Commons Sitting of 21 May 1896

ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACTS (COWLEY'S CHARITY).
THE COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Lord ARTHUR HILL,)reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Humble Address of the 7th May, as followeth:—
"I have received your Address praying that I will withhold My consent from that part of the Charity Commissioners' scheme dealing with Cowley's Charity (at Donington, in Lincolnshire) which refers to the establishment of a Commercial and Agricultural School at Donington.
"I will comply with your advice."

COMMISSION.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;
The House went; and, being returned;
Mr. Speaker reported the Royal Assent to certain Bills which had passed both Houses. (For list see p. 45.)

FALMOUTH RECTORY BILL.
Bill to provide for the collection and appropriation of the Falmouth Rector's Rate and the eventual suspension or abolition of the same, and for annexing to the See of Truro the advowson of the Rectory of Falmouth, and for other purposes, read the First time; to be read a Second time.
VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL BOARDS.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 4th May; Mr. Ackland]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 191.]
INQUIRY INTO CHARITIES (PARISH OF HALIFAX, INCLUDING COUNTY BOROUGH OF HALIFAX).
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House. Return relative thereto [ordered 13th May; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to be printed.—[No. 192.]

TAXES AND IMPOSTS.
Return ordered,
"Showing (1) the rates of all Duties, Taxes, or Imposts collected by Imperial Officers; (2) the quantities or amounts taxed; (3) the gross receipts derived from each duty; and (4) the net receipts and appropriation thereof in the year ending 31st day of March 1891.
"And (1) the aggregate gross receipts derived from all such Duties, Taxes, or Imposts under the principal heads of revenue; (2) the aggregate net receipts; (3) the charges of collection; and (4) the produce after deducting those charges, in each of the 10 years ending the 31st day of March 1891 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 297, of Session 1890."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon Table, and to be printed. [No. 193.]

TAXES AND IMPOSTS.
Return ordered,
"Showing (1) the rates of all Duties, Taxes, or Imposts collected by Imperial Officers; (2) the quantities or amounts taxed; (3) the gross receipts derived from each duty; and (4) the net receipts and appropriation thereof, in the year ending the 31st day of March 1892.
"And (1) the aggregrate gross receipts derived from all such Duties, Taxes, or Imposts, under the principal heads of revenue; (2) the aggregate net receipts; (3) the charges of collection; and (4) the produce after deducting those charges, in each of the 10 years ending the 31st day of March 1892 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 193, of Session 1896)."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 194.]

TRUCK BILL.
Reported from the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 196.]
Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee to be printed.—[No. 196.]
Bill, as amended by the Standing Committee, to be taken into consideration upon Thursday 4th June, and to be printed.—[Bill 259.]

QUESTIONS.

  QUEEN'S COLLEGE CORK (PROFESSOR ENGLAND).
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now state the result of his communications with the Treasury as to the compensation to be made to Professor England, late of the Queen's College, Cork, for the injury sustained by that gentleman in having been compulsorily retired under the 65 rule, which was afterwards in Dr. Moffatt's case decided to have no application to such appointments?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The case of Mr. England has been submitted to the Treasury, and the conclusion arrived at by them, after the fullest consideration, is that Parliament cannot reasonably be asked to grant him a special gratuity in addition to his pension. ["Hear, hear!"]

  NATIVE REGIMENTS (INDIA).
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will consider the advisability of extending temporary promotion to the ranks of Lieutenant-Colonel and Major, which has recently been accorded to Staff Corps Officers serving as Commandants and seconds in command of Native regiments, to Staff Corps Officers serving in the Military departments under the Government of

  57
  India, with a view to placing them on an equal footing as regards temporary promotion with their comrades in regimental employment?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The position of officers serving in the military departments under the Government of India is not analogous to that of the Commandants and seconds in command of Native regiments, and I do not consider it necessary to extend to them temporary promotion to the ranks of Lieutenant-Colonel and Major recently granted to the latter class of officers. ["Hear, hear!"]

  OFFICERS OF THE GENERAL LIST.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, seeing that the Government had taken all the time of the House on Tuesday 12th May, for which day a Motion in regard to the grievances of the officers of the General List had the first place, he will consent to the appointment of a small Select Committee to inquire into the injustice of which these officers complain?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I understand my hon. Friend's Question to relate only to the officers now on the General List; but in my opinion it would be quite impossible to confine any inquiry to these officers alone. It must necessarily be extended to all those who have already retired, accepting as final the repeated decisions of the Secretary of State on this subject. Every officer's case would have to be reconsidered. The case of the officers of the General List was discussed in this House in 1888, and has been repeatedly considered by successive Secretaries of State, who have always held that these officers had no claim whatever to the concession granted in 1866 to the Staff Corps and the officers who formerly belonged to the East India Company's army. Concurring, as I do, in this view, I am afraid that I cannot consent to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the case. ["Hear, hear,!"]

  COMPANIES WINDING-UP ACT, 1890.
  MR. BOULNOIS: I beg to ask the President of the Board
  58
  of Trade, when the Report under Section 29 of The Companies Winding-up Act, 1890, will be laid before Parliament; and, whether he would give directions that in future the Report be presented to Parliament not later than the month of March in each year?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): The Report is in the course of preparation and will be laid before Parliament with the least possible delay. It must be borne in mind that although the Report deals with all the Companies ordered to be wound up during the year ending the 31st December, the information supplied with regard to such Companies has to do with proceedings subsequent to that date, while the financial portion of the Report is brought down to the following 31st March. It would therefore be impracticable to collect the requisite materials and prepare the Report so early as the date suggested by the hon. Member, without greatly curtailing the amount of the information supplied, and thereby impairing its value.

  SUBSIDIES TO NORWEGIAN STEAMERS.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he will grant as an unopposed Return the copy of the Correspondence between Messrs. Thomas Wilson, Sons, and Company, Limited, Hull, and the Board of Trade, from October 1895 to date, with regard to the subsidising by the Norwegian Government of steamers running between Norwegian and British Ports, asked for in the Motion standing on this day's Paper?
  The HON. MEMBERalso asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he would grant as an unopposed Return the Copy of the Correspondence between Messrs. Thomas Wilson, Sons, and Company, Limited, Hull, and the Foreign Office, from October 1895 to date, with regard to the subsidising by the Norwegian Government of steamers running between Norwegian and British Ports, asked for in the Motion standing on this day's Paper?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): Yes, Sir; We shall be happy to give them both Returns.

  EXPORTS FROM IRELAND.
  MR. D. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether there are any Official Returns of the quantities of butter, bacon, lard, and eggs, with their approximate value, exported from Ireland to Great Britain annually; and, if not, whether steps will be taken to obtain such Returns for publication?
  MR. RITCHIE: No such Returns are now collected, the trade between Great Britain and Ireland being treated as part of our general coasting trade between the various ports of the United Kingdom. These Returns could not be collected without considerable expense and causing delay and trouble to those engaged in the trade.

  MURDER OF DETECTIVE KIDD (WIGAN).
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether it is true that in the case of the convict, William Kearsley, who is now lying in prison under sentence of penal servitude for life for the alleged part he took in connection with the murder of Detective Kidd at Wigan some months ago, a petition, was presented to the Home Office on the 19th February 1896, signed by eight of the jurymen who tried the case, in addition to the foreman of the jury; and that in such petition the jurymen state that had they known the full facts of the case before they gave their verdict they would have found a verdict of not guilty against the prisoner Kearsley; and, whether it is a fact that Elijah Winstanley stated hefore his execution that Kearsley had nothing whatever to do with the crime; and, if so, whether the Secretary of State can see his way to re-consider the circumstances of this case?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): It is true that a petition
  60
  signed by the foreman and eight members of the jury was presented to me on the date mentioned through the prisoner's solicitor, but the grounds of the petition are not quite accurately stated in the question. The petition laid stress on the statement made by Winstanley immediately after the verdict and also on what he is reported to have said on the day before his execution. The conclusion I came to after carefully considering these statements and all the circumstances of the case, and after consulting the learned Judge who tried the prisoners, was that Kearsley had been rightly convicted; and although there were circumstances which justified me in advising the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, I see no ground for reconsideration of the case.

  SEAL FISHERY.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he can state on what grounds Her Majesty's Government have selected two Professors of Natural History to proceed to the Behring Sea to study fur seal life; whether this step has been taken at the invitation of Canada or of the United States; whether the recommendations of the British Commission, which at great cost visited Behring Sea in 1891–2, have been carried into effect; and, if so, whether they have been found inadequate; and, from what funds the expenses will be paid of the two Professors now appointed?
  MR. CURZON: This step has been taken in co-operation with the Canadian Government, in conseqnence of the repeated representations of the United States Government as to the inadequacy of the present regulations for the proper protection and preservation of the seals. The recommendations of the British Commission were not adopted by the Arbitration Tribunal which framed the regulations which are now in force, and the object of the mission is to inquire into the complaints made of their inadequacy. The expense of their mission will be borne by Her Majesty's Government.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked how it could be ascertained that the recommendations were inadequate if they had never been carried into effect?
  MR. H. SETON-KARR)asked what other Members would the present Commission consist of besides the two Professors of Natural History?
  MR. CURZON: The Canadian Government are, I think, sending representatives on their own behalf.
  MR. W. JOHNSTONasked if the right hon. Gentleman would give the names of the two Professors?
  MR. CURZON: No. I do not remember them.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my Question?
  MR. CURZON: The Question is of a speculative character, and I am afraid I cannot answer it.
  MR. SETON-KARR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the regulations now in force of the Fur Seal Fishery in British Columbia are, in their main points, directly contrary to the recommendations of the recent British Commission; whether, so far as this is the case, Her Majesty's Government will take steps to revise the existing regulations in accordance with the said recommendations and with the express wishes of the sealers themselves; and whether, generally, the Government contemplate any further, and what, action for the proper and equitable protection of this important maritime industry in British Columbia?
  MR. CURZON: The regulations of the Fur Seal Fishery in British Columbia in force are, in some respects, contrary to the recommendations of the British Commissioners, but they were enacted by the Award of the Arbitration Tribunal, by which Her Majesty's Government are bound. The regulations can only be revised by the joint consent of Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States. Steps are being taken to inquire into the working and adequacy of the regulations.

  MILITARY TRAINING (GLOUCESTER).
  MR. CHARLES COLSTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether, having regard to the fact that the authorities have had to dispense with the training of the 3rd and 4th battalions of
  62
  the Gloucester Regiment this year, in consequence of the prevalence of smallpox in the city of Gloucester, the Secretary of State will give his favourable consideration to the exceptional circumstances of the case, and authorise the payment of ordinary and reserve bounty to such men as would usually be entitled to receive it?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The men of these, and other battalions, whose training has been dispensed with, will be paid the ordinary bounty as if the training had taken place, and also the reserve bounty in the case of men entitled to it.

  CYCLISTS IN HYDE PARK.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will consider the advisability of excluding horses and carriages from that part of Hyde Park frequented by cyclists between 10 a.m. and 12?
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked the right hon. Gentleman if he would also consider the advisability of excluding from this part of the park pedestrians also, so as to leave it to the exclusive enjoyment of the riders on ironmongery? [Laughter.]
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS): I have considered the question, and regret I do not see my way clear to meet the wishes of my hon. and gallant Friend. I have, however, been in consultation with the Commissioner of Police, who has undertaken to regulate the traffic, as far as possible, with a view to the safety and comfort of cyclists, as is consistent with the general convenience of the public using the park. Further than this I am not prepared to go.

  SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (CIVIL DEPARTMENTS).
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been directed to the statement made by Colonel Borrett, of the War Office, to the Post Office Committee, on Thursday last, that the Post Office said they would give the soldiers

  63
  all the vacancies they did not want themselves, and that the War Office held that meant nothing at all; and, whether he will take steps to obviate this evasion of the Order made by the late Mr. Raikes, and supported by the right hon. Member for Manchester?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The attention of the Postmaster General has been drawn to the statement referred to, and he does not understand how the reported opinion of the War Office has been arrived at, seeing that, according to figures furnished by the War Office itself, over 500 soldiers, in addition to those previously employed, were last year given employment in the Post Office service.

  QUEEN'S COLLEGE, GALWAY.
  MR. D. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the scheme drawn up by the corporate body of the Queen's College, Galway, for new statutes for the College after the dissolution of the Queen's University, was laid before the Lord Lieutenant, in compliance with the directions of the Corporation?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No such scheme, so far as I can ascertain, was drawn up by the corporate body of the Queen's College, Galway.

  MIDDLESEX SESSIONS (CONVICT ON LICENCE).
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether John Thomas, who pleaded "guilty" to four indictments for larceny at the Middlesex Sessions on Saturday last, was a released convict, subject to police supervision; if so, when was he released from prison; how many monthly reports did he make to the police; and, when did he last report himself prior to his arrest for the larcenies?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: Thomas was at large under a licence granted him in pursuance of the Penal Servitude Acts. He was released on the 1st January last, made three monthly reports, and last reported himself on the 9th April.

  BELFAST BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. R. MCGHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to a letter of Mr. Robert Wilson, dated the 3rd inst., addressed to the Belfast Board of Guardians; whether he is aware that Mr. Wilson, who was a candidate for the Dock Ward at the late Poor Law election, alleges in his letter that from the time the voting papers were put into the hands of the police who collected them until they were seen at the recount, tampering and manipulating were indulged in to a huge extent; and, whether, considering the very serious nature of the charge laid by Mr. Wilson, he will direct a Local Government Board Inquiry to be held without delay?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It appears that a letter containing allegations to the effect stated in the Question has been addressed to the Belfast Board of Guardians, who, by resolution, ordered that Mr. Wilson should be given every facility to examine the papers he states were tampered with, but I am not aware that he has availed himself of this permission. The returning officer repudiates the charges made in the letter, and denies that any irregularities whatever took place on the occasion, and as Mr. Wilson has not submitted any evidence in support of his allegations, the Local Government Board, in accordance with their usual practice, see no reason for holding an Inquiry into the matter.

  RATING OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he proposes during the present Session to give grants from the Treasury to the local authorities equivalent to the rating value of public buildings in their respective localities, or what steps he proposes to take in this matter?
  MR. HANBURY: The Treasury contributions will be to all the rates levied in the districts containing Government property calculated on the rateable value of that property as settled with the valuation and assessment authorities of such districts. The valuations of nearly the whole of the Government property in the metropolis have quite recently

  65
  been revised up to date, and the Treasury grants will be given on the new valuations from 1st April last. The valuations of the Government property in the provinces have also, in many cases, been revised up to date, and the contributions will be given on the revised valuations in those cases from the same date, and the Treasury are ready to give a careful consideration to the representations any assessment authority may make with a view to the revision of the valuations in other cases.

  SUGAR BOUNTIES IN GERMANY.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether it is proposed by the Germans to double their bounty on the exportation of beetroot sugars from their country?
  MR. CURZON: A Bill considerably increasing the German sugar bounties has passed the Reichstag; but until it has been approved by the Bundesrath, it will not become law.

  LABOURERS' PLOTS (TIPPERARY UNION.)
  MR. JOHN DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will inquire what has been the cause of the great delay which has occurred in putting the labourers in the Emly district of the Tipperary Union in possession of the plots of ground which have been marked out for them; and, whether the Local Government Board can do anything towards putting the labourers into possession in time to enable them to till the land this season?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The loan for the purposes of the Improvement Scheme in these cases has been sanctioned by the Treasury, and the delay in obtaining possession of the plots has arisen out of the arbitration proceedings. It appears that at the meeting for the preparation of the Arbitrator's award the accuracy of the schedules deposited by the Guardians was questioned, and when these have been corrected the arbitration will proceed. It is hoped the Arbitrator will be able, without serious delay, to make his final draft award.
  MR. DILLON: Can the right hon. Gentleman press upon the Arbitrator the desirability of making an award in time to allow the labourers to cultivate the land for this year's crop?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, sir, if it depends on the Arbitrator I shall be happy to make the representations to him which the hon. Gentleman requests. I do not think it depends entirely on the Arbitrator; however, I will communicate with him on the subject.

  FRANCE AND SIAM.
  MR. EDWARD MOON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—(1) whether he has any information as to the truth of the statement that additional barracks are being erected at Chantabun-Paknam for French soldiers; and, (2) whether he is aware that the Siamese Government has already long since complied with the conditions upon which the French Government agreed, under Article 6 of the Convention of 3rd October, 1893, and the procès-verbal of even date (appended to the Convention), to evacuate Chantabun?
  MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Government have received no information on the matter mentioned in the first paragraph. It is understood that there are some points arising out of the Convention of 1893, upon which negotiations are still proceeding between the French and Siamese Governments.

  CARLOW COUNTY INFIRMARY.
  MR. C. J. ENGLEDOW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) with regard to the fact that the Carlow County Infirmary is provided by law for the treatment of the poor and destitute of that county, and its expenses provided almost entirely from the public funds of the county, whether he is aware that there are grave doubts in the minds of the ratepayers of the county as to whether that institution treats any of the poor and destitute of the county, and whether the law as to the admission of the patients, the area from which such patients should be admitted and the manner of admission,

  67
  is carried out, and as to whether the funds of the institution are spent to the best advantage; and (2), whether he would, under these circumstances, consider the necessity of directing that this institution be inspected, as directed by Law, by the Local Government Board Inspector, who would also inquire into its general administration, and also that all institutions provided for the treatment of the poor and destitute and paid for out of public funds shall be regularly inspected by a Government official as directed by law.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed that 90 per cent. of the patients relieved in the Carlow Infirmary belong to the poorer classes who are treated gratuitously; that the provisions of the law as regards the admission of patients is habitually complied with; that the Governors believe the funds are expended to the best advantage; and that the accounts are periodically published after audit by a manager of the Bank of Ireland. As regards the second part of the Question, I see no sufficient ground for applying in this particular case a system of inspection which, for more than 50 years, has fallen into disuse.

  LEE-METFORD RIFLE.
  MR. SETON-KARR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether the Chartered Company's force in South Africa has practically discarded the Lee-Metford rifle for the Martini-Henry, owing to the former being defective in stopping power; and, whether Her Majesty's Government, in view of this circumstance, will take steps to ascertain the practical efficiency or otherwise of the Lee-Metford Government rifle in actual warfare.
  *MR. BRODRICK: No information has been received as to the discarding at Bulawayo of the Lee-Metford rifle. As already stated in this House, the question of the bullet is being fully considered.

  UNCOVENANTED OFFICERS (INDIA).
  MR. GORELL BARNES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he has sanctioned the Orders contained in the Reso-
  68
  lution of the Government of India, dated 22nd June 1895, under which in future only half the service of certain Indian uncovenanted officers before a certain date 11th December 1893) will be allowed to count towards furlough, though formerly all such service was counted; whether he is aware that the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, and subsequent authoritative statements, have encouraged these officers to expect concessions instead of restrictions in regard to their furlough rules; and, whether the Correspondence on the subject of the grievances of the Indian uncovenanted Civil Services can be laid upon the Table of the House?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The Orders to which the hon. Member refers did not require the sanction of the Secretary of State, but were reported for information. Having regard to the circumstances, I see no reason for disapproving them. The new Rules must be regarded as a whole, and no officer need come under these unless he chooses to do so. The correspondence is voluminous and not quite complete, but I shall offer no objection to a Motion for a Return, in continuation of No. 168 of 1892, as soon as the Dispatch, now under consideration, shall have reached the Government of India.

  WESTMINSTER HALL.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether he can inform the House who is responsible for the care and custody of Westminster Hall; and, having regard to what took place there during the afternoon of Tuesday last, whether he can assure the House that steps have been taken which will effectually prevent any similar occurrence?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, by whom, and in virtue of what authority, permission was given to certain persons to set up tables in Westminster Hall and to array thereupon papers of the nature of Petitions or appeals; and whether any direction was given to the Commissioners of Police to refrain in this instance from carrying

  69
  out the Order of this House to prevent all disorder in Westminster Hall, and all annoyance therein or thereabouts?
  MR. DILLON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Questions, I should like to ask him to state whether Westminster Hall will be open to all people who desire to present monster petitions and to canvass Members of this House in their support?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: With the consent of my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn I propose to answer his Question at the same time. The permission alluded to was given by the Secretary to the Office of Works, in virtue of a Treasury Minute dated May 9, 1884. Directions were given by the Home Office to the police to admit a limited number of ladies to whom signed orders had been given. The custody of Westminster Hall was vested by Letters Patent, in 1843, in Mr. Charles Gore, the then Junior Commissioner of Woods and Works, and held by him up to 1884. By Treasury Minute dated May 9, 1884, the Office of Works was informed that by Her Majesty's pleasure the keepership was vested in the Office of Works, and that the Secretary for the time being of that Department was appointed to perform the duties in question. It has been the practice since for the Secretary for the time being, in the exercise of his functions and at his discretion, to grant all permission for the use of the hall. I have arranged that in future all requests for the use of Westminster Hall shall be submitted to and decided by the First Commissioner.
  MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer my Question? Will the same permission be given to other bodies who desire to present monster petitions?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I thought my answer covered the Question of the hon. Member. ["Hear, hear!"] As the hon. Member is aware, I refused the responsibility of the admission of these ladies the other day, and I cannot say, until an application of that sort is presented to me, what action I shall take.
  MR. DILLON: I venture to repeat the Question, because it would be a very serious thing if Members of the Government should discriminate—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I would further point out that the Question of the hon. Member does not distinctly arise out of the Questions which are upon the Paper.
  MR. J. ELLIS: May I ask the First Commissioner of Works whether we may understand that his discretion will be exercised either for or against everything?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASwas understood to say that he had already answered a similar Question.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERasked whether care would be taken hereafter that the power would be vested in the hands of a person responsible to Parliament?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: That was the gist of my answer.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether the Sessional Order of the House would be respected?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: That is not for me to answer, rather the Home Office; but, of course, it will be.
  MR. DILLONgave notice that he would call attention to the matter in Supply.
  MR. J. W. LOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether there is now any reason why Westminster Hall should not be thrown open to the public as formerly?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The hall was closed to the public at the request of the Home Office in 1884. In 1894 the restrictions were modified, and the public admitted on Saturdays between the hours of 10 and 4 o'clock. I will consult with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary whether further facilities to the public can now be granted.

  SWINE FEVER (IRELAND.)
  MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, with regard to the fact that the importation of store pigs from Ireland, a non-infected area, into Lancashire has been prohibited since 1894, whether he can state about what time the Ulster pig dealers may hope to be allowed to carry on without restriction their trade with Lancashire; and what has been the alleged cause of the prohibition.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG,): The regulations which prohibit the movement of Swine from Ireland into Lancashire except for slaughter and under licence were imposed by the Local Authority in order to prevent the introduction of Swine Fever into the county, and it rests with that Authority and not with myself to say whether, and if so at what date, the regulations may properly be withdrawn. It is, however, unfortunately not the case that Ireland is a "non-infected area," 371 outbreaks of Swine-Fever having occurred during the first 18 weeks of the present year

  EAST INDIA COMPANY.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether his attention has been directed to the fact that, on 13th April 1772, a motion was made and was carried without a division for a Select Committee of the House of Commons, consisting of 31 Members, to inquire into the nature and state of the East India Company and other affairs of the East Indies, and the oppression and arbitrary conduct of the Company's servants; and, whether he will consider the propriety of inviting the House of Commons, in the case of the South African Chartered Company, to follow the precedent unanimously adopted in 1772 in the similar case of the East India Company.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN,): My attention had been called to the precedent of more than a century ago referred to in the hon. and learned Member's Question; but if a Parliamentary Inquiry is decided upon I prefer the later precedent of the proposal for a Joint Committee in 1886.

  BURIAL IRREGULARITIES (SWANSCOMBE, KENT).
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he can give the House any information with respect to the alleged breaches of the Burial Acts in the village of Swanscombe, in
  72
  Kent; whether he is aware that Edith Laura Hodge, who died on 26th March 1893, is registered as buried on 1st April 1894; that the entry in the register of the burial of James Godwin, who was buried on 1st August 1895, has been so altered as to be illegible; that Robert M'Intosh and Ann Hoadley, not being members of the same family, are registered as having been buried in the same grave on consecutive days; and that William Brown, who was buried on 29th December 1894, is entered in the register as bured in the wrong grave, and the actual place of burial registered as unused, and that an inspection of the burial ground has been made under the direction of the Burials Department of the Home Office in February last, and whether the above statements were brought before the Inspector at such Inquiry; whether a Report has been presented to the Home Office by their Inspector; and, whether the Report will be furnished to the Parish Council for Swanscombe, being the authority charged with the rectifying the mistakes in the burial books of the parish.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: The Inspector was directed by me to report on the state and condition of the burial ground, and whether the regulations of the Secretary of State have been observed and complied with; and I have received a preliminary report from him which shows that serious irregularities have occurred. The inspector's detailed report, however, has not yet reached me, nor have I had an opportunity of consulting him since the hon. Member gave notice of his Question. Until I have that report before me, I am unable to give the hon. Member an answer with regard to the several points raised in the Question, or to say whether it will be for me to take any action in the matter.

  YOUGHAL UNION (COUNTY CORK).
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether his attention has been called to a case of surcharge, recently made by the auditor against certain guardians of the Youghal (county Cork) Union, for the amount of relief granted to a widow named Eliza M'Namara, and to the correspondence which has passed between the Board of

  73
  Guardians and the Local Government Board on the subject; and, (2) whether, in view of the letter from the latter Board, dated 22nd May 1895, practically authorising such relief, he will recommend that this surcharge be remitted.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The letter of the Local Government Board dated 22nd May, 1895, only authorised the Guardians to give relief in this case on their obtaining a Report from the relieving officer that the woman was destitute. The auditor states he has seen no Report to this effect, on the contrary the relieving officer's statement to him at the audit shows that he did not consider her destitute. Under these circumstances, and as the woman was the owner of the house in which she resides, and which, if sold, would realise a substantial sum, the auditor disallowed the relief given to her, and the Local Government Board have no power to interfere with his discretion.
  CAPTAIN DONELANasked whether the right hon. Gentleman thought a woman and three children could be supported in the workhouse on 5s. a week.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I should say that they could not not be supported for 5s. a week.

  PRESS TELEGRAMS.
  MR. T. R. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the privilege of sending telegrams at press rates is accorded to weekly trade journals and refused to monthly trade journals of a similar character; and, whether, as this has been found a hardship, particularly to the journals of the smaller trades, he will consider whether the privilege can be equally extended?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is not aware that the privilege of sending telegrams at the press rates has been granted to any trade journals other than those which are public newspapers. As to the journals published monthly, I may say that the Acts of Parliament do not recognize as a newspaper any publication which is issued at intervals of more than seven days. I
  74
  doubt whether Parliament would be prepared to extend a privilege which already subjects the telegraph service to a considerable loss.

  SPRAYING POTATOES.
  MR. G. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, if his attention has been drawn to the successful experiments of the Irish Government for the prevention of potato disease by spraying the crop; whether the process of spraying the potato crop has been carried out to any extent, and by a similar process, in this country; and, whether he will take similar steps as the Irish Government to disseminate information to the small potato growers the benefits accruing from this system?
  *MR. LONG: The attention of the Board of Agriculture has for some time past been directed not only to the particular experiments to which the hon. Member refers but to the subject of the prevention of potato disease generally, and we have reason to believe that the process of spraying with suitable solutions is now followed to a great extent by agriculturists in Great Britain. We have on several occasions given publicity to information on the subject. In 1890, a paper was published in the Annual Report of our Intelligence Division. In 1891, several thousands of a pamphlet on the subject were issued. In 1892 and 1893, reports respecting it were published and presented to Parliament, and in 1894 and 1895 another leaflet was widely circulated. Articles have also appeared in our quarterly Journal. I have given instructions that copies of all these publications shall be supplied to the hon. Member.

  COURT HOUSES (PRISONERS' ACCOMMODATION.)
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he will lay upon the Table the latest reports of the Inspectors of Prisons and Prison Governors respecting those Court Houses in which the accommodation provided for prisoners continues to be defective.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I think it would be undesirable to lay these reports, which are of a confidential character, on the Table.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the names?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I object to give the names.

  MASSACRES AT URFA.
  MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he can now state when Mr. Fitzmaurice's Report relating to the Massacres at Urfa will be laid before Parliament?
  MR. CURZON: The full text of Mr. Fitzmaurice's Report will not be received until to-morrow. It will be printed and laid before Parliament without delay.

  PAYMENT OE RATES (OLDHAM).
  MR. C. E. SCHWANN; I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department—(1) whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the magistrates of the town of Oldham are in the habit of committing householders who are unable to pay their rates to prison in Manchester, where many have to wear prison dress, and are supplied with bare prison diet; (2) whether he is further aware that the principal cause of this state of things is the refusal of the local authorities in Oldham to allow landlords to compound for the rates; and (3), whether he can bring any influence to bear on the authorities of Oldham to cause them to remove this disability?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: Yes, Sir, my attention has been drawn to this matter. Persons committed to prison for non-payment of rates are treated as debtors, and as such are allowed to provide themselves with food and clothing; if unable sufficiently so to provide themselves, they are fed and clothed under the regulations affecting debtor prisoners. With regard to the second part of the Question, I understand that some difficulty in their local Acts has prevented the Corporation from allowing the composition of rates, but that they are now applying to the
  76
  Local Government Board to amend the Acts by Provisional Order to enable them to do so. I have no authority myself to interfere in the matter.

  PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
  MR. W. J. GALLOWAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Foreign Office will undertake to furnish to the provincial press at the same time as to the London press such Blue-books and such information as it is in the interests of the public service to publish?
  MR. CURZON: I have made careful inquiries with a desire to meet the suggestion of my hon. Friend, but I find that, owing to the great increase in the number of the provincial press represented in London, it would be impossible to undertake a comprehensive distribution of Blue-books among them, and invidious to make a distinction. I believe, however, that, if my hon. Friend would make an application to Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode, the Queen's Printers, he might find it possible to arrange with them for the paid supply of such Parliamentary Papers as he may desire simultaneously with their supply from this office.

  EDUCATION BILL.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether the Education Bill will impose any disqualification upon the master of a Board School who is a member of a county governing body, under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, and also chairman of the urban district council for the place in which the school is situate; and, whether it will be still possible for such school teacher to continue to fill these offices?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): The Committee of Council do not consider that the position of teachers in these respects will be affected by the Bill.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether, under

  77
  Clause 15, Sub-section (3), of the Education Bill now before the House, the Education Department could make an order transferring an industrial school from the London School Board to the new educational authority without the consent of the London School Board?
  SIR J. GORST: The Sub-clause will not affect industrial schools in so far as they are of an elementary character. A transfer of the non-elementary parts of such schools could not, by Sub-clause (4), be effected without the consent of the Secretary of State.

  HORSE BREEDING (IRELAND).
  MR. THOMAS CURRAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether he can inform the House how much money has up to the present been expended by the Congested Districts Board on the purchase and keeping of stallions; and (2) will he recommend the total abolition or substantial reduction of expenditure under this head?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The total expenditure of the Congested Districts Board upon horses up to the present date may be said to amount to about £30,000. The reply to the second paragraph is in the negative.

  GREENWICH PARK.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works—(1) whether the Treasury were consulted before the recent abolition of the office of deerkeeper in Greenwich Park was carried out, and whether they approved of it; (2) whether the Treasury have since found themselves prevented by law from extending to Mr. Jordan, the late deerkeeper, special abolition terms of pension; (3) whether there is any precedent for abolishing an office without giving a special pension to the holder except in cases where such a holder has been accused of some misconduct; and (4) whether the First Commissioner can give any relief to Mr. Jordan from the hardship of his compulsory and uncompensated retirement?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The answer to the first two paragraphs of my noble Friend's Question is in the affirmative. Mr. Jordan has been granted a compensa-
  78
  tion allowance of £29 3s. 4d. per annum but the Treasury inform me that they are precluded from making any addition to the ordinary rate of pension, in view of the fact that Mr. Jordan's retirement cannot be shown to result in any direct saving. I regret that I have no power to alter this decision.

  PRETORIA SENTENCES.
  COLONEL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he has received any confirmation of the sentences reported to have been passed on the Reform leaders by the Transvaal Government; whether, in the event of no such confirmation having been received the Government will address a protest to the Transvaal Government, with a view of inducing them to put an end to the present suspense and uncertainty regarding the fate of these British subjects; and, whether the Government has addressed, or intends to address, any remonstrance to President Kruger regarding the severity and hardships which now attend imprisonment, even of unconvicted prisoners, in Transvaal gaols, severity which it is alleged has caused the insanity and suicide of one British subject, so that, if possible, similar tragedies may in future be avoided?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is in a position to state the nature of the sentences passed on the five "Reform Committee" prisoners in commutation of the death sentences?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have to refer the hon. and gallant Member to the official telegrams which are published in this morning's papers, to which I have nothing to add by way of information. As regards the last paragraph of his Question, I have not seen any suggestion that the unhappy insanity and suicide of one of the prisoners were due to the severity and hardships of imprisonment. ["Hear,hear!"] I have received a telegram since I came to the House from the British Agent in the South African Republic to the following effect:—
  "President of the South African Republic has just promised me that special gaol rules and regulations applicable to the prisoners will be

  79
  immediately framed, also that the housing accommodation will be vastly improved and sanitary arrangements also attended to, and, if it is not wholly impossible, prisoners will not be separated and removed to other gaols where we cannot have proper supervision over them. This is the result of representations which the High Commissioner directed the British Agent to make. Mr. Howard, having signed the petition, has been released."
  COLONEL RUSSELL: Am I to understand that the fate of the four leaders is still in suspense?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: It is stated that the final sentences will he considered next week.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will extend to Irish political prisoners in English goals—[Cries of "Order!"]
  COLONEL RUSSELL: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield (Sir ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT), I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the Reform Committee of Johannesburg and their followers laid down their arms on 9th January under pressure from Her Majesty's Representatives, and on promise of protection, Her Majesty's Government will use their utmost efforts to secure fair treatment for the Reform leaders now under sentence at Pretoria?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No "promise of protection" was made by Her Majesty's Government or by their representatives to the leaders of the agitation at Johannesburg. According to my information the prisoners at Pretoria are not unfairly treated.

  TROOPING THE COLOUR.
  MR. F. W. FISON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether his attention has been called to the unsatisfactory accommodation provided for Members of this House at the Trooping of the Colour on Her Majesty's Birthday on the Horse Guards' Parade; and, whether better arrangements will be made next year?
  *MR. BRODRICK: I regret to say that we have no means of making better provision for Members of this House on the Queen's Birthday, except by erecting stands, for which no funds are voted. Nor is there any convenient space for
  80
  such stands. As my hon. Friend is aware, a large number of tickets admitting within the line of sentries were made available for Members of the House.

  AGRICULTURAL LAND RATING BILL.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what further contribution from Imperial Funds would be required if the reduction in the assessment of agricultural land proposed by the Rating Bill were extended to farm buildings other than farm houses or dwellings; and, whether any information exists which is accessible to the public, and which shows the annual value of such buildings apart from the agricultural land with which they are let and used?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): I am not in a position to give any definite figures, but no doubt the amount would be considerable. There are no sources available from which I could get the information desired by the hon. Member.

  ELECTION PETITION TRIALS.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether he is in a position to state what decision the Judges have arrived at regarding their consideration of the system by which election petitions are now tried?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,)said, he was not in a position to state the final results of the recommendations of the Judges in regard to the system by which election petitions were tried, but the whole matter would be inquired into by a Committee. In these circumstances it was not desirable to make any statement on the subject.

  COLCHESTER MAGISTRACY (MR. S. P. GILBERT).
  MR. R. MCKENNA: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General—(1) whether his attention has been called to the comments on the conduct of Mr. S. P. Gilbert, made by the Lord Chancellor in the case of Aaron's Reefs (Limited) v. Turis (House of Lords, 30th April 1896)

  81
  (2) whether he is aware that Mr. S. P. Gilbert is the same person as Mr. T. Gilbert, who has recently been appointed to the Commission of the Peace of the county of Essex (Colchester Bench); and, (3) what action the Lord Chancellor proposes to take in the matter?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I am informed by the Lord Chancellor that he has already been in communication with the Lord Lieutenant of the county upon the matter, and, should it turn out that the person named T. Gilbert is the same person as S. P. Gilbert referred to in the first paragraph of the Question, his name will be removed from the Commission of the Peace.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he can now state, for the convenience of Irish Members, on what day the Second Reading of the Irish Land Bill will be taken; and, whether the Government will move to refer the Bill to a Grand Committee?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Perhaps it would be convenient that, in answering this Question, I should state what the intentions of the Government are with regard to the business after the holidays. On the supposition, of course, that we get through the Committee stage of the Rating Bill before the holidays, we should propose to take on Monday week the Light Railways Bill as the first Order, and the Finance Bill as the second Order. On the Tuesday we should propose to take the Second Reading of the Diseases of Animals Bill as the first Order, and the Finance Bill as the second Order. On the Thursday we should propose to take the Resolution with regard to the Indian troops. The Friday will be devoted to Supply. The Monday following will be devoted to the Irish Land Bill, and the Friday to Irish Supply.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what the intentions of the Government are with reference to the later stages of the Rating Bill—whether he proposes to take that before the Education Bill or afterwards? With reference to the Finance Bill, I think the right hon. Gentleman stated yesterday
  82
  that his intention was to take that Bill only on the Monday. There are Amendments of considerable importance to the Finance Bill, and therefore I ask him whether he will not put the Bill down for a later day than the Monday?
  MR. DILLON: I would like to point out to the First Lord of the Treasury, that he did not take any notice of the second portion of my question—whether the Government will move to refer the Irish Land Bill to a Grand Committee?
  MR. HENRY BROADHURST: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is imperative that the Conciliation (Trades Disputes) Bill be taken to-morrow? I think there should be some Debate upon that Bill, and many Members have made engagements for to-morrow, not expecting that the Bill would be taken to-morrow.
  MR. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is intended to take the Wednesday after the holidays for Government business?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: With regard to the question put to me by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester, I have to say I am anxious to meet the convenience of hon. Gentlemen as much as possible; but, of course, it is impossible to meet everybody's convenience. I hope the House will permit the Conciliation (Trades Disputes) Bill to be taken tomorrow. I propose that the House should meet at 12 o'clock, so that there will be time for a brief discussion without putting the mass of the House to great inconvenience. As to the Wednesday after the Holidays, the hon. Member for South Molton is doubtless aware that the practice of the House is that the first two or three Wednesdays after Whitsuntide are devoted to the consideration of private Members' Bills which have made some advance during the early portion of the Session. I do not propose to break through that precedent. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I think it would be better I should answer it, and give my reasons at the time of the Second Reading of the Bill. As to the Finance Bill, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggests that the two controversial parts of the Bill—namely, the Estate Duty and the Land Tax parts—should not be taken on

  83
  Monday. Perhaps, if those portions are deferred there will be no objection to the Bill being proceeded with. The Report stage of the Rating Bill will be taken after the Committee Stage of the Education Bill.
  *SIR C. DILKE: Is it the intention of the Government to press the Military Manœuvres Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: My heart has been broken over the Military Manœuvres Bill—[a laugh]—it is almost too painful a subject to allude to. I confess I do not see my way to put the Bill down as the first Order on the Monday or Tuesday, because the result of so doing might be that other Measures would not make progress.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: What will be the Bills for the Monday after the holidays?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The first Order will be the Light Railways Bill, and the second Order the Finance Bill, the two parts I have mentioned not being taken. We might advance a stage the Cabs Bill and the Naval Reserve Bill.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether the Government intend to support the Motion for the adjournment for the Derby?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir; the Government take no part in that matter. Hon. Gentlemen on this occasion, as on previous occasions, will vote according to their tastes.

  EQUIVALENT GRANT (SCOTLAND).
  MR. JAMES BRYCE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he can state on what plan there will be allotted to Scotland a grant from the Exchequer which shall secure to that country a sum of money applicable for its benefit equivalent to the contribution which Scottish taxpayers will be required to make to the expenses of education in England under the Education Bill brought in by Her Majesty's Government, that Bill not proposing to confer any educational or other benefit upon Scotland; and, in what form it is intended to bring before the House such equivalent grant?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am sorry again to have to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, who has, I readily admit, some reason to complain of the long delay which has taken place in answering the Question on the Paper. But I regret to say that I am not yet prepared to make a statement on the subject, and am not even in a position to fix with certainty the date on which I shall be able to make it.

  LAND TAX COMMISSION BILL.
  MR. H. C. F. LUTTRELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he will exempt the Land Tax Commission Bill from the list of uncontroversial Bills to be taken on Friday, and of which he has given notice, having regard to the fact that there is already an Amendment on the Paper to that Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am informed that the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman refers is one which in reality raises no points that can properly be described as controversial.

  MINISTERS (DIRECTORS OF PUBLIC COMPANIES).
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention was drawn to the fact that when the Government was formed many Members of it were directors of public companies; and whether any of these directorships are now held; if so, will he state what companies are so directed, and by what Members of the Government?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: In answer to the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that full answers were given by me to the question on the Paper in August and September last, and I have nothing now to add to what I them stated.

  FISHERY RIOTS IN CORNWALL
  SIR JOHN COLOMBasked the Home Secretary, whether he would cause a special inquiry to be made into the conduct of the local authority at Newlyn, with a view to ascertain whether they had used their powers to

  85
  protect the East Coast fishermen with promptness and effect; and whether he could give an assurance that effective measures would be taken to insure the conviction and punishment of the ringleaders in the recent riots?
  MR. HARRY FOSTERasked the right hon. Gentleman, whether he was in a position to give the House any information as to the restoration of order in Cornwall; whether any inquiry was to be made as to the origin of the disorder, and as to the recovery of the damage sustained by boat-owners and fishermen; and whether it was proposed to take any steps to prevent a recurrence of the rioting, and to insure that the East Coast fishermen should be allowed to peacefully pursue their lawful calling.
  MR. DILLON: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government are prepared to introduce for Cornwall a Measure on the lines of the Irish Coercion Act?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: The last information which has reached me is that matters are quieting down. It is premature at present to say anything as to the necessity for any inquiry. I am in communication with the Admiralty and the local authorities as to the necessary steps to be taken to preserve the peace.

  MILITARY MANœUVRES BILL.
  MR. COLSTONasked the Under Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury that no contentious Bills would be taken before Whitsuntide, and that there were still some points in the Manœuvres Bill to be disposed of, he would consider whether any modification of the Bill could be made to enable it to pass as a non-contentious Measure?
  *MR. BRODRICK: I have carefully examined the Amendments to the Manœuvres Bill still undisposed of, and find that, with two or three exceptions, they can practically be met by the Government. The Bill is in no sense a Party one, and, seeing its urgency, I have offered, on any disputed points in the Bill, to accept such provisions as the Leaders of the Opposition may consider
  86
  sufficient for the protection of the localities in which the manœuvres are held, provided the Bill is treated as non-contentious and allowed to pass at once. Hon. Members will see that we are placing ourselves in the hands of the House solely in order to obtain for the troops the training which the military authorities consider essential for them, and I cannot help hoping that some agreement may be arrived at, and the money already voted by Parliament for manœuvres utilised. [Cheers.]

  ASHANTI ENVOYS.
  MR. J. H. DALZTELasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he was in a position to state that the telegram published in the morning newspapers announcing that the two Ansahs had been found guilty on every count of the indictment was correct?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have seen two telegrams, but I have received no official confirmation. The first said that they had been acquitted on the count of forgery and would be tried on some other count. The second telegram said they had been set free altogether

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION FROM STANDING ORDER).
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYmoved:—
  "That the Proceedings of the Committee 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, 215; Noes, 103.—(Division List, No. 164.)

  ADJOURNMENT (22ND MAY).
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYmoved:—"That this House do meet To-morrow at Twelve of the Clock."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid, that if he was not in order in moving an Amendment he should challenge a Division against the Motion. The course pursued by the Government in calling upon the House to meet at noon on the day of the adjournment for

  87
  the Whitsuntide Recess was certainly an exceptional one; indeed, he believed it to be absolutely without precedent, except in the case of great congestion of business. He failed to see what necessity there was for pressing the particular Bills named by the First Lord of the Treasury, for not one of which was there any urgency claimed. There was the Conciliation Bill. That was a very important Bill, surely, which ought to be discussed when Members, especially those representing labour interests, were present. It was unfair to put pressure on the House of Commons in this way. The First Lord of the Treasury had stated that they were in for a period of rest; that they were going to have a Parliament where the wicked Radicals would cease from troubling and the weary legislator would be at rest. Instead of that they had been legislating at high pressure, almost in a panic. They had had Motions, once a week or once a fortnight, for the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule; they had had Motions to meet at 12 instead of Three; and they had had exceptional Standing Orders brought into force. It was, he thought, high time the House of Commons entered a most emphatic protest against this course of conduct. What it really meant was that the First Lord wanted to screw this Rating Bill through. But what was the urgency for it, even assuming it to be a good Bill? There was plenty of time before August. It was really unfair to visit on the Opposition what was really the fault of the Government themselves in not calling Parliament together earlier and in their mismanagement of public business. He moved to insert "Twelve" instead of "Three."
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is quite unnecessary, because the effect of negativing the Motion will be that the House will meet at Three.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid, that he regarded the proposal made by the Government as entirely unnecessary. There was on great demand for the Bills which were to be put down for to-morrow, and the Motion was quite unusual and unnecessary. He agreed that they were legislating under very great pressure, and the Twelve o'clock Rule bade fairly to become a Standing Order, which was passed simply to be suspended.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The question before the House is not the question of the Twelve o'clock Rule.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he was complaining of the business being pressed on by the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule, and then for the First Lord to ask them to meet again at Twelve o'clock the same day was a demand on the physical resources of Members which was altogether unreasonable. The Government made no apology and gave no explanation or reason for the course they were taking, and yet the First Lord expected that side to be as complacent as his followers on the other side. The Conciliation Bill, he agreed, was one which ought to be thoroughly discussed, and he would warn the Leader of the House that if he was not careful in this matter there was a possibility of his doing more injury to the Conciliation cause by legislating in haste than the Bill could ever possibly do good. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make some more reasonable and agreeable arrangement with regard to the business for to-morrow.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he should not have intervened but for the reference of the hon. Members to the Conciliation Bill. It was quite true that this was a Bill that deserved discussion, but he would remind the hon. Members that it had been discussed at considerable length in the House. They had a whole Wednesday's discussion at the beginning of the Session on the Bill, which was introduced by the London Chamber of Commerce, and practically the Bill of the Government only differed in certain minor details from that Bill, which was passed by an unanimous vote of the House. It was very important that the Bill should be got through as soon as possible, in order that it might become law this year, and if they could get the Second Reading to-morrow, they might be able to go into Committee and make progress with it immediately after the House re-assembled.
  MR. DILLONrose for the purpose of moving, as an Amendment, to leave out all the words after "House" and to insert "at its rising do adjourn until Monday the 1st of June."
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will not be in order in moving that. It

  89
  is not relevant to the Motion before the House.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he was sorry he would not be able to move it. He entirely objected to the Motion of the First Lord of the Treasury, largely on the ground of the nature of the business put down for to-morrow. It seemed now to have become a settled custom of the right hon. Gentleman to place all Irish business after 12 o'clock at night. If he had put down for to-morrow the Irish Light Railways Bill or the Irish Labourers' Bill, or had given the Irish Members some bait to induce them to come here at 12 o'clock to-morrow, they might have been disposed to have agreed to the Motion, but he would not give them even an hour or two in daylight. He entered his protest, in the only shape in which he could do it, against the arrangement of business which had been indicated by the right hon. Gentleman.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYobserved that the hon. Member for East Mayo began by offering the suggestion that they should take no business to-morrow, and then proceeded to complain that the Government had not put down Irish business. [Laughter.] He felt quite sure that had they done so they would have been told that nothing was so inconvenient as putting down Irish business the day before or the day after the holidays, because Irish Members had long distances to travel. Mr. DILLON: "I spoke of non-contentious business."] The hon. Gentleman who opened this Debate appeared to think there was some dark design at the bottom of the scheme of the Government. There was no design at all, except to allow the House to get through stages of Bills the general utility of which was admitted by both sides, and enable hon. Members to get away at a reasonable hour. It was surely no conspiracy against the comfort of hon. Members, or against the liberties of the House as a whole, that he should ask them on the day the holidays commenced to meet at 12 o'clock, so that hon. Members who had a distance to travel might catch the afternoon trains. ["Hear, hear!"] If they were to meet
  90
  at Three o'clock, the time of an ordinary sitting, many hon. Members would not be able to get away until Saturday. This Motion was put down for the convenience of the House; he believed it was for the convenience of the House, and it was no violation of precedent. ["Hear, hear!"] Everybody must admit there was an immense advantage in having a day devoted to those small matters which were not allowed to come on after midnight because one individual objected, which, nevertheless, were non-party Measures that both sides of the House desired to see passed, but which had little chance of passing at the extreme end of a Session, unless such opportunities were taken of passing them as would be afforded by the sitting to-morrow. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. LOGANasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether it was his intention, having secured the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule, to continue the Debate on the Agricultural Rating Bill until the small hours of the morning with a view to getting it passed, or did he mean that the Debate was to terminate at midnight? The right hon. Gentleman had himself admitted that there was no urgency for the Rating Bill, because he had told them that he did not intend to take the Report Stage until after the Committee Stage of the Education Bill.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSONbegged to ask the right hon. Gentleman not to include the Land Tax Commissioners' Names Bill among the Measures to be taken to-morrow, as, so far from being non-contentious, it contained some very controversial propositions.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsupported the appeal of the hon. Member for Eye, pointing out that the Land Tax Commissioners' Names Bill was a strongly contentious Measure, which was opposed on the Second Reading.
  Question put, "That this House do meet To-morrow at Twelve of the clock."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 232; Noes, 90.—(Division List, No. 165.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  AGRICULTURAL LAND RATING BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER in the Chair.]
  Progress, 20th May.
  Clause 2,—

  PAYMENT OUT OF LOCAL TAXATION ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF DEFICIENCY ARISING FROM EXEMPTION.
  (1.) In respect of the deficiency which will arise from the provisions of this Act in the produce of rates made by the spending authorities in England, as hereinafter denned, there shall—

  (a) be paid to the Local Taxation Account an annual sum (in this Act referred to as the annual grant) of such amount as is certified under the provisions hereinafter contained; and

  (b) be issued from the Local Taxation Accounts by half-yearly payments out of the annual grant to each such spending authority a share of that grant of such amount as is certified under the provisions hereinafter contained.

  (2.) The amount so certified as respects each spending authority shall continue to be the share of that authority in the annual grant for the five years next after the passing of this Act, and thereafter, until Parliament otherwise determine.
  (3.) The Commissioners of Inland Revenue, in such manner, by such payments, and under such regulations as the Treasury direct, shall pay to the Local Taxation Account out of the proceeds of the Estate Duty derived in England from personal property the annual sum required by this section to be paid to that account.
  (4.) The first of those payments shall be made during the six months ending on the thirty-first day of March next after the passing of this Act, so as to make up a half-yearly payment to meet the issues to spending authorities on account of the six ensuing months.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsuggested that the words in the first line of the clause did not carry out the intention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. He wished to know what was the meaning of the word "deficiency?"
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: On a point of order,
  92
  I wish to ask you, Sir, what is the question before the House?
  *THE CHAIRMAN: There is no question before the House at present, but no doubt the hon. Member will conclude with a Motion.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid, that as the right hon. Gentleman had raised the point, he should be compelled to move the Amendment which he had prepared, and he should move it in this form:—To omit the words after "deficiency" down to "define," in order to insert "difference between the amount which the rates to which this Act applies would, but for Section 1 of this Act, produce, and the amount which after the passing of this Act such rate actually produces." He maintained that this was not a question of a deficiency. It was a difference. Supposing under the old law a rate of half-a-crown in a parish produced £1,500. If this Bill passed in its present form it would produce only £1,000; but there was no deficiency. There was simply a difference between what would have been produced but for this Bill and what was actually produced. He therefore moved the Amendment.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. CHAPLIN,)hoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment. The clause was perfectly clear as it stood, and there would be no difficulty. It merely stated that, a deficiency having arisen, it was to be made up by a payment out of the local taxation account.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that the Amendment was no Amendment at all. It was clear that there would be a deficiency in the produce, and it seemed to him that the words proposed only put in a different and rather worse way what the clause meant.
  MR. REGINALD MCKENNApointed out that a rate did not ever produce the actual amount it ought to produce. In a parish assessed at £10,000 the produce of a rate of 2s. in the pound ought to be £1,000. Was it intended that the State should pay £500 or only half of what was actually produced by the rate? As a matter of fact a rate of 2s. in the pound did not produce £1,000, and the

  93
  occupiers instead of paying £500 only paid say, £450, the produce of the rate. What became of the deficiency in the produce? The clause did not provide for any deficiency in the amount of the rates paid as compared with the rates payable. Under the terms of the clause as it stood, a court of law would hold that the State would only have to pay £450 if the deficiency was £100 on a,£1,000 rate. It must be remembered that there was a deficiency in the amount of the rates paid in every union throughout the country.
  MR. DILLONsaid, that in his opinion the necessity for this Amendment could not be questioned. The clause did not define with clearness what meaning was to be attached to the word deficiency. There might be a difference between the amount of the rate made and the amount paid without there being a deficiency, because the amount paid might be sufficient to cover all the expenditure, and in that case there would be no deficiency. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill ought certainly to give the Committee some explanation of this point, because the clause was undoubtedly ambiguous with regard to it, before they went any further. By Clause 4 it was proposed that—
  "The Local Government Board shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act certify the amount (a) of the annual grant to be 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."
  There was nothing in the clause that would prevent the local authority from so manipulating the rates as to obtain a larger grant in aid than they ought justly to receive. He should prefer the words of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carnarvon to those in the clause. At any rate, there ought to be a clear statement made by the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the subject.
  CAPTAIN PRETYMANsaid, that the Bill was retrospective as regarded the amount to be fixed which depended upon the
  94
  amount which had been raised "during the last year before the passing of this Act."
  MR. DILLONasked the hon. Member to take the words of Clause 4.
  CAPTAIN PRETYMANsaid, that the words of Clause 4 were—
  "The amount which for the purposes of the Act as having been raised during the last year before the passing of this Act by any rate to which this Act applies."
  By Sub-section (3) it was proposed—
  "That 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 the spending authority in the annual grant, and the Local Government Board shall certify the same accordingly."
  MR. J. H. DALZIELsaid, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just spoken (Captain Pretyman) had undoubtedly thrown some light upon the subject, but he had also opened up other points of great interest. It was evident that the Government intended to fix the sum to be paid in the form of this grant in aid for the next five years.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, that was so.
  MR. DALZIELsaid, in that case, if the amount of the rate received was reduced, who was to make up the difference? Was it to be made up by a fresh rate?
  An HON. MEMBER: It would encourage economy.
  MR. DALZIELsaid, the hon. Member said it would encourage economy, but would it have that effect when three-fourths of the rate was paid by the State? The fact was that the Government had let the cat out of the bag. They were going to pay a given sum year by year for five years, whether the amount of the rates received rose or fell. The local authorities, if they were far-seeing men, would make the rate as high as they could last year and would then reduce it as low as possible for the next five years.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that if the rate produced £1,000 one year and fell to £800 the next year there would be a deficiency of £200, and he wanted to

  95
  know who was to make up that deficiency. In such a case would the State pay £400, the half of the amount received, £500 the half of the £1,000, or £600, so as to make good the deficiency.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he had stated half-a-dozen times already that if there was any decrease in the rates and consequently a surplus in the amount of the fixed grant, that surplus would go in the relief of the rates generally, and to that extent the houses and buildings would benefit in proportion.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, that explanation did not meet his point. The words of the first clause were that the occupier of agricultural land would be liable to pay one-half of the rate payable. But it was the universal fact that the rate payable was not the rate paid. Take the case of a purely agricultural district where there were no residents except farmers. Supposing there was a deficiency in the rate—supposing an occupier did not pay the half of the rate for which he was liable, would the State have to make up the balance?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,)said, the contribution to be made each year by the Exchequer would be a fixed amount. It would be impossible to work a system by which the contribution from the Exchequer would vary year by year according to the rate imposed. Accordingly it was provided that the amount should be based on one-half the rate payable in respect of agricultural land the year before the passing of the Act.
  MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, the subvention was to be a lump sum which depended upon the rate of last year, and for every future year it was to be the same lump sum. Therefore it did not depend upon the rating of agricultural land in the future. There was to be a fixed sum given to each parish calculated upon a certain basis, namely, the rate of last year, which might have no relation whatever to the rate of future years.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is now anticipating a discussion that would more properly arise at a later stage.
  MR. STUARTsaid, he would not pursue the point further than to ask
  96
  where was the adjustment of rating under the Bill, and what was the character of the subvention under the circumstances he had stated?
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHasked, what was to happen if the rates went up? The occupier was to be liable for one-half of the rate, and the Government paid a fixed amount. What, then, was to become of the margin between the two?
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEsaid, he would take the case of a colliery district, where £1,000 was required in rates. Say £500 were contributed by the agricultural community, and £500 in respect of colliery property. Owing to the price of coal it might be found necessary to close the colliery. In the course of a year or two years the whole of the industrial population might, in the circumstances, have to leave that district, and instead of £1,000 perhaps only £220 would be required in rates. But that district would still receive £500 of half its original rate from the Government. That showed the ridiculousness of the position taken up by the Government. He had one or two districts in mind which were likely to be in the position he had described within the next few years.
  MR. MCKENNApointed out that under the Bill as it stood the local taxation account would be based on an estimated amount of the rate and not upon the actual amount. That was to say, the State would pay not half the actual rate, but half the estimated amount of the rate. Was the Exchequer, then going to be called upon to pay more than half of what was actually raised in the year before the passing of the Act? That had not been made clear in the explanation of the Solicitor General.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, the point he had raised still remained undecided. The occupier was to pay one-half the rate payable. That was to say, if the rate raised was 3s. in the pound, the occupier paid 1s. 6d. and the State paid 1s. 6d. But if the occupier did not pay his half of the rate, what was to become of the balance?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid the contribution which was to be made by the Treasury was defined by the

  97
  fourth section, and the words of the second section must be read with reference to the fourth section. The second section spoke of the deficiency which would arise, and the fourth section said that a sum equal to the total amount of the estimated deficiencies for all the spending authorities should be the amount of the annual grant. It was a fixed contribution. In a case in which the State contribution was fixed at £500, if £1,500 in all were required, the local authority would have to raise £1,000. The rates were to be levied in the manner prescribed by Section 1, buildings and hereditaments being assessed at twice the amount of agricultural land. It was a fixed contribution which was given in aid of the local authority, irrespective of the actual amount required.
  MR. T. LOUGHsaid, the explanation just offered rested upon the supposition that the rates would go down.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: Whether the rates go down or up, the contribution will be the same; the contribution is fixed.
  MR. LOUGHsaid, the contribution was fixed upon the basis of last year's rates, and the explanation rested upon the assumption that it was perfectly fair to take the rates of last year as the basis. In some instances there was extraordinary expenditure because the District Councils and Parish Councils came into existence, and in some cases the rates were increased in anticipation of an expenditure which had not been incurred, and in these cases there would be a reduction in the rates for next year.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member was discussing a point which would come up later; this clause dealt only with machinery.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, the question arose whether they were to refer to Clause 4 as explaining Clause 2. They had to make Clause 2 reconcileable with Clause 1.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid, it might be necessary to refer to Clause 4 without discussing the merits of the particular plan provided for arriving at the rate payable.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid, the words of the Bill did not carry out the intention of the Government. If there
  98
  was a case in which £500 was contributed, and the additional amount required rose from £1,500 to£1,800, who would pay the extra £300? ["The ratepayers."] But that was not "the deficiency which will arise from the provisions of this Act." The clause was clearly inconsistent with Clause 1 and Clause 4, because the deficiency to be met was not £500, but £800. What had to be described was the difference between the rates paid and the rates payable; and this was done by his Amendment, which expressed the intention of the Government better than did the words of the Bill. They would not pay a difference "which would arise" but they would pay the difference between the rate of one year and the rate of another year.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, the discussion showed more and more that there ought to be efficient control over local expenditure in the interests of the taxpayer. If the Treasury made calculations, they ought to be able to satisfy themselves that the money was really required and was fairly spent.
  MR. DILLON, said it appeared to him that what the Attorney General had said proved that the Bill was badly drafted, and that Clause 4 should be before Clause 2. The latter could not be discussed without constant reference to Clause 4, for Clauses 1 and 2 had no meaning without reference to Sub-section 2 of Clause 4, where the word "deficiency" was defined. How was provision to be made for an increase of the rates. The Government subvention or "grant in aid" was to be a fixed sum. If it was necessary to increase the rates, how would that be provided for? The result of the Bill would be not only to let off the owner and occupier of agricultural land one-half of the rate he had been paying, but to compel owners of houses to pay rates which they would not be compelled to pay under the present law. In spite of what the Attorney General had said, it had not been made sufficiently clear why the Government stood by their words in Clause 2, and refused to accept the Amendment.
  MR. H. H. ASQUITHagreed that the sub-section of Clause 4, which provided the machinery for ascertaining any deficiency, should be inserted

  99
  before Clause 2. It was clear from what the Solicitor General had said that there would be many cases in which the word "deficiency" would be inapplicable. Wherever a smaller rate was necessary, the fixed contribution of the Government would not only cover the deficiency but provide a surplus.
  MR. LEONARD COURTNEY: It is a deficiency in the produce of the rate that is referred to in the clause, not a deficiency in the budget of the parish.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, he was aware of that. He submitted that the word "difference" would be much more appropriate to describe the state of facts that the clause was intended to deal with.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYargued that the intentions of the Bill were amply and accurately carried out in the clause, and suggested that the sense of the Committee should now be taken upon it.
  MR. MCKENNAasked whether the Solicitor General meant the produce of the rates last year, or the amount which the rates ought to have produced?
  *SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he thought there was something more to be said and done than merely to divide, as suggested by the First Lord of the Treasury. He suggested that the matter should be carefully considered between this and the Report stage, and then there need be no division now. There was not only ambiguity, but such expressions in the clause as would leave local authorities in difficulty, and lead them into litigation, which was most undesirable. Even the tenses in the clause were instances of both grammatical and logical confusion of ideas. [Opposition cheers.]
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the Government were satisfied that the meaning of the clause was clear and carried out the purposes of the Act. At the same time, if hon. Members thought the clause deserved consideration, it might receive careful consideration before the Report stage. If agricultural land were taken at its full value, and the rate taken upon it in respect of buildings, of course it would produce more than if agricultural land were taken at only half
  100
  its value, and the deficiency in the produce of the rates was the deficiency which would arise in that way. The matter would be carefully considered before the Report stage.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, he was glad that the Solicitor General had told them that this matter would be considered, but he would submit that these words which it was proposed to omit were really part of the Preamble, and that the best way of solving the difficulty would be to cut them out and go on to sub-section a. Then the whole ambiguity would disappear. He would ask his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment, and then he would propose to leave out the words from the beginning of the clause down to the word "defined." That would really get rid of the whole difficulty, and perhaps the Solicitor General would tell them if there was any objection to that.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALthought there would be an objection to that.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid, this was a drafting question, and he would not press it as the matter was to be considered. He asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CHAPLINmoved after ''shall,'' at the end of Sub-section (1) to insert the words ''during the continuance of this Act."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid, this raised a rather important question. He had an Amendment to limit the period to three years, and owing to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman this question must be discussed now.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid it would not be in order to attempt to reduce that period now, as the Bill had been amended in the first clause so as to fix the period.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsubmitted with deference that the question of the payment to the Local Taxation Account for five years had not been precluded.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid, there would be no object in continuing the Bill for five years if payment was only going to be made for three years.
  MR. DILLONsaid, the effect would be to give the same relief to the occupiers of agricultural land, only the relief would come out of the pockets of the owners.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid, that to discuss that question would be against the general principle which was adopted by the Second Reading of the Bill.
  MR. DALZIELasked what was the necessity of these words if the Bill was limited to five years in Clause 1.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid that a limit must be provided.
  MR. DILLONsaid, that when the Act ceased to be an Act, the payment would cease.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid, that they could not pay money in respect of an Act which had expired. This was an example of bad drafting.
  Question put: ''That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 223; Noes, 102.—(Division List, No. 166).
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEmoved, after the words ''of such amount,'' in Sub-section (1) to insert the words, "not exceeding £1,300,000." He said, the Government proposed to allocate £1,500,000. That was too much. It could only be expended if there were unfair valuations of land, farm buildings, and farm houses. What might happen unless some Amendment of this kind were accepted? Who would assess the separate value of the farm buildings and farm houses? The farmers themselves, and not independent valuers. The overseers were, as a rule, farmers, and they never employed professional valuers if they could avoid it. Those men could value the buildings at their own price. Whose interest was it to check them? It would not be the interest of the owners of the houses, because they knew whatever the valuation was, the sum would be provided by the Government. There were only two possible checks upon inequitable valuations. The first was the appointment of valuers by the Local Government Board, and that point he would deal with at a later stage; and the second was the fixing of a definite amount in this section. If the sum were fixed at £1,300,000, and there
  102
  was a deficit in any district, that deficit would have to be made up by the farmers, landowners, cottagers, all of whom would have to pay their proportion. In that way there would be an inducement to see that fair and proper valuations were made.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, that during the Debate on the Second Reading, it was stated what sum it was estimated it would be necessary to expend in order to give effect to the Bill. The House accepted that figure by an enormous majority, but now the hon. Member for Carnarvon said he was convinced that £1,300,000, not £1,500,000, would be amply sufficient for the purposes of the Bill. He, on the contrary, thought that £1,500,000 would be required. It had already been agreed that land was only to pay one-half of the rates. A deficiency undoubtedly would arise if they accepted the proposition of the hon. Member and limited the amount to £1,300,000, and the hon. Gentleman happened to be wrong, what was to become of the urban ratepayers, of whom the hon. Member posed as a champion? He could not accept the Amendment, which would upset the whole purpose of the Measure.
  MR. LOUGHsaid, that the hon. Gentleman had asked what was to become of the poor districts. If they did not accept some limit what was to become of Ireland and Scotland? He supported the Amendment in the interest of the towns, and he was surprised the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not anxious to save the £200,000. The adoption of the Amendment would lead to economy, and they ought to cut their coats according to their cloth. They had only £1,950,000; £1,300,000 was quite as much as agricultural land required.
  MR. DALZIELsaid the Amendment raised a matter of principle rather than one of detail. The question at issue was not so much one of the amount to be actually given, as that the maximum sum to be granted, whatever it might be, should be stated in the Bill. ["Hear, hear,!"] The right hon. Gentleman himself had made an estimate; he had stated it to be £1,500,000; then, what objection could he have to set out that sum as the maximum in the Bill? The effect of not stating the maximum sum to be given would be practically to hand

  103
  over a power to the Assessment Committees which that House ought to exercise itself. Moreover, by not stating the sum definitely, the amount to be given was left in doubt, the matter would be let to the Assessment Committees, and he questioned whether there was any precedent for leaving such a power in the hands of a local and unknown body. It would be much like giving a blank cheque to the Assessment Committees, and he ventured to say that experience should make the Committee very chary of adopting such a course. He should certainly support the Amendment.
  MR. MCKENNA, in supporting the Amendment, said the right hon. Gentleman had allowed the insignificant sum of under £4,000,000 as the proportion of the rateable value of all the farmhouses and buildings throughout the country—that was to say, he had assessed the farmhouses and buildings as only one-eighth of the rateable value of the whole of the land. The figure was much too low—unjustly low, and unless some check was imposed by stating in the Bill the definite and maximum amount to be granted, an inducement would be held out to the Assessment Committees to adopt the same low and unfair figure in making their assessments. [''Hear, hear!"]
  MR. DILLONsaid, he supported the Amendment strongly, if only on the ground that unless the amount to be given was definitely inserted in the Bill, the effect of the omission might be to operate disadvantageously in respect to both Scotland and Ireland when the eases of those countries came to be dealt with. ["Hear, hear!"] On the previous day there was a discussion on the question of paying one-half of the Poor Rate on the rural land in England, and the Committee decided that one half should be paid. How would the House, then, be able to refuse to do the same for Ireland when the question affecting that country came on, and a very large sum would have to be provided for the purpose. For this reason he supported the contention that a definite sum should be mentioned in the Bill, fixing the sum which was to be granted in the case of England. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. ARTHUR JEFFREYSsaid, the hon. Member who
  104
  moved the Amendment was altogether wrong in intimating that farmers were always appointed as overseers in the rural parishes; the inhabitants generally shared in the duty by rotation, and therefore the contention of the hon. Member, on the ground that the assessments made on the farmhouses and buildings under the Bill would be partial and unfair had no foundation. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member had stated that the rateable value of the farmhouses and buildings ought to be fixed at one-third the rateable value of the land, but that was an altogether excessive proportion, and he did not believe any Assessment Committee in the country would approve such a rate. One-eighth would be a far more just calculation. The contention of the hon. Member was to fix and to limit the amount to be given under the Bill at £1,300,000, because the overseers were likely to unfairly put the assessments too low. He denied the inference altogether. ["Hear, hear!"] If £1,300,000 only was given, the inducements to farmers on Assessment Committees to under-estimate the value of buildings would be all the greater. For his part, he believed that the Assessment Committees would be fair in their valuation of buildings.
  MR. LOGANasked the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to give the figures upon which his estimate for buildings was based. He thought that the calculation must, to a considerable extent, be mere guess-work. In his own constituency unavailing attempts had frequently been made in the revising barrister's court to get at the valuation of farmhouses. Applications were constantly made to put farmers' sons on the register as lodgers, and when the agents making those applications were asked to give the valuation of a farmhouse they were quite unable to do so. They had been told that the total rateable value of agricultural land in England and Wales was about £33,000,000, including tithe, and £30,000,000 without tithe. That estimate included the value of the farm buildings and houses. They knew as a fact that the owners of agricultural land paid Income Tax in 1894 upon no less a sum than £40,000,000 in respect of the land alone. It would appear, therefore, that any figures which the right hon.

  105
  Gentleman might have been furnished with must be the result of guess-work. As he was one of those who looked forward to a time when the whole taxes of this country would be paid upon land values he approved the proposal to assess land and farm buildings separately, but the value of farm buildings ought to be assessed by some independent body. He supported the Amendment, believing that if a fixed sum were named in the Bill those in charge of local affairs would be more likely to take care that a fair valuation was made of land and farm buildings respectively.
  MR. CHAPLINobserved that he had put the houses and buildings at one-eighth of the value of the land.
  MR. VESEY KNOXsuggested to his hon. Friend that his position would be stronger if the figures £1,500,000 were substituted for the figures £1,300,000 in his Amendment. He did not think that a large sum ought to be deducted in respect of accommodation land. In fact, he doubted whether anybody really knew what accommodation land was in this country. In the interests of urban taxpayers the Committee ought to know precisely what was the sum that was to be voted. If the sum was not named in the Bill, Scotland and Ireland would never get their allotted share of it. On previous occasions when Ireland had been told that she would receive 9–80ths of a sum, a very unfair proportion, she had not received the whole of the amount when the sum dealt with had been left undefined in the Measure sanctioning the expenditure. That had been so in the case of the Fee Grant and in the case of licence money handed over to local authorities in Ireland. When might they expect to know what would be the amount actually paid to England under this Bill? He feared it would be a long job, and that they could not hope to know what the sum would be until the very end of the financial year. Until then, therefore, they would not know what were to be the amounts to be given to Scotland and Ireland respectively. He held that the information ought to be given now. He had sufficient confidence in the calculations of the Government Department to ask that their estimate should be put in the Bill. He begged to move to amend the
  106
  Amendment by the substitution of the figures £1,500,000 for the figures £1,300,000.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYrose in his place and claimed to move: "That the question be now put.''
  Question put: "That the question be now put.''
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 183; Noes, 84.—(Division List, No. 167.)
  MR. KNOXmoved, in line 54, after the words "that grant of such amount as is certified," to insert the words "before January 1st, 1897." His object was that he thought it necessary they should keep well within the period of the present financial year in the Irish and Scotch Departments, so that they should know what the sum of money was that England was to get. It was not altogether an imaginary difficulty. The English Departments could in any case have refused information to the Irish or Scotch Departments as to the amount of the English estimate, whether the Scotch or Irish estimate was to be dependent on that amount. The Irish Education Department, for example, had been refused information which was necessary for them in framing their estimate, and probably, by some means or other, similar sums were to go to Scotland and Ireland in connection with this amount. It was essential, therefore, at this tolerably early period, that the Irish and Scotch Departments should know what was the amount England was to get, to be able to frame their Estimates accordingly. Again, he thought that everything ought to be done to have this allocation carried through swiftly, and the English spending authority ought to know at as early a date as possible what they had to spend, because the new rates had to be made for the new year.
  Question put accordingly:—"That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 81; Noes, 182.—(Division List, No. 168.)
  MR. CHAPLINmoved the omission of the words" for the five years next

  107
  after the passing of this Act, and thereafter until Parliament otherwise determine," so as, in conjunction with a preceding verbal Amendment, to make Sub-section 2 read:—
  (2) The amount so certified as respects each spending authority shall be the share of that authority in the annual grant.
  Amendment agreed to.
  *SIR W. HARCOURTmoved an Amendment standing in the name of Sir H. Fowler, to omit Sub-section (3). He said: I asked a question just now why it happens that this provision was not preceded by the ordinary Motion for a Committee on Finance. I have been told that it is in accordance with the evil precedent established for the first time in 1888, when that very ambiguous and doubtful policy was established of what was called "intercepting" Imperial taxation, and not allowing the proceeds of the taxes to come, as they ought to come, into the Consolidated Fund. No one who has ever observed the working of that system fails to come to the conclusion that it is fine of the most pernicious and injurious over introduced in English finance. I believe everyone who has had any cognisance of it at all has seen in it every fault which a system of dealing with taxes can have. First of all, it defeats the authority of Parliament. If this money was to come out of the Consolidated Fund, there is this protection given—there must be a Financial Committee moved; but if you are going to ''intercept'' the taxes, if you are going to stop them on the road, no such protection is given. Whereas, in order to deal with the taxes of the country generally it is necessary that consent of the Crown should be given by a Minister, and that the financial Committee should be moved for, any private Member may move to deal with any tax to any amount and put it into this local taxation fund on the ground, and with the intent, that it shall be ''intercepted'' on its way to the Consolidated Fund. I state that fact to show the mischievous and injurious character of the manner in which you are dealing with public taxation. It is a scandal; it is a danger; it is one of the most mischievous ever introduced into finance.
  108
  Every protection that is given to the finance of the country is destroyed by the clause. Who are the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue? They are the authorities who are created by Parliament for collecting the revenue of the country to be dealt with by the House of Commons and to be paid into the Consolidated Fund, but here, by this system of what I can only call highway robbery for local taxation purposes—[cheers and laughter]—gentlemen on the highway stop the Queen's taxes and appropriate them to their own purpose. This was invented for the express purpose of subsidies to local taxation—a worse system, carried out in the worst manner, was never invented by unsound financiers. What is the result? It is not merely that the authority of Parliament is defeated in this matter, but it also conceals from the country and from the House what is the real state of the public revenue. [Cheers.] Here, under the authority of Parliament, the Inland Revenue are collecting at this moment £7,000,000 of taxes, and, having collected that sum, they do not account for it as Imperial revenue; they do not pay it into the Consolidated Fund; therefore, you have not the name public protection as you have with the rest of your taxes. All that is stopped on the highway is to be poured into the local taxation fund. Why not let the money go into the Consolidated Fund? That was the course adopted by Sir Robert Peel in 1846, and by Sir Stafford Northcote in 1874–75, and it was not until 1888 that this contemptible dodge was invented for the purpose of deceiving people into the notion that this was not a grant out of the public taxation of the country, but was something other and different. ["Hear, hear!"] I am sorry to learn it has been ruled that in consequence of its being thus intercepted and seized in the hands of the officers of the Inland Revenue and diverted to these purposes that we need not carry a Resolution in Committee, which is the ordinary course by which charges are imposed upon the Consolidated Fund. We have thus not got those precautions which have always been taken when dealing with public money, and we are going to intercept £2,000,000 more under this vicious system. We on this side intend to make a protest against it.

  109
  ["Hear, hear!"] If this sub-section is struck out, what will be the consequence? The money for this purpose will go, as it ought to do, under the Estate Duty, and what was practically the old Probate Duty, into the Exchequer and into the Consolidated Fund, and will be paid out to the Local Taxation Fund under the authority of Parliament as it used to do before, and then the majority, if they think it right that this sum shall be granted, can grant it out of the Consolidated Fund on the authority of the Minister of the Crown in the proper and regular manner. ["Hear, hear!"] You will then get it in the manner in which, in my opinion, all money ought to be granted, under the regular authority of Parliament. I would call the attention of the Committee to the fact that there is no limit to this system. If you have got this outside fund, the Local Taxation Fund, any chance majority any night—not on the authority of the Government, but on the motion of any private Member—may dispose of unlimited millions of money in this way, breaking down all the protection hitherto given to your public finance. [''Hear, hear!"] These are reasons deserving the attention of the Committee. Whether we succeed upon this particular occasion and upon this particular clause, or whether we do not, I have very great confidence that I shall have the sympathy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the general propositions to which I have referred. I am quite certain he must desire there should be given to the public revenue and finance of this country those defences which have been considered essential hitherto. ["Hear, hear!"] It is a most miserable interpretation which is now sought to be placed upon the words "moneys to be provided by Parliament." The dogmatic theology of the middle ages was nothing in its technicalities compared to the doctrines which were applied to this Resolution of the Committee in Supply. I have had experience of it myself whenever I have had to deal with financial questions. But in its wisdom Parliament has decided that ''moneys to be provided by Parliament'' does not mean moneys collected under the authority of Parliament by the Commissioners of Inland
  110
  Revenue, so long as you succeed in intercepting it on its road. I accept it as I do great dogmas of faith, without attempting to understand it, but anything more Athanasian in character than the principles which are laid down upon this subject I cannot conceive. [Laughter and "Hear, hear!"] What I do understand is the mischievous consequences of such a doctrine as that. What is money provided by Parliament? Taxes which Parliament has authorised. It is money collected by the officers of the revenue, who are the public officers for the Empire. [Hear, hear!"] But it is said that this is not money provided by Parliament, because you have invented a dodge to intercept it on the road. This is a system we ought to put an end to as soon as ever we can, and it certainly is a system which we ought not to extend any further. ["Hear, hear!"] It has not been in existence above eight years, and to extend it as it is proposed to do to-night by this clause, so that £2,000,000 of money shall be dealt with upon this evil system, is a thing against which we ought to enter a strong protest. ["Hear, hear!"] I therefore propose that this sub-section shall be omitted, and that the Government shall make provision in a more regular way. The putting of it in the form proposed by the clause is intended to induce the belief that it is not paid out of the general taxation of the country, and does not, therefore, fall upon the general taxpayer, which, in fact, it does. ["Hear, hear!"] Above all, in our national system, let us be accurate and consistent with the principles upon which our finance is founded, and let us be honest as to what the taxes are, and for what purpose they are applied. For these reasons I propose that Sub-section 3 be omitted. [Cheers.]
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): The right hon. Gentleman has exhausted almost all the vials of vituperation with regard to this sub-section and the general policy of which it is the consequence. I was rather surprised to hear him, of all men, use as his strongest vituperative epithet the word "Athanasian." [Laughter.] I pass by the particular language and I turn to the question he has raised.

  111
  He is good enough to describe the provisions by which we propose to enact that this money should be paid from the proceeds of the Estate Duty derived in England from personal property as a sham. I do not, of course, argue for a moment that, if this Bill were not to become law, and the money so derived were to be paid into the Exchequer instead of being devoted to the purposes proposed by the Bill, it would not be an addition to revenue which might be used in relief of other burdens borne by the taxpayer. But I wish the Committee to remember that in this Bill we have a Measure for the relief of certain local taxpayers from the Imperial revenue. The precedents in this matter are that when Parliament has desired to give such relief, certain revenues or portions of certain revenues, formerly paid into the Imperial Exchequer have been allocated to that particular purpose. It was so in 1888, when the local taxation licences, and a certain part of the yield of the Probate Duty of the time were allocated to the relief of local taxation precisely as we propose to allocate this portion of the Death Duty from personal property. It was so in 1890, when certain additional taxation on spirits and beer was also allocated to certain purposes connected with local taxation, and the right hon. Gentleman himself continued that policy, whether it be sham or not, in 1894, when, by means of the Finance Act of that year, he continued the allocation of a particular part of the Death Duties, of course under another name, as provided by the Act of that year, to the relief of local taxation. ["Hear, hear!"] These were the precedents I had to deal with, and looking to the fact that the amount of this grant was never proposed to be fixed for more than five years, I think I should have attempted a departure from precedent which was unwarranted if I had attempted to impose it upon the general taxation of the country, and I should at once have been taunted by the right hon. Gentleman himself and by the right hon. Gentleman who sits near him (Sir H. Fowler) with in some way burthening labour and industry rather than personal property, as this Bill proposes, for the relief of realty in the matter of local taxation. ["Hear, hear!"] I am not now concerned to argue whether what has been done in
  112
  the past was absolutely necessary or not. I have admitted that if this money derived from Death Duty on personal property were not allocated as we propose it would go in aid of the General Revenue, and so far the contention of the right hon. Gentleman is well founded. All I venture to contend is this. I think every one who has admitted—and it has been largely admitted on both sides of the House—that realty is still entitled to relief in the matter of local taxation, has also contended that that relief should in some way or other come from personal wealth, and not from taxes upon industry or anything of that kind. I do not think myself that the method which has been adopted for bringing personal wealth into contribution to local taxes is in any degree perfect, but it is a system which has been carried out, and I for one would be very sorry to see Parliament depart from that principle by inserting in this Bill the words "out of moneys provided by Parliament." I come to the second part of the accusation of the right hon. Gentleman. He objects first to the substance of this sub-section with which I have already attempted to deal, but he also objects to its form, because he says it is not based upon a Resolution in Committee in the ordinary way by which charges are imposed upon the Consolidated Fund.
  *SIR W. HARCOURT: Or on the Motion of a Minister of the Crown.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Well, it is on the Motion of a Minister, because, of course, this Bill has been introduced on behalf of the Government. I very much question if the Standing Order would precisely warrant the inference which the right hon. Gentleman drew, but, at any rate, he objects to the procedure. He said it was invented in 1888; he speaks of it as the worst system that ever was invented by an unsound financier, and calls it a system of highway robbery. It was not only adopted in 1888 and in 1890 in the Acts which I have already referred to, but it was also followed—I want the Committee to mark this—in a Bill for which the right hon. Gentleman himself was personally responsible—namely, the Home Rule Bill for Ireland. [Laughter.] I find that in that Measure, by Sections 11 and 12 of the Bill,

  113
  as originally introduced in 1893, certain revenue was to be intercepted precisely in the same manner as is now proposed in this Bill, and paid over to the Irish Government without being first paid into the Imperial Exchequer. [Cheers.] I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can fairly blame me for having followed, as I was obliged to follow, the precedents of past legislation in this matter, when he himself adopted it in 1893. But I will say something further. I made careful inquiry into the matter before this Bill was introduced, and I was informed that in no other way could I act in accordance with the precedents, and, therefore, I was obliged to take the course to which the right hon. Gentleman objects. I very much sympathise, I am bound to say, with what fell from him as to the power which, under the Rule, any individual Member may have of practically imposing charges upon the taxation of the country—["Hear, hear!"]—and I will undertake, on behalf of the Government, that that matter shall be very carefully examined, and, if necessary, by some alteration of the Standing Orders of the House, or in some other way, we shall endeavour to prevent what undoubtedly would be a great public evil. ["Hear, hear!"] But I hope I have explained to the Committee, first, the reason for the particular provision in this sub-section, and, secondly, the obligation which compelled me to introduce the sub-section without a previous Resolution in Committee.
  After the usual interval, Mr. GRANT LAWSON (York, N.R., Thirsk) took the Chair.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, the question raised by the Amendment before the Committee was of the utmost importance. It was a matter that concerned the due administration of the affairs of the country, and the guarding of the revenue of the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire had made a speech with which he (Mr. Bowles) so much agreed that he might have prompted it himself from behind the chair. But the right hon. Gentleman had disclosed the tremendous secret to private Members, that without a recommendation of a Minister of the Crown, without the intervention of a
  114
  Committee of the House, or the adjournment of the matter to a further day; in short, without any of the safeguards set forth in the Standing Orders in respect to charges being placed on the public revenue, any one of them might move such an interception of the public revenue as was proposed in the third Sub-section of Clause 2. They might, for instance, have an Irish Member proposing that the whole of the Inland Revenue should be allocated to the relief of evicted tenants, or a Welsh Member that it should be devoted to secondary, or even to tertiary education in Wales. If he had been the Leader of the Opposition he would not have disclosed that dangerous secret to private Members. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman had called the proposal of the Government "highway robbery." It was not highway robbery, it was embezzlement. [Laughter.] It waylaid the tax collector on his way to the Exchequer, took some of the taxes from him and diverted them to special uses, instead of allowing them to go into the Exchequer. The manner in which the public revenues should be kept and guarded until they were appropriated by Act of Parliament had been the subject for grave consideration in the House for years. In 1866 a Committee was appointed to inquire into the matter, and the result was the Audit and Exchequer Act. Clause 10 of that Act provided that the Commissioners of Customs, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and the Postmaster General, should pay the whole of the gross revenues of their respective Departments into the Exchequer, where they were to remain until Parliament had decided the charges which were to be placed upon them. That was the only proper way in which the State could guard its receipts and render intelligible its accounts. If anything were deducted from those accounts beforehand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his financial statement, must falsify his accounts, must give an account of the public revenue which was not true. In the years 1894 and 1895 he had pointed out the effect of this system of abstraction from the public revenue in entirely falsifying the accounts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In 1888 a departure was made from the Exchequer and Audit Act, and the

  115
  House initiated the system of waylaying the tax collector, taking money out of his pocket, and applying it to certain purposes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had justified the intercepting, waylaying, embezzling, sub-section of this Bill by reference to the precedent of 1888; but in 1888 the duties to be intercepted were specified, and in this case they were not. In this case the money was to come "out of the proceeds of the Estate Duty derived in England from personal property." The fund was undetermined and indeterminate, and, therefore, the precedent of 1888 in no way applied. The sum to be paid was an arbitrary sum, to be fixed in an arbitrary manner, upon an arbitrary consideration of the rates paid last year. The money was to be levied out of the proceeds of the Estate Duty derived in England from personal property. There was no such fund. [Opposition cheers.] Estate Duty was levied upon an aggregation of property of all sorts, and the rate of duty was determined, not on each separately, but upon the aggregation of the whole. How was part of it to be separated? It was impossible to do it. A man might leave in personalty £10,000, the duty on which would, at 3 per cent., amount to £300. He might also leave £1,000 in realty, £1,000 in settled property, £1,000 in constructional property, and £1,000 in property abroad, making a total of £14,000, on which the duty would be 4 per cent. The additional 1 per cent. would be entirely on account of property which was not personal. There would be an extra £140; from which property would it come? It was solely in consequence of the existence of property not personal that the personalty paid another 1 per cent. It was a hotchpot tax upon a hotch-pot estate. You could not distinguish the proceeds of realty from the proceeds of personalty; he defied an accountant to do it.
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. GRANT LAWSON): There is an Amendment later down on the Paper which raises this specific point, and I cannot allow it to be anticipated.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLEScontinued, that he was arguing there was no fund; he was not arguing against the inclusion of any particular duty. The other day he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount of the
  116
  Estate Duty derived from personal property, and the right hon. Gentleman replied that it was about £7,530,000. Why "about"?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The hon. Member is grossly unfair in his treatment of my answer. I said it was £7,530,000 as near as I could tell; but I should be able to tell the precise amount in a fortnight or three weeks.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLEScontended that the very fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not give the exact figures from the precise returns that were furnished to the Treasury showed that the Bill sought to put a charge on a fund which could not be distinguished. Whilst it was a fund that could not be distinguished, it was also a fund that might be diminished, for there was already a charge upon it of 2½ millions on Local Taxation account; 2 millions were to be added, and it might be that the proceeds from personal property would diminish until they would not meet the charges laid upon them. But he was mainly concerned with this most dangerous system of waylaying the tax collector and taking taxes he had collected before they were paid into the Treasury; that was the serious point. [Opposition cheers.] The wisdom of this House had surrounded grants of public money with most necessary precautions. A new charge could not be initiated except upon the recommendation of the Crown. What did the right hon. Gentleman mean by an "inferential" recommendation? That was not what was contemplated by Standing Order 57. A recommendation from the Crown was a distinct recommendation from a Minister on behalf of the Crown and not an "inferential" one, and was not to be implied by the introduction of a Bill. The second security was that there must be a Resolution passed in Committee of the whole House; and the third was that when the Resolution was first moved the Debate must be adjourned to a future day. The object of the three securities which had been attached to the charging of money on the subject was to prevent haste and want of consideration, and secure that time and care should be given to so serious a subject. In these days we wanted more of such precautions,

  117
  not fewer. No one was so ready as a Radical to levy tremendous charges on the people. He pretended to do it for their good, but he knew it was for his own. [Laughter.] If they took away these safeguards there would be tremendous charges on the subject. He was a humble student of the forms of the House, and the more he studied them the more impressed he was with their wisdom, and the wisdom of those who established the various safeguards they embodied. Those safeguards would be evaded by the system of interception embodied in Clause 3. He implored the Government and the Committee to pause before adding another extremely evil example of evading the Standing Orders, settled Procedure, and time-honoured Rules of the House. The whole of the Revenue should be paid without deduction into the public Exchequer. If Clause 3 went the Government would be in an equally good position. Let them propose a charge on the Consolidated Fund and take the money out of the strong box where it ought always to come first of all—out of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knew perfectly well that the way proposed was not the only way to make this payment, and that if he wished to make this subvention to local taxation there were other ways open to him. He protested against intercepting taxes before they got to the Exchequer, and if this Amendment was carried to a Division he should vote for it.
  SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid, he was glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognised the importance of this subject. This was one of the most important clauses in the Bill, and if the House of Commons would look at the matter apart from Party feeling, as a matter affecting the public revenue, the privileges of the House of Commons, proper control of public expenditure, and economy in public money, he did not think there would be, any more than there was the last time the matter was brought up, any difference of opinion between the two sides of the House. The subject was last raised in 1866, when the Standing Order which had been so much referred to was passed on the motion of Mr. Ayrton, then a Member of the Opposition, with the full approval of Mr. Disraeli, who was then
  118
  Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was singular how the drafting of distinguished Members of Parliament, who looked with something like contempt on the drafting of "mere lawyers," had apparently failed to carry out their intention. There were attempts nowadays to evade the control of the House of Commons over the public expenditure. In 1866 the old Standing Order was repealed and a new one introduced containing these words:—
  "If any Motion be made in the House for any aid, grant, or charge on the public revenue, whether payable out of the Consolidated Fund, or moneys to be provided by Parliament, or for any charge on the people," etc.
  If hon. Members would read the Debate of 1866 they would find that the avowed object of the Government was to include every possible Motion that could be made affecting public money. The words "whether payable out of the Consolidated Fund or moneys to be provided by Parliament," were inserted to put the matter beyond all doubt. Now there had been discovered in the words a loophole by which the whole Standing Order might practically be evaded. No Speaker or Chairman of Committees had sanctioned the Order being evaded without the knowledge of the House, and when this Bill reached the Report stage, if this section remained, he should publicly ask for the ruling of the Speaker on the clause, that the House might know, for, after all, the final authority was not the Speaker, but the House, and the House had never sanctioned this official and administrative reconstruction of what was one of the most valuable safeguards the House of Commons possessed in respect of its official privileges. He could not raise this question now, and his remarks would be on the general question of omitting the clause which proposed the improper interception of public revenue for purposes over which Parliament had not that annual control it ought to have, and which set an example that any private Member might move the appropriation of public money out of some specific item of revenue, and in that way evade the legitimate control of the House of Commons. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had relied on three precedents. The precedent of 1888 no doubt was the first time since our modern system of

  119
  audit, taxation, and control of the revenue had been introduced when this was attempted. It was done, too, 100 years ago. In those days they charged pensions and all sorts of jobs on the Irish and British Exchequers.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: It was done down to 1866 in some cases.
  SIR H. FOWLER: To a limited extent. One of the greatest financial reforms Mr. Gladstone introduced (Sir S. Northcote following and supporting it) was that every shilling of the public taxation should be paid without deduction into the Exchequer, and that no money should be paid out of the public Exchequer without the sanction of Parliament. Up to that time the gross receipts of the revenue of Customs and Excise were not paid into the Exchequer, because the cost of collection was deducted. In 1888 the interception of a portion of the revenue was introduced. There were three great items in that scheme, first the transfer to the local authority en bloc of the income from licences—parting with it altogether and not merely intercepting it—by handing it over for local taxation purposes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time also contemplated special taxation, which went by the name of the Wheel and Van Tax and Horse Duty. That was the imposition of a new tax, and he introduced it after a money Resolution had been passed in Committee of the Whole House. His third contribution was the transfer to the local taxation account of one-half of what was then the Probate Duty. There the mistake was made. The House should have voted a subvention and not have transferred bodily one half of the Probate Duty. If a mistake was made in 1888, why should they follow it as a precedent when they saw it was injurious and dangerous? In 1890 the Chancellor of the Exchequer quoted that precedent also.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It was the increase of the Beer Duty, not of the Spirit Duty.
  SIR H. FOWLER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer increased the Spirit Duty by 6d. and the Beer Duty by 3d. The increase had been made the year before, and he retained that and transferred these duties to the local authorities, and out of those duties certain
  120
  payments were made. The other precedent the right hon. Gentleman twitted my hon. Friend behind me with having forgotten was the Home Rule Bill. That Bill proposed that there should be an Irish Exchequer and an Irish Consolidated Fund, and that into these should be paid a certain proportion of the taxation of Ireland which should be controlled by an Irish Parliament. That could not be held as an analogous case to the case now before the Committee. But the danger of the proposal was this—that by the system of intercepting public revenue before it reached the Exchequer the control of the House of Commons was taken away and the public accounts were mystified. The hon. Member who had just sat down said, "Why not charge this on the Consolidated Fund?" He would as strongly object to that as he objected to this most unsatisfactory arrangement. The principle of the Consolidated Fund was this—that Parliament, for Imperial and public reasons, parted with its annual control over certain payments out of the Exchequer and made them a permanent charge on the revenue—payments which it was admitted ought not to be the subject of annual discussion in the House of Commons, such as the salaries of the Judges. But that principle ought not to be extended. The salaries of the Ministers of the Crown were not put upon the Consolidated Fund; they were annually voted by Parliament. What were the Government going to do in the case of the Education Bill? They were providing that all the increased subventions and payments were to be paid out of moneys to be provided by Parliament. He was sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer never dreamed of putting these payments on the Consolidated Fund. They were to be annual Parliamentary Grants, the principle of which was to be approved by Parliament.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I did not propose to charge these payments on the Consolidated Fund. I should myself prefer an annual vote. All I wanted was to give Ministers more latitude.
  SIR H. FOWLERsaid he did not want to give Ministers any more latitude. He was anxious to maintain the control of the House of Commons over public money. ["Hear, hear!"] Ministers

  121
  came and Ministers went, and whichever Party was in, one would be just as much tempted as the other to take the most convenient course in order to get the money with the least possible trouble. The duty of the House of Commons was to control the Ministry. But there was another point. The House of Commons came into conflict a few years ago with another House on the question of finance with reference to the Paper Duties, and the House of Commons then, after very careful examination, passed a series of Resolutions, from which they had never departed, to the effect that not only the raising of the revenue but also the appropriation of the revenue was in the sole jurisdiction of the House of Commons. But the Government were making this part of the statute law so that it could never be altered without the consent of the other House of Parliament, and whatever views hon. Members might hold as to a Second Chamber, he conceived that no Englishman would for a moment wish the House of Lords should have any right or power to interfere with the National finance, or that there should be any departure from the constitutional practice that the sole right of raising and spending the taxes rested with the House of Commons alone. ["Hear, hear!"] This was a question outside the question of agricultural rating altogether. It was a question affecting the rights and duties of the House of Commons, and on that ground he would be compelled to press the Amendment standing in his name to a division. [Cheers.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had raised two points. One was the system of ear-marking particular money and intercepting the public money —to use the phrase of the right hon. Gentleman, though he considered it was an improper phrase. The other point was the question of the necessity for a Resolution of the House. With regard to the latter point, if the Speaker should rule that there had been a wrong interpretation of the rules of the House of Commons, the Government, of course, would accept that ruling. He could only say that there had been no desire on the part of the Government to escape from any of the ordinary traditions or rules
  122
  of the House with regard to the granting of public money. He did not understand whether the right hon. Gentleman was going to appeal to the Speaker. If he were going to appeal from the authorities behind the Chair to the Chair itself, of course the Government would bow to that authority. He could assure the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman that the Government were quite as prepared as the right hon. Gentleman himself to surround the granting of public money with every possible security. In these democratic days it was becoming more and more necessary to maintain the traditions of the House in that respect. On that point there was no difference of interpretation of policy between the two sides of the House. With regard to the question of intercepting public money, he was quite prepared to defend the action of the Government of the day in regard to the Bill of 1888. The great principle which was now asserted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite was not asserted at the time of the passing of that Bill.
  SIR H. FOWLER: Oh, yes.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: No, there was no serious Debate on that point. He remembered that there was a Debate with regard to what was called the confusion of accounts, but the constitutional question, now raised by the right hon. Gentleman was not raised at that time. The Government of that day had to discover sources of local taxation, and the great point in dispute was that personal property did not sufficiently contribute to local taxation, and that special sources of taxation should be assigned to local authorities. Under that system the licence duties were handed over, and the right hon. Gentleman himself admitted that so far as the licence duties were concerned he did not object to interception. He thought the late Chancellor of the Exchequer took a different view, and there was a difference of opinion between the two right hon. Gentlemen; but he had always held the view that the licence duties were practically local taxes. They were raised in the locality, but for reasons on which lie could not now dwell, it was difficult for the locality to collect them. Therefore the localities used the public tax-gatherer to collect them. They did

  123
  not waylay him and take the money from him, but they used him as their agent, as the most convenient agent for raising the money. It was not Imperial money at all from his point of view.
  SIR H. FOWLER: The Act contained provisions that at any time by Order in Council, the collection might be done locally.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTYsaid, that that showed the spirit in which he acted. He considered it only Imperial taxation for the purposes of collection, and there he differed from the right hon. Gentleman, who said that the right principle was to include everything in the Imperial revenue and expenditure, even though it went to local purposes. Turning to another point, it had been found impossible to collect a local Income-Tax upon personal property for local purposes, and therefore the Death Duties were imposed in order that personal property should be made to contribute to local requirements by means of the Imperial tax-collector. The means adopted for collecting those duties were precisely the same as if 1½ per cent. had been imposed for local purposes and 1½ per cent. for Imperial purposes, only the whole was first paid into the Imperial Exchequer, which paid overfor local purposes one-half of the aggregate sum collected. That was the principle upon which the Government of 1888 acted, and it was perfectly well understood that such was the case, and, indeed, the only person who did not accept that view was the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. ["Hear, hear!" and Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman insisted that the duties constituted Imperial taxation, and that a certain sum was given out of the Imperial Exchequer for local purposes. In his opinion, the right hon. Gentleman took an entirely erroneous view of the question, and there was no unconstitutional innovation whatever in the proposal of his right hon. Friend. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *SIR W. HARCOURTsaid that the answer to the speech which the right.hon. Gentleman had delivered was to be found in the very words of the sub-section which it was proposed to omit. ["Hear, hear!"] He and those who thought with him condemned the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman which he made in
  124
  1888 as being founded upon a fallacy. The tax which the right hon. Gentleman then appropriated for local purposes was not one that had been imposed for local purposes. It was an Imperial tax which was on its way to the Imperial Exchequer and it was intercepted by the right hon. Gentleman on the highway to the Exchequer. The Probate Duty was not a local tax. They did not give to the particular county or parish the particular local proceeds of the duty, as in the case of licenses, but the duty was collected for the Imperial Exchequer, and then one-half of it, or one-third of it, was paid out of the Imperial Exchequer for local purposes. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, would nothold water—it was, as the Americans said, a tub with the bottom out. ["Hear, hear!" and Laughter.] The same thing might be said with regard to the extra Spirit and Beer Duties. The fact was that there was not the smallest foundation for the argument which the right hon. Gentleman had addressed to the Committee. The whole object of the right hon. Gentleman was to disguise from the public and the House of Commons the fact that this money was to come out of the Imperial Exchequer. There was only one other thing that had equally confounded the system of finance of this country, and that was the Naval Construction Act, which was also the work of the right hon. Gentleman. ["Hear, hear!"] Whether money was required for the Army, the Navy, or for the purposes of the relief of local taxation, their action should be honest, fair, and above board, without their adopting any subtle contrivances for concealing the real operation of these financial conundrums. In his view it would be more satisfactory if they went back to the intelligible principles which were the safeguards of the finance of this country before 1888. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEalso desired to protest against the system that had been adopted in the finance clauses of this Bill. Since 1888 there had been a great increase in the amount contributed by the Imperial Exchequer in relief of local rates, with the result that there had been an enormous increase of expenditure for local purposes. The bodies who spent the money were not responsible to Parliament, and still

  125
  less to the taxpayers. He believed it also inflicted an injury on the poorer classes in the community, whilst it was the richer classes who gained the benefit under this Bill. Even if these subventions ought to be made, Parliament should control them. No one had denied, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself had stated, that this money was derived from the taxpayer, and it was merely by its interception that he was able to earmark it. He thought that this money should appear in our national balance sheet, and that the taxpayer should recognise what was the correct amount of the taxes which were raised from the taxpaying part of the community. But by the system of handing this money over to the Local Taxation Account, the taxpayer failed to recognise that this money had been contributed through taxation. This was an experimental Bill, and pending an Inquiry which had been promised by the Government on the incidence of taxation, it was imprudent of Parliament to sanction the removal of this matter for five years from its cognisance. It was absurd to ear-mark items of expenditure as the money derived from special tax. Every nation, firm, and individual must look at their financial position as a whole. There was one other point,—during the last 50 years, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid down in his admirable Budget speech, the tendency of Parliament had been to divert indirect taxation to direct taxation, and the result had been so to equalise the two that in the present financial year indirect taxation would be 52 and direct 48 per cent. of the total taxes. But the Government, in this Bill, were going against that principle, and would be reducing direct taxation to nearly 46 per cent. The Government proposed to take 2 per cent, of direct taxation from estate, and the tendency of this policy must be to call upon indirect taxation to make up the deficiency in the future. He objected to this financial operation, because it appeared to him to be a partisan character. It would benefit one class at the expense of the general taxpayers, it would create an injustice to householders and urban districts, and was a policy which was opposed to that which Parliament had promoted for half-a-century.
  MR. R. B. HALDANEsaid, they were face to face with the question whether they should make another precedent for a practice which both sides of the House apparently agreed was a bad one—namely, that of leaving a charge upon the public revenues for the purpose, and by means of the machinery of an ordinary Bill. The First Lord of the Admiralty was brought in for the purpose of blessing the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which, he was bound to say, was a most temperate one, but instead of approving the instance of 1888, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had cited, he explained that this instance was by no means so clear a case in favour of the present procedure. So, again, in the case of the Home Rule Bill it was not proposed to impose a new charge on the public revenues, but to take existing charges and distribute the handling of them between two bodies. What they had got to deal with was the charge on the public revenue and he should call the attention of the Committee to the exact point and the Standing Orders about which there was a dispute. There was a controversy raised between the Lords and Commons in the 17th century and a rate was established which had been maintained without alteration to the present time. [The hon. Member then quoted Standing Orders 57 and 62 as given at page 832 and 833 in "May's Parliamentary Practice" 10th Edition, 1893.] What was the object? The object was to prevent Members of Parliament by a scratch majority taking money Voted, say for the Army and devoting it to the Navy. These words were agreed to in order to keep the control of these things under the Committee of that House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he followed precedent in this matter but they knew that in 1888 this point was never raised or ruled upon in the Debate. There was therefore no decision of the House, for the point was never raised. In 1894 he was not aware that the right hon. Gentleman raised the point; certainly there was no ruling by the Speaker; and now they, being a Committee of the House, were asked to sanction a course of procedure contrary to the spirit of the Standing Order and its language. This

  127
  was certainly a charge upon, the public revenue, and why should they pursue this course instead of the constitutional course. There was a great deal of feeling on both sides of the House and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman why he should make a precedent which goes beyond those already quoted?
  CAPTAIN BETHELL, said, as they were to have the ruling of the Speaker on the Report they might wait for that. He thought it would be better to have the charge shown in the Imperial accounts. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *MR. CHARLES HARRISONsaid, it was clear that there was now no Estate Duty derived from personal property. Prior to the Finance Act of 1894 there was an Estate Duty derived from what in law was known as personal property. But the Act which imposed that duty and the Act which dealt with it under that description and language were all prior to the Finance Act of 1894. That Act established a new Estate Duty. The Finance Act of 1894 granted a new duty called Estate Duty to be levied upon the principal value of all property, real or personal, and the Act proceeded to enumerate the property to be subject to duty, and by the Definition Clause expressly declared in England that the term property should include real and personal property. Estate Duty was therefore levied on a mixed and inseparable fund, and there was no means of ascertaining what Estate Duty arose from one class or from the other class of property. The terms employed were legal terms. Personal property did not mean movable property not in England. Appended to the Agricultural Commission was the valuable memorandum of Sir Alfred Milner on the subject. He laid it down that there was no means of ascertaining the amount which realty paid in comparison with personalty, because personalty was used in its legal and not in its economic sense.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth had moved the omission of the whole section. There were certain Amendments on the Paper dealing with the specific questions the hon. Member for Plymouth was now discussing. If those questions were
  128
  discussed at the present moment, they could not, of course, be discussed subsequently.
  *MR. HARRISONsaid, that he used this argument to show that the clause should be omitted, as there was no such fund as that used in the Bill.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISasked whether the Amendments might be discussed separately from the Amendment now before the House.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, it was quite obvious it would not be right to have the same discussion twice over on separate Amendments.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERappealed to the Committee to come to a decision. The right hon. Gentlemen the Members for West Monmouth and Wolverhampton had stated their views very fully, and he had stated his view—viz., that as to the matter of the sub-section he had acted strictly according to precedent, and in the method of it he had acted according to the only precedent on which he should be allowed to act. He had nothing to add to his argument, and he did not think much, if anything, could be added to the arguments of hon. Members opposite. One statement, however, had been made which was absolutely contrary to the fact. It had been argued by the hon. Member for King's Lynn and by others that it was impossible to do what was proposed in this section—namely, to allocate a certain amount from the Death Duties on personal property. In the Finance Act of 1894 there were the words—
  "that a certain sum shall be paid out of the proceeds of the Estate Duty derived from personal property in substitution of the Grants made by the Act of 1888."
  That had been done since the passing of the Act, and that would be done in the future. What had been done could certainly be done again, and therefore the argument as to impossibility absolutely fell to the ground.
  MR. LOUGHrose, when
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERclaimed to move "That the question be now put."
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think there is a disposition to come to a decision.
  MR. LOUGHsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not strengthened his

  129
  position by the speech he had just made. At any rate lie did not think the Government would suffer any inconvenience by getting rid altogether of the sub-section in dispute. He hardly thought that hon. Members opposite had read the subsection. If they did read it they would find that the first part contained these words: "The Commissioners of Inland Revenue, in such manner, by such payments, and under such regulations as the Treasury direct." [Cries of "Divide!"] Now, it was against the dragging in of the Treasury that he and other hon. Members on that side of the House protested. [Cries of "Divide"!] Why should not the House of Commons exercise this power of direction? The question was one which ought to be settled by the House itself, and he thought the Committee would be wise in taking advantage of the present opportunity of escaping from the difficulties which were caused by the course taken under the Act of 1888.
  Question put, "That the words from The Commissioners,' in line 7, to the word 'account,' in line 9, stand part of the clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 180; Noes, 91.—(Division List, No. 169.)
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERmoved that the clause, down to the end of sub-section 3, be now put. [Loud Opposition cries of "Oh," "Gag," and "Cecils."]
  THE CHAIRMAN: There is one Amendment to the sub-section which I consider of some substance and which, I think, merits some discussion, although it has been partially discussed upon the Amendment which was last before the House. In my opinion, it should not occupy very long, especially as it has been partially dealt with, and, therefore, for the present I cannot accept the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISmoved to leave out the words "out of the proceeds of the Estate Duty derived in England from personal property." He said he wanted to know why all the duties received by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue were not to be equally responsible for the amount that was
  130
  required under this Bill. Why was a direct attack made under this clause upon the Estate Duty derived from personal property? What was the reason for this attack upon a particular class of personal property? ["Hear, hear!"]
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he could only repeat that the proposal was in strict accordance with precedent. The reason why relief to real property was proposed to be given in this form was the reason that influenced his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty when he proposed in 1888 to make a grant in aid of local taxation out of the Probate Duties levied on personal property. That precedent was confirmed by the action of the late Government in 1894. The Government proposed now that the new grant in aid of local taxation should come from the same source.
  *SIR W. HARCOURTheld that what the right hon. Gentleman had said was not an accurate representation of what was being done. To represent that this £2,000,000 was taken exclusively out of one class of personal property was to misrepresent the financial operation. The money was being taken out of the general taxation of the country—["Hear, hear!"]—out of the taxation on house property, and out of the Tobacco Duty, the Tea Duty, the Beer and Spirit Duty, &c. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: "Why did you not make a change in 1894?"]—Because, as it was, he had as much to do in connection with the Budget of 1894 as he could do. ["Hear, hear!"] If he had endeavoured not merely to carry out the reform then effected, but also to undo the abuses of his predecessors—[laughter and cheers]—he thought he should have doubled his task and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would have been unsuccessful in their endeavours to prevent the reform that they introduced in the taxation. [Cheers.] They protested against the pretence of taking this money out of one particular fund, when, in point of fact, it was being taken out of the general fund of the taxation of the country.
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEsaid he wished to make this one point. The Government and their supporters seemed to be under the impression that by this

  131
  proposal they were taking money out of personalty. As a matter of fact personalty, under the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was not going to be charged with any more taxation than had been paid during the past year. If that was so, personalty as a whole, whether it was paying to local taxation, or to the Imperial revenue, was not going to pay a penny more during the coming year than it paid during the past year. If instead of devoting it to this purpose, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had devoted the money to the Tea Duty, he would have been able to remove two-thirds of that duty.
  MR. LOUGHthought that the words that were now proposed to be struck out were of an entirely unnecessary and meaningless character. It seemed to him there was an attempt in these words to convey a quite wrong notion with regard to the purport of this Bill. A learned Friend of his on the other side, when asked why the Government were persisting so steadily with the Bill, said the Conservative Party had a deep purpose, namely to lay a tax on personal property for the relief of local rates, and it was in these words that a great many hon. Members opposite believed they were doing this. Money was being diverted from the public Exchequer which had gone regularly into it for two years, and it seemed to him that the whole purpose of introducing these words was to deceive the House and the country as to the source from which the money came The Government had got the mandatory part of the sub-section which enabled them to divert the money, and why should they not rest satisfied with that?
  Question put "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 203, Noes, 92.—(Division List, 170.)
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEmoved to leave out the words "thirty-first day of March," in order to insert instead thereof the words "thirtieth day of September." The liability for the relief did not arise until after the 31st March. But this Bill proposed to give relief which had actually not come into existence by the very Bill itself. If the relief was to be
  132
  paid during the six months after that, it could be paid on the 1st of April, and he should say it would be a very appropriate day for payments under this Bill. At any rate, it would be paid immediately after the relief had come into existence. He begged to move the Amendment.
  MR. CHAPLINdeclined to accept the Amendment on the ground that it would postpone the operation of the Bill for six months. It was quite true that the relief did not arrive until March 31st next, but the Bill became law as soon as it received the Royal assent, and they thought it right to make the first payment on March 31st, in order to meet demands which might be made by local authorities, and to enable them to raise less.
  MR. DILLONsupported the Amendment, observing that he did not see why this charge should be thrown upon the revenue for the present year. The money ought not to be paid out of the Exchequer until it was required. If the local authorities knew they were to receive a certain sum of money in six months they could strike their rates accordingly.
  MR. LEWIScontended that there was no precedent for making payments of this kind in advance. The payments made to County Councils from local taxation were certainly not made in advance, but as the money was received into the Exchequer.
  MR. MCKENNAdid not think the right hon. Gentleman fully appreciated the point. There would be no deficiency under this Bill until after the 31st March next. The liability to pay did not begin to accrue until after the 31st March, therefore there could be no deficiency in the local taxation account prior to the 31st March next. There could, consequently, be no claim on the Exchequer until after the 31st March, because any deficiency which arose must be subsequent to the date on which the liability for the locality to contribute less began to accrue. The clause said ''the first of these payments shall be made during the six months ending the 31st March next." That was to say, the Exchequer was to make the first payment in respect of a deficiency which, under the Bill, could not accrue until after the 31st March.
  *SIR W. HARCOURTthought they must have the support of the First Lord of the Admiralty upon this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman had explained to them that this was not an Imperial tax at all hut a local tax raised for local purposes. If it was a local tax raised for local purposes it could not be raised until those purposes came into existence. [Cheers.] How did they happen to have this money at all except that it was an Imperial tax? This was an absolute refutation of the whole of the theories that had been expounded to them by the First Lord of the Admiralty and the paulo-ante Chancellor of the Exchequer. [Laughter] Out of mere decency the right hon. Gentleman ought to alter this date in order to give some colour of consistency to the theories that had been expounded from the Treasury Bench. [Cheers.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTYremarked that he had stated in the previous day's Debate that the right hon. Gentleman did not know the first principles of rating or local taxation, and he had proved it now. [''Hear, hear!" and laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman thought that no local money was ever to be raised before it was spent. He should like to know how expenditure was to be met except by raising money before the expenditure took place. ["Hear, hear!"] If it was simply what the right hon. Gentleman claimed it to be, then he would be right; but, being what the Government claimed it to be, for local taxation purposes, it must be raised pari passu with the rates.
  Question put: "That the words '31st day of March' stand part of the clause.''
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 228; Noes, 94.—(Division List, No. 171.)
  On the question that the clause as amended stand part of the Bill,
  MR. W. ALLENmoved the rejection of the clause. He said the Government had refused to accept any Amendments to it, many of which had been most reasonable. Points had been raised which showed—which clearly showed—the clause to be ridicu-
  134
  lous, and yet the Government refused to amend it. The clause proposed that a grant should be paid out of the Local Taxation Account on March 31st next, to meet a deficiency which would not then have arisen. Such a contradiction rendered the clause unworkable and ridiculous.
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 229; Noes, 88.—(Division List, No. 172.)
  Clause, 3:—

  CONTRIBUTIONS FROM MORE THAN ONE PARISH.
  (1.) Where any spending authority require in any half year or other period to raise from two or more parishes a sum by a rate to which this Act applies, they shall, in determining the net amount to be raised, deduct the sum issuable to them in respect of the said rate on account of their share of the annual grant for the said half year or other period, and the net amount after that deduction shall, where it would otherwise he raised in proportion to the rateable value, be raised in proportion to the assessable value of those parishes.
  (2.) For the purposes of this Act the assessable value of a parish shall be the rateable value thereof reduced by an amount equal to one half of the rateable value of the agricultural land in the parish.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, that perhaps some one would explain the meaning and object of this clause, because at first sight it appeared to be unintelligible. He read the text of the first part of the clause, which provides that where a spending authority requires to raise from two or more parishes a sum by a rate to which the Act applies, they shall—
  "In determining the net amount to be raised deduct the sum issuable to them in respect of the said rate on account of their share of the annual grants for the said half year or other period, and the net amount after that deduction shall, where it would otherwise be raised in proportion to the rateable value, be raised in proportion to the assessable value of those parishes."
  [Opposition laughter.] He supposed the words had some definite meaning, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would assist their intellects by explaining the object of the clause and how it was to be worked.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, perhaps it would be more in order if the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's interesting Question were postponed until the clause was put as a whole.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEmoved to insert, after the words "net amount to be so raised," the words, "from each separate parish." He believed that under the clause, where there were many parishes in one union, the board of guardians would issue a precept in respect of poor rate or rural sanitary rate upon each parish; the amount raised would be aggregated and divided between the whole of the parishes. Thus individual parishes would receive no benefit. There had been much costly litigation between parish and parish on this question. It should be made clear whether each parish would receive benefit under the first section, or whether it would be divided among many parishes.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he could not accept the Amendment, because the clause related entirely to the contribution from each parish. In reply to the Leader of the Opposition, he would explain that for the purpose of the section the assessable value of a parish was to be the rateable value thereof, reduced by an amount equal to one-half of the rateable value of the agricultural land in the parish. The clause dealt with cases where large contributions to the rate were required from more than one parish. Where that was so and the sum to be called for from each parish was to be determined, the total estimated expenditure would be distributed on the basis of assessable value instead of rateable value. The reason was that if rateable value were the basis of the contribution, they would be calling for a larger sum in the case of a parish with a large proportion of agricultural land than the parish ought to pay. The assessable value was the proper basis, for the reason that under that arrangement the fact that agricultural land would pay one-half the rate on houses was to be taken into account.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid, that the clause provided perfectly for the case where the rate was levied on the parish as a whole, but there was nothing to prevent the rate being levied directly by the spending authorities on the individual occupiers. The consequence was
  136
  that while the clause divided the proportions fairly between several parishes, taking each parish as a whole, it did not divide the proportions fairly between the ratepayers of the same parish. He suggested that the clause should be withdrawn and reconsidered.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid, that the President of the Local Government Board had not answered his specific question. That was, whether, under the clause as it stood, the payment made under the second sub-section would, in any given union, go into hotch-pot, or to be paid to each separate parish in proportion to the amount which they had paid.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that the effect of the clause would be to distribute the burden fairly between the different parishes according to the relief which was to be given to them. The spending authority was the body to which the Treasury handed over its contribution. If the spending authority wished to raise, say, £2,000, and received £200 from the Treasury, there would remain £1,800 to be raised. Therefore the earlier part of the clause provided that the Treasury contribution should be deducted from the amount to be raised. The second part of the clause distributed the £1,800 fairly between the parishes, having regard to the relief which the Act gave to each. The rateable value would be the value of all the hereditaments in the parish—both agricultural land and buildings. The assessable value was defined to be the rateable value reduced by one-half the rateable value of the agricultural land in the parish. Supposing the case of a parish with a rateable value of £500 in agricultural land and another with a rateable value of £500 in buildings. The total rateable value would be £1,000. The assessable value would be £500 in buildings and £250 in agricultural land, or a total of £750. Consequently the £1,800 which the spending authority wished to raise would be distributed between the two parishes upon the assessable value. If the proportion of agricultural land in all the parishes within the jurisdiction of the spending authority were the same, it would not matter whether rateable value or assessable value were taken. But inasmuch as the proportion of agricultural land and buildings would vary, the

  137
  clause provided that each parish should contribute according to its assessable value. The clause exactly carried out the object which the hon. Member for Carnarvon had in view, and his Amendment if accepted would defeat that object.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that he must thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for the courteous way in which he had given his view of the effect of the clause, but he was still doubtful whether that view was correct. If the hon. and learned Gentleman were correct in his interpretation of the clause, all he could say was that until now he did know how thoroughly bad it was. Certainly, the hon. and learned Gentleman's interpretation made the clause worse from the point of view of an urban representative. He must press his Amendment to a Division.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 85 Noes, 222.—(Division List, No. 173.)
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEmoved to leave out the words "when it would otherwise be raised in proportion to the rateable value."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the direct effect of the Amendment, if it were passed, would be that instead of the parish in which there was a large quantity of agricultural land, and which, therefore, needed relief, getting the benefit of the grant, it would get no more than the parish which consisted entirely of buildings. The whole object of the clause was to insure that the distribution of the grant should be according to the extent to which the parish was entitled to relief, and the Amendment would defeat the purpose which the hon. Member had apparently in view. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid, that he would submit a case to the Committee. Take parish A and parish B, in both of which the rates were £100. In parish A £80 came from agricultural land and £20 from other property, whereas in parish B £20 came from agricultural land and £80 from other property. In parish A the Government would contribute £40 and in parish B £10, £50 in all. But £150 had still to
  138
  be found, and how was that sum to be got from parish A and parish B? Under this section the sum would not be raised in equal proportions, but in proportion to the assessable value of the two parishes. The assessable value of the one parish being less than the assessable value of the other, the occupiers of the first would have to pay £50 only, whilst the occupiers of the other would have to find £100. It was hard that in the parish which had only received £10 from the Government the occupiers should have to contribute more than the occupiers of the parish that had received £40.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that there was a fallacy in the arguments of hon. Members opposite. They assumed that the grant made by the Exchequer would be made to each parish, but it would not be made to each parish but to the spending authority having jurisdiction over several parishes. The only reasonable way to distribute the sum to which the observations of hon. Members were directed was according to assessable value, that was, according to the amount of agricultural land which was entitled to relief under this Act.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid, the effect of that would be that when any grant was required, it would be raised in accordance with the assessable value, and therefore there would have to be a double contribution for house property.
  MR. LOUGHsaid, the fallacy of the Solicitor General rested in this, that he said the grant would go to the spending authority. That was not in the Bill. It would go to the occupiers of land in accordance with the number of occupiers of land in each parish.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, it went to the spending authority under the second clause of the Bill.
  MR. LOUGH: Yes, but in respect of the number of the occupiers of agricultural land.
  MR. C. MCLARENsaid, it was quite plain there was a difference of legal opinion as to the meaning of this clause. They did not want to see parishes in litigation on a clause of this kind, and it seemed to him that the great object of the Government ought to be to make the clause so perfectly clear that it would be quite impossible for any litigation on any question to arise. His suggestion was

  139
  that the Government should consider the clause again before Report, and, if necessary, to bring up a fresh clause which would put the matter beyond all doubt.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, the Government were of opinion that the clause was perfectly clear as it was, but he was quite willing to say—he did not think he could do otherwise in courtesy—that they would, before the Report stage, consider the matter again and go over it most carefully.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid, the Solicitor General had not replied to his observations. He was of opinion that there was no provision in the clause for the original rate being levied.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  The Committee divided—Ayes 214, Noes 79.—(Division List, No. 174.)
  On the question, "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill,"
  MR. HERBERT LEWISmoved to omit the words "Reduced by an amount equal to one-half of the rateable value of the agricultural land in the parish."
  THE CHAIRMANrefused to accept the Amendment.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEmoved the rejection of the clause. He said that the clause was absolutely unnecessary and that the purpose of the Bill would be better effected without it. It simply mystified the whole subject. Parishes would go into litigation on the subject.
  Question put, "That clause 3 stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided.—Ayes 211, Noes 78.—(Division List, No. 175.)
  MR. MCLARENmoved "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid it was impossible for the Government to accept the Motion. What remained of the Bill chiefly related to the machinery of the Measure. The part of the Bill involving questions
  140
  of principle had been disposed of, and it was the general wish of the House that they should finish the Bill that night.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid that all the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman against the Motion were reasons in its favour. The right hon. Gentleman said that only those portions of the Bill were left about which there could not be much Debate. That was really a reason why the Debate should be adjourned, more especially as the House had to meet again at 12 o'clock. The Leader of the House had already reduced the House to such a physical condition that one of the clerks had fainted from exhaustion.
  MR. DALZIELsaid the right hon. Gentleman intended to ask the House to sit until their Bill was finished. That was, of course, a very laudable intention, but Leaders of the House before had started an all-night sitting, and yet not been able to carry out their intentions. They had now obtained three clauses of a Bill which consisted of 10 clauses. These three clauses had been discussed for about a week, and the right hon. Gentleman fancied that a few hours after a quarter past one were sufficient to pass the other seven clauses. The right hon. Gentleman was master of many legions, and he thought that, although he had got all the time of the House, and had had more late sittings than in any previous Session, he was going to drive the House of Commons into passing this Measure. All the Opposition could do was to oppose as far as they could such an intention. They intended that a Bill of this character, requiring, as it did, most careful and elaborate consideration, should not be pressed forward at such an hour of the morning when everyone knew it was quite impossible that freshness of mind could be given to it. The right hon. Gentleman could not say that any time had been wasted on the Bill. [Ministerial laughter.] Of course that was entirely a matter of opinion. If the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House thought that time was being wasted, he had, in the Closure, a weapon in his hand which he had not scrupled to use. He also appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consent to the Motion

  141
  for the adjournment out of consideration for the officials of the House. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laughed, but when he told them that one of the clerks taking the last Division had had to be carried out in a fainting condition they would admit this was no laughing matter. The official in question was unable to perform his duties in consequence of the lateness of the hour. He hoped, in these circumstances, that the hon. Member would persist in his Motion.
  MR. DILLONsaid, that he also hoped that the hon. Member would go to a Division upon his Motion for the adjournment of the Debate. He himself had been in that House since three o'clock, and it was then nearly half-past one o'clock. It was most unfair that this intolerable strain should be laid upon hon. Members. Under the present Administration the House had been called upon, to sit up into the small hours of the morning more frequently than under any previous Government, while the weapon of the Closure had been most ruthlessly made use of. He supposed that it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to call upon hon. Members to sit up all night. Not only had the Closure been made use of in an unheard of fashion, but the Twelve o'clock Rule had been suspended with great frequence. In former years the Twelve o'clock Rule had been suspended only in the case of Debates of great importance, or towards the end of the Session; but now it was a matter of course to suspend it two or three times a week.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he rose in the interests of peace. The Government could not force a Bill of this kind through, and if they did they would only have a prolonged and bitter Debate on the Report stage. Although he disliked this Bill, he sincerely desired to see it passed in a decent and proper way. He had voted with the Government on the last one or two occasions, but he felt they would do no good to the Bill by pressing it on at this rate against feeling which was growing stronger and stronger. They had now got three clauses, and the fourth clause, which was largely a machinery clause, would not, he thought, take very long to consider, and he suggested as an alternative
  142
  to the present Motion, that the Government should allow the Committee to report progress after the fourth clause had been passed. He felt sure that this course would really save time.
  MR. LOUGHsaid it had been said that they had got through three clauses, but he desired to remind the House that on each of the three clauses the Government had undertaken a solemn pledge that they would reconsider important matters. It was necessary, therefore, that the Government's intentions in regard to these matters should be printed, in order that both sides might see whether these pledges, which had been arrived at on a mutual understanding, were being carried out.
  MR. ALLENrose to continue the Debate, but his remarks were inaudible owing to ironical Opposition cheers and cries of "Divide!"
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGErose, and was received with cheers, counter-cheers, and cries of" Divide!"
  MR. BANBURYclaimed to move, "That the Question be now put." [Opposition cries of "Oh!"]
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 208; Noes, 81.—(Division List, No. 176.)
  Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 80; Noes, 207.—(Division List, No. 177.)
  Clause 4,—

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

  (a) of the annual grant to be 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

  143
  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 represent 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.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISmoved to leave out the words "as soon as may be after the passing of this Act," and to insert the words "before the first day of January, One thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven." Local authorities, he said, would wish to know exactly how much they might expect to receive under the Certificate of the Local Government Board or the Treasury, and this Amendment would enable them to receive the information in time to include it in the Estimates for the coming year.
  MR. CHAPLINcould not accept the Amendment, because "as soon as may be" was what was desired—that was to say, as soon as the Local Government Board could undertake the duties placed upon it of carrying out the Act.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasserted that the right hon. Gentleman had misconceived the purport of the Amendment, and pointed out that the moment a certificate was made each spending authority knew what amount had to be obtained from the Local Government grant. Before they could make the rate the amount must be ascertained. He was positive, if the right hon. Gentleman had the slightest acquaintance with the routine of making a rate, he would not have given what he could not help regarding as a very inadequate answer to what his hon. Friend had said in support of the Amendment. The course taken, in regard to the Amendment was this: First, they had special Sessions appointed by the Justices. Only six of them were appointed in the whole course of the year. They might have only one Session between the 1st of January and the 31st of March. Supposing the Sessions were on the 14th of January, there was no other special Sessions until the 31st of March for the passing of their rate. What was going to happen? Before they could ascertain the basis of the rate they must know the amount coming from the Local Government Board. It was for the convenience of the rating authorities that they should fix as early a date as possible for the purpose of arriving at their rate. Once they did it, they gave the usual notice and appeared before the magistrates. Let them suppose the magistrates were not willing to pass the rate for some reason or other. This would be a new Act raising all kinds of novel points, and they could not expect the magistrates, who were not very quick in their application at the very best, to understand a difficult clause like Clause 3. The right hon. Gentleman said it took him hours to discover the meaning of what the clause was, and if that were so, it was a mere arithmetical calculation as to how long it would take an ordinary county Justice to understand what its meaning was, or what, for instance, was the meaning of the seventh clause. This simply pointed to the necessity for giving time for the intellect of the county Justices to work upon this particular Act, to give them time in order that by the 31st of March it should come into full working operation. The Government had absolutely

  145
  refused to postpone that date, which was to be inflexible. If they were not in a position to bring this Act into operation on the 31st of March, it would lead to all kinds of complications, because he would point out to hon. Members what had been the result of the rejection of one Amendment bearing on this. He had moved that the money should be paid after the 31st of March. The Government said no, it must be paid before. How did it work with regard to this particular Amendment? Unless the whole machinery of the local administration of the country was absolutely to be thrown out of gear, they must have the whole thing in working order by the 31st of March.
  MR. CHAPLIN: The hon. Member will observe that by Sub-section 6 the Local Government Board have power to make a Provisional Order.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEcould not discuss Sub-section 6 when he was dealing with Sub-section 1. It was no answer to say that a Provisional Order could be granted if necessary. Supposing that 5,000 parishes were not ready by the 31st of March; were 5,000 applications to be made and considered on their merits by the Local Government Board? The simplest, cheapest, and most effective method would be to adopt the Amendment.
  MR. LOUGHsaid, that as the right hon. Gentleman refused to insert a date at this point, it was interesting to notice where dates had been inserted in the Bill. There was a precise date at which the landlords were to receive the relief, and another at which the Imperial taxpayer was to begin to pay the money—the latter six months before it was necessary for any money to be paid. He would suggest that the words "as soon as may be," to which the right hon. Gentleman attached so much importance, should be left in, and the words "and not later than the 31st December" should be added. At present the claims of parishes and landlords might come pouring in for years. The claims of Scotland and Ireland had not even been considered.
  MR. DILLONthought the Amendment left too long a period to the Local Government Board to make up the total sum for Scotland. It was said that Ireland was to receive 9–100ths of the
  146
  English grant. No one had yet the slightest idea of what that English grant would be, and he defied the President of the Local Government Board to give Ireland 9–100ths of a sum the right hon. Gentleman did not know himself, because it had not yet been ascertained. If, therefore, an early date was not fixed for ascertaining the amount of the English grant, Irish Members, when they asked for the amount of the Irish grant, would be told that the English grant had not yet been fixed, and be, perhaps, put off until the end of the century. He suggested November 1st instead of January 1st as the date.
  *SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid, it would only be a businesslike proceeding to fix a date by which the work would have to be performed. The Local Government Board was overworked and understaffed, through the amount of work thrown on the Department by the successive creation of County, District, and Parish Councils. It was natural that the Department should want as much time as possible, but it would be more businesslike, and in the end more useful, to all concerned to have a date fixed than to leave the time open indefinitely.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he would like to ask who was to interpret the words "as soon as may be." [Laughter.] Was it to be the Local Government Board, or the authorities of the parishes and districts? If it was to be the Local Government Board, how would it communicate its decision to the country? If it came to a decision that was unreasonable and inconvenient to the local authorities, would they have any right of appeal? Having had a good deal to do with the Local Government Board during the last three or four years, he knew that it was making almost superhuman efforts to keep up with its work; and yet this work was going to be thrown on the Department at short notice, and without a reasonable opportunity to make themselves acquainted with it. He suggested that the Government might reasonably accept the modification suggested by his hon. Friend that in the country they might have a definite date by which to deliver their requests to the Local Government Board. Let the Solicitor General tell them what was meant by "as soon as may be."
  *MR. CHARLES HARRISONalso supported the Amendment, and urged the insertion of a fixed date in the Bill, because the sub section of the 5th Section gave the Local Government Board the power to give a provisional certificate. As regarded this certificate there was no power of appeal. Against the original valuation there was such a power, and that power ought not to be taken away. There would be a great incentive in an overworked department not to be very expeditious with the valuation on which the apportionment was to rest, and it would take years before the valuations of buildings could be completed.
  MR. LOGANsaid, that as the objection of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill was not that the Local Government Board was overworked—an objection which he had expected him to raise—he would suggest that he might put an end to the present discussion by accepting the suggestion of the hon. Member for Mayo and put in November 1, 1896, as the date.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he was always ready to respond to a reasonable appeal. He never wished to convey to the Committee that he was confident that all these Returns could be completed by a date named. It was for the very reason that some cases might be left out that he had declined to fix an absolute date. Under Clause 6 it was provided that all necessary Returns were to be made to the authorities. The authorities would call for these Returns as soon as the Act was passed, and in order that the work might be done as speedily as possible, they were specially instructed, under the clause now under discussion, to carry out the work as soon as may be.
  MR. DALZIELsaid, that when the right hon. Gentleman rose he thought he was going to make a concession, but the right hon. Gentleman's remarks were almost as difficult to understand as the third clause of the Bill. As far as he understood the right hon. Gentleman, he had not indicated any willing-
  148
  ness to accept either of the suggestions made from the Opposition side of the House. The course which the Government had adopted with regard to this Bill was most extraordinary, because with one single exception they had refused to allow any Amendment to be made in it. There was every ground for having a date fixed, because "as soon as may be" really meant a sort of "go as you please" mode of procedure. If this Amendment were not adopted the people in the country would never make up their minds when they should make a Return of the figures. It would be absolutely impossible for the Local Government Board to certify before the 1st January 1897. The Government was pledged to introduce during the present Session a Measure dealing on the same lines with Scotland and Ireland, and unless the Local Government Board made out their certificate they would not know how much they were voting for this Bill. The amount might be a million and a half or a million and a quarter, but until they had the certificate of the Local Government Board the exact amount could not be known, and they would be groping in the dark. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman who, no doubt, was anxious to facilitate as much as he possibly could the passing of this Measure, to accept this small Amendment.
  MR. LEWISrose to correct a misapprehension which the right hon. Gentleman appeared to entertain in regard to his position with regard to this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman was under the impression that he adhered to his exclusion of the words "as soon as may be," but as soon as it was suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Islington that it would be advisable to retain those words and add "not later than the 1st of January, 1897," he at once mentally assented to it, and hoped the right hon. Gentleman would have seen his way to have accepted that very reasonable form of Amendment. That would meet, practically, all the object-

  149
  tions the right hon. Gentleman could entertain. They had the authority in support of the Amendment of a Gentleman who had been at the Local Government Board in an official position for three years, and—he spoke with the utmost deference of the right hon. Gentleman himself—but he had been at the Local Government Board only a few months. This proposal was in the interest of the local authorities throughout the country, as the new provisions now being made would fundamentally alter in many respects their whole scheme of rating. The hon. Member for Carnarvon had shown clearly what the difficulties of the Assessment Committees, magistrates, and local authorities would be, and he ventured again to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment in the form in which it had been amended by the hon. Member for Islington.
  MR. J. COLVILLEalso supported the Amendment.
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEsaid no reason had been given for rejecting this Amendment. There was either on answer, or the Government answer was so bad that they dare not advance it. ["Divide!"] There was no justification for postponing this question; it was a mere matter of extra staff.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGErose to continue the discussion, when
  MR. PARKER SMITHrose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 198; Noes, 75.—(Division List, No. 178.)
  Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 201; Noes, 75.—(Division List, No. 179.)
  MR. CHAPLINclaimed to move "That the question 'that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill,' be now put." [Ministerial, chteers and Opposition cries of "Shame" and "Gag."]
  MR. MCKENNA (who remained seated with his hat on): On a point of Order, Mr. Lowther, may I state that while Clause 2 was under discussion a matter was postponed until we reached Clause 4? [Interruptions.] The question which was raised on Clause 2 was whether the Government relief was to be one-half of the amount which was actually to be raised. [Ministerial cries of "Order!"]
  *THE CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order. [Ministerial cheers.]
  MR. MCKENNA: The question was actually raised, and it was arranged that it should be postponed until now. [Opposition cheers and Ministerial cries of "Order!"]
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The point alluded to is not a point of Order. [Ministerial cheers.]
  An HON. MEMBER: It is a breach of faith. [Opposition cheers and Ministerial cries of "Order!"]
  MR MCKENNA: The point I wish to urge is, whether the pledge which was then given—[Ministerial cries of "Order!"]—that the point could be raised again—
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I understand the point the hon. Member is making, and I have said to him once or twice that it is not a point of Order in the sense of the word, that it is a point for me to decide. [Ministerial cheers and Opposition cries of "Oh!"]
  SIR W. HARCOURT (who also remained seated with his hat on): May I ask you, Sir—[interruptions and cries of "Order!"]—whether I am mistaken in my recollection that it was at your own suggestion that my hon. Friend the Member for North Monmouthshire postponed this Amendment until we came to Clause 4—[loud Opposition cheers]—and upon that suggestion of yours he

  151
  postponed his Amendment until we came to Clause 4? [Renewed Opposition cheers.]
  *The CHAIRMAN: It was hardly my suggestion that he should raise the question on Clause 4. [Ministerial cheers.] What I pointed out was that it was not in order to raise it on Clause 2. [Ministerial cheers.] The hon. Member has had an opportunity in the two hours that have elapsed to raise the question. [Ministerial cheers and Opposition cries of "Shame" and "Gag!"] The question is that the question that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill be now put. [Cheers and counter cheers.]
  An HON. MEMBER: Don't go out!
  DR. TANNER: Stick to the family! [Cries of "Order."]
  *THE CHAIRMANordered the House to be cleared for the Division, but a considerable body of Members on the Opposition side of the House remained in their seats. Among these were Mr. Lloyd-George, Mr. Herbert Lewis, Mr. Dillon, Dr. Tanner, Mr. Donal Sullivan, and Sir J. Brunner. As several of these hon. Members rose, there were cries of "Sit still!" from Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE and Dr. TANNER. Finally, when all but those who remained seated had passed into the Division Lobbies, the CHAIRMAN said, I must request hon. Members to proceed to the Division Lobbies. [Cries of "No!" from the Members who remained seated.] If hon. Members will not proceed to the Lobby, I shall have to direct the attention of the Speaker to their conduct. [Cheers.]
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I decline to go out under the circumstances.
  As no hon. Member moved from his seat, the CHAIRMAN ordered the doors of the House to be opened, and Members who had left the House returned from the Division Lobbies.
  Mr. SPEAKER was summoned, and the House resumed. The appearance of Mr. Speaker was greeted with loud cheers from both sides of the House.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES, who addressed Mr. Speaker from the Treasury Bench, said: I have to report to you, Sir, that a Division having recently been called, I directed the Ayes to go into the the Aye Lobby, and the Noes to go into the No Lobby. But some hon. Members who had called out "No!" declined to proceed into the "No" Lobby. I requested them to take the usual course and proceed to the Lobby; but the hon. Members still declined, and I heard some cries of "Sit still!" I am not in a position to give the names of all the Members who were present, for there were a considerable number; but amongst those who were present and who declined to obey my summons were the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs, the hon. Member for the Flint Boroughs, the hon. Member for East Mayo, and the hon. Member for Mid Cork.
  *MR. SPEAKER: It is quite clear that the Chairman of the Committees has followed the proper course in ordering the clearance of the House during a Division, and those who refused to clear the House are not justified in their refusal by any notion which they may entertain as to whether the Division should or should not have been called. Therefore their action was out of order, and if that conduct is persisted in, of course I shall have to name those hon. Members to the House. [Cheers.] Do I understand that the hon. Members for Carnarvon and the Flint Boroughs refuse to clear the House?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is so, Sir. As a protest I declined to go out. [Ministerial laughter, and cries of "Oh!"]
  *MR. SPEAKER: Do I understand the hon. Member for the Flint Boroughs to take the same course?
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I regard this Bill, Sir [Ministerial cries of "Order!"] as legalised robbery. [Renewed cries of "Order!"] When Clause 4 was put as a whole, a clause to which

  153
  there were many Amendments on the Paper, I declined to leave the House as a protest.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNER: On the point of order, Sir, I am bound to say—
  *MR. SPEAKER: I am not speaking upon a point of order; I am asking a question. Do I understand the hon. Member for East Mayo also declined to clear the House?
  MR. DILLON: Yes, Sir, I did decline.
  *MR. SPEAKER: And the hon. Member for Mid Cork?
  DR. TANNER: Most certainly, Sir.
  MR. D. SULLIVAN: Many other Members desire to associate themselves with those hon. Members. I am one of them—the Member for Westmeath.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member persist in taking the same course?
  MR. D. SULLIVAN: Yes, Sir, with pleasure. [Laughter and cheers.]
  *MR. SPEAKER: Those hon. Members having distinctly defied the authority of the Chair, and having persisted in so doing, I must, in consequence, name them to the House. I name Mr. Lloyd-George, Mr. Herbert Lewis, Mr. John Dillon, Dr. Tanner—
  DR. TANNER: Thank you, very much, Sir. [Laughter and cries of "Order!"]
  *MR. SPEAKER: And Mr. Donal Sullivan, for disregarding the authority of the Chair, and disorderly conduct. [Loud cheers.]
  SIR J. BRUNNER(who was received with cheers and cries of "Order!"): I desire to associate myself—[Loud cries of "Order!"]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY(who was also loudly cheered from the Ministerial Benches): I beg, Sir, to move that Mr. Lloyd-George, Mr. Herbert Lewis, Mr. Dillon, Dr. Tanner, and Mr. Donal Sullivan be suspended from the service of the House. [Loud cheers.]
  The House divided. Mr. Speaker named Mr. Broadhurat and Sir J. Brunner as Tellers for the Noes. Mr. Daniel Macaleese (Monaghan, N.), and Mr. Michael Davitt (Mayo, S.) remained in their seats when all other Members had left the House.
  MR. DAVITTaddressing Mr. Speaker, said: I remain as a protest, Sir.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I understand that the hon. Members object to the course taken by the Chairman of Committees; but I would point out to them that they are now wanting in respect to the Chair in refusing to clear the House for a Division. It is not a rational protest to stay in the House. I hope the hon. Members will see the propriety of going into the Lobby.
  MR. MACALEESE: I assure you, Sir, it is out of no disrespect to the Chair that this course was taken by my Colleague and myself.
  *MR. SPEAKER: However unintentional it may be, it is disrespect to refuse to leave the House when the Chair, in the exercise of its duty, has put a question on which a Division is called.
  MR. MACALEESE: I am very sorry you should think so, Sir, but I still hold it to be my duty to remain.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Then I must ask the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove the hon. Members.
  The Deputy-Serjeant at Arms (Mr. F. R. GOSSETT) advanced, and the two hon. Members accompanied him to the Inner Lobby.
  The House divided on the Question "That Mr. Lloyd-George, Mr. Herbert Lewis, Mr. Dillon, Dr. Tanner, and Mr. Donal Sullivan be suspended from the service of the House ":—Ayes, 209; Noes, 58.—(Division List, No. 180, appended.)

  AYES.

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Murray, Andrew Graham (Bute)

  Arnold, Alfred

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Garfit, William

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Ascroft, Robert

  Gedge, Sydney

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. (City of London)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Baden-Powell, Sir Geo. Smyth

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Baillie, James, E. B. (Inv'rn'ss)

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Oswald James Francis

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r)

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Balfour, Gerald William (Leeds)

  Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (S. Georges)

  Pease, Arthur (Darlington)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Pease, Henry Fell (Yorks, N. R.)

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pender, James (Northants)

  Barry, A. H. Smith- (Hunts.)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Penn, John

  Bass, Hamar

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Pirie, Captain Duncan Vernon

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

  Gretton, John

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Bethell, Commander

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

  Pretyman, Capt. Ernest George

  Bigwood, James

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm

  Pryce-Jones, Edward

  Bill, Charles

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Purvis, Robert

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hardy, Laurence

  Rankin, James

  Bond, Edward

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

  Helder, Augustus

  Reed, Henry Byron (Bradford)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Brodrick, Hon. St. John

  Hill, Rt. Hn. A. Staveley (Staffs.)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Ridley, Rt. Hon Sir Matthew W.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Holden, Angus

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Butcher, John George

  Howell, William Tudor

  Robinson, Brooke

  Carlile, William Walter

  Hozier, James Henry Cecil

  Round, James

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Drbyshr)

  Hulse, Edward Henry

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Cayzer, Charles William

  Hunt, Sir Frederick Seager

  Rutherford, John

  Cecil, Lord Hugh

  Hutchinson, Capt, G. W. Grice-

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Isaacson, Frederick Wootton

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Bir.)

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)

  Shaw, William Rawson (Halifax)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Kenny, William

  Sidebotham J. W. (Cheshire)

  Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth)

  Kimber, Henry

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Lafone, Alfred

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lawrence, Edwin (Cornwall)

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Combe, Charles Harvey

  Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry)

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne (Beds.)

  Legh, Hon. Thomas W. (Lanc.)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Lockwood, Lt. -Col. A R. (Essex)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw. T. D.

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Cox, Robert

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Curzon, Rt Hn. G. N. (Lanc. S. W.

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Usborne, Thomas

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Valentia, Viscount

  Dalbiac, Major Philip Hugh

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Davies, Horatio D. (Chatham)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Ward, Hon. Robert A. (Crewe)

  Denny, Colonel

  M'Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs)

  Warkworth, Lord

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  M'Ewan (William)

  Webster, Sir R. E. (Isle of Wight)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  M'Killop, James

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.)

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Wigram, Alfred Money

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm.)

  Evans, Sir Francis H.(South'ton)

  Milbank, Powlett Charles John

  Willox, John Archibald

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Fielden, Thomas

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Wodehouse, Edmond R. (Bath)

  Finch, George H.

  Milton, Viscount

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Wyndham, George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Monk, Charles James

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  FitzGerald, R. Uniacke Penrose

  More, Robert Jasper

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Sir

  Fitz Wygram, Sir Frederick

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  William Walrond and Mr.

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Anstruther.

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Mount, William George

  Flower, Ernest

  Muntz, Philip A.

  156

  157

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Harwood, George

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Allen, Wm. (Newc. under-Lyme)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Scale-

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Hazell, Walter

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Bainbridge, Emerson

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Reekitt, Harold James

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Kitson, Sir James

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

  Lambert, George

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Colville, John

  Langley, Batty

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Davitt, Michael

  Lloyd-George, David

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Dillon, John

  Logan, John William

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lough, Thomas

  Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)

  Doughty, George

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Dunn, Sir William

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Hudd'rsfld)

  Engledow, Charles John

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES, Mr.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Maden, John Henry

  Broadhoust and Sir John

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Brunner.

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Harrison, Charles

  Oldroyd, Mark

  *MR. SPEAKER, after announcing the numbers, said: I must now call on the five hon. Members to withdraw.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: For how long, Sir?
  *MR. SPEAKER: It is provided by the Standing Orders that the suspension is for a week.
  Mr. SPEAKERthereupon directed the said Members to withdraw, and they withdrew accordingly, amid the cheers of their supporters.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I hope, Sir, that after the painful scene which has now occurred—[Opposition laughter]—in this House, into which and its causes I should not be in order in entering, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House will agree with me that it would not be proper—[Loud Ministerial cries of "No!"]
  *MR. SPEAKER: I hope hon. Members will allow the right hon. Gentleman to continue.
  SIR W. HARCOURT, continuing—that it would not be proper or for the advantage and the credit of this House that they should attempt to continue the proceedings to-night. Therefore, I beg to move "That this House do now adjourn." [Cheers and loud cries of dissent from the Ministerial side.]
  *MR. SPEAKER: I have a difficulty in putting that Motion at the present moment, because when I was called in the Committee was in the middle of a Division, and that Division must be disposed of before any other Motion can be entertained. [Ministerial cheers.]
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I ask you, Sir, as a matter of Order, whether, that Division having been taken, according to your view I shall have an opportunity of making this Motion to you in the Chair. That is what I desire to do. [Cheers.] With you in the Chair, I should make the Motion that this House do now adjourn. [Cheers.]
  MR. SPEAKER: When the Division is taken on the Closure, it will be taken with the Chairman in the Chair, and then the Committee will resume in the ordinary course, and unless I come into the Chair again through some action of the Chairman or Committee the right hon. Gentleman will not be able to make his Motion to me in the Chair.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Then I shall move that the Chairman do leave the Chair and report progress. [Cheers.] Then in those circumstances, with you in the Chair, I shall make the Motion that the House do now adjourn.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must leave the Chair in order that the business may be taken up at the point at which it was left when I took the Chair.
  Thereupon the House again resolved itself into Committee on the Bill, and the Chairman resumed the Chair, amid Ministerial cheers.
  The Question was again put, "That the Question 'That Clause 4 stand part of the Bill' be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 200; Noes, 71.—(Division List, No. 181.)
  Question put accordingly, "That Clause 4 stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 198; Noes, 70.—(Division List, No. 182.)
  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 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 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."

  SIR W. HARCOURT: Mr. Lowther, I rise to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. I am sure that anybody who has had experience of the House of Commons must feel, after the incidents that have occurred to-night, it is quite impossible that anything like calm and reasonable discussion of the Measure before the Committee can continue, especially at this hour of the morning. I cannot believe that it is the desire of the right hon. Gentleman that the rest of this Bill should be passed without discussion, and, therefore, I think, under the circumstances, which I need not characterise, that the best thing that can be done for the advantage and credit of this House is that now—at 4 o'clock in the morning—we should report Progress and that the House should adjourn. [Cheers and Ministerial cries of "No!"]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY, who was received with loud Ministerial cheers, said, I regret I am forced to differ both from the premisses of the right hon. Gentleman and the conclusions he has drawn from them. [Cheers.] The incidents which have recently occurred, and which, I freely admit reflect little credit upon our pro-
  160
  ceedings—["Hear, hear,!"]—have not, so far as I can judge, destroyed the calmness of temper which may be necessary to carry the unimportant portion of this Bill which still remains to be dealt with. Such scenes as we have to-night witnessed are not, I regret to say, absolutely unprecedented in our Parliamentary history, and my memory goes back to a period when many Members of this House were suspended, not in the comparative calm which has characterised our proceedings to-night, but in one of those storms of public excitement which, whether justified or not justified, attended the Irish struggle of the year 1881 and in the year immediately succeeding it. Sir, on that occasion, when the House was not in a calm condition, the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member thought it consistent with Parliamentary propriety to continue the work of important legislation, and I am convinced he would have thought it then, as I now think it—[Cheers]—the very worst possible example for the future of our Parliamentary institutions that the intentions of the great majority of this House should be defeated by means which it is not now necessary to characterize—that we should be rendered impotent in the face of the world by the action of three or four gentlemen on whose conduct, especially in their absence, it would be most unfitting and improper I should dwell, but whose proceedings, at all events, do not entitle them to the sympathy of this House. [Cheers.] I cannot agree with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. [Cheers.] I hope he will remember, in making that suggestion, that we have now been discussing this Bill in Committee for a Parliamentary week, that all the great questions of substance have been discussed over and over again, and have now been finally disposed of, and the only matters with which this Committee has still to deal, before the present stage of the Bill is brought to a conclusion, are certain questions of machinery—[Loud Opposition cries of "No!" and cheers]—upon which it cannot be pretended that any great question of principle arises or any question of such complexity that this Committee cannot deal with it even at this hour. [Cheers.]
  MR. HALDANEregretted the decision at which the right hon. Gentleman had arrived. He was usually a fair opponent—[Cries of "Oh!" and "Hear, hear!"]—who treated the House and the Opposition with the greatest courtesy. What did the right hon. Gentleman hope to gain by pushing the Bill through without discussion? The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if all the important Amendments to the Bill had been disposed of, but, as a matter of fact, there were Amendments down of the greatest importance, some of them emanating from his own supporters. ["Hear, hear!"] If the discussion of these questions were prevented now, the result would be a protraction of the Report stage. The course which the Government were pursuing would rouse a sense of bitterness in the Opposition—[Cheers and Ministerial cries of "Oh!"]—and was calculated to bring the proceedings of that House into disrepute and discredit.
  MR. DALZIELdescribed the scene that had taken place as the inevitable outcome of the attempt of the right hon. Gentleman to drive a Bill through the House without discussion—[Loud Ministerial protests]—and of the action of hon. Members—new Members mostly—in trying deliberately to prevent Members on the Opposition side of the House from taking part in the Debate. ["Hear, hear !"] He warned hon. Members opposite that if they were going to behave in the future as they had behaved that night there would be repetitions of the scene which they had witnessed. [Interruption and cheers.] One of the chief causes of the prolongation of their proceedings was the unseemly and deliberate disorder of hon. Members opposite. [Cries of "Oh!" and cheers.] He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, after all, he did not think he would be answering the purpose of the Government better by consenting to the Motion now before the Committee than by resisting it? If he resisted it, did he hope to pass this Bill within a short time, or did he think it satisfactory that a Bill of this character should be passed at four, five, or six o'clock in the morning without discussion and after the House had been sitting for an extraordinary length of time? The right hon. Gentleman was responsible more
  162
  than any one else for anything that had taken place or would take place. When the Leader of the House declared that the remaining clauses of the Bill were practically machinery and did not need discussion, he was taking upon himself an authority which did not belong to him. There were clauses outside the machinery of the Bill which still remained to be discussed, and to which Amendments had been moved from the opposite side of the House. In face of that fact he thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to pause before he tried to browbeat the House in this way. [Ministerial cries of "Oh!" and Opposition cheers.] He appealed to the Leader of the House, who, he feared, had been influenced by others, whether it was unreasonable to ask for the adjournment at half-past four in the morning? Had urgency been shown for the passage of this Bill? No suggestion of urgency had been made, because the House had been informed that its further consideration was going to be postponed until after the Second Reading of the Irish Land Bill and the Committee stage of the Education Bill.
  MR. C. J. MONKrose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put." [Ironical Opposition laughter.]
  THE CHAIRMANwithheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  MR. DALZIELcontended that no urgency having been shown, hon. Members were entitled to ask for the adjournment of the House after such a prolonged sitting.
  *MR. A. J. MUNDELLAintervened for the first time in this Debate in order to set the First Lord of the Treasury right on a matter of fact. The right hon. Gentleman had said there was nothing remaining to be discussed in the Bill but mere machinery. He had himself been waiting in the House for thirteen hours, to bring up, in the shape of a new Clause, an Amendment (the importance of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted) which he had not been able to move the previous night owing to the Closure of the Amendments which were then on the Paper. That clause, it was his duty to his constituents to move; but there were yet three and a half pages of Amendments

  163
  to dispose of, and the time for calm deliberation and Debate had passed many hours ago. In what sort of spirit would the Committee be for discussing a new clause when it was reached? In the earlier part of the evening it was impossible for hon. Members on his side of the House to get a fair hearing; he had never seen Members treated worse; the proceedings were a disgrace to the House and fair Debate was altogether impossible. He, and several other hon. Members had to attend a Committee that day at 12 o'clock, and how were they to do their duty in the House and in seven and a half hours be at the Committee upstairs? It was not fair to them (and especially not fair in a matter where a Bill was simply passed in the interests of one class, and in a Measure in which hon. Members on the other side were themselves deeply interested) to force these questions through at such an hour of the morning. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman in the interests of Parliamentary Debate and of calm decision to consent to the Motion to report progress and not to degrade the House and bring it into contempt by insisting on going on at a time when it was impossible for questions to be fairly discussed.
  MR. LOUGHsaid, that the remaining clauses, far from being unimportant, touched matters of the deepest interest. The principle on which the assessments would be carried out was an entirely new one, and the whole connection between the local authorities and the central authority had to be considered. There were a number of new clauses, and three Amendments standing in the name of supporters of the Government. The Bill excited a deep feeling in the Opposition and in the country. The Government would make no progress by resisting the Motion.
  MR. BYRON REEDrose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
  *THE CHAIRMANwithheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid that the next Amendment referred to the division of the assessment between the buildings and the land on which they stood. Only last year the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Sir E. Clarke)
  164
  informed the House that such a separation was an impossibility.
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEsaid that the arguments of the Opposition during the discussion of this Bill had not been met by the Government in a proper spirit. They felt that they had as many supporters in the country as the Government; and the Government ought to make some offer of compromise by not refusing every Amendment to the Bill as they had done.
  Mr. HENRY BROADHURSTand Mr. LEUTYrose, when
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYclaimed to move: "That the Question be now put."
  Question put: "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee then divided, but Mr. James O'Connor (Wicklow, W.) remained in his place.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I must request the hon. Member for West Wicklow to go into the Lobby.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Mr. Lowther, I refuse to leave the Chamber, as a protest against the manner in which this Bill is being forced through the House.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Then, under Standing Order 27, I consider the conduct of the hon. Member is disorderly, and I must request him to withdraw.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: On a point of order, Mr. Lowther, is it not the Speaker only that can order me to withdraw?
  *THE CHAIRMAN: No; the Chairman of Committees has power to request a Member whose conduct is disorderly to withdraw.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I decline to withdraw.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I must ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to see that the hon. Member withdraws.
  The Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms advanced up the Gangway to the corner of the third Bench on the Opposition side, where the hon. Member was standing, and laid his hand upon his shoulder.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: On a point of order, Mr. Lowther, must you not open the door?

  165
  The Hon. Member accompanied the Deputy Serjeaut-at-Arms to the door, which was unlocked, in order that he might withdraw. The door was again locked, and the Division forthwith taken.
  The Tellers reported:—Ayes, 199; Noes, 70.—(Division List, No. 183.)
  Question put accordingly: "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 70; Noes, 200.—(Division List, No. 184.)
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHmoved, at the end of the clause to add the words:—
  The separation of the valuations of land and buildings shall be made by official valuers, appointed for the purpose by the Local Government Board.
  This was a substantial Amendment to the Bill. The importance of having a fair valuation of the land and buildings was very evident. Seeing that the Government contributed half the rateable value of the land, it was to the interest of any parish to put the value of the land as high as possible, in order that the Government subsidies might be as high as possible.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I understand the valuation has already been made, and therefore the proposal that the valuation should be made in this manner was clearly not applicable.
  MR. GRIFFITHsaid that this was a separate valuation for buildings.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid there was no separate valuation.
  MR. GRIFFITHsaid there was one valuation for the buildings and the land, but now it was necessary to put them in two compartments. He thought it was clear that there was a new principle going to be put into operation, a separate valuation for the land and for the buildings, and that was one of the great merits of the Bill.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid the matter was certainly rather complicated, but he understood that the valuation had taken place, and therefore the Amendment would not be in order.
  MR. GRIFFITHasked if it would be in order that the separation between the two should be made by competent
  166
  examiners, appointed by the Local Government Board.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid that was not the Amendment.
  MR. GRIFFITHsaid he would give notice of such an Amendment by changing the word "valuation" to "separation." There was no separate valuation.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid this Amendment was entirely without the scope of the clause. They could not alter the whole system of making valuations in this clause.
  *SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid his hon. Friend wanted a separation of existing valuations.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the section dealt with the valuation lists, and these were prepared, according to law, by the Assessment Committees. The section provided that in the valuation list there should be, for the purpose of future rates, a separation between agricultural land and buildings. It would be most unreasonable and impracticable that after the Assessment Committee had prepared the valuation list, two valuators should be sent down by the Local Government Board for the one purpose of making the separation. Surely the separation should be made by those who were making the valuation.
  MR. LEUTYsaid, the effect of the Amendment would be to the public interest, and therefore he hoped the proposition would be agreed to.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid, there was no principle laid down in the Bill as to how the separate valuation was to be made. There was nothing to indicate to the Assessment Committees on what principle they were to act. Every Assessment Committee would act as it thought best. He believed the value of farm buildings as buildings might be separately ascertained, though he admitted the matter was one of some difficulty. Still, it was one which ought to be proceeded with on principle. He therefore wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman upon what principle the Assessment Committees were to act in the matter of valuation, because, at the present time there was no general law on which such a separate assessment as suggested could be made. Under existing circumstances, for instance one Assessment Committee might assess dairy buildings not on their cost, but on what they might consider

  167
  the value of their suitability for the purposes to which they were applied, while another Committee might, elsewhere, assess similar buildings merely on their cost price. What he wished to elicit from the Government was some indication as to the principle on which the Committees would have to act, for it was important, whatever might be the principle laid down, that the Committees should have some guidance, and that their action in the work of valuation should be uniform. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. BUXTONregretted that the Government had not seen their way to accept the Amendment, because, in dealing with a Government grant it was of much importance that some check on a uniform basis should be placed on the action of the Assessment Committees throughout the country. ["Hear, hear!"] The Local Government Board ought to be able to exercise some check so as to secure uniformity of valuation, and to prevent additions to assessments for the sole purpose of obtaining a greater grant than a district was equitably entitled to. He asked the Government how they proposed to secure uniformity of valuation as between different districts and to protect the minority, when there was a conflict between the interests of different ratepayers?
  MR. T. P. WHITTAKERsaid, that the Amendment ought to be passed for the protection of the public. Supposing a farm were assessed now at £100, £50 representing the buildings and £50 the land, there would be nothing, as the Bill stood, to prevent the local authority from setting down £75 as the value of the land, and £25 as the value of the buildings. If that were done, the Government, instead of paying half the rate on £50 would have to pay half the rate on £75. The Government would be treated by localities as a kind of milch cow, and they ought to be represented by official valuers, who would prevent local authorities from assessing land too highly for the purpose of obtaining more of the grant than they ought to get.
  MR. STUARTcould not agree with the construction adopted by his hon. Friends. This valuation that was now to take place related to the future, and the people whom it could
  168
  only affect were the owners of the property other than agricultural land in the particular district in which that valuation took place. It did not affect the present Government contribution. As far as the Government contribution was concerned, they were not to be dependent upon local valuers, because it was the Local Government Board itself which was to decide, by a rough process he presumed, what was the amount it had to pay on account of the deficiency in each parish. Still, it was extremely desirable that the Amendment should be carried out. It was desirable for the future, because it was clear they were entering on a method of relieving the rates in a new way—namely, in proportion to the rateable value. If they were going to enter upon that form, it was exceedingly necessary that there should be some uniformity followed in the matter. In London they had uniformity in the matter, because they had an Assessor who sat on every Assessment Committee. They required in the country, in the course the Government was entering upon, some such Amendment as this. He wished to enter his protest against going on with this difficult question at a late hour like this. This was not an unimportant question; on the contrary, it was a very serious and grave matter.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, it was impossible for him to accept the Amendment. It was absolutely impracticable for the Local Government Board to step in and interfere with the control of a vast number of valuations in the way proposed. He agreed with the last speaker that this was not by any means an unimportant question, but in his judgment it had already been provided for. There was a protection against bad or unfair valuations in Clause 6, where a safeguard was provided in the action of the Surveyor of Taxes.
  MR. STUARTpointed out that the clause indicated contained a very large change in the law. It was a matter on which there was experience in London, and the matter was one of extreme complexity.
  MR. GEORGE LAMBERTmaintained that the right hon. Gentleman did not realise the importance of the Amendment. How was the new valuation to be made? What

  169
  did the Local Government Board in London know about it? [Mr. CHAPLIN: "The Assessment Committees."] The Assessment Committees did not value the land; they took rent as the basis of valuation. The rent was now based upon land and buildings, which would have to be separated under this Hill. How would they be separated? Nobody could say that the Assessment Committee were capable of ascertaining the true relative value of the buildings as compared with the land, and though he did not say his hon. Friend's Amendment was the best one that could be adopted, he did say that something was required beyond what was contained in the Bill. Any Assessment Committee would find very considerable difficulty in being able to assess it. They might have farm buildings which were worth one-eighth, or one-tenth of the annual value.
  MR. CHAPLIN: What do they let for?
  MR. LAMBERTreplied that they did not separate the letting value. Upon the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's estate there was not a single case in which he had let the buildings separately from the land, and this was an entirely new and novel principle which was introduced by the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman did not seem to appreciate this Amendment. In the Union of Wisbech, in Cambridgeshire, the land was not lowered as the rent was lowered, because they would not reduce the rateable value in the Union. There was a case in which they did not take the rent as a basis of the assessment. How was the Assessment Committee to arrive at it? There was, obviously, a case for valuation.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, that the discussion had shown, at any rate, that those who thought the remainder of the Bill to be nothing but machinery were much mistaken. The Amendment raised a most important consideration for the Exchequer and for those concerned in the Government grant. When the Committee was discussing this question on the Motion to leave out the word "buildings," the hon. Members for Basingstoke and Stroud strongly urged that it was impossible to separate the buildings from the land; and the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill
  170
  said that there was no difficulty whatever in doing that. The hon. Member for Basingstoke, speaking of the special rate where the land was separate from the buildings, said that though legally, there never was actually a separate assessment. What was most remarkable was that the President of the Local Government Board promised to bring up an Amendment which would prevent too high a valuation from being put upon the buildings so as to do injustice to the land. Where was that Amendment? This was the most critical point of the question.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid that he was perfectly prepared to bring up words on the Report stage. But there was an Amendment on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for Basingstoke, which met the case.
  DR. CLARKsaid, that the Committee ought to lay down on what principle this new value or separation was to be made. Was the separation to be on capital value or on value to the user? How was it to be determined, and who was to determine it? Was the valuation to be made by persons interested in an unfair valuation—the Assessment Committee's valuer? The Assessment Committee, with a view to getting as much rates as was possible, would place a high valuation on the land, and a low valuation on the buildings. Who, then, should make the separation? Should it be the Assessment Committee or the Surveyor, both of whom were interested parties, or should it be some neutral person, like the Assessor in Scotland, acting on behalf of the Treasury? Under Clause 6 it was proposed that the overseers should make the separation. But were not the overseers also interested parties? Would it not be to their interest also to get as much rates as was possible? There was an appeal to the Assessment Committee. The Assessment Committee would appoint valuers to value the buildings, the appellant would also appoint valuers to value the buildings, and finally the Quarter Sessions would determine the value upon the opinion given by those technical witnesses. Such was the scheme of the Bill. It was possible, under it, to have a lawsuit in every case to determine the value of the buildings as separate from the land. He

  171
  therefore supported the Amendment. He thought there should be a competent set of men to make separate valuations between the land and the buildings. They might take the principle of capital value, which was strongly recommended by the present Prime Minister. There was a Royal Commission, of which the present Prime Minister was a Member, which made a Report suggesting several changes, and the Prime Minister wrote a special Report urging the American plan—
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member was going considerably beyond the Amendment.
  DR. CLARKsaid he did not intend to enter into details; but the Committee had no information from the Government as to the course they would take. He had never spoken before on this Bill. [Cheers.] Now that they were laying down the law he hoped they would so lay it down as to prevent jobbery and public robbery.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid, he was a member of the Town Holdings Committee, which sat for a number of years and took important evidence as to the possibility of separating two assessments. Among other experts, Mr. Fletcher Moulton said that separation could be carried out; but the Committee was unable to report in favour of it. He did not deny that separation was much more easy in the case of agricultural land and buildings than it would be in the complicated interests of town holdings. It was clear that the question was one of great complexity, which could not be properly considered in a careless and hasty way at 6 o'clock in the morning. Everyone familiar with assessment knew that there was force in the arguments advanced as to the great temptation offered by the Bill to Assessment Committees to deal with this question in a way they ought not to do; it was monstrous they should be called upon to deliberate on the subject under such circumstances.
  *MR. WALTER HAZELLwished to give the concrete case of a farm of which he was tenant. He should be glad to know how buildings on such a farm were to be valued. It was most important there should be some guidance before the Assessment Committee. If they considered the capital value of the
  172
  farm buildings in question, the most moderate interest would come to more than the total amount of the rent of the farm. If they asked what the house and farm buildings let for apart from the land, the answer was they would not let at all.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member was now going into an estimate as to the difficulty of separating the value of land and buildings. The Committee had decided that this was to be done. The only question was whether additional valuers, appointed by the Local Government Board, were to be employed for that purpose.
  *MR. HAZELLsaid, he thought he was speaking to the Amendment. He only wanted to know in what way a separate valuation could be made.
  MR. WHITTAKERasked whether the Committee would have an opportunity of discussing an Amendment on the subject?
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he thought Sub-section 2 of Clause 6 provided sufficient protection against unfair valuation; but he would bring up an Amendment on the subject.
  MR. WHITTAKERasked when they would have an opportunity of discussing it. They could not sit there for ever. For the last hour the discussion had been most businesslike.
  MR. LOGANsaid, there was no more important Amendment than that under discussion from the point of view of the general taxpayer of the country and of the taxpayer of the town. The taxation of ground values, separating the land from the buildings, should be carried out in a satisfactory manner. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill was correct in saying that the question of valuation did not affect the Government. For the purposes of the Government grant the assessment of last year was to be taken into account, that was to say, the assessment of the land and buildings. At the present moment they were not separated. The grant was to be half of the rates on the land exclusive of the buildings. Therefore it was absolutely necessary, before it could be allotted, that a valuation should be made. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on the other side seemed to forget that this Bill was a revolution. They might honestly

  173
  believe that those on the Opposition side desired to obstruct it, but he could assure them that, so far as he was individually concerned, obstruction was the furthest thing from his thoughts. He had sat there that night in the hope that by moving the small Amendment that was left to him he might be able to do something for the poor men.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not now addressing himself to the Amendment.
  MR. LOGANsaid he would endeavour to do so. It was, he contended, monstrous injustice to the tax-payers and working men of this country that the valuation of the land and buildings should be left in the hands of the present Assessment Committee. The men who formed this Committee might be very well meaning men, but ho maintained that the farmer who rented land was not the proper man to assess the value of the land and buildings. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had said just now that it was impracticable to appoint proper valuers, and other hon. Gentlemen behind him had said that it would be most unbusinesslike and inconvenient to do so. He must, however, remind the right hon. Gentleman that he could not make omelets without breaking eggs, and that if a valuation was demanded in the interests of the community it ought to be made, and to say that it would be inconvenient or costly to appoint proper valuers was a mere paltry excuse for refusing to adopt the right course. He ventured to make a last appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, to say now whether he thought that the remaining clauses of the Bill merely related to the machinery of the Measure. He, for one, was prepared to contest this Bill to the bitter end. He was sorry to use harsh language, but he must say that this refusal on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to appoint proper valuers as between the landowners and the community would be regarded out of doors as nothing better than a job. For his part, he was prepared to contend that that was the case, both in and out of the House. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman not to force this Bill through the House by means of the gag and the guillotine.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid, that throughout this Debate he had done what he could to assist the right hon. Gentleman to arrive at a right conclusion in reference to this question. The Chairman of the Assessment Committee of one of the largest unions had told him that the effect of the Bill as it stood, would be to lower the assessments. That showed the necessity of appointing independent valuers. It was intolerable that the towns and urban districts should in future be subjected to the decisions of these assessors of agricultural property, and unless the right hon. Gentleman made some concession in regard to this matter, he would find himself in the centre of a whirlwind, for the question was being slowly but assuredly understood in the country. He would find himself in such a storm that this Government to which some had promised a lease of life of 20 years would be upset before the end of its natural life. [Cries of "Divide!"] He was speaking under great physical difficulty, as he was suffering from a want of nourishment, and if hon. Gentlemen would hear the few words he had to say it would be in the interests of the Government. He thought the right hon. Gentleman should even at the eleventh hour do something to protect the tax earning portion of the community from the inroads of these irresponsible assessors who were going to tax them in this manner in the future.
  *MR. HARRISONsaid, the Bill affected one-half of every local rate levied on agricultural land as defined in the Bill. Hitherto there had been no valuation of buildings apart from land, and the division of buildings from land was unknown to the Poor Law Assessment, although houses in occupation were separately assessed. Under the Public Health Act, 1875, there was no assessment of buildings as such apart from land, but there was a direction that lands should be rated at one-fourth of the amount of their annual value, still keeping the Poor Law Assessment rules in force.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member was discussing a question which the House had disposed of. The House had decided that the valuation was to be divided, and the only question before

  175
  the Committee was whether that division should be made by official valuers.
  *MR. HARRISON, who spoke amidst cries of "Divide" and "Order," said he would confine himself strictly to that point of view. In all Imperial Taxation the Government had been protected by its own assessors, as in the instances of the Property Tax and Inhabited House Tax.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYclaimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 192; Noes, 64.—(Division List, No. 185.)
  Question put accordingly, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 64; Noes, 192.—(Division List, No. 186.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYclaimed to move, "That the Question, 'That Clause 5 stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question, 'That Clause 5 stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 192; Noes, 65.—(Division List, No. 187.)
  Question put accordingly, "That Clause 5 stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 192; Noes, 65.—(Division List, No. 188.)
  Clause 6,—

  PROCEDURE FOR ASCERTAINING DE FICIENCY AND FOR SEPARATION OF VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FROM BUILDINGS AND OTHER HEREDITAMENTS.
  (1.) For the purposes of this Act returns shall be made to the Local Government Board in accordance with the prescribed regulations—

  (a.) by every spending authority in relation to the sums raised by them or their predecessors during the year next before the passing of this Act by any rate to which this Act applies; and

  176

  (b.) by every assessment committee or council whose duty it is to revise or make a valuation list, basis, standard or other valuation for any parish, in relation to the gross estimated rental and rateable value of that parish, and the proportion thereof which represents agricultural land; and

  (c.) by any such authority, committee, or council in relation to any other prescribed information.

  (2.) For the purpose of the returns, statements showing the gross estimated rental and rateable value of the agricultural land in a parish, and, in the case of any hereditament separately valued which consists in part of agricultural land and in part of buildings or other hereditaments, of each such part, shall be made by the overseers of every parish, and corrected by the assessment committee, and sent to the surveyor of taxes, and be subject to objection or appeal by the said surveyor and overseers before the assessment committee and the court of quarter sessions, in such form, within such times, and generally in such manner, and subject to such provisions, as may be prescribed.
  (3.) The Local Government Board may by order make regulations for the purpose of this section, and also generally for carrying into effect this Act, and those regulations shall have effect as if they were enacted in this Act, and shall amongst other matters provide—

  (a) 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;

  (b) for giving effect to a notice of objection or appeal by the surveyor of taxes unless it is proved that such notice is unfair or incorrect;

  (c) for the temporary adoption by the county council or any other council, of the division in the return between the total rateable value of agricultural land and that of buildings and other hereditaments;

  (d) for the alteration in the valuation list in accordance with the statements as finally settled and sending copies of the returns to spending authorities and for applying and adapting any statutory form or procedure respecting the valuation list or poor rate; and

  (e) for adapting this Act to cases where there is no valuation list, or where a sum is raised by rate from an area not a parish.

  (4.) The regulations may also provide fines for the breach thereof not exceeding forty shillings, or in case of any continuing offence not exceeding forty shillings a day during the continuance of the offence, and any such fine may be recovered as a Crown debt or to an amount not exceeding one hundred pounds before a court of summary jurisdiction.
  SIR J. BRUNNERsaid he had been 12 years in the House, and had seen the

  177
  proceedings on many bitterly-contested Bills, but he had never known an instance of a Bill which excited strong feelings on both sides of the House having been conducted by its authors in the manner in which this Bill had been conducted. (Cheers and Ministerial cries of "Question!") Gentlemen opposite were still inclined to usurp the office of the Chairman. [Cheers.] Nor had he ever known a Bill on which the Government had refused to give way on a single line or on a single word to their opponents. [Cheers, Ministerial laughter, and cries of "Question!"] But the case was worse than that. The Government had not only refused to concede the smallest point to the Opposition, but they had made two promises to the Opposition and had broken them both. [Loud cheers.] Whether he should be successful or not, he meant to enter a protest against a lack of consideration for opponents, against a harshness unexampled in his recollection, such as he trusted he might never see in the House again. He therefore moved "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again" [Loud cheers].
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY, who was loudly cheered, said: I think, if we were to strike a balance as to the side which has received ill-usage, we should come to a different conclusion from that which the hon. Baronet opposite has presented to us. [Cheers.] I may say also that in my Parliamentary experience a Bill has never been opposed in the manner and in the spirit in which this Bill has been opposed. [Loud cheers.] The methods which have been adopted have been such as are rarely employed. When the hon. Gentleman says the Government have made no concessions I may remind him that we have made a very great one in changing the Measure from a permanent into a temporary one. ["A concession to one of your own supporters."] This is the first time I have gathered it was not consonant with the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite. May I point out that the clauses which have occupied our time to-night are machinery clauses. ["No, no!"] They relate to matters upon which of necessity those who have access to the advice of Departments have special means of information not open to other hon. Members. We did not think the
  178
  machinery of the Bill would be improved by Amendments, many of them hastily drawn and handed to the Chairman in manuscript. I hope the House will not expect me to say anything further in answer to the Motion. We may differ as to the reasons why it has occurred and as to the justification for the various actors in to-night's drama; but, having gone so far, we can hardly stop. [Cheers.]
  *SIR W. HARCOURT: I rise to absolutely contest and deny statements made by the right hon. Gentleman. [Cheers.] My Parliamentary experience is longer than his, and it has taught me when I was in his position that the use of the Closure constantly and from the earliest moment is calculated not to facilitate the dispatch of business, but to destroy the good feeling which is essential to the dispatch of business. It is that fatal error which has characterised the conduct of business by the right hon. Gentleman from the beginning of the Session to this hour. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of the opposition offered to this Bill to-night as unexampled. That opposition has consisted in the moving of Amendments, which for the most part were substantial and solid Amendments of principle. The statement that the discussion was upon matters of machinery only in the early hours of the morning is a statement which the right hon. Gentleman could have made only through having been partially present—[cheers]—and not having taken much interest in or acquired much comprehension of the Measure. Upon the last clause upon which the right hon. Gentleman moved the Closure, we had an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that he was going to deal with one of the most important and vital principles of the Bill in connection with an Amendment which was on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Hampshire; he made that answer to myself when I reminded him that he had promised on an earlier stage of the Bill to deal with the question of valuation; when I reminded him of it he did not deny that he had himself promised to deal with it; but he excused himself for dealing with it because there was an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Hampshire in

  179
  which he concurred; and when we were expecting a discussion upon it up rises the Leader of the House and moves the Closure. I forbear to characterise in the language it deserves the conduct of business on such principles. We have been accustomed to rely on undertakings made by occupants of the Treasury Bench in the conduct of a Bill and, above all, by the Leader of the House. [Cheers.] It will be an evil day for the House when we can rely on those assurances no longer. [Renewed cheers.] The business of the House has been thrown into confusion to-night. Within my Parliamentary experience a Bill has never been conducted in such a spirit and manner, with determination to carry through clauses of great importance and Closure Amendments of the highest consequence, until half-past seven in the morning. As long as business is conducted in the House of Commons in that spirit you will have consequences which, unfortunately, were witnessed last night. [Cheers.]
  MR. CHAPLIN: I rise for a single moment only to absolutely repudiate—[Opposition laughter]—the imputation that I have committed a breach of faith towards the House of Commons. What were the circumstances under which my pledge was given? In answer to an appeal from my hon. Friend and others sitting on that side, I did state that some Amendments should be brought forward before this Bill was passed giving effect to their wishes. But my hon. Friend behind me has placed an Amendment on the Paper. I was informed he was satisfied with his own Amendment, but that he could not move it in Committee, but would move it on Report. Before the right hon. Gentleman ventures again to charge me with a breach of faith let him make himself acquainted with the facts. [Loud cheers.]
  MR. STUARThoped that if the Committee refused to report progress it would not be on the ground that the Leader of the House had put before them. These three questions were of the deepest importance, not only with respect to this particular Measure, but with respect to the precedent for other Measures which it would establish. The first had been passed over absolutely unconsidered; the second had been
  180
  shuffled through, and the third had not been considered at all. In these circumstances, if the House decided to continue this discussion, he hoped it would do so with eyes open, and not under the assurance of the Leader of the House that there was only machinery to be dealt with. How could contributions be given towards the assistance of the rates based on rateable value without a Government valuation? He would content himself by saying that there lay before the Committee matter of such serious consideration that it ought not to be taken up by the House after a sitting of more than 16 hours.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid, that the Leader of the House had just stated that he had made a concession to the Opposition side of the House by limiting the operation of the Bill to five years; might he remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was made in answer to appeals from his own side?
  MR. CHAPLIN: As I made the statement, perhaps I may be allowed to say that I was willing to make that concession in deference to representations made to me from both sides of the House.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he was speaking with reference to what the Leader of the House had said five minutes ago. He did not want to trouble the right hon. Gentleman who had interrupted him, because they were all painfully aware of his exhausted condition. But he would ask the Leader of the House whether it was not the fact that the limitation was agreed to to prevent a general stampede of borough Members on his own side? If the right hon. Gentleman would not agree to the Motion for reporting progress, would he consent that they should adjourn for say, a couple of hours. [Cries of "No!"] He made the suggestion because he was informed that the resources of the kitchen were exhausted, and that there was nothing but poached eggs to be obtained. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.]
  MR. LOUGHsaid, that he could scarcely think that the right hon. Gentleman had spoken his absolutely last word in reference to the Motion for reporting progress. Had the right hon. Gentleman looked at the 6th clause, which covered a page and a half of the

  181
  Bill? He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consent to the Motion for reporting progress, in consequence of the great strain which must have been placed upon the Chairman of Committees.
  MR. WHITTAKERsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had asked him not to press his Amendment with regard to valuation, as there was an Amendment upon the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Hampshire which raised the same point, and now the right hon. Gentleman informed him that that Amendment was not to be moved until the Report. No concession whatever had been made in Committee. Were these clauses going to be put one by one to the Closure, or wore they to have an opportunity of discussing them? No concession whatever had been made to them in Committee, the concession as to the time having been made on the Second Reading. They had not had a single concession of a word or a line in Committee on this Bill, and that was, he thought, almost unprecedented.
  MR. LOGANsaid, that as a Member of that House of only five years standing, it might seem presumptuous for him to venture an opinion against that of the Leader of the House, but he remembered in 1892, when their Party sat on the opposite side of the House, an opposition was conducted in a very able manner by the hon. Gentleman who was now Secretary to the Treasury, to the Army Annual Bill, which he did not suppose anyone would say was a contentious Measure. That, he thought, was proof that the opposition to the present Bill was by no means unprecedented. There was no one who regretted more than he did some of the scenes that night. He regretted exceedingly that his hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon, after the able and very intelligent manner in which he endeavoured to lead the opposition to this Bill, was suspended. He believed the reason why he incurred the displeasure of the Chair—[cries of "Question" and "Order!"]—was simply as a protest against what he considered to be a breach of faith. [Cries of "Order!"]
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now practically referring to the
  182
  incident which occurred some time ago, and its bearing on this question I do not quite follow. [Cheers.]
  MR. LOGANsaid, the protest of the hon. Member for Carnarvon was made because a promise had been broken. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision and allow them to go home. ["No, no!"] Oh, he was quite willing to stop there as long as they were. [Laughter.]
  SIR JAMES KITSONthought there was a misunderstanding. There was now a much more peaceful frame of mind and, as there were many anxious homes awaiting them—[loud laughter]—he hoped they would be permitted to report progress.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put,"
  *THE CHAIRMANwithheld his consent, as it appeared to him that the Committee was prepared shortly to come to a decision without that Motion.
  MR. GEORGE LAMBERTsaid, there were many Gentlemen opposite able to discuss the question, but they were silent. [Laughter.]
  DR. CLARKasked whether if progress was not reported before 12 o'clock, when the Friday's sitting was ordered to commence, it would not be necessary for Members to re-assemble on Monday to dispose of the Orders?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYhoped they would finish before 12 o'clock, but in any case he did not believe the contingency contemplated by the learned Gentleman would arise.
  Question put. "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 65; Noes, 189.—(Division List, No. 189.)
  MR. MCKENNAmoved in Sub-section (a) to strike out the word "raised" and to insert instead thereof the words "actually received."
  MR. CHAPLINaccepted the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. PICKERSGILLmoved the omission from Sub-section (2) of the words "For the purpose of the Returns." This sub-section, he said, referred to certain statements, and it was said that these statements were made "for the purpose of the Returns." These words were misleading and were really incompatible with the object of the sub-section. It was true that the statements were to be used for a Return to the Government, but each of these statements was in substance and in effect a supplementary valuation list—a list in which every agricultural hereditament was entered, the buildings being separated from the land. It was a new valuation list upon a new principle, and absolutely revolutionised the position of ratepayers in districts where there was agricultural land.
  MR. CHAPLINcould not accept the Amendment, because the words had been inserted on account of the subsequent sections in the Bill. The words related solely to the Returns, which were to be sent to the Local Government Board for the purpose of enabling them to make their estimate of the relative value of land on one side and buildings on the other.
  MR. STUARTobserved that a great difficulty bad arisen here which required the consideration of the Government. The subject of valuation and assessment was an extremely difficult one to deal with. In this particular case he thought really the difficulty had arisen from the Government tackling this altogether new question of the separation of land and buildings. That the Government did not appreciate the extreme difficulty of the position was shown by the very words which his hon. Friend proposed to omit. He knew that in this Bill these statements were intended to be used "for the purpose of these Returns," but it was using a steam hammer in order to break a nut. For the purpose of the Returns they had to get what the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think was a fairly easy thing, namely, a separate valuation of land and buildings, and then, in order to get these Returns, they were told in an off-hand way that certain statements were required. Before they could get these statements they had really to upset the whole of the valuation, the
  184
  whole of the assessment system, and the whole procedure and the relations of the ratepayers to that procedure. He said before they reached it that this clause was one of the most complicated in the Bill. Those who had any knowledge of the question of rating knew how they upset everything when they touched anything. Here they were touching not only a little point, but one of the most vital points, because they must remember that time after time it had been stated by skilled witnesses before Committees of that House that it was almost an impossible thing to separate the valuation of lands and buildings. And yet the Government were about, just simply for the purpose of these Returns, to do a thing which was so difficult of accomplishment that when they merely made a sketchy outline of how to do it, that very outline upset the whole of the existing fabric of the procedure under the assessment of rates. It was most unfair to the House and to the constituencies that hon. Members should be obliged at a quarter past eight in the morning, after a sitting of 18 hours, to deal with such a very complex question. If it were only for the sake of this one clause, he would urge the Government to adjourn the Debate.
  *SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, that the further the discussion was carried the clearer it became that, as the Minister for Agriculture said, this Bill was not so much for the relief of agriculture as to effect a great reform of the principles of rating in the country. And that reform, introducing new methods and principles, was to be transacted in an all-night sitting! There could be no doubt that the statement that these clauses were mere machinery was an imposture. They were of the most vital character to the whole principle of rating. Probably it was not by intention, but simply by carelessness, that these momentous changes had been proposed merely for the sake of Returns. The principle of rating was to be revolutionised for the sake of one particular interest, and to the injury of all other interests; and yet the consequences of this revolution were not allowed to be discussed. That was the system relentlessly forced on the House by the Closure; and on no single clause had there been during the sitting a discussion

  185
  of the principles involved. A fair hearing had been given on no single clause.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The right hon. Member is now reflecting on the action of the House, and that is out of order.
  *SIR W. HARCOURTcalled for some explanation from the Government.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that it was because the clause did not alter the system of rating that the introductory words proposed to be left out were necessary. Every existing right of the ratepayer was preserved, including the right of appeal. It was simply thought desirable that for the purposes for the Return, and for those only, this statement should be given. If the words were struck out it would produce the very evil to which the right hon. Gentleman had called attention. Nothing in the clause touched the principle of rating or the principle of valuation. It was simply a Return to show what the division had been. It would not increase or lessen the amount of rateable value put upon the ratepayers.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid, that on Clause 5 the right hon. Gentleman, in reply to objections that there were no means of checking the division of the valuation, pointed to Clause 6 as a guarantee that some check of the kind would be provided. But now the right hon. Gentleman's remarks would seem to show that no additional check on the separation of the valuation would be provided by the clause, because, according to him, the clause was simply for the purpose of Returns. The check that was needed was the check of the Local Government Board, in order, in the first place, that the grant in aid might be properly estimated, and secondly, that the rate might be properly apportioned. The clause did not give the check the Attorney General had promised, and its effect would be to create great confusion amongst the different authorities.
  *MR. HARRISONpointed out that there might be a valuation of buildings and a valuation of agricultural land, but those two valuations added together would not represent what was now assessed. Again, when land and buildings were divided, land might be more valuable apart from buildings, and
  186
  buildings might be enhanced or not enhanced by land. Therefore when they created the new assessment they must give the same remedies and the same protection to the new system as existed under the old.
  DR. CLARKsaid, the Ministerial statement of the effect of the clause did not agree with the marginal note. The first part of the clause said that Returns should be made; for the purpose of the Returns statements were to be made; but these were to be in the form prescribed by the Local Government Board, whose regulations were to have all the force of an Act. All this was required, not for the purpose of the Returns, but for the purpose of the separate valuation, and this was to be a change of valuation without a right of appeal. All that was asked was that an addition should be made to the limiting words so as to give anyone aggrieved a right of appeal.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 171; Noes, 61.— (Division List, No. 190.)
  MR. PICKERSGILLrose to move in Sub-section (2) after the word "overseers" to insert the words "and by any aggrieved ratepayer." He said the so-called statement was appealable to the Assessment Committee and Quarter Sessions by the overseers and the surveyor of taxes. Those two authorities had an appeal under the existing law, but there was another person who had an appeal under the existing law, and he had been strangely neglected by the framers of the Bill—he meant the aggrieved ratepayer. The clause as it stood gave no right of appeal to the aggrieved ratepayer. He had been surprised at the statement which had just been made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, who said that there was the same right of appeal under this clause as already existed. The whole point was that the land and buildings were to be separately rated, and it was obvious that the value of the buildings, when the division came to be made, was of the first importance to the agricultural ratepayer. If an undue amount of assessment was put upon the buildings that would aggrieve

  187
  the urban ratepayer, who ought then to have a right of appeal. If the overseers thought that the valuation wan not right, and they were to go to the Assessment Committee, and up by degrees to Quarter Sessions if they liked, to find out the value of a particular hereditament, all this was done behind the back of the owner. He wished to obviate the same process of appeal before the same Courts being gone through twice in order to ascertain for another litigant the value of the hereditament. The proposal as it stood would be contrary to all precedents with which he was familiar, and if they were going to upset precedent they were at all events face to face with this extraordinary reduplication. He hoped to move as the Amendment in line 33 after the word "overseer" to insert the words "and by any aggrieved ratepayers."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALthought the hon. and learned Member did not quite understand the primary object of these Returns, as none of the rights of the individual ratepayer would be affected. Unless it was absolutely necessary for the purpose of protecting individual rights to give every ratepayer who thought himself aggrieved the right to appeal, it might delay for a very considerable time the ascertainment of the amount which the particular district was to receive. There would be no individual grievance, and no ratepayer's right would be interfered with by this Measure.
  SIR J. WOODHOUSEsuggested that it would save a multiplicity of proceedings if the aggrieved ratepayers had the right to intervene in the first instance.
  MR. LOUGHsaid, they had toiled all night and only one Amendment had been accepted. They hoped that this Amendment might be accepted.
  MR. LAMBERTsaid, the fact of a new kind of valuation being made was a serious matter to the rural ratepayer. It was important that the valuation should be a just one, and that under the circumstances the ratepayer in the country districts should have every opportunity of appealing as soon as possible, and certainly before all the proceedings indicated by the Bill were taken. For the sake of the smooth working of the Measure in the rural districts, he hoped the Amendment would be accepted by the Government.
  MR. STUARTsaid he wished again to point out the extreme complexity and difficulty of dealing with any question affecting rating and valuation, and to express regret that the Committee should be compelled to discuss this matter at that hour, after an all-night sitting. The whole question involved in the Amendment was of a most important and intricate nature. By the Bill they were about to introduce an entirely new system of assessment, or valuation, into the rural districts. The ratepayer, therefore, ought to be given some power of appeal in the first instance. This question was one that deserved the most careful attention of the Committee, and though they had now reached the 18th or 19th hour of the sitting, he hoped that it would not be slurred over.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that it was a fallacy to suppose that a different system of valuation was being adopted because land and buildings were being separated. No lawyer, or no person who had studied the question, could possibly have that opinion. The valuation is the same in both cases. It made no difference for this purpose with regard to the basis whether it "might" or "would." The basis was rent. In hundreds and thousands of cases, in the valuation lists in the country, that had been the basis adopted where buildings and land had been separately rated. In regard to the suggestion made that there should be a limit of time put in, he would consider it between now and the Report stage, and possibly it might be possible for them to allow aggrieved ratepayers to appear on an appeal initiated by the surveyor, but not on an appeal initiated by themselves.
  MR. LOGANasked the hon. and learned Gentleman whether there was any record of a rent in which the holding was rated separately from the land?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: It is the law now, and has been for 40 years.
  MR. LOGANsaid there was no separate valuation of the buildings apart from the land, and it was utterly impossible for any man to say what was the fair rental value of buildings separated from the land. The rent paid was a joint rent for the land and for the buildings upon it. At the present time, on a great majority of farms in England and Wales, no separate valuation of the land from the farm had been made or was

  189
  known by anybody. It was absolutely necessary for the protection of the people in the large villages and small towns that every precaution should be taken that the valuations which were to be made should be equitable valuations. As the Government had refused to allow them the appointment of an official valuer, the least they could do was to allow an aggrieved ratepayer to lodge an appeal. The ratepayers in the larger villages, realising that under the Bill the landowners and the tenant-farmers were to derive benefit would naturally be suspicious of the existing Assessment Committees who valued the property. At present the appeal was not to an independent court, but to the Court of Quarter Sessions—a court of landlords.
  DR. CLARKpointed out that whilst the Attorney General contended that it had been the law for 40 years to have a separate valuation of land and houses, other legal Members told them it never had been done and could not be done. There was thus, clearly, a difference of opinion on the subject. He considered, however, the Government had met them fairly in the matter by the undertaking which they had given.
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEthought the right hon. Gentleman, while he had tried to meet the Opposition, had done so in such a way as to render his proposal unacceptable. He had told them what the Government would do would be to consider the proposal of an appeal, but would only allow the ratepayer to intervene in the event of the Surveyor of Taxes initiating the proceedings. What they wanted was that the ratepayer should go before the Assessment Committee, that he should have the power, subsequently, to appeal to the justices sitting at special sessions, and should then, if necessary, even have a further appeal to the Quarter Sessions. Unless the right hon. Gentleman would meet them in that direction, he hoped the Amendment would be pressed to a Division.
  MR. DALZIELremarked that on every point in which there had been difficulty—and many difficulties had arisen—the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill or one of his assistants for the time being had appealed to them to raise the particular question on the Report stage. But they had no assurance that they should have any better
  190
  opportunity on the Report stage than they had been afforded now, and they should in future, he thought, refuse to trust to the generosity or even the fairness of the Government. They had now an opportunity to debate these points, and debate them they would, no matter how long it might take. What the hon. Member for Bethnal Green asked was that an aggrieved ratepayer should have the right to appeal, and the Government could end the discussion on this particular question by accepting the Amendment, which was a reasonable and equitable one.
  MR. ALLENsaid, that in his opinion it was the Government's own fault that they got on so slowly. Would the Attorney General give an assurance that this question should be discussed on Report at a proper hour?
  Question put: "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 57; Noes, 164.—(Division List, No. 191.)
  Amendment proposed in Sub-section (2), after "assessment committee" to insert the words "and justices in special sessions."—[Mr. Pickersgill.]
  Amendment put, and agreed to.
  [MR. GRANT LAWSON took the Chair.]
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. GRANT LAWSON)said that the next Amendment, standing in the name of Mr. Pickersgill, to insert in line 26, after "prescribed" the words "by one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State," was out of order.
  MR. PICKERSGILL, on a point of order, said, the Bill proposed to confer new powers upon the Local Government Board. The object of his Amendment was to confer those powers upon a body which, if the Chairman would allow him, he would show was already entrusted, in the matter of assessments, with precisely analogous powers.
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. GRANT LAWSON): If so, the Amendment would be in order.
  MR. PICKERSGILLreferred to Section 27, of the Metropolitan Valuation Act of 1869, which enacted that the

  191
  Justices in Assessment Sessions might, with the approval of Her Majesty's Secretary of State—which meant the Home Secretary—make orders from time to time for regulating the proceedings on appeal to them under that Act. The Bill proposed to give exactly the same powers to the Local Government Board. He was informed that there was an analogy of more recent date. The regulations which the Local Government Board was to have power to make were to be of the widest and most unprecedented character, including the form and time of an appeal to Quarter Sessions. The Local Government Board was not the proper authority on which to confer powers such as these with reference to Courts of Justice. There were only two executive authorities in this country who, according to long established practice, had any control whatever over justices, and those were the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary. The Justices would be disposed to say: "The Lord Chancellor we know, and the Home Secretary we know, but who are the Local Government Board that they should be empowered to direct proceedings in Quarter Sessions?"
  DR. CLARKsaid, he had to move a farther Amendment, which was that these regulations should lie on the Table of both Houses, because, practically, power was to be given to make Acts of Parliament. The regulations ought to be made by Parliament and not by the Local Government Board. The First Lord of the Treasury professed to believe that they were discussing simply the machinery for carrying out the Bill, whereas the machinery was not in the Bill at all. The machinery would have to be created when the Bill was passed. Powers were to be given to County Councils; and among the powers was power to alter the Valuation List. If principles as well as machinery were to be placed in the hands of the Local Government Board and the Treasury, Parliament ought to adjourn and never meet again. All that was asked by this Amendment was the proposed changes in the law should not come into force until Parliament had had a final voice in the matter.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he could not accept the Amendment. As far as he knew, the Secretary of State had no jurisdiction with respect to Assessment
  192
  Committees. They were Committees of Boards of Guardians, and thus were under the jurisdiction of the Local Government Board.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was making a great constitutional change, the importance of which he utterly failed to appreciate. He wanted the right hon. Gentleman to have some mercy towards the Department he adorned so much. Did he realise that it would be utterly impossible for that Department to carry out this work with its present staff? He was not at all surprised that the right hon. Gentleman was not in a receptive mood after his prolonged efforts—receptive intellectually. He had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman was in a very receptive mood in other respects. [Laughter.] He quite appreciated the right hon. Gentleman's sluggishness. [Cries of "Order, order!" and "withdraw!"] If that expression was too strong, he would withdraw it a hundred times. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would believe that he had no intention of saying anything offensive. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consider the physical impossibility of his Department discharging these duties efficiently and with credit to the nation and themselves. As a country magistrate he should look upon the right hon. Gentleman's Department with great alarm. He thought that if the right hon. Gentleman were to have only half an hour's rest it would be very beneficial to the nation and would enable him to consider the very valuable suggestions that had been thrown out in the course of the Debate. He regretted the absence of the Opposition Leaders at that time of the morning—oh, he was glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose Burghs was occupying his seat, because hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House were no match for hon. Gentlemen opposite for making appeals.
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. GRANT LAWSON): Order, order! The hon. Member must confine himself more strictly to the subject of the Amendment under discussion.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid, that he would endeavour to do so, but they were all getting a little loose in their mode of expression. He was only regretting that hon. Members on the Opposition side of the

  193
  House were unable to put their case as thoroughly and as exhaustively as they could wish. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not overweight his Department beyond what it would be able to bear.
  MR. STUARTsaid, that one part of the objection of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to the Amendment had been met by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, who had been able to show that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary exercised similar functions to those which were indicated in the clause. In the matter of the assessment of lands and buildings separately there was a great deal to be learned from the assessment and valuation of the metropolis. He really thought that they were not going far enough by this Amendment. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House was present, because he could point out to him that their assertion that these clauses did not refer to the machinery of the Bill only was a sound one. This subject had been investigated by Committee after Committee of that House, and it ought to be decided by the House itself. It was of the most essential character, because it affected the amount of money which every householder, as compared with every agricultural landowner, would have to pay in every parish in the kingdom. The Amendment was of the most vital importance to the Bill, and he urged upon the Leader of the House that this was not the machinery only of the Bill, but one of the most essential points. The clause was a mistake from beginning to end, and if only they had more Members present in the House to listen to what was said upon the matter, he should not despair of carrying the House with them. This was not a Party Amendment, nor was it one in regard to which hon. Members on that side wished to score off hon. Members opposite. He believed the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend would greatly improve the clause.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER took the Chair.]
  MR. DALZIELsaid there was one point he wished to put before the right hon. Gentleman, and that was that he was proposing by this clause to make an unprecedented departure in placing the
  194
  arrangements of Quarter Sessions under the control of the Local Government Board. That proposal was in no sense associated with the particular objects with which this Bill was concerned. He contended that the Local Government Board was not a body which ought to have power over a judicial tribunal.
  Question put "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 58; Noes, 189.—(Division List, No 192.)
  MR. PICKERSGILLmoved after "prescribed," at the end of Sub-section (2) to insert:—
  These provisions shall conform as nearly as possible to the existing statutory law respecting valuation lists, as regards notices, rights to inspect and take extracts, the hearing of objections, and otherwise.
  Amendment agreed to.
  DR. CLARKmoved an Amendment requiring that the regulations made by the Local Government Board for carrying the Act into effect should lie on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament for ten days.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. LOUGHmoved the omission of the words "shall have effect as if they were enacted in this Act" from Subsection (3), so as to prevent the regulations of the Local Government Board for carrying out the Act having the effect of an Act of Parliament.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the omission of those words would make the sub-section meaningless, and render the regulations inoperative.
  MR. STUARTrecognised the difficulty, but desired that something should be done to prevent the Local Government Board from dealing with these regulations with a free hand.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that there was no sequence in the Amendment; it was a non sequitur.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsuggested that the Amendment should read, "if neither House of Parliament pass a resolution within ten days they shall be binding in law until varied in the same manner."
  MR. STUART: That is absolutely satisfactory.
  Amendment, as amended by the addition of the words suggested by the SOLICITOR GENERAL, agreed to.
  MR. DALZIELproposed, in Sub-section (3), after the word "provide," to insert the words—
  (a) for the appointment in each county of a Government assessor, who shall be empowered to attend all meetings of assessment committees within his county.
  Their case was that the Assessment Committees were unsatisfactory so far as the Imperial authority was concerned. He proposed that the assessor should be appointed by the Government, should be appointed to the Assessment Committee, and should be, to all intents and purposes, a member of the Assessment Committee. The advantage of having this gentleman sitting representing the Imperial authority would be that he would be able to gain great experience from the intimate relations he would have with the work of the Assessment Committees, and be able to introduce a method of uniformity. It would not be necessary to provide remuneration in any way, for his idea was that the person appointed should be an existing official who was already in receipt of a salary and who would undertake this work, which would not be very hard.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, as an objection to the Amendment, said there would be not only indirect, but direct, payment of some existing official, and, as a further objection, pointed out that they had already debated the question of there being a Government valuer, and, having decided that question, it was surely not fair to ask the Committee to engage in another discussion as to the appointment of a gentleman to perform the same functions, simply because the hon. Member called him a Government assessor instead of a Government valuer. It was impossible to accept the Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. STUARTsaid, that the problem which the country generally now had to face had already been faced in the Metropolis, where it was of primary importance that the valuations should be made on the same principles. By the Metropolitan Valuations Act a representative of the Inland Revenue Department was
  196
  given a place on the Assessment Committees. The alteration for the better which had thus been brought about was quite astonishing. The application of this system to the country at large would be a great improvement to the Bill. His object all through had been to improve this clause from the point of view of the Bill itself; and ever since the Bill had been accepted by the House he had loyally endeavoured to make it better. The point in question was the most difficult part of the Bill; and he did think that the Government would have postponed this clause. Unless the Local Government Board were protected by some such power, it would not be a fit body to fix these regulations.
  COLONEL HUGHESsaid, that the proposal to have a Government assessor as well a surveyor of taxes was quite new, and altogether unnecessary.
  MR. LOUGHsaid, his hon. Friend opposite was mistaken in thinking that the supporters of the Amendment wanted to have two officers. They did not; they would be quite satisfied with one; but they desired that he should be appointed under the Local Government Board, and should act in the interest of the Treasury independently of the local bodies that might assess in the localities. They had been told that the Bill was perfect; that it wanted no Amendment, but for the past three hours every Amendment which had been proposed from that side of the House had been accepted. He was sure that when their labours were over the Government would admit that the Opposition had done a great deal to improve the Bill.
  DR. CLARKsaid, that there was an officer of the kind suggested in the Amendment in every county in Scotland. He was called the assessor, and was paid by the Inland Revenue.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Hear, hear!
  DR. CLARK: And the result was that the Treasury had uniformity in Scotland. It was true the officer was paid by the Inland Revenue, but he did local work. He was the registration officer; he made up the rolls and he was responsible to the House for them, though he was an Inland Revenue officer. What was wanted was a fair and uniform valuation in all districts. Let there be throughout England, as there was in Scotland and in London,

  197
  someone who should be present to see that the instructions that were given were carried out.
  *MR. WHITTAKERsaid, it was absolutely necessary there should be someone to protect the public and see that they were not unduly fleeced. As a matter of fact there was not much confidence in the Assessment Committee; they were too largely composed of the class who were going to benefit by this Bill.
  "When self the trembling balance holds
  'Tis seldom right's adjusted."
  The interests of the public in the towns could not be left with Assessment Committees and Quarter Sessions when they could make so much difference between the burdens that fell upon land and those that fell upon buildings. In illustration of what could be done, he referred to the accounts of Voluntary Schools, in the management of which, in order to get public money, managers did what they would scorn to do in private affairs. The people of the towns were going to find the bulk of the money, and they ought to have representation.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that what was asked for by the Amendment was practically a complete remodelling of the rating of England. ["Hear, hear! and "It wants it!"] He had no objection to that. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy had submitted an Amendment, the essence of which was that there should be a paid officer; and the hon. Member for Caithness said there ought to be someone corresponding to an assessor in Scotland. He was not in the least opposed to it; but it was foreign to the scope of the Bill. The hon. Member for Shoreditch said he had had great experience, but for once he had made a mistake, for he said that the Inland Revenue appointed such an officer in London. Nothing of the kind; the only officer was the Surveyor of Taxes, who, under this Bill, would have statements sent to him. The Bill said the Local Government Board were to provide, with the concurrence of the Treasury, for the fixing of a minimum; surely there was the control hon. Members wished for, and all that could be given unless there was a complete remodelling of the system.
  MR. LEUTYsaid, that what had been stated with regard to the want of
  198
  uniformity in London was true of the country generally. There were instances of a rate being levied in more than one union under differential assessments; and when he had brought instances before a Committee he had been told by the Chairman that he could not regard what was done in other unions. The local Poor Rate was a mere trifle compared with other rates assessed on a different basis. Surveyors of taxes might well do in the country what had been done in London. The Inland Revenue did not necessarily adopt the assessment of the Poor Law authorities, but they revised it for themselves.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 64; Noes, 198.—(Division List, No. 193.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYclaimed to move, "That the Question 'That Clause 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question 'That Clause 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 205; Noes, 64.—(Division List, No. 194.)
  Question put accordingly, "That Clause 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 210; Noes, 67.—(Division List, No. 195.)
  On 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 be payable under this Act to the spending authority may he paid to the rural district council, or if the parish is not in a rural district, 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 ninety-seven 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 be deemed to have been actually paid by the rating authority, and the amount which would have been raised or been produced by a

  199
  rate of threepence in the pound on the rateable value shall be calculated in like manner as if this Act had not passed.
  MR. BUXTONsaid, it would be convenient to the Committee if either the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill or the Solicitor General would explain the exact meaning of this clause.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the clause consisted of three sub-sections. The first dealt with the case that might often occur, where a School Board for a school district, which was a parish, or the surveyor of highways were the spending authority. It would be very inconvenient that the Exchequer and Local Government Board should have to hand over such sums to each spending authority. Therefore, purely as a matter of convenience, there was provided a fund through which the contributions due to them might better reach the spending authorities, and which should be paid to the Rural District Council, or where the parish was not a rural district, to the Guardians of the Poor Law Union, and paid over or credited by these authorities to the spending authorities. The Committee would see that the subsections merely provided machinery to save trouble. It did not involve any matter of principle. The second subsection was simply this—the Committee would remember that the spending authority received a payment from the Exchequer in respect of the deficiency on the rate, and this sub-section provided that any sum paid under the Act should for the purpose of its application, of account and of audit, be deemed to have been raised by the said rate. The 3rd sub-section dealt with the 97th section of the Elementary Education Act, 1870. Hon. Members would be aware that that section provided that if any School Board got from the rating authority a sum which equalled 2d. in the £on the rating in the district, and if that sum was less than £20 or 7s. 6d. per child, then in addition to the ordinary Parliamentary grant, that Scnool Board could get a grant sufficient to make it up to £20 or 7s. 6d. per child. The effect of the 3rd sub-section was that the payment made out of the grant coming from the Exchequer was to be taken as part of the payment made by the rating authority to the School Board.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEthought that the words of the first sub-section ought to be of a more general character.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid that the point made by the right hon. Gentleman was worthy of consideration, but he was not prepared to alter the words of the sub-section on the spur of the moment.
  MR. YOXALLmoved to amend the clause by striking out the following words, "a School Board for a school district which is a parish, or."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALhoped that the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.
  *MR. MUNDELLAsuggested that the hon. and learned Gentleman should omit the clause altogether, and should bring up a new clause on the Report.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid that he could not do that; but he undertook that the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean should receive due consideration.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 208; Noes, 77.—(Division List, No. 196.)
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSmoved, in Sub-section 1, to omit the words "to the Rural District Council or if the parish is not in a rural district."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid they were prepared to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to; clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  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 he deemed to be part of the sum raised thereby.
  DR. CLARKasked what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the

  201
  House proposed to do. They had had a 21 hours' sitting, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman himself began to understand that there were a large number of principles involved in the Bill besides that in Clause 1. He begged to move that Progress be reported.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid the Government proposed to do what he really thought every Gentleman on either side of the House would regard as for the general convenience—namely, that having done so much they should finish this Bill. [Ministerial cheers.] Let hon. Gentlemen remember that a little further exertion now would give them four days' holiday. [Laughter.]
  MR. DALZIELsaid the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the question as to what it was proposed to do with regard to the subsequent events of the day.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that if the House would consent to deal rapidly with this Bill those plans which in happier circumstances he had formed for getting through what he had hoped was non-controversial business might fall into ruin. He would accede to this, that, if hon. Gentlemen would finish this Bill, he would not take any other business, except the Adjournment, at that Sitting. [Cheers.]
  MR. DALZIELsaid he was glad to hear that statement, and he only regretted that the right hon. Gentleman did not make it at a quarter past 12 o'clock that night, as they might then have come to a better arrangement. ["Hear, hear!" and Ministerial laughter.]
  Motion for adjournment, by leave withdrawn; clause added to the Bill.
  Clause 9,—

  DEFINITIONS.
  In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:—
  The expression "rate" means 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 be ultimately raised out of a rate as before defined.
  The expression "rateable value" in the case of the county rate, or any other rate, levied
  202
  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 Unionist Assessment Committee Acts, 1862 and 1864, or, in the metropolis, under the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869.
  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, or as woodlands, market gardens, nursery grounds, orchards, or allotments, but does not include land occupied together with a house as a park, garden, or pleasure ground.
  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. LUTTRELLmoved to omit the words "or as woodlands," contending that these words would relieve landowners exclusively.
  *SIR W. HARCOURThoped the Government would agree to the Amendment, as it was impossible to put this forward as a benefit to the tenant farmer.
  MR. CHAPLINwas glad, if only for once, to be at one with the right hon. Gentleman, and he should accept the Amendment; which was thereupon agreed to.
  MR. LOGANmoved to insert after "gardens" "cottage gardens not exceeding one acre in extent." This he urged would greatly benefit the labourers, for whom the Party opposite professed so much sympathy.
  MR. CHAPLINhad sympathy with the proposal, but suggested that the words should be "cottage gardens exceeding one quarter of an acre."
  MR. LOGANexpressed his readiness to accept this Amendment, which was agreed to.
  *SIR C. DILKEmoved to insert "woodlands or" after "includes."
  Amendment agreed to.
  *MR. HARRISONmoved the omission of "occupied together with a house,"

  203
  and the insertion instead thereof of the words "used and enjoyed."
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he had made various concessions to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but he hoped the hon. Member for Plymouth would not press this Amendment.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESrecommended the hon. Gentleman to press the Amendment, for the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for West Monmouth, in the only Amendment he had pressed and got accepted, that which excepted "woodlands," had deprived all his neighbours in the New Forest of benefit under this Bill.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. NUSSEYmoved the Amendment which stood in his name, namely, after "pleasure grounds," in line 28, insert "moor, woodlands, or warren, or any land kept or preserved exclusively for sporting purposes." He was sure not many words of his were necessary to explain the meaning of the Amendment. His object was simply to exclude certain land which was not primâ facie agricultural land. They were told the Bill was to relieve an acute form of agricultural depression. His Amendment would exempt from benefit racecourses and other mere pleasure grounds. No one could say that racecourses were agricultural enterprises.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid ho would be glad to go a long way to meet the hon. Member, but he did not like to exclude moor or warren. He had never seen a moor on which there was a sheep run. Surely the hon. Gentleman's object would be attained if after "pleasure ground'' there was inserted die words "or any land held or preserved mainly or exclusively for sporting purposes."
  *MR. MUNDELLAasked if the words the right hon. Gentleman suggested would include the Doncaster racecourse.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Certainly.
  MR. FISONdid not see why the ratepayers of Doncaster should not receive relief because they happened to occupy land which was used during a certain portion of the year for racing.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERthought the concession was a very fair one. He owned he did not think the owners of race courses had any claim to exemption from rates.?
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  SIR J. BRUNNERwas in hopes the right hon. Gentleman would accept the principle of the Amendment he now had to move. If the right hon. Gentleman would kindly say he would, he would not press any form of words. If the right hon. Gentleman would go back to the Amendments of Clause 5 he would find there an Amendment standing in his name. It was not in order in that place, but he was happy to believe it was in order here. He would not take up time by arguing the question, but move to add after the last Amendment—
  Or any land which to the knowledge of the Committee or Council settling the list basis or valuation has been offered or advertised as building land.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, that with regard to land that was under advertisement as building land, there would be no difficulty, but such land was often let and used purely as agricultural land. ["Hear, hear!"] Moreover, the land which was advertised or offered for building land was sometimes very poor land. Under the circumstances he could not see how such land used as agricultural land could be excluded from the operation of the Bill, and therefore he could not accept the Amendment.
  SIR J. BRUNNER(who continued his speech under constant cries of "Divide" and interruption) said, he knew cases of land that was used as agricultural land temporarily, but that was really regarded as prospective building land, and was, therefore, worth £1,000 an acre. Surely such land as that was not entitled to relief under the Bill on the ground of agricultural distress. ["Hear, hear!"] An hon. Member had told him that he was the owner of land near a town worth £1,500 an acre and yielding £3 an acre rent. The right hon. Gentleman said a short time ago that he had no idea of doing injustice to anyone by this Bill, but in such cases as those he would be doing a great injustice, though, perhaps, unconsciously, by adhering to the Bill. [Loud cries of "Divide" and laughter.] He was bound to press this matter on the attention of the Committee until he got a satisfactory answer from the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] If the rates on such land as he had referred to were halved, the Bill, instead of alleviating an injustice, would be doing

  205
  a double injustice. ["Hear, hear!"] Much of the land claimed by the right hon. Gentleman an agricultural land was only such nominally; it was really building land, and was valued as building land by the owners, and it ought to be taxed on the annual value the owners asked for it. ["Hear, hear!" and, interruption.] The urban populations already laboured under great injustice through the insufficient and unfair taxation of land of this description, which, though of immense value, was charged only on the small rental paid upon it, because it was temporarily held. [Cries of "Divide!"] He would give the Committee an illustration with regard to land that paid no rates at all. [Cries of "Divide" and interruption.]
  MR. TOMLINSONasked whether the hon. Member was in order in discussing the question of halving the rates on land that paid no rates at all? [Laughter and cheers.]
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member was not out of order, but he was certainly travelling wide of the Amendment. [Cheers.]
  SIR J. BRUNNERsaid, he had twice indicated that he would stop if he could obtain some intimation from the right hon. Gentleman that he admitted the justice of the Amendment. [Laughter and interruption.] He was bound to do, as every Member, whether landlord or not, ought to feel bound to do, his duty to his constituents for whom he sat in the House. [Laughter and cries of "Divide!"] He remembered a time when from his father's house—[loud laughter and cries of "Oh!"]—he could look over land which was now occupied by the town of Bootle to the sea. [Cries of "Oh!" and "Order!"] There were not then two houses in a line on that land. The whole of that large extent of ground was now covered with houses, most of which had been built on leases for 75 years. Those leases were now 50 years old. At the end of 25 years, therefore, the whole of Bootle would belong to the lessor, who would thus come into the possession of property worth 25 millions sterling on land which during the whole of the 50 years had not paid one penny towards local taxation. [Cheers and cries of "Divide!"]
  THE CHAIRMANasked the hon. Member to keep closer to the terms of the Amendment.
  SIR J. BRUNNERsaid, that if he appeared to be unduly persistent in this matter it was only because he wished to prevent further injustice being done in respect of land which was already too little taxed, or not taxed or rated at all. [Cheers and cries of "Divide!"] He would only further express the hope that before the Bill passed away from that House the right hon. Gentleman would further consider this matter, and endeavour by some means to exclude from the relief granted by the Bill laud which, though it might be held temporarily at a small rental, was estimated at high value as probable building land, and which already did not bear anything like a fair share of taxation. ["Hear, hear!" and cries of "Divide!"]
  MR. LOGANsaid, there was no subject with which the Committee could deal of greater importance to urban communities than that of the increasing value, and of the rating, of land near the towns. It was notorious that in recent years land near the towns had enormously increased in value, not through any efforts of the owners, but entirely through the growth of the populations. He supported the Amendment because it would be a monstrous injustice to the general taxpayer that land which was simply used for the moment for agricultural purposes, which was of enormous value, and which was intended for building purposes, should participate in the relief granted by the Bill. [Cheers and interruption.] He claimed in this matter to be the representative of large numbers of working men, who would be called upon to pay more than their fair share of the money which was to be distributed under the Bill. [Cheers and interruption.] He could not conceive that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill intended to include this very valuable land within the scope of the Measure. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to consent even now at the eleventh hour to take this matter into consideration. In the neighbourhood of our large towns there was an enormous quantity of land that was increasing every day in value, that increased value being given to it by the community. An owner using that increased value for his own benefit was really confiscating the proceeds of the labour of the people.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the hon. Member was dealing with the Amendment in rather a general way, and was expressing objections to the Bill which he had expressed once or twice before. He invited the hon. Member to confine his remarks more closely to the terms of the Amendment.
  MR. CHAPLINexplained that he had said nothing to exclude this question from further consideration. All he asked for was time in which to consider this Amendment, which, like many others, had been handed in without notice.
  MR. CHANNINGasked the right hon. Gentleman to consider, in connection with this matter, the Report of the Commission of 1885 on the Housing of the Working Classes. That Report was in favour of the acceptance of the general principle asserted by his hon. Friend who had moved this Amendment.
  SIR J. BRUNNERsaid, that after the conciliatory statement of the right hon. Gentleman he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  Clause 10,—

  SHORT TITLE.
  This Act may be cited as the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896.
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.

  SCHEDULE—SPENDING AUTHORITIES.
  County Councils, councils of county boroughs, councils of boroughs and other urban districts and rural districts, Boards of Guardians, the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police district, School Boards, Highway Boards, Surveyors of Highways, and the Isle of Wight Highway Commissioners.
  THE CHAIRMANput the Question, "That the Schedule be added to the Bill."
  MR. J RANKINasked why Parish Councils were omitted from the list of spending authorities named in the Schedule?
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, that it was impossible to get accurate information as to all the past expenditure of Parish Councils. There had been no account furnished as to their expenditure for 1895–1896, but he had been supplied with the following information with respect to the last three months of the
  208
  year ending on March 31, 1895: 2,915 Parish Councils and 5,623 parish meetings had returned no accounts. 3,988 Parish Councils and 337 parish meetings had incurred some expenditure. In 200 cases no rate had been levied; in 328 the rate had been under one farthing; in 611 between one farthing and one halfpenny; in 608 between one halfpenny and one penny; and in 172 one penny. As yet the Department had only been able to examine half of the accounts. In the circumstances it had been considered impossible to include Parish Councils and meetings among the spending authorities under this Bill.
  THE CHAIRMANexplained that he had put the question that the Schedule be added to the Bill by mistake. There was a new clause to be moved.
  *MR. MUNDELLAmoved to insert the following new clause:—
  This Act shall not apply to any rate raised or levied in a municipal or county borough.
  He explained that there were many municipal county boroughs having a very large acreage of land which was unbuilt upon within the municipal boundaries. Sheffield, for example, occupied an area of about 20,000 acres, and there were within the boundaries of the city farms which paid rents up to £4 an acre. Surely it was not intended to relieve the owners of such farms from liability in respect of half the rates. The Duke of Norfolk was the ground landlord of a great part of Sheffield, and received enormous sums in ground rents. He also owned farms within the boundaries of the municipality. Was it thought desirable in those circumstances to extend the benefit of this Bill to his farms? The Bill was for the relief of agricultural depression, but depression could not be said to exist where land was let for £3 and £4 an acre. Within the boundaries of Leeds there was a farm belonging to a friend of his which was let for £3 an acre. In Hull there was about 3,000 acres of agricultural land within the municipal boundaries, and more than £7,000 a year was paid in rents for this property. If the relief given by the Bill was allowed to extend to cases of that kind they would be practically taxing the leaseholders in those towns for the benefit of their landlords, who owned land which was as yet

  209
  unbuilt upon within the area of the city, but which would some day realise enormous rents and which to-day was already paying very much more than ordinary agricultural land paid. He begged to move the clause standing in his name.
  *SIR C. DILKEthought that some such thing as the right hon. Gentleman proposed ought to be done, but the clause, he held, ought not to pass in its present form, for there were many municipal boroughs where the population was under 2,000 and which were really quite rural in their character. Therefore all municipal boroughs could not be excluded from the scope of the Bill. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill should take the question into consideration in the interval before the Report stage. The case of lands of high value, such as those to which his right hon. Friend had called attention, ought to be met in some way or other.
  *SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid, that he supported the proposal of his right hon. Friend, but must ask for some modification of it. It ought to be amended so as to provide for allotments and cottage gardens situated within municipal boundaries receiving the benefits of the Bill.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he could not accept the Amendment in its present form certainly, and he could not give any undertaking that he would be able to do so at a later stage. He would, however, be quite ready to consider it before they came to the Report stage of the Bill, and to examine the question again, but he did not wish to be understood as giving any kind of pledge on the subject.
  *MR. MUNDELLAasked the right hon. Gentleman whether it was within the scope of his intentions that high-rented land of from £2 to £4 an acre was land which should be relieved of half the rates?
  MR. STUARTsaid, it was clear that the recent Amendments and this new clause did raise a point that required consideration. This was the case of land which, either by its position or from other circumstances, had become so valuable that it ought fairly to be excluded from the operation of the Bill.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he quite acknowledged the importance of the ques-
  210
  tion, and also that it was a very large and difficult question which was undoubtedly worthy of attention and consideration. He could not, however, give any further assurance than he had already given.
  *MR. MUNDELLAsaid, on the understanding that the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged the importance of the question and was anxious if possible to meet it, he would ask leave to withdraw the clause.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn; Schedule agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Bill reported, as amended, amid loud Ministerial cheers; to be considered upon Monday 1st June, and to be printed.—[Bill 260.]

  ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: With the leave of the House, I beg to move:—
  "That this House at its rising do adjourn till Monday 1st June, and that so soon as Government Business is disposed of Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put."
  I may say that Government business means simply naming the days on which Government Bills are to be put down.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEasked whether there was any precedent for this Motion being made at the same sitting. He had always thought that the notice had to be given on one occasion for a future sitting. He did not raise this as a mere technical point, but because sometimes the Motion for adjournment afforded an opportunity for an important Debate on foreign affairs or other matters, and if this became a precedent the Motion might be made at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, and the minority would be precluded from discussing a matter they were anxious to discuss.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Perhaps the right hon. Baronet ought rather to put the question of order to the Speaker. I have made such inquiries as have been within my power, and I am given to understand there are precedents which bear out the course we are now pursuing. That course in itself is obviously an expedient one, otherwise we should have to commence a new sitting with prayers merely for the purpose of adjourning. Probably the right

  211
  hon. Baronet's protest against this being made a usual procedure will be sufficient.
  MR. DALZIEL, who was received with loud cries of "Agreed," said, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say ''by leave,'' which showed that he recognised the right of the House to object.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No. I used the words "by leave," because the more natural time for the Motion would have been after the Orders of the day; but then Mr. Speaker would leave the Chair automatically and there would be no opportunity for making any Motion.
  *SIR C. DILKEsaid, he would not carry his objection any further if it were thoroughly understood that it was not to be drawn into a precedent on any future occasion.
  *MR. SPEAKER: There are precedents for the course which has been taken.
  Motion put, and agreed to.
  The Government Bills on the Order Paper were then gone through, and their subsequent stages fixed as followeth:—

  MILITARY MANœUVRES BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday 1st June.
  MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [15th May] further adjourned till Monday 1st June.
  SUPPLY.
  Committee deferred till Monday 1st June.
  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Committee deferred till Monday 1st June.
  CABS (LONDON) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday 1st June.
  COAL MINES REGULATION ACT (1887) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday 10th June.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL.
  Consideration, as amended by the Standing Committee, deferred till Monday 1st June.
  STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday 8th June.
  FINANCE BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday 1st June.
  OFFICIAL SECRETS BILLS.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 1st June.
  EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 4th June.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 1st June.
  PUBLIC HEALTH (PORTS) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 4th June.
  WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY [GUARANTEE].
  Committee thereupon deferred till Tuesday 2nd June.
  PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND) BILL.
  Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended by the Standing Committee, deferred till Monday 8th June.
  BURGLARY BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 1st June.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ALDERSHOT AND FARNBOROUGH) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 1st June.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 2nd June.
  Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of this day, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, after a continuous sitting of 22½ hours.
  Adjourned at half after One o'clock upon Friday afternoon till Three o'clock on Monday 1st June.