be treated differently from the poor men who were obliged to let their rooms in order to make both ends meet. He did not think that the Amendment to the Amendment would make the latter more acceptable. It would in fact make it obscure, and he should, therefore, vote against both.
  *MR. JOHNSON-FERGUSONthought that when the buildings were used partially during a portion of the year as a lodging house, the valuation Committee would regard these words as a direction that they might, at all events, value the buildings in the future and the land separately at a larger sum than the two taken together at the present time.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALdid not think that the words could be read as a direction to the Committee in the sense indicated. They were inserted for the sake of precaution.
  MR. R. J. PRICEsaid that the Attorney General seemed to think that the result of accepting the Amendment would be that land other than agricultural land would be excluded. It was clear that the effect would be to include the buildings which were used in connection with cultivated land.
  MR. BROAD HURSTsaid the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite was entirely unnecessary, for it simply instructed the Assessment Committees to do what they had been doing for a long time past, and it could only lead to confusion. [Cries of "Divide!"] The buildings referred to, or very many of them, were already exempt from taxation far more than they ought to be, and under the Amendment in question it would surely happen that the poor farmer who let half his house for a time during the summer months to visitors in order to be able to pay his rent, would continue to be assessed at a high rate, while the wealthy farmer, who had no necessity to resort to unusual means to increase his income, would have his
  330
  assessment reduced. [Ministerial laughter, and cries of "Divide!"] The discussion on this question would not have been so long if the substance of the Amendment had been inserted in the Bill on the Second Reading—[cries of "Divide!"]—for the Amendment was to all intents and purposes a new clause. [Cheers, and renewed cries of "Divide!"] It had been sprung on the House at a late hour by an independent Member on the Ministerial side, and had certainly been accepted by the Government without due consideration. [Laughter and cries of "Divide!"] The Amendment, indeed, would give rise to all sorts of confusion among the assessment authorities, for it proposed to give them instructions which were unnecessary and undesirable, and which would be mischievous and very unjust in its operation in many cases. [Cheers and interruption.] He hoped the Leader of the House would even yet think it wise to ask his hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment, and that the Government would decide, if they should deem any such instruction to the Assessment Committees as that proposed to be necessary, to introduce it subsequently in the form of a new clause to the Bill, when full opportunity might be given the House to consider it. ["Hear, hear!" and cries of "Divide!"] He hoped the hon. Member for Tavistock would not persist in his Amendment.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member press his Amendment?
  *MR. LUTTRELLsaid that, as he had already intimated, he thought these words would be better than those in the Bill. It was a matter of no very great importance, and he would not press his Amendment; but he appealed to the Government to consider whether these words could not be accepted.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid his objection to this Amendment in the first place was that it was absolutely unnecessary. The Solicitor General had admitted so much when he said it was desirable that these words should be incorporated in the Bill by way of explanation to those who had to put it into operation. It was rather a novel

  331
  principle in legislation that they should introduce words and sections into a Bill, not because they amended the law, but in order to explain the law to people who did not understand it. The principle of this Amendment was already carried out in law, and was embodied, in very much better words, in the decision in Rex v. the Proprietors of the Liverpool Exchange. That decision laid down the principle that, in order to arrive at the separate value of any building, they must take into account not merely its position, but also the uses to which it was likely to be put in respect of its occupation. That was the very principle which was embodied in this Amendment.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member was repeating arguments which had been used over and over again. The fact that the principle of rating raised in this Amendment was that which generally prevailed in Law was admitted by the learned Solicitor General at a very early stage of the Debate.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEobserved that, as far as the first part of the Amendment was concerned, he accepted the proposition of the Solicitor-General, but as far as the second part was concerned that was a most serious matter. It said first of all that they should value the properties separately, but if the aggregate of the three valuations was more than the separate valuation already laid upon the three together, then these principles were not to prevail. It simply meant that the value ascertained by a separate valuation was not to be put into operation, but that an artificial value ascertained without a separate valuation of the properties was to prevail. He, therefore, opposed the Amendment.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 275; Noes, 109.—(Division List, No. 290).
  MR. FLYNN MR. FLYNN moved, "That Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended, be adjourned."
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid he could not accept that motion at this hour. ["Hear, hear!"] The next Amendment, which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Lloyd-George)
  332
  had already been disposed of by a previous Division, and also those standing in the names of the hon. Members for Anglesey (Mr. Ellis Griffith) and Devonshire (Mr. Luttrell). The Amendment of the hon. Member for Carnarvon relating to appeal would come on on Section 6, which related to appeal. The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill) appeared to him to be out of order, as it raised the question of three years, which had been already decided by the House.
  MR. CHAPLIN MR. CHAPLIN moved in subsection (a) to leave out the word "by" and to insert instead thereof the word "from," so that the sub-section should read "before the passing of this Act from any rate to which this Act applies."
  Amendment agreed to.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid the next Amendment, which was in the name of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, had been disposed of by the Amendment just passed. Would the hon. Member move the next Amendment?
  MR. PICKERSGILL: No, Sir; I will not.
  MR. DALZIELproposed in subsection (2) after the word "corrected" to insert the words "and allowed." As the Bill stood the overseers had, he said, to prepare a statement, and had no power to make a correction. He proposed they should have such power.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALthought the Amendment was out of place. The hon. Member moved that the statements should be corrected and allowed by the Assessment Committee. But later on the clause stated that those Returns and statements would be subject to objection and appeal by the surveyor and overseers before the Assessment Committee. It was obvious that the Assessment Committee would not and ought not allow those statements before they had heard the objection and appeal.
  MR. DALZIEL: If I withdraw the Amendment now, will the hon. Gentleman accept it later?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: I do not think it is wanted at all. The statements will be subject to appeal before the Assessment Committee.
  MR. DALZIEL: If the hon. Member says the Amendment is unnecessary, and that my wishes are already carried out, I will withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. DALZIEL MR. DALZIEL moved to leave out the first "and" in line 22, and to insert instead thereof the words—
  "in the presence of and after hearing, in the Metropolis the surveyors of taxes, and in the rest of England and Wales the local assessors appointed under fourteenth and fifteenth years of Victoria, Chapter thirty-six, and the same shall be."
  The object of the Amendment was to secure that the local assessors should have some locus standi in the matter.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid the Amendment was unnecessary. The clause provided that the statements should be sent to the surveyor of taxes; and they were also subject to appeal by the surveyor and the overseers. When it was necessary to make a valuation for purposes of the Inhabited House Duty, the duties of those assessors were discharged by the surveyors of taxes, and, in like manner, the surveyor of taxes would be the assessor under this Act; and as it would be absolutely impossible for the surveyors of taxes to be present at every meeting of an Assessment Committee—as the districts were often very-large, and there might be meetings on the same day of several Assessment Committees—it was proposed that the statements should be sent to the surveyor of taxes, and that he should be heard afterwards on appeal.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PICKERSGILL MR. PICKERSGILL moved to insert after the word "overseers" the words "and by any aggrieved ratepayer." What he wanted to do was, he said, to give any aggrieved ratepayer the right to initiate an appeal. He should not wish the existing right of the ratepayer to appeal against the valuation list to be taken away; and words could be inserted to secure that.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that the clause was not dealing with the right of the ratepayer to appeal against his own valuation; it dealt with the division between land and houses.
  334
  It had been provided that there should be an appeal by the surveyor or by the overseer, and that the aggrieved ratepayer might be heard at any such appeal. It was impossible to go further, because the case contemplated was not an individual grievance.
  MR. WARNERsaid that he could not see any objection to the Amendment. If the ratepayer had not the right of appeal in the first instance, his case would be prejudged before he came to be heard.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGErose to move after the word "overseers" to insert the words "either to the Local Government Board or." He contended that there should be an appeal to the Local Government Board, or to the Assessment Committee in Quarter Sessions. Throe appeals as a matter of fact might be made—to the Assessment Committee in the first place, to the Justices in Special Session, and to the Court of Quarter Sessions. As a matter of fact with regard to the Assessment Committee, he did not think it was an impartial authority. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Hampshire with regard to the general character of Assessment Committees; he thought they did their work remarkably well, and they were fairly representative of the interests in the district. The only thing against them was, as had been stated before the Agricultural Commission, that they declined absolutely to make reductions in rateable value on land where they ought to have been made. Therefore he thought they could not in every case be a purely impartial authority, and consequently another authority more impartial ought to beset up for the purpose of dealing with these matters. In the case of the Assessment Committee, one of the spending authorities was the Board of Guardians, but the Board of Guardians was the very body which appointed the Assessment Committee, and therefore there ought to be an appeal to some outside authority. The Justices in Special Sessions were also, as a rule, members of the Assessment Committee, and he did not think they were really fitted for the task for sitting as a court of appeal. The Justices were all gentlemen interested in

  335
  land, and they were specially interested in keeping up the valuation of the land, and in lowering the valuation of the buildings. Surely no hon. Member would say that they were a perfectly impartial authority for this question. The law was that no magistrate who was himself personally or pecuniarily interested in a case should sit upon that case. He thought it was unfair to the general taxpayer, and contrary to the principles upon which the law of the land had hitherto been based, that such an exception as this should be made. The third authority to which the appeal lay, was the Court of Quarter Sessions. He would point out that the qualification for a Justice of the Peace was the ownership of £100 a year in freehold, and by his very qualification he was bound to be directly interested in keeping up the valuation of the land. He did not wish to cast any reflection upon these gentlemen, but if a Magistrate was not allowed to sit in a licensing case because he was interested in it, why should he be allowed to sit as a court of appeal in the question of assessment in which he must be directly interested. It was important in the interests of the general taxpayer that there should be an impartial tribunal, and he contended that the proper authority would be that which dealt with local administration throughout the whole country, which had a special staff adapted for the purpose, and also a staff of inspectors. He therefore begged to move the Amendment.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid that the authorities had to make an estimate and supply information to be submitted to the Local Government Board, and now the hon. Member proposed that there should be an appeal from them to the Local Government Board. Of course, he could not accept such an Amendment.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 102; Noes, 260.—(Division List, No. 291.)
  MR. CHAPLIN MR. CHAPLIN moved after the word "sessions" to insert the words, "and subject to the right of any aggrieved ratepayer to be heard on such appeal." the Amendment, he explained, was moved in fulfilment of a pledge which he had given.
  MR. LEWIS MR. LEWIS moved to amend the proposed Amendment, by inserting after the word "ratepayer" the words "or any taxpayer resident in the parish.' He maintained that the taxpayer had just as much right as the ratepayer to be heard, because the taxpayer would be called upon to pay the bill.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that the Government had gone as far as they possibly could in this matter, and it would simply introduce an absurdity if a taxpayer in the district were allowed to appeal.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid this was a taxpayer's question. He cited the case of a person of wealth living in apartments, who might pay thousands of pounds in respect of the Estate Duty and yet have no right to appeal.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Gentleman press his Amendment.
  MR. J. H. LEWIS: Certainly, Sir.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I think it right to point out that the Amendment gives to every person who buys an ounce of tobacco the right of appeal to Quarter Sessions. [Ministerial cheers.]
  Question put, "That those words be inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 82; Noes, 258.—(Division List, No. 292.)
  Words "and subject to the right of any aggrieved ratepayer to be heard upon the said appeal" inserted.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question 'that the remaining words of Clause 6 stand part of the Bill' be now put." [Ministerial cheers.]
  *MR. SPEAKER: The Amendments which stand between the present point and the end of the clause do not appear to me to raise any question of importance either as regards drafting or substance, and I think there is not the slightest probability that any of them would be accepted by the House. Under these circumstances I accept the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. [Ministerial cheers.]
  Question put, "That the Question 'that the remaining words of Clause 6 stand part of the Bill' be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 245, Noes, 92.—(Division List, No. 293.)
  MR. FLYNN MR. FLYNN moved, "That this House do now adjourn." He said that many Members had been in attendance for 14 hours, having served on Committees which met at noon, and they were under obligation to attend Committees again at noon. For the sake of Members' health and the conduct of public business he protested against this system of protracted sittings.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEseconded the Motion. He was one of those who had been here since yesterday morning, and he had to be here again at a quarter to 12 to-day at the Standing Committee on Law. Members who worked hard on Committees were not able to give to a Bill of this sort the consideration which it deserved. Clauses 7 and 8, which followed, had not, perhaps, very much in them, but Clause 9 was a very difficult one indeed. There was no reason why the end of the Session should be considered so near that it was necessary to sit up all night to finish Bills of this sort, all the more as the particular clause mentioned was very imperfectly dealt with at the last all-night sitting.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: It is perfectly true that it is not desirable that the House should be asked to keep such long hours as we are keeping to-night, and perhaps are likely to keep. [Cheers.] I do not think the blame rests with the Government or with those who are responsible for the arrangement and conduct of business of the House. [Cheers.] We have not asked the House to do any more on this Bill than might reasonably and easily have been done between the hours of 4 and 12 o'clock. [Cheers.] The blame rests with certain Gentlemen who sit opposite. [Cheers.] Nor do I think that the questions that might be raised on Clause 9 are of so complicated and difficult a character that it is impossible they can be disposed of at this hour in the morning. Questions connected with accommodation land have been debated over and over again, and every argument is already familiar to hon. Gentlemen on both sides. [Cheers.] Under these circumstances I hope hon. Gentlemen will not press this Motion to a Division, but will feel that, having set our hands to the plough we ought not now to turn back, and ought before we
  338
  separate to finish the small remains of the Bill.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman is very fond of laying the whole blame for the position in which the House finds itself on everyone except himself. [Cheers.] He said that the arrangements of business were disordered and put out by the conduct of the Opposition. The House will be able to judge of that when they see the business that is put down for to-morrow. [Cheers.] One reason for reporting progress is because none of the business will be taken to-morrow which, at 4 o'clock, it was announced would be taken. There is no reason whatever why trilling Bills should be put down for to-morrow.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: They are not trifling Bills.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: What! not trifling Bills with this and the Education Bill? [Cheers.] This is the last survivor of the great Measures of the Government, and what we claim is that a reasonable time shall be given to its consideration. [Cheers.] Anyone who reads the Debates to-morrow will see that the Amendments moved were important Amendments which deserved the discussion they have received, and one of the last Amendments was moved from the Government Bench, and necessarily, occupied a considerable time. Clause 9 is a most important one. When was Clause 9 discussed? [Loud cheers.] Why. at midday, after an all-night sitting [Cheers.] It was impossible to discuss the clause properly in such circumstances. And now it is to be discussed at 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning, I presume. ["Hear, hear," and counter cheers.] Is that the manner in which a Bill of this character, affecting, as it does, every class of the community, ought to be discussed. And because we desire that a Bill of this importance shall not be passed through this House without fitting discussion, the right hon. Gentleman speaks about the decay of the House of Commons. [Loud cheers and counter cheers.] It is not the decay of the House of Commons that it indicates—what it does indicate is the decay of the majority which support right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Front Benches opposite. [Loud cheers.] They will use their majority to-night, but if they do so they could not strike a more

  339
  fatal blow at the existence of that majority. [Loud cheering.]
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,who on rising was received with loud cheers, said: There is one thing which the country will consider when they see what has passed to-night with regard to this Bill, and that is, that if we succeed, as I hope we shall succeed, in passing the Report Stage of this Bill to-night, a blow will have been struck at the most factious opposition that has ever been offered to any Measure at that Stage. [Cheers and counter cheers.] I have sat in this House as many years as the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and for many more years than the vast majority of the hon. Members who are now within its walls, and I never remember—and I defy hon. Members to contradict my assertion—any Measure being discussed in this manner upon its Report Stage. [Cheersand counter cheers.] What has been the course of business tonight? The right hon. Gentleman opposite complains that time has not been given for the adequate discussion of Clause 9. Why the clause has been discussed half-a-dozen times over. If the clause should not, in the end, have been adequately discussed, it will be because the time of the House has been occupied hour after hour by some of the most ridiculous and frivolous amendments that have ever been proposed in this House. [Cheers and counter cheers.] Let me recall to the House one of those Amendments, one which even the right hon. Gentleman himself was ashamed to support—I mean the Amendment by which any one who bought an ounce of tobacco—as you yourself, Sir, described it—should be entitled to an appeal against the assessment under this Bill. In view of such a fact as that I think that if there is one thing that we have to fear it is not that the country will say that the Bill has not been adequately discussed, and that the judgment of the House has not been pronounced upon it, but that the course which the Opposition are taking with regard to it is reducing the proceedings of the House of Commons to a farce. [Loud cheers and counter cheers.]
  MR. BROADHURST,who rose amid loud cries of "Divide" and repeated cries of "Order," said: I have been engaged (interruption) since 9 o'clock yesterday
  340
  in the business of the House. [Cheers and interruptions and loud cries of "Order."] It is impossible for any hon. Member to adequately discharge his duties to his constituents under such pressure as this. [Renewed interruption and cries of "Order"] It it evident that hon. Members opposite wish to stifle discussion by these unseemly proceedings. [Interruption and cries of "Order!"] Hon. Members opposite appear to be bent upon destroying the reputation of the House. [Renewed interruption and cries of "Order!"] No doubt great excitement has been produced by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [Cheers and counter cheers and loud cries of "Order!"] The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was calculated to arouse passion. The right hon. Gentleman describes a series of important Amendments as being frivolous and only moved for the purpose of wasting time. But it is the class to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs that are attempting to dip their hands into the pockets of the taxpayers of this country. [Interruption and cries of "Order!"]
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is not addressing himself to the question of the Adjournment of the House. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. BROADHURST: No, Sir. [Loud laughter.] I am answering the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [Renewed laughter and cries of "Divide" and "Order!"]
  MR. DALZIEL: I rise, Sir, to a point of Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, as a point of Order, whether under the Standing Orders of the House an hon. Member has not the right to call your attention to the fact that an hon. Gentleman is being subject to deliberate and organised interruption.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is putting a hypothetical question to me which I am not called upon to answer. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. DALZIELrose again amid loud cries of "Order!"
  *MR. SPEAKER: I must repeat that the hon. Gentleman has put his point of Order to me. ["Hear, hear!"] [Several HON. MEMBERS on the Opposition side of the House, "No, he has not." Cheers and renewed cries of "Order," and interruption.]

  341
  If the hon. Member has a point of Order which he has not put to me he can put it.
  MR. DALZIEL: My point of Order, Sir, is this, that under the Standing Orders of the House, when an hon. Member sees that there is deliberately disorderly conduct on the part of another hon. Member he is entitled to call your attention to it. [Cheer.] I wish to draw your attention to the disorderly conduct of Lord Cecil. [Cheers, and cries of "Order."]
  *MR. SPEAKER: There has been no specific misconduct of which I can take notice, but there has been a great deal of noise and disturbance in the House, and I trust hon. Members will now allow the Debate to proceed in order and quiet. [Cheers.]
  MR. BROADHURSTcomplained that shameful attempts had been made to silence speakers on his side of the House by clamour. False charges had been brought against them. [Cries of "Divide."]
  *MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member desires to have a quiet hearing I hope he will moderate his language. [Cheers.]
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid he had always regarded himself as one of the most orderly and least offensive of Members. [Laughter.] He was in an exhausted condition—[laughter]—and he appealed to the Government to allow him and other Members who had been working steadily for some 16 or 18 hours to get some rest. ["Hear, hear!"] There were still points in this Bill which must be seriously discussed. They were of the highest importance to the ratepayers of the country, and required calm and dispassionate consideration.
  MR. DALZIEL,who was met by cries of "Divide," said that on the Opposition side of the House there was an unprecedented feeling of hostility to the Bill.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid that the hon. Member was not addressing himself to the question of adjournment. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. DALZIELthought that the interference of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not of a kind likely to promote tranquillity. [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman had rushed into the fray with an enthusiasm which was hardly
  342
  justified. [Cheers.] He had challenged any Member of that House to point to a single instance of such determined opposition to a Bill as was being offered to the present Measure. The right hon. Gentleman before delivering that challenge should have consulted his colleague the Secretary to the Treasury. That right hon. Gentleman would remember a Bill. [Cries of "Question."]
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid it was true that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire had expressed an opinion that certain previous Amendments were of a substantial nature, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied and took a somewhat different view of those Amendments; but neither of those observations were really pertinent to the question before the House. [Cheers.] He must ask the hon. Member not to pursue the subject further.
  MR. DALZIEL: After your ruling I will not pursue my reply to the impertinent remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [Loud cries of "Order," cheers, and "Withdraw."]
  *MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member had applied the word "impertinent" to the Chancellor of the Exchequer personally, I should have called him to order, but he used the word with reference to his observations and, I imagine, in the more classic sense. [Laughter.]
  MR. DALZIELsaid that he did use the word in the more classic sense. [Cries of "Divide!"] He thought that the Leader of the House, in the interests of the House, in the interests of the future of the Session, should accede to this Motion, and, above all, looking to the manner in which hon. Gentlemen opposite were disposed to conduct themselves—[Cries of "Divide!"]—any attempt at argument was now out of the question; it was impossible to appeal to hon. Members with any prospect of consideration, for they had made up their minds not only to vote the Opposition down, but to clamour them down.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid that one argument urged for not agreeing to the adjournment was that the action of the Opposition on this Bill had been factious. [Cheers.] He had seen a good many Governments and a good many Oppositions, but he had never yet known a Government that did not complain of

  343
  the Opposition as being factious. [Laughter.] Consequently that argument had no force with him. [Laughter.] So far as he was personally concerned, it was a matter of perfect indifference to him whether the House sat up or not, because when he wanted to go to bed he should do so. [Loud laughter.] The Leader of the House had admitted that important discussion was necessary on the 9th Clause.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, I did not. [Cheers.]
  MR. LABOUCHERE: At all events the right hon. Gentleman would be able to conceive that a state of mind existed on that side of the House which deemed discussion necessary. [Laughter.] Well, that was a philosophic view of the matter, and the Opposition honestly and truly thought that there should be discussion. They would be quite ready to give the right hon. Gentleman the two preceding clauses if he would consent to take the 9th Clause at a later hour to-day. [Ministerial cries of "No!" and Opposition cheers.] Such a course could well be adopted without injury or delay to either public or Government business, and the right hon. Gentleman could not get up and fairly assert the contrary. Under these circumstances he would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman, as the guardian of the honour of the House, and as one who was always desirous of promoting good feeling among its Members, should adopt the suggestion he had just made. [Ministerial cries of "No!" and Opposition cheers.]
  DR. TANNERrose to speak, when
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY moved "That the question be now put." [Ministerial cheers, and Opposition cries of "Oh!"]
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 246; Noes, 98.—(Division List, No. 295.)
  Question put accordingly, "That this House do now adjourn."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 98; Noes. 245.—(Division List, No. 296.)
  Clause 7,—

  AS TO SPENDING AUTHORITIES.
  (1.) Where the spending authority are a School Board for a school district which is a parish, or the surveyors of highways, the amount which otherwise would he payable under this Act to the spending authority may he paid to the guardians of the poor-law union in which the parish is situate, and, if so paid, shall he paid or credited by them to the spending authority.
  (2.) Every sum paid under this Act out of the Local Taxation Account to any spending authority in respect of any rate, shall, for the purpose of its application, of account, and of audit, be deemed to have been raised by the said rate.
  (3.) For the purposes of section 97 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, any amount paid or credited under this Act out of the Local Taxation Account to a School Board shall he deemed to have been actually paid by the rating authority, and the amount which would have been raised or been produced by a rate of three-pence in the pound on the rateable value shall be calculated in like manner as if this Act had not passed.
  MR. LEWIS MR. LEWIS moved to omit subsection (1). [Opposition cheers.] He said his object was to obtain from the Government an explanation of the subsection. The words,
  "the amount which otherwise would be payable under this Act to the spending authority may be paid to the guardians of the poor-law union in which the parish is situate,"
  showed that it was not obligatory on the part of anyone to pay the amount due to the guardians of the poor law union. Who was to decide whether the amount was to be paid to the guardians or not? Was it the Local Government Board, because, if so, they would confer on that Board an additional discretion of a very far-reaching character. And, furthermore, why should the amount be paid to the guardians at all?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid that, if the Local Government Board had to deal separately with the spending authorities in small districts where there were a number of authorities, it would involve the drawing of a number of small cheques. The sub-section, which was not compulsory but permissive, enabled the Local Government Board to make a payment of a lump sum to the guardians, who would pay over and credit to each of the spending authorities the amount of relief to which they were entitled.
  MR. J. H. YOXALLasked what safeguard was embodied in the Bill to prevent the guardians from placing the whole of the amount received from the Local Government Board to the relief of the poor-rate, and crediting none of it, for instance, to the school board rate?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid the School Board would get the money through the guardians just as well as if it came to them direct from the Local Government Board, and their rate would be so much less according to the amount they received in relief of the rate.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid the sub-section was objectionable on all the grounds that had been urged against a similar provision in the Education Bill. It set up the board of guardians over and above the school board, and it started again that friction between local authorities and that confusion in local administration which had been so successfully denounced in connection with the Education Bill. The fact was the Solicitor General had not stated one administrative grievance why this proposal should not be introduced. This policy of running tilt against the school boards was not one which had been found very profitable for the Government. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, as this was merely a matter of convenience, he hoped the House would not be asked to go to a division.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEthought that there was danger of a great deal of inconvenience and conflict. There was a great deal of antagonism between certain boards of guardians and school boards, especially in small municipal boroughs, and he was sure the proposal would not work smoothly. The only argument used by the Solicitor General was that it would save writing out a number of small cheques. He thought that was a trifling affair. The answer of the Solicitor General was a very inadequate one, and quite unworthy of him. There was no administrative connection between boards of guardians and the school boards The boards of guardians had nothing to do even with the making of the poor-rate.
  Question put, "That the words of the sub-section to the word 'the,' in line 24, stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 234; Noes, 92.—(Division List, No. 297.)
  MR. CHAPLIN MR. CHAPLIN moved, in Subsection (1), after the word "or" to insert the words "consists of two or more parishes or are." The Amendment, he explained, was one designed to meet the views expressed in Committee by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, and he hoped it would be accepted.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEthought this was a very objectionable Amendment. There might be some reason for it in the case of exceedingly small parishes, in order to prevent the multiplication of cheques, though he did not see that there was any advantage in that; but the case was very different where there were a number of large parishes united in a school board district.
  *SIR C. DILKEsaid the Amendment was not worth pressing. The reason why he suggested it was that there were a number of cases in which parishes of 200 or 300 people joined one another. If there was any objection to the Amendment it was not worth while to press it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. YOXALLrose to move a further Amendment, whereupon
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYclaimed, "That the Question, 'That the remaining words of Clause 7 stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question, 'That the remaining words of Clause 7 stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
  DR. TANNER: Gag, gag!
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I heard the hon. Member for Cork call out "gag." Did the hon. Member use that word?
  DR. TANNER: I used a simple word, which has been used on frequent occasions by hon. Members opposite.
  *MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member used such a word after the question was put from the Chair, his action was extremely disrespectful to the Chair, and I must call upon him to withdraw it. [Ministerial cheers.]
  DR. TANNER: I did not mean any disrespect to the Chair. [Cries of

  347
  "Withdraw, withdraw!"] I will do anything the Speaker tells me to do—I did not use the word out of any disrespect to the Chair. I merely copied the attacks which were frequently made by hon. Gentlemen opposite [Cries of "Order"and"Withdraw!"]
  *MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member withdraw the expression?
  DR. TANNER: Certainly, Sir. [Ironical Ministerial cheers."]
  The House divided:—Ayes, 234; Noes, 89.—(Division List, No. 298.)
  Question put accordingly, "That the remaining words of Clause 7 stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 234; Noes, 90.—(Division List, No. 299.)
  Clause 8,—

  AS TO LIMIT OF RATE OR EXPENDITURE IN CASE OF ANY LOCAL AUTHORITY.
  A limit imposed by any enactment on a rate shall be construed as being only a limit on the amount to be raised by that rate, and where by that limit or otherwise the sum to be raised or expended by a local authority is limited by any enactment by reference to a rate, the limit shall be varied so as to enable the local authority to raise or expend the same sum as they might have done if this Act had not passed, and in the case of a spending authority receiving any sum paid under this Act out of the local taxation account in respect of such rate that sum shall be deemed to be part of the sum raised thereby.
  *MR. HARRISON*MR. HARRISON moved to omit the clause, which he contended repealed the statutory Acts limiting the amount of expenditure, and altered the amount of liability as regarded the rates which, as between landlord and tenant, the latter had agreed to pay. In the City of London, which formed part of the county of London, there were statutory Acts which limited the rate to 2s. in the pound. There was agricultural land in the county which would be entitled to the benefits of this Act, and the result would be, if the clause were allowed to stand, the statutory amount of 2s. in the pound would be repealed, and the contracts contained in leases which had been made in the county of London, by which the lessee had agreed to pay the statutory rates not exceeding 2s. in the pound, would be altered, and a larger amount
  348
  than 2s. would be thrown upon the tenant to discharge under the agreement to discharge rates and taxes, and against which he had entered a veto on the faith that the Act limited his liability to the 2s. If such a proposal had emanated from his side of the House it would have been unanimously rejected by the Party opposite.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid that if the hon. Member would do him the favour to read the clause he would find its effect was exactly opposite of what he thought. The intention of the clause was to keep the law as it was and prevent accidental alteration.
  MR. STUARTsaid it was quite clear that in case of a parish adopting one of the Adoptive Acts after this Measure came into operation, a penny rate would raise a great deal less than if the Rill had not been passed. The object of the clause was to enable a parish to raise exactly the same amount of money as if the Act had not been passed. But there was a great deal in the point that it altered the payment to be made by the individual rating. The object of the limitations in the Adoptive Acts was, he asserted, to protect individual ratepayers, and not to limit the amount raised in the whole parish. He thought they should rather leave the parishes to the misfortune of having a smaller sum for the purposes of the Adoptive Acts, than bring evil upon the individual ratepayer. He therefore thought the Government might very fairly withdraw the clause.
  Question put, "That Clause 8 stand part of the Bill.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 232; Noes, 88.—(Division List, No. 300.)
  Clause 9,—

  DEFINITIONS.
  In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:—
  The expression "rate" moans a rate the proceeds of which are applicable to public local purposes, and which is leviable on the basis of an assessment in respect of the yearly value of property, and includes any sum which, though obtained in the first instance by a precept, certificate, or other instrument requiring payment from some authority or officer, is or can he ultimately raised out of a rate as before defined.

  349
  The expression "rateable value" in the case of the county rate, or any other rate, levied according to any annual value not being rateable value as stated in the valuation list, means that annual value.
  The expression "valuation list" means a valuation list under the Union Assessment Committee Acts, 1802 and 1801 or, in the metropolis, under the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1809.
  The expression "spending authority" means any of the local authorities in England mentioned in the schedule to this Act.
  The expression "occupier" includes owner where the owner is rated in place of the occupier.
  The expression "Local Taxation Account' has the same meaning as in the Local Government Act, 1888.
  The expression "prescribed" means prescribed by order of the Local Government Board.
  The expression "agricultural land" means any land used as arable, meadow, or pasture ground only, cottage gardens exceeding one-quarter of an acre, market gardens, nursery grounds, orchards or allotments, but does not include woodlands or land occupied together with a house as a park, garden, other than as aforesaid, or pleasure-ground, or any land kept or preserved mainly or exclusively for sporting purposes.
  The expression "year" means the local financial year, that is to say, the twelve months beginning on the first day of April, or where the spending authority do not make up their accounts to that day, on the nearest day thereto to which they do make up their accounts.
  MR. CHAPLIN MR. CHAPLIN moved to insert the word "made during the continuance of this Act," after the words "The expression rate means a rate." He said that it was merely to make it clear that the rates referred to in the Bill were rates made after and not before the passing of the Bill.
  MR. EDWARD MORTON: I rise to make an appeal to the Leader of the House. [Cheers, and cries of "Oh!"]
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I do not know whether the hon. Member is proposing to move the Adjournment of the Debate. If so, I may tell him that I shall not accept that Motion. [Cheers.] By a large majority the House has practically decided on the last Division to go on with the consideration of Clause 9. [Cheers.]
  Amendment agreed to.
  *MR. JOHNSON-FERGUSON*MR. JOHNSON-FERGUSON moved to reinsert in the clause the word
  350
  "woodlands," which was originally in the Bill, but which the right hon. Gentleman agreed to strike out when the House was in Committee. He quoted from the Report of the Select Committee on Forestry, 1887, as to the importance of extending the area of the woodlands of the country, and contended that if the exclusion of woodlands from the advantages of the Bill were maintained, it would be a strong deterrent to their extension in the future. No man would willingly plant land which before planting was relieved of half the rates, if after planting it immediately became liable for the full rate. The only ground on which it was urged that woodlands ought to be excluded was that timber had not fallen in price. That statement was contrary to the experience, he ventured to say, of a great many Members. The fact was that the fall in the price of timber had been quite as great as that experienced in any form of agricultural produce. He commented on the anomalies of the exclusion of woodlands, pointing out that the nurseryman, who grew small trees for sale, and the man who planted fruit trees, were to receive the benefit of the relief, whereas, the man who planted oak, or any other form of timber, was to receive no benefit whatever.
  MR. CHAPLINreminded the House that he agreed to the exclusion of woodlands in Committee in deference to a suggestion which appeared to be supported by the Opposition generally, and againt which no remonstrance was made by the Ministerial side of the House. That being so, he should consider himself guilty of a breach of faith if he parted from that position now, and, therefore, he accepted the clause in its present form.
  *MR. LUTTRELLsaid it had been stated that the reason why he had moved the Amendment was that timber had not fallen in value. That was not the reason. The reason that the Amendment was moved in Committee was not because timber had fallen in value, but because the land on which it grew was not agricultural land, and because there were no occupiers of the land. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had remained firm upon the point, and had declined to allow "woodlands" to be reinserted in the Bill after it had been struck out in Committee, notwithstanding the great

  351
  pressure that had doubtless been brought to bear upon him from both sides of the House. He hoped that the hon. Members who had been anxious to get "woodlands" again included in the Bill would now withdraw the Amendment.
  *MR. JOHNSON-FERGUSONasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. McKENNA MR. McKENNA moved to omit the following words:—
  "but does not include woodlands, or land occupied together with a house as a park, garden, other than as aforesaid, or pleasure ground or any land kept or preserved mainly or exclusively for sporting purposes,"
  in order instead to insert the words—
  "except land of which the reasonable selling value is more than 33 times the annual rental value."
  *MR. SPEAKERruled that the insertion part of the Amendment was out of order.
  *SIR C. DILKEasked whether the omission part of the Amendment was in order.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Yes; that part of the Amendment is in order.
  MR. McKENNA MR. McKENNA moved the omission part of the Amendment. The words were, he said, absolutely superfluous. As the clause stood, it was as absurd as if one defined the word "mankind" as including men women and children, but as excluding horses and asses. [Laughter.]
  MR. CHAPLINsaid he was always ready to consider, and, if he could, to accept any reasonable Amendment, but he did not think it was reasonable to ask him to accept an Amendment which was not on the Paper.
  *SIR C. DILKE: It is on the Paper.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid he was prepared to deal with the Amendment which stood on the Paper, but if he accepted it as moved he might get into difficulty.
  *SIR C. DILKEsaid the speech of the right hon. Gentleman showed what a pity it was that they should be considering the Bill at that hour (5.20 a. m.).
  352
  This definition was the most delicate matter in the Bill, and was the point on which it was most likely to break down, and the right hon. Gentleman said that if he accepted the Amendment he might get into difficulty. He thought the form of dealing with this matter which was proposed by his hon. Friend was the better form, and that the present words in the clause, without the exceptions, were a sufficient definition. It should be stated what land was included as agricultural land, but it was unnecessary to go so far as to weaken the definition by specifying that which was not agricultural land. If the right hon. Gentleman would look at Sections 211 and 230 of the Public Health Act, he would find that in each of those cases there was a list of things included, but no corresponding list of things excluded. If the Government wished to deal with the matter by exception, he feared they would have to spend a good deal of time in discussing what the exceptions were to be. It seemed to him it would be better to follow the precedent of the Public Health Act, and to define only what was agricultural land.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that he was interested in this matter because the exclusions enumerated in the clause were intended to limit the class of land of which the rates would be partially paid by money provided by the Treasury. According to the clause the expression "agricultural land "was to mean any land used as arable, meadow, or pasture ground only. But a park was pasture ground, and to a garden attached to a house the term "arable" might possibly be applied. It was cultivated land. He did not think the House would desire that parks, pleasure grounds, and gardens belonging to houses should be relieved from the payment of half the rates. If he was correct in that it was clear that some exceptions must be enumerated in the clause. The hon. Member who had moved this Amendment

  353
  recognised this, because he desired to except land of which the reasonable selling value was more than 33 times the annual rental value. He hoped that the House would agree to abide by the words in the Bill.
  MR. STUARTrecognised that it was necessary to name some exceptions. It was, however, always dangerous to make an enumeration, because it might not be a complete enumeration. It would, therefore, be necessary to examine the list of exceptions very closely, but he could not support the Amendment of his hon. Friend because it would sweep away at once some exceptions which ought certainly to be enumerated.
  MR. ASQUITHpointed out the great delicacy and importance of this subject. He agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if it was the intention of the framers of the Bill to exclude parks, although used as pasture, from the operation of the relief otherwise given by the Bill, it was necessary to say so in express terms. At the same time, it was the duty of the House to scrutinise with closeness the language in which the non-excluded categories were dealt with. In the earlier portion of the clause, for example, the expression "agricultural land" was held to include gardens, but subsequently, in the excluding portion of the clause, the word "garden" only was used. He suggested that the plural should be used in both cases. He did not say that the construction he put on the matter was a necessary one; it was sufficient for him to say that it was a possible one. He fully agreed with the hon. Member for Shoreditch that at that hour, after a long and exhaustive sitting, the House was not in the best intellectual frame of mind to deal with delicate points of this kind, and hon. Members ought to have an opportunity of considering them at a more suitable time.
  MR. McKENNAasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. STUART MR. STUART moved to omit the words "or woodlands."
  MR. CHAPLINassented.
  Amendment agreed to.
  *MR. LUTTRELL*MR. LUTTRELL moved to omit the words "together with a house," and to insert "or used," so that the expression "agricultural land" should not include "woodlands or land occupied as a park." The Chancellor of the Exchequer had declared that the object of the Government was to exclude pleasure parks belonging to houses, so that they should not be relieved from the rates. He and many of his hon. Friends would go further than that and say that parks, whether they had houses or not, should not be included in the Bill. They interpreted this Bill as one to relieve distressed occupiers of agricultural land, but they could not in any way whatever turn these parks into distressed agricultural land. There were parks and deer parks which were not in connection wth houses, and such land as that ought not to get half the rates paid from the Imperial Exchequer.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid it appeared to him that such a park as the hon. Member had described, which was kept solely for deer, would come within the present description of the Bill—"or pleasure ground, or any land kept or preserved mainly or exclusively for sporting purposed." The objection to omitting the words proposed by the hon. Member was that a park without a house would in all probability be let to some occupier, and would be purely agricultural land. Why, under these circumstances, the occupier of the park should be deprived of the advantages of the Bill he could not see. He thought it would be making an unfair distinction between him and other occupiers of agricultural land, and he did not think the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman would exactly meet the object he had in view.
  MR. McKENNAcontended that the Amendment was necessary if a park

  355
  which was used as a pleasure resort was to be excluded from the benefits of the Act. He trusted that the Amendment would be accepted.
  A Division was challenged, but, on the Question being put from the Chair that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill,
  *MR. SPEAKERdeclared that the "Ayes" had it, the Amendment being, therefore, negatived.
  MR. McKENNAobserved that when the question was put he challenged a Division.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The challenge was too late.
  MR. McKENNA: I beg to say that, although you may not have heard me, I distinctly said "No" when the Question was put.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I did not hear the hon. Member until I had declared that the "Ayes" have it. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. STUART MR. STUART moved to omit the word "gardens" and to insert the word "garden," his object, he explained, being to exclude the word "gardens" and all that followed, from the governing phrase "occupied together with a house."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. CHAPLIN MR. CHAPLIN moved the insertion of words to provide that agricultural land "should not include land used for the purposes of sport or recreation or for a racecourse."
  *SIR C. DILKEsaid it occurred to him that there might be cases which would not be properly covered by these words. Take the case of a rifle range. There were some rifle ranges which were practically agricultural land. That land was used for hay, and shooting was suspended for a fortnight in the year, during the hay harvest. That land ought to have exemption. There were other rifle ranges which were used mainly, and in some
  356
  cases exclusively, for rifle range purposes. He thought, therefore, more general words than those proposed should be adopted.
  *MR. HARRISON*MR. HARRISON moved to amend the proposed Amendment by omitting the word "for" and inserting "land used as" before "race-course."
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
  MR. BUXTONasked whether the President of the Local Government Board did not think that the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway were not better than those before the House. It seemed to him that the words proposed were too exclusive.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENasked whether the Amendment would exclude pasture land which was used once a year for a rustic steeplechase.
  MR. CHAPLIN: The words of the clause are "mainly or exclusively."
  MR. McKENNAthought the words suggested by his hon. Friend were preferable to those the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had proposed. It was just as well to be precise in order to cover all possible cases.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. BUXTON,on behalf of Sir ROBERT REID, moved to insert after the words "for sporting purposes" the words "or any land which has an increased value over and above the ordinary value as agricultural land." The House would remember that at the end of the last all-night sitting the President of the Local Government Board practically admitted the principle for which the Opposition contended, namely:—that where land had a value above agricultural value it ought to be excluded from the operation of the Act. The right hon. Gentleman undertook to consider whether he could meet their views, but he had since said

  357
  he had been unable to devise any means of doing so. The difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman anticipated was that in some boroughs and Metropolitan areas there were certain lands which were purely agricultural land, and that it would be unfair to exclude such lands from the benefit of the Act. That difficulty would be entirely removed by the adoption of the Amendment, because the Amendment while allowing the benefit of the Act to all land that could be shown to be agricultural land, would exclude from its operation all land that was not purely agricultural land. The House would admit that land which was held solely with a view of securing high prices for building purposes, and was only let temporarily for agricultural purposes, could not be defined as agricultural land and ought not to receive the benefits of an Act which was solely intended to relieve distressed agriculture.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid he should have been glad had he been able to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite in this matter. But he could not say that the House was much advanced towards a settlement of the difficulty by the Amendment. It only showed the difficulty he experienced in devising an Amendment which would really meet the object in view. The proposal which they had before them was this—they were to exclude from any participation in the relief given under this Bill any land which had an increased value over and above its ordinary value as agricultural land. But what was the "ordinary value?" He thought that they would, if they attempted to solve that point, soon be involved in very considerable difficulties. The value of land depended on various considerations—the district in which it was situated, the quality of the land, the access to it, its nearness to markets. He defied anyone to say what under all the circumstances, was the ordinary value of land. That was a question they were unable to solve in Parliament, and now it was proposed to
  358
  remit it to the overseers. He did not think they ought to throw that duty upon them, and if they attempted it he believed it would land them in still greater difficulties.
  MR. ASQUITHthought the right hon. Gentleman had slightly exaggerated the difficulties of the problem. ["Hear, hear!"] That problem was solved almost every day by the surveyor and the expert in the case of railway companies which acquired land along the route and in the neighbourhood of towns; and he did not see the difficulty in discrimination. He did not cast any imputation on the right hon. Gentleman, or suggest anything as to the intention of the Bill to give relief to agricultural depression, but, if they did not adopt that Amendment, they would be open to the misapprehension that they were going to give relief to the land that was not suffering. They had there the means of discrimination, which were perfectly easy of application. ["Hear, hear."]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYcould not see that the Amendment carried out the views of the right hon. Gentleman. The relief went to the farmer and not to the landlord. ["No."] There is no reason why it should go to anyone else. ["Hear, hear!"] It might be that there was land very near towns which was extremely prosperous, but that had nothing to do with the Amendment. He saw no logic in the proposal, and he thought, therefore, if they were to deal with the problem put before them at all it must be in very different words from those which the hon. Gentleman had put before them. ["Hear, hear!"]
  SIR W. HARCOURT,who was received with Opposition cheers, said that if it were true that it was impossible to discriminate between land which was distressed and laud which was not distressed in this Bill, a stronger and clearer condemnation of the Bill could not be found. But he contended that it was possible to make such a distinction, and they might depend upon it that all

  359
  the people brought into contact with it would make a distinction. [Cheers.] Did they think that the ratepayers in Liverpool would not distinguish between the land which was, within a few miles of that city, let at £5 an acre and the land in Essex? He thought the right hon. Gentleman had not apprehended the effect of this Amendment. There was not the slightest doubt that accommodation land was agricultural land in a specially favourable condition. The First Lord of the Treasury said that as long as the land was used for agriculture it could not be distinguished at all, but the land used for agriculture was accommodation land. This Amendment was intended to prevent that which they might depend upon it-would, when the Bill was put into operation, be one of the most conspicuous features of injustice in this Bill. The people in the towns or urban districts of the country would see near their dwellings land which was not distressed at all, and which was probably the most valuable property in the whole neighbourhood, being relieved at the expense of the taxpayers or the ratepayers in that particular parish. That was a notorious injustice. Wherever land was in that situation that there was a competition for it, then the diminution in the rate must and would go to the landlord. [Cheers.] That was another notorious feature of this case. If the dwellers in the houses of this country knew that such land, yielding an immense rent, was to be relieved to the tune of half the rates, which from the character of that land must go into the pockets of the landlords, then the Bill would be condemned, and justly condemned. [Cheers.]
  MR. FLYNNsaid there ought to be no Member of the House more capable of appreciating the true inwardness of an Amendment like this than the Leader of the House, who had been Chief Secretary for Ireland, because the Amendment was on all fours with town parks in Ireland. To refuse this Amendment on
  360
  an English Bill, and to urge, as the Government would in a week or two, on an Irish Bill, with the most ingenious arguments, that town parks ought to be excluded, was surely the reductio ad absurdum of land legislation.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid that he knew of land that was worth from £4,000 to £5,000 which would get relief to the extent of half its rates, just the same as land only worth £100 per acre did. Anything more unjust than that could not be conceived. Such valuable land was often let as agricultural land in order to prevent buildings being erected upon it, which might obstruct the view of handsome houses overlooking it. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had expressed himself to be willing to exclude accommodation land from the operation of the Bill if he could arrive at a proper definition of the meaning of the term. He was always anxious to assist the Government when they got into a difficulty, and he was certain that the Opposition generally would be willing to assist the right hon. Gentleman in discriminating between land that was accommodation land and that which was not. If the right hon. Gentleman would accept their advice, the difficulty could be surmounted with the greatest case, and so prevent this great waste of public money. To relieve valuable land of half its rates would be like giving a money testimonial of £5 to Lord Rothschild. He hoped that something would be done to mitigate the absurdity of this Bill in this matter. It would be some satisfaction if their prolonged efforts to assist the Government if the Government would accept their advice in the direction of this Amendment.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTSsupported the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House advanced an extraordinary argument. The right hon. Gentleman said, granted that an increased capital value might be given to the land, owing to its use in the future for building, as

  361
  long as that land was used for agricultural purposes, the occupier ought to have relief. Granted the agricultural occupier ought to have relief, but it should come out of the pocket of the owner who was going to convert the land into building land. Land which was available for building land escaped Income Tax, and further relief ought not to be given to those speculators who bought up land likely to become valuable for building purposes.
  *SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid that every one knew that the holding back of land near a growing population, in order that the owner may obtain a larger price for it at a future time, was a great inconvenience to the locality. They ought not to assist this land jobbing or land speculation more than could be helped. Speculators who kept land out of the market would get the benefit of the remission of the rates. The rates being remitted, the value of the land would go up, and the owners would keep it still longer out of the market when it was wanted for the uses of a growing population. A sense of injustice would consequently be caused. He was convinced that the Measure would be more popular and useful if this Amendment were accepted.
  MR. STUARTdeeply regretted the Government's refusal to accept this Amendment. From first to last they had shown themselves determined not to sanction any preferential treatment in favour of those agriculturists who were distressed as distinguished from those who were not. In the ranks of agriculturists themselves this Bill would inflict great injustice, for the proprietors of some of the best and most valuable properties in the world were going to be relieved equally with, nay, even to a greater extent, than the proprietor of the most miserable agricultural land. This Amendment had been brought up in a form which the Government undertook to consider three or four weeks ago; indeed, they accepted the principle of it.
  362
  It was now refused, and in his judgment the Government, by refusing Amendments on this point, were wrapping up in their Bill the seeds of its own destruction. [Cheers.]
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEcited the evidence given before the Agricultural Commission, and showed that in Oxfordshire £7 per acre was paid for land, while elsewhere there were derelict farms and land letting at 5s. an acre. By this Bill the land paying £7 per acre would receive thirty times as much relief as land in the distressed districts. The rates were paid by the landlord and not by the tenant on accommodation land in the neighbourhood of towns, and thus the landlord would receive practically 2s. an acre in relief from the Exchequer. Now, the question was whether it was possible to frame words which would cover the case of accommodation lands. He maintained that it was possible, and in proof of it he might mention that the Government had this Session introduced a Bill in which they actually gave a definition of accommodation land in Ireland. That definition in effect was "a tenancy in any holding ordinarily termed a town park which adjoined or was near any town and bears an increased value as accommodation land over and above the ordinary letting value of the land." [Cheers]. On the back of that Bill he found the names of the Attorney-General for Ireland and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Bill itself was introduced by the Chief Secretary.
  MR. WINGFIELD-DIGBYasked whether the hon. Member was in order in discussing matters in connection with an Irish Bill.
  *MR. SPEAKERruled that the hon. Member so far was in order. [Opposition cheers.]
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the defining words in the Irish Bill were almost identical with the words in the Amendment. [Ministerial cries of "No!"] Supposing they were not—[laughter]—what answer did the Government make

  363
  to the Amendment? They said the definition could not be given by either the words of the Amendment or any other words, and the President of the Local Government Board went so far on a previous occasion as to assure the House that if a definition could be clearly made he would define it. Now, he had pointed out that a definition had been made of accommodation land in Ireland, and on what ground could it be stated, therefore, that such a definition could not be made in relation to accommodation land in England? [Cheers.] The other day they were told by the hon. Member for Tyrone that a definition was introduced into the. Act of 1881 and that the result was litigation. A fresh definition was introduced into the Act of the present year, because in the case of Ireland the words were introduced for the purpose of excluding the Irish tenant from relief——
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is at liberty to point out that the definition was introduced into the Irish Kill, but he cannot discuss the policy of the Irish Bill.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was pointing out that, with regard to the English Bill, it was done in order to grant relief to landlords, for, of course, with regard to accommodation lands, the money went direct into the pockets of the landlord. The hon. Member for Tyrone ought really to know that the thing was capable of definition, because in his own county they had 350 cases of accommodation land which had been defined by the Courts, and it was idle to say that what had been done by the Irish Courts could not be done by the English Courts. He thought they were entitled to ask the learned Solicitor General whether the words in the Irish Bill would not be applicable to the present case, and whether there was any difference between the two cases.
  MR. DALZIELthought they ought to have some reply from the Government. He did not think the speech they had
  364
  just heard was one which could be answered in silence. They had got to a point where the Government must recognise that they were in a hopeless mess in regard to the Bill. No Member of the Government denied that there was an injustice being perpetrated under the Bill—that men who were not suffering from agricultural distress, who were drawing high rents from land, were getting money under the Bill. The Opposition had pointed out what would happen under this Bill, but the Government said, while they regretted, they could not help it, and that they wanted a definition. His hon. Friend had presented them with their own definition—[Opposition cheers]—contained in a Bill now on the Table, and which was going to be discussed next week. He wondered where the Chief Secretary for Ireland was. [An HON. MEMBER: "In bed." Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman ought to be sent for, because it was quite clear that there was no Member of the Government present who could understand accommodation land. [Laughter and "Hear, hear!"] The Solicitor General had helped the Government out of many a difficult position, but would he be able to help them over this difficult stile? If this definition was right in Ireland, why should it be wrong in England? [Cheers, and cries of "Finlay."]
  MR. DAVID THOMASobserved that in Committee on the Bill he moved an Amendment similar to this, which was accepted in principle by the President of the Local Government Board, on whose pledge to do his utmost to carry it out he then withdrew it. [Cheers.] As the right hon. Gentleman had not put down any words to carry out his promise on the Report stage he spoke to him on the the subject, and the President of the Local Government Board informed him that he had done his very utmost in conjunction with the Law Officers of the Crown to frame an Amendment that would carry out the intention, but had

  365
  not been able to achieve that result. He asked the Solicitor General to explain how it was the definition which appeared in the Irish Land Bill was not applicable to this Land Rating Bill, and the Government could not carry out the pledge they had given.
  MR. MORTONsaid, as they had failed to get any answer from the Solicitor General, he would turn to the Member for South Tyrone. When, on a similar occasion, words were quoted from the Act of 1881, the Member for South Tyrone pointed out that those very words as a definition of accommodation land had caused an enormous amount of litigation in Ireland. He challenged the Member for South Tyrone to say how it was the Government refused to apply to the case of accommodation land the words they applied to the Act dealing with Irish land.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALdeclared that the definition in the Irish Act was utterly and absolutely different from that proposed. The Irish Land Bill contained a similar definition as applied to accommodation land. This definition was framed so as to apply to any farm land which was purely farm land, and not for accommodation purposes, as of particularly high value. The definition in the Irish Act dealt with accommodation land, and it had been held that land was not accommodation land within that definition merely because it was of specially high value for farming purposes. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who had supported the Amendment had not framed in their own minds any clear idea of what it meant. They sometimes seemed to think that it was intended to cover the case of agricultural land of specially high value, and at other times that it was intended to cover the case of agricultural land which would have a high value, as of building land when applied to that purpose. The real difficulty had been to frame a definition which, when applied in practice, would not occasion intolerable
  366
  friction. Any definition such as that contained in the Amendment would create a sort of state of civil war amongst the owners of pieces of land which could be supposed by any possibility to come within the range of that definition.
  MR. COHEN MR. COHEN (Islington, E.) moved that the Question be now put, but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent.
  *MR. A. J. MUNDELLAsaid that from first to last the Government had professed their desire to meet the views of the Opposition in this matter; but they had declared themselves totally unable to find a definition. But they were able to do it in Ireland. Would they adopt the words of the Irish Bill? All that was asked was that the Government should fulfil their pledges.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid the object of the Irish Bill was to say that the Land Act should not apply to a town park bearing an increased value as accommodation land, except where such town park was let and used substantially as an ordinary farm. What it proposed to do was to engraft the exception upon the old rule in the Land Act. They were invited now to accept a Rule that had worked so badly that it was not encouraging to follow in that path.
  *MR. MUNDELLAsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman was correct; the Irish Bill denied relief to a tenant occupying a tenancy of this description. He and his hon. Friends desired that landlords in England owning such properties should not be relieved from payment of rates. The neighbourhood of every town in England would afford an object lesson of the iniquitous character of this Measure. Surely there was some better answer to be given than had been given by the Solicitor General.
  MR. DENIS KILBRIDEsaid nothing had surprised him more than the statement of the Solicitor General that he was unable to frame an

  367
  Amendment which would meet the case put forward by the Opposition, because the language of an Irish Bill, to which he called the attention of his hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon, met the very case. ["Hear, hear!"] The Bill was intended to relieve distressed agriculture, and they knew very well that land in the vicinity of a city or town was not generally used for bona fide agricultural purposes.
  *MR. SPEAKERremarked that the hon. Gentleman was now reiterating arguments already frequently used. [Ministerial cheers.]
  MR. KILBRIDEsaid he had not heard his arguments used before. [Cries of" Order."] He wished to remind the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who, he believed, was Under Secretary to the Local Government Board, that in his own constituency there was a hamlet of only 350 inhabitants, and that the land in the neighbourhood was looked upon as accommodation land, and bore an increased value owing to its proximity to that hamlet.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 80; Noes, 213.—(Division List, No. 301.)
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS MR. BRYN ROBERTS moved to insert, after the words "racecourse" the words "or any land used in connection with any business other than farming." He said that near to the towns there was a large amount of land used in connection with other businesses than the cultivation of the soil. Hotel proprietors and mustard manufacturers often made use of such land.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that the Government could not accept the Amendment, which would lead to many difficulties. Because a man happened to have some occupation besides that of agriculture, it was no reason why his agricultural land should not receive the benefits of the Bill.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. CHAPLIN MR. CHAPLIN moved as an Amendment to insert at the end of the definition of "agricultural land" the words, "The expression 'cottage' means a house occupied as a dwelling by a person of the labouring classes."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. LEWIS MR. LEWIS moved to leave out the words "or where the spending authority do not make up their accounts to that day on the nearest day thereto to which they do make up their accounts." He wished to know why more than one day should be referred to.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid that all the spending authorities did not make up their accounts on the same day—the smaller School Boards, for instance, made up their accounts to the 29th of December.
  MR. LEWISthought that was no explanation.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALpointed out that what the right hon. Gentleman had said was an explanation, and that the words were meant to meet such cases as those of certain School Boards to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred.
  MR. LEWISasked leave to withdraw the Amendment—[Cries of "No!"]—in order to move the omission of the words "on the nearest day thereto."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that as it was evident some date must be fixed, he preferred the date originally inserted in the Bill, the 1st of April, because it was not an inappropriate day on which to begin this Bill. [Laughter.]
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided.:—Ayes, 203; Noes, 75.—(Division List, No. 302.)
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,)THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL, Tyrone, S.) moved an Amendment with the object of enabling a

  369
  prescribed day to be fixed for the cloning of the accounts of the spending authority.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH moved an Amendment to the Schedule to add Pariah Councils and Parish Meetings to the list of spending authorities.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I rise to order, Sir. This Amendment would impose a fresh charge under the Bill, and is, therefore, I submit out of order on Report.
  *MR. SPEAKER: If that is so the Amendment would be out of order, but I do not understand that it is so. [Cheers.] If the Amendment increased the area, and consequently the amount of money that would have to be spent it would be out of order, but, as I understand, it does not increase the area. It only means that the money should be handed over to some parish authorities instead of other authorites.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid that near the end of the proceedings in Committee he explained why the Parish Council had been omitted from the list of spending authorities. The result of insertng the Amendment in the Bill would be that there would be an enormous number of payments to Parish Councils, a great many of which would amount to only a few shillings. In the statement which he had made in Committee he had shown that the financial transactions of Parish Councils had been very small.
  In answer to Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,
  MR. CHAPLINsaid that Parish Councils would receive no money; it was not a spending authority under the Bill.
  MR. LEWISsaid that the Bill was defective, and no reply had been received from the Government.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid that Parish Councils would not receive any grant in respect of parish rates. The effect of the Amendment would be to add to a charge on the public revenue on behalf of the parish rates. He submitted that the Amendment was out of order.
  *MR. SPEAKER: If that is so, it is out of order.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEshowed that by the first Section of the Act relief was
  370
  granted in respect of the rates levied by a Parish Council, and by the second Section grants were made from the local taxation account in respect of the deficiency which would arise under the Bill; but no additional money was to be imposed. The only question was as to who was going to receive the relief in respect of the parish rates. He submitted on the point of order that the money was provided for under the second Section.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid the hon. Member was right as to the first Section in regard to parish rates, but the second Section provided for a grant to the spending authorities mentioned in the Bill. There were several spending authorities, but Parish Councils were not mentioned among them, and the effect of the Amendment would be to introduce Parish Councils as fresh recipients of the grant, and, therefore, would involve an extra charge.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid the Solicitor General had proved himself to be out of court, for the moment that he admitted that the parish rate was included in the first clause of the Bill, the point was decided against him. ["Hear, hear!" and Ministerial cries of "No!"]
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid that was not so. The first section of the Bill dealt with the assessment of agricultural land to the rate, and the second section dealt with a grant which was to be made in respect of the deficiency for reasons which had already been mentioned by the President of the Local Government Board. The Parish Councils had been kept out from the list of authorities, and would receive the grant in respect of that particular assessment on agricultural land.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid the House was on the point as to whether the Amendment increased the amount of the grant or not. The whole question depended on the first and not on the second clause, for the number of spending authorities had nothing to do with the amount of the grant. The first clause determined how much of the rate was to be paid, and thus settled the question of amount, while the second clause dealt only with the spending authorities of that amount.
  MR. STUARTrose to continue the Debate, whereupon
  *MR. SPEAKER: said If the hon. Member rises to speak to a point of order, I will hear him, but I have quite made up my mind,
  MR. STUARTsaid he had risen to say that he thought the point of order was with the Solicitor General in that, in his opinion, this put on a new charge.
  *MR. SPEAKER: After hearing the argument, that is my view. The first clause provides what the occupier of agricultural land is to pay. He has to pay half. Then the deficiency is to be made up, which is done by the second section, and towards making up that deficiency the only grant appears to be a grant to certain specified authorities. Among those the parish council or parish meeting are not included, and therefore to include them would be to increase the charge. For that reason the Amendment was out of order.
  MR. CHAPLIN MR. CHAPLIN moved the omission of the Isle of Wight Highway Commissioners from the list of spending authorities. He did so, he said, because he understood they had ceased to exist. [Loud laughter.]
  Bill to be read the Third time upon Wednesday.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY moved, "That this House do now adjourn." He said that the business for this afternoon—[laughter]—would be the West Highland Railway Bill, the Conciliation Bill, the Auto-Motor Bill, Public Offices (Sites) Bill, Edinburgh General Register House (re-committed) Bill, Official Secrets Bill, and then Report of Supply.
  SIR W. HARCOURTprotested against the manner in which the business of the House was being conducted. [Cheers.] Just see the notice that was given to Members with regard to the Government business! On Friday they were told that on Tuesday they were to have the Uganda Vote, and afterwards they were to proceed with the Finance Bill. On the Monday the Leader of the House
  372
  got up and made an elaborate statement of the course of business which was to be taken during the present week, and at 4 o'clock, within a few minutes of making that statement, he discovered that all the Bills he had named had been put down for a subsequent day and could not, therefore, be taken on the day he had announced. ["Hear, hear."] Then the House of Commons was informed at a quarter-past 8 in the morning, so that notice could not be given to many Members, of what was the Government business to-day, a totally different programme being announced. It was only a natural and inevitable consequence that in such circumstances the business of the House was thrown into inextricable confusion. [Cheers.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY,who was received with Ministerial cheers, could assure the right hon. Gentleman he did not grudge him the satisfaction he felt at making this attack. It was quite true that, by a mistake, for which he was not himself responsible, the Bills to which allusion had been made were passed on till Thursday, and could not be brought back for discussion on the Tuesday. He was extremely sorry if any one was inconvenienced, but he must say that the moment the mistake was discovered, a few minutes after he had made the announcement, he communicated the circumstance to hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House—through the recognised channels of communication—and that information was conveyed to the right hon. Gentleman 18 hours ago. [Cheers.]
  MR. FLYNNmentioned that certain hon. Members had to attend on Committees at 12 that day, and he asked that intimation should be conveyed that the Committees should not sit, having regard to the long session of the House.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he had no power to do what the hon. Gentleman desired. When the Committees met they might adjourn to give hon. Members an opportunity for rest.
  House adjourned accordingly at Twenty minutes after Eight o'clock on Tuesday morning, having sat 17 hours and 20 minutes.