Commons Sitting of 10 February 1899

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  BILLS TO ORIGINATE IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means reported, That, in accordance with Standing Order 79, he had conferred with the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords, for the purpose of determining in which House of Parliament the respective Private Bills should be first considered, and they had determined that the Bills contained in the following list should originate in the House of Lords, viz:—
  Aberdeen Corporation; Aberdeen Harbour; Aberdeen Joint Passenger Station; Airdrie and Coatbridge Water; All Saints' Church (Cardiff); Arbroath Corporation Gas; Barton-on-Sea Water; Bexhill and St. Leonards Tramroads; Birkenhead Corporation; Birmingham, North Warwickshire, and Stratford-upon-Avon Railway: Bognor Urban District (Water); Brighton Marine Palace and Pier; Bristol Floods Prevention; Bristol Gas; Buenos Ayres and Pacific Railway Company; Bury Corporation; Bury Corporation Water; Caledonian Railway (General Powers); Caledonian Railway (Grangemouth Connecting Lines); Cambridge University and Town Gas; Church Stretton Water; Clyde Navigation; Coalville Urban District Gas; Cobham Gas; Colonial and Foreign Banks Guarantee Fund; Cromer Protection; Douglas and Sanquhar Railway;

  465
  Dumbarton Burgh; Dundee Gas, Tramways, and Extension; Friends' Provident Institution; Furness Railway; Fylde Water Board; Gainsborough Urban District Council (Gas); Glasgow and South Western Railway; Glasgow Corporation (Gas and Water); Glasgow Corporation (Tramways, etc.); Glasgow District Subway; Glasgow, Motherwell, and Sanquhar Railway; Glastonbury Water; Great Eastern Railway (Amendment of London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Act, 1898); Great Eastern Railway (General Powers); Great Grimsby Street Tramways; Great Northern Railway; Great Yarmouth Corporation; Great Yarmouth Pier; Great Yarmouth Water; Greenock and Port Glasgow Tramways; Grosvenor Chapel (London); Hampstead Church (Emmanuel, West End); Harbour and Docks Rates (Bristol, etc.); Hastings and St. Leonard's Gas; Hastings Corporation Tramways; Hastings Harbour; Heme Bay Water; Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock; Humber Conservancy; Imperial Markets and Stores; Infant Orphan Asylum; Inverness Harbour; Kew Bridge; Kirkcaldy Corporation and Tramways; Knott End Railway; Lanarkshire (Middle Ward District) Water; Lea Bridge District Gas; Leigh-on-Sea Urban District Council; Liverpool Overhead Railway; Llanelly Harbour and Poutardulais Railway; London and South Western Railway; London Hospital; Loughborough and Sheepshead Railway; Loughborough Corporation; Loughborough Gas; Lowestoft Water and Gas Company; Manchester Corporation Tramways; Maryport Harbour; Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Finance); Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Pilotage); Mid-Kent Gas; Milford Docks; Moss Side Urban District Council (Tramways); Muirkirk, Mauchline, and Dalmellington Railway; Nene Valley Waterworks; Newhaven and Seaford Water Board; Norfolk Estuary; North Eastern and Hull and Barnsley Railways (Joint Dock); North Eastern Railway; North Staffordshire Railway; Northern Assurance Union; Oldham Corporation; Oystermouth Railway or Tramroad; Paisley and Barrhead District Railway; Perth Water, Police, and Gas; Port Talbot Railway and Docks; Portsmouth Corporation; Queen's Ferry Bridge; Rawtenstall Cor-
  466
  poration Water; Renfrew Burgh and Harbour Extension; Rochdale Canal; Rushden and Higham Ferrers District Gas; St. Albans Gas; St. Neots Water; Salford Corporation; Skipton Gas; Skipton Urban District Gas; South Essex Water; South Hants Water; Southampton Corporation Water; South-port and Lytham Tramroad; Southport Tramways; South Staffordshire Tramways; Stockton and Middlesborough Water; Stretford Gas; Stretford Urban District Council (Tramways); Sunderland Corporation; Surrey Commercial Docks; Totland Water; Transvaal Mortgage Loan and Finance Company; Wakefield Corporation; Wallasey Tramways and Improvements; Walton-on-Thames and Weybridge Gas; Watermen's and Lightermen's Acts Amendment; West Highland Railway; Weston-super-Mare, Clevedon, and Portishead Tramways Company (Light Railway Extensions); Weston-super-Mare Grand Pier; White-haven Corporation; Wick and Pulteney Harbours; Wishaw Water; Withington Urban District Council (Tramways); Wolverhampton Corporation; Wolver-hampton Tramways; Workington Corporation Water; Yeadon and Guiseley Gas.

METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER.
Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, under the Metropolitan Police Act, 1886, relating to lands in the parishes of St. Marylebone, Lee, St. John Horsleydown, St. Mary, Stratford, Bow, and St. John at Hackney, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jesse Collings and Secretary Sir Matthew White Ridley. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiner of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. (Bill 2.)
PETITIONS.
  JUVENILE VAGRANCY.
  Petitions for alteration of Law;—From Bolton;—and School Board for London; to lie upon the Table.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD ORDER OF 18TH OCTOBER 1898.
Petition from Mile End, for inquiry; to lie upon the Table.
PAYMENT OF JURORS.
Petition from London, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
POOR LAW RELIEF (DISENFRANCHISEMENT).
Petitions for alteration of Law;—From Scarborough and Northwich; to lie upon the Table.
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAYS.
Petitions against;—From Torquay; Croydon (two); — Folkestone;—Lincoln; — Collingbourne Kingston; — Hackney (two);—Dalston; —Poole;—Bedford (two);—South Bristol (two);—North Kensington;—Birmingham (two);—Bordesley;—Lynsted;—and, South-end-on-Sea; to lie upon the Table.
VACCINATION ACT, 1898.
Petitions for repeal;—From Wimborne and Cranborne;—Northwich;—and, Honiton; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  MUSEUMS OF THE SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT.
  Paper (presented 7th February) to be printed. (No. 28.)
DUCHY OF CORNWALL.
Account (presented 9th February) to be printed. (No. 29.)
SARDINIAN LOAN.
Account (presented 9th February) to be printed. (No. 30.)
QUEENSLAND IMMIGRATION.
Return (presented 9th February) to be printed. (No. 31.)
IRISH LAND COMMISSION (ACCOUNT).
Account (presented 9th February) to be printed. (No. 33.)
SEA AND COAST FISHERIES FUND (IRELAND) (NON-CONGESTED DISTRICTS).
Account (presented 9th February) to be printed. (No. 33.)
PRISON DIETARIES (COMMITTEE).
Copy presented,—of Report to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Home Department by the Departmental Committee on Prison Dietaries (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
EXPLOSIONS (EXPLOSION OF DETONATORS AT LISKEARD).
Copy presented,—of Report by Captain M. B. Lloyd, R.A., Her Majesty's Inspector of Explosives, to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on the circumstances attending an Explosion of Detonators on the registered Premises of Messrs. J. C. and C. Isaac at Liskeard, Cornwall, on 5th Jaunary 1899 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
Copy presented,—of Return of Evictions in Ireland for the quarter ended 31st December 1898 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
HARWICH HARBOUR.
Copy presented,—of Abstract of the Accounts of the Receipts and Expenditure of the Harwich Harbour Conservancy Board, from the time of their incorporation down to and inclusive of the 31st Marsh, 1898, etc. (by Act); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.. (No. 34.)
ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY PENSIONS.
Copy presented,—of Return showing the names of all Constabulary Officers now in receipt of Pensions, of all Head Constables, Sergeants, and Constables, and of all Widows and Children to whom Pensions have been granted since the Constabulary Estimate for 1898–9 was prepared, with the amount and date of Pension in each case (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
BEER MATERIALS (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
Copy presented,—of Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Treasury on the 22nd August 1896 to inquire into the subject of Beer Materials; with Evidence and Appendices (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
MILITARY WORKS ACT, 1897.
Account presented,—for the period ended 31st March 1898, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon (by Act); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 35.)
DUCHY OF LANCASTER.
Accounts presented,—for the year ended 21st December 1898 (by Act); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 36.)
CHELSEA HOSPITAL.
Accounts presented,—for the year ended 31st March 1898, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon (by Act); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 37.)
BARRACKS ACT, 1890.
Account presented, — showing the money raised and issued under the provisions of the Act, the securities created in respect thereof, and the amount expended for the purposes of the Act to the 31st March 1898,with the Report of the Comptroller and Accountant General thereon (by Act); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 38.)
WOODS, FORESTS, AND LAND REVENUES.
Abstract Accounts presented,—for the year ended 31st March 1898, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon (by Act); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 39.)
POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHS.
Account presented, — showing the gross Amount received and expended on account of the Telgraph Service during the year ended 31st March 1898, etc. (by Act); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 40.)
ARMY (ROYAL MILITARY ACADEMY, WOOLWICH).
Copy presented,—of Report of the Board of Visitors for 1898 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
ARMY (ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE, SANDHURST).
Copy presented,—of Report of the Board of Visitors for 1898 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
IRISH TENANT FARMERS (MONEY ADVANCED, & c).
Return ordered, "showing, according to provinces and counties, the number of loans issued under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Acts, 1891 and 1896, during the year ended the 31st day of December L898, and the total rental of the holdings in respect of which such loans have been issued; also, the total purchase-money and the amount of the loans so issued, and the average number of years' purchase calculated on the rent."—
PAPER LAID UPON TEE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  BANK OF ENGLAND.
  Accounts of Exchequer Bills and other Government Securities purchased, and of the Amount of Balances of Sums issued for the Payment of Dividends, etc., for the year ending 5th January 1899 (by Act), to be printed. (No. 41.)
ADJOURNMENT OF HOUSE TO MONDAY.
Resolved, That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Monday next.—(Sir William Walrond.)
NEW BILLS.
  EDUCATION OF CHILDREN.
  Bill to amend the Law respecting the Employment and Education of Young Children, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robson, Mr. Kenyon, Mr. Ernest Gray, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Sydney Buxton, Mr. Yoxall, Mr. Schwann, Mr. Harwood, and Mr. William Jones.
PETROLEUM.
Bill to amend the Petroleum Act, 1879, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Reckitt, Mr. Ure, Mr. Compton Rickett, Mr. Tully, Mr. M'Killop, Viscount Chelsea, Mr. John Burns, Sir Thomas Gibson-Carmichael, and Colonel Denny.
SERVICE FRANCHISE.
Bill to amend the Service Franchise, ordered to be brought in by Sir Blundell Maple, Mr. Banbury, Colonel Dalbiac, Mr. Duncombe, Sir George Fardell, Captain Jessel, and Mr. Harry Samuel.
OLD AGE PENSIONS.
Bill to provide for the granting by County Councils of Pensions in Old Age, ordered to be brought in by Sir Fortescue Flannery, Mr. Lawrence Hardy, Sir James Franklin, Mr. Holland, Mr. Ernest Flower, Mr. Bousfield, Mr. Carlile, and Mr. Rothschild.
COTTAGE HOMES.
Bill to authorise the provision of Cottage Homes for the aged deserving poor, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Joseph A. Pease, Mr. John Hutton, Mr. Brigg, Mr. Grant Lawson, Sir Powlett Milbank, Mr. Wilson-Todd, and Mr. Wyvill.
FIRE BRIGADES.
Bill to promote the efficiency of Fire Brigades; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Pym, Mr. Birrell, Mr. Brookfield, Mr. Clare, Mr. Malcolm, Lord Alwyne Compton, Mr. Duncombe, Mr. Heath, and Mr. H. D. Greene.
PENSIONS (OLD AGE).
Bill for establishing a National system of Old Age Pensions, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Herbert Whiteley, Mr. Laurence Hardy, Sir James Rankin, Colonel Mellor, Mr. George Whiteley, Mr. Royds, and Mr. Rutherford.
ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND).
Bill to amend the law in regard to Ecclesiastical Assessments in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gordon, Sir James Fergusson, Sir Mark Stewart, Mr. Baird, Mr. Parker Smith, Mr. Thor-burn, and Mr. Faithfull Begg.
CHURCH DISCIPLINE.
Bill for the better enforcing Discipline in the Church of England, ordered to be brought in by Mr. David MacIver, Mr. Charles M'Arthur, Colonel Sandys, Mr. Cruddas, Mr. Wingfield-Digby, Captain Chaloner, Mr. Seton-Karr, Mr. Channing, Mr. Brown, and Mr. R. P. Houston.
LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND).
Bill to enable electors to have effectual control over the Liquor Traffic in their respective areas in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Colville, Mr. John Wilson (Govan), Mr. Souttar, Mr. Cameron Corbett, Sir William Dunn, Mr. Hedderwick, and Dr. Clark.
HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES.
Bill to amend the Law relating to the Housing of the Working Classes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Price, Sir Walter Foster, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Brynmor Jones, Mr. Channing, Mr. Billson, and Mr. Reckitt.
RATING OF MACHINERY.
Bill to amend the Law relating to the Rating of Hereditaments containing Machinery, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Strachey, Sir William Houldsworth, Sir William Coddington, Sir John Dorington, Mr. Oldroyd, Mr. Cawley, Mr. Tomlinson, Mr. Ascroft, and Mr. George Whiteley.
EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) REINSTATEMENT.
Bill to provide for the reinstatement of certain Evicted Tenants in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. O'Malley, Mr. Davitt, Mr. O'Kelly, Sir Thomas Esmonde, Mr. T. M. Healy, Mr. William Abraham, Mr. Thomas Curran, Mr. Field, and Mr. Kilbride.
LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (WALES).
Bill to enable owners and occupiers in Wales to have effectual control over the Liquor Traffic, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ellis Griffith, Mr. Abel Thomas, Mr. Lloyd-George, Mr. Herbert Roberts, Mr. Spicer, and Mr. Vaughan-Davies.
MINES (EIGHT HOURS).
Bill to limit the working hours in Mines to eight hours per day from bank to bank, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Brynmor Jones, Mr. William Abraham, Mr. William Allen, Mr. Thomas Bayley, Mr. Birrell, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Yoxall, Mr. Jacoby, Mr. Picard, Mr. Woods.
RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION.
Bill to make more effectual provision for Prevention of the Pollution of Rivers and Streams, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Wilson-Todd, Sir Francis Powell, Mr. Wyvill, Mr. Hobhouse, Sir John Dorington, Sir Henry Ho worth, Dr. Farquharson, Sir John Brunner, and Sir Walter Foster.
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT (1887) REPEAL.
Bill to repeal The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Dillon, Mr. Doogan, Mr. MacNeill, Mr. Crean, and Mr. Abraham.
PLACES OF WORSHIP (LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT).
Bill to provide for the enfranchisement of Leasehold Places of Worship, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Clough, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Samuel Evans, Mr. Perks, Mr. Bryn Roberts, and Mr. Carvell Williams.
OLD AGE PENSIONS (No. 2).
Bill to establish a system of Old Age Pensions, ordered to be brought in by Sir James Rankin, Mr. Lawrence Hardy, Mr. Hozier, Sir Stafford Northcote, Sir Mark Stewart, and Mr. Lambert.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (1897) AMENDMENT.
Bill to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Holland, Mr. Goulding, Mr. Strutt, Lord Willoughby de Eresby, Mr. Raymond-Greene, Mr. Kemp, and Mr. Morrell.
PLACARDS ON STREETS (IRELAND).
Bill to prevent the laying down of newspaper and other placards on the surface of streets, roads, and thoroughfares in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. D. Sullivan, Mr. MacAleese, Mr. William Redmond, Mr. James O'Connor, Mr. Tully, and Mr. Daly.
PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT.
Bill to amend the Public Health Acts, ordered to be brought in by Sir Alfred Hickman, Sir Walter Foster, Mr. Heath, Mr. Spencer, and Mr. Baldwin.
UNIVERSITY DEGREES.
Bill to regulate the use of certain University Degrees in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. J. W. Sidebotham, Mr. Carson, Dr. Farquharson, Sir William Houldsworth, Sir John Lubbock, Mr. MacNeill, and Sir William Priestley.
CHEAP TRAINS.
Bill relating to cheap trains for the working classes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Woods, Mr. Sydney Buxton, Sir Albert Rollit, Sir Frederick Dixon-Hartland, Mr. Scott, Mr. Maddison, and Mr. Steadman.
SEA FISHERIES REGULATION (SCOTLAND) ACT (1895) AMENDMENT.
Bill to amend The Sea Fisheries Regulations (Scotland) Act (1895), ordered to be brought in by Mr. Crombie, Sir William Wedderburn, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Buchanan, and Captain Sinclair.
RIVERS POLLUTION (PREVENTION). (No. 2).
Bill to make more effectual provision for Prevention of Pollution of Rivers and Streams, ordered to be brought in by Sir Francis Powell, Mr. Wilson-Todd, Mr. Wyvill, Mr. Hobhouse, Sir John Dorington, Sir Henry Howarth, Dr. Farquharson, Sir John Brunner, and Sir Walter Foster.
COLONIAL MARRIAGES.
Bill to legalise certain Colonial Marriages, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Rothschild, Sir William Dunn, General Laurie, Mr. David MacIver, Sir Lewis M'Iver, Mr. Mellor, Sir Samuel Scott, Sir Barrington Simeon, Mr. Spicer, and Mr. Arthur Stanley.
LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Bill to enable Leaseholders to become Freeholders, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Billson, Sir John Brunner, Mr. Cawley, Sir Walter Foster, and Mr. J. Samuel.
MIDWIVES.
Bill to promote the better training of women as midwives and to regulate their practice, ordered to be brought in by Mr. J. B. Balfour, Mr. de Tatton Egerton, Mr. Schwann, Mr. Heywood Johnstone, Mr. Hazell, Mr. Bonsor, Mr. Tennant, and Mr. Skewes-Cox.
SCHOOL BOARDS (GRANTS TO VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS).
Bill to enable School Boards in certain county boroughs to make Grants in aid of efficient Voluntary Schools; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Warr, Mr. William Lawrence, Sir John Willox, Mr. David MacIver, and Mr. T. P. O'Connor.
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS.
Bill to amend the Law relating to Agricultural Holdings in England; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Channing, Mr. Price, Mr. Reckitt, Mr. Luttrell, and Mr. Francis Stevenson.
WATER SUPPLY.
Bill to amend the Law respecting the supply of Water by companies and other bodies and persons, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Cornwallis, Colonel Warde, and Mr. Boscawen.
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY
Bill to prohibit the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Charles Henry Wilson, Mr. Firbank, Mr. Compton Rickett, Mr. Richardson, Mr. Perks, Mr. Cozens Hardy, Mr. Pickard, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. John Wilson (Durham), Mr. Cameron, Mr. Hazell, Mr. Doughty, and Mr. Woods.
COMPANIES ACTS AMENDMENT.
Bill to amend the Companies Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Faith-full Begg, Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Hedderwick, and Mr. Marks.
SUCCESSION (SCOTLAND).
Bill to assimilate the Laws of Heritable with those of Moveable Succession in Scotland; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Thomas Shaw, Mr. Haldane, Dr. Farquharson, Sir Charles Cameron, Mr. Edmund Robertson, Mr. Ure, Mr. Buchanan, and Mr. Hedderwick.
STREET NOISES.
Bill to control and regulate Street Noises, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jacoby, Mr. Radcliffe Cook, General Goldsworthy, Mr. Boulnois, Mr. Pier-point, Mr. Duncombe, Sir Thomas Fardell, Mr. Arnold Forster, Colonel Sandys, and Mr. J. W. Sidebotham.
LIBEL LAW AMENDMENT.
Bill to amend the Law of Libel, ordered to be brought in by Sir John Willox, Sir Albert Rollit, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. Maclean, and Mr. Frederick Wilson.
BOILERS INSPECTION AND REGISTRATION.
Bill to provide for the Inspection and Registration of Boilers, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Fenwick, Mr. John Wilson (Durham), Mr. William Allan, Mr. Woods, Mr. Jonathan Samuel, and Mr. Joseph Walton.
OLD AGE PROVIDENT PENSIONS.
Bill to provide Pensions in Old Age to the Provident Poor, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bartley and General Goldsworthy.
LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO.
Bill to enable Localities, by a direct Vote, to prevent the issue of Licences for the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors, ordered to be brought in by Sir Wilfrid Lawson, Mr. Allison, Mr. Henry J. Wilson, Mr. Burt, Mr. Whittaker, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Jonathan Samuel, Mr. John Wilson (Durham), Mr. Jacoby, and Mr. Pickersgill.
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND).
Bill to amend the Law relating to the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors in Ireland on Saturdays and Sundays, and for other purposes connected therewith, ordered to be brought in by Sir Thomas Lea, Mr. Justin M'Carthy, Colonel Saunderson, Mr. Maurice Healy, Mr. William Johnston, Mr. Jordan, Mr. Rentoul, Mr. Blake, Mr. Arnold Forster, and Mr. Pinkerton.
SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING).
Bill to provide for the Earlier Closing of Shops, ordered to be brought in" by Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Cameron Corbett, Dr. Farquharson, Mr. Fenwick, Sir James-Fergusson, Mr. Field, Mr. Kearley, and Sir Francis Powell.
PENSIONS (OLD AGE). (No. 2.)
Bill to provide Pensions for poor persons over the age of 65 years, ordered to be brought in by Sir Walter Foster, Mr. Labouchere, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Alfred Thomas, Mr. Logan, Mr. Channing, and Mr. Billson.
ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITIES REMOVAL.
Bill to abolish Disabilities still affecting Roman Catholics in the United Kingdom, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Patrick O'Brien, Mr. John Redmond, Lord Edmund Talbot, Mr. Parnell, Mr. Clancy, Mr. T. M. Healy, Mr. Dillon, and Mr. Hemphill.
TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND).
Bill to consolidate and amend the Law relating to the election and proceedings of Town Councils in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. J. B. Balfour, Mr. Thomas Shaw, Dr. Clark, Mr. Parker Smith, Mr. Robert Wallace (Perth), Mr. Cross, and Mr. Gordon.
EXECUTORS (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT.
Bill to amend the Law relating to Executors in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. J. B. Balfour, Mr. Thomas Shaw, Mr. Ure, and Mr. Caldwell.
COAL MINES REGULATION.
Bill to amend the Coal Mines Regulation Acts, ordered to be brought in by Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. William Abraham, Mr. William Allen, Mr. Thomas Bayley, Sir Walter Foster, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Jacoby, Mr. M'Kenna, Mr. Pickard, Mr. Randell, Mr. Woods, and Mr. Yoxall.
FRANCHISE AND REMOVAL OF WOMEN'S DISABILITIES.
Bill to establish a single Franchise at all Elections, and thereby to abolish University Representation and to remove the Disabilities of Women, ordered to be brought in by Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. William Allen, Mr. John Burns, Dr. Clark, Mr. Davitt, Mr. Atherley-Jones, Mr. Logan, Mr. Maddison, and Captain Norton.
SHOPS.
Bill to amend the Law relating to Shops, ordered to be brought in by Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. John Burns, Dr. Clark, Mr. Clough, Mr. Davitt, Mr. Duckworth, Mr. Field, Mr. Flower, Mr. Kemp, Mr. Steadman, and Mr. Tennant.
DISTRESS ABOLITION AND SUBSTITUTION.
Bill to provide for the abolition of the right of Distress by a Landlord against a Tenant, and to substitute for it a better and simpler system for the recovery of possession of lands, tenements, and hereditaments when rent is in arrear, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bartley and Mr. Maclean.
OCCUPYING TENANTS ENFRANCHISEMENT.
Bill to enable Occupying Tenants of houses and places of business to purchase the fee simple of their holdings, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bartley and Mr. Maclean.
OUT-DOOR PROVIDENT RELIEF.
Bill to amend the Law relating to Out-door Relief in sickness and widowhood to the provident poor, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bartley and General Goldsworthy.
CORONERS' INQUESTS (RAILWAY FATALITIES).
Bill to amend the law relating to Coroners' Inquests in the case of fatal accidents on railways, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Channing, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Davitt, and Sir Albert Rollit.
INTOXICATING LIQUORS LOCAL VETO (IRELAND).
Bill to enable the Local Government Electors of any locality to veto the issue of Licences for the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Johnston, Mr. Jordan, and Mr. Pinkerton.
Bill to amend the Crown Cases Act, 1848, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Pickersgill and Mr. Brynmor Jones.
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL.
Bill for the creation of a Court of Criminal Appeal, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Pickersgill, Mr. Ascroft, Mr. Birrell, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. H. D. Greene, Mr. T. M. Healy, Mr. Howell, Mr. Brynmor Jones, Mr. H. C. Richards, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Robert Wallace (Perth), and Mr. Woods.
POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND).
Bill to enable parish councils in Scotland to grant Superannuation Allowances to Poor Law Officers and Servants, and to Officers and Servants of committees of management of poor houses formed under a combination for poor house purposes, ordered to be brought in by Sir Mark Stewart, Mr. Renshaw, Dr. Farquharson, Colonel Denny, Mr. Ure, Mr. Nicol, and Mr. Cox.
BILLS BEAD A FIRST TIME.
  EDUCATION OF CHILDREN BILL.
  "To amend the Law respecting the Employment and Education of Young Children," presented and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 1st March, and to be printed. (Bill 3.)
PETROLEUM BILL.
"To amend the Petroleum Act, 1879," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 15th March, and to be printed. (Bill 4.)
SERVICE FRANCHISE BILL.
"To amend the Service Franchise," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 8th March, and to be printed. (Bill 5.)
OLD AGE PENSIONS BILL.
"To provide for the granting by County Councils of Pensions in Old Age," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 22nd March, and to be printed. (Bill 6.)
COTTAGE HOMES BILL.
"To authorise the provision of Cottage Homes for the aged deserving poor," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 22nd February, and to be printed. (Bill 7.)
FIRE BRIGADES BILL.
"To promote the efficiency of Fire Brigades; and for other purposes," and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 12th April, and to be printed. (Bill 8.)
PENSIONS (OLD AGE) BILL.
"For establishing a National system of Old Age Pensions," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 19th April, and to be printed. (Bill 9.)
ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
"To amend the Law in regard to Ecclesiastical Assessments in Scotland," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 26th April, and to be printed. (Bill 10.)
CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL.
"For the better enforcing Discipline in the Church of England," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 10th May, and to be printed. (Bill 11.)
LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
"To enable electors to have effectual control over the Liquor Traffic in their respective areas in Scotland," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 3rd May, and to be printed. (Bill 12.)
HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES BILL.
"To amend the Law relating to the Housing of the Working Classes," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 29th March, and to be printed. (Bill 13.)
RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
"To amend the Law relating to the Rating of Hereditaments containing Machinery," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 17th May, and to be printed. (Bill 14.).
EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) REINSTATEMENT BILL.
"To provide for the reinstatement of certain evicted tenants in Ireland," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 12th April, and to be printed. (Bill 15.)
LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL VETO) (WALES) BILL.
"To enable owners and occupiers in Wales to have effectual control over the Liquor Traffic," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 26th April, and to be printed. (Bill 16.)
MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
"To limit the working hours in Mines to eight hours per day from bank to bank," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 31st May, and to be printed. (Bill 17.)
RIVERS POLLUTION (PREVENTION) BILL.
"To make more effectual provision for Prevention of the Pollution of Rivers and Streams," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 8th March, and to be printed. (Bill 18.)
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT (1887) REPEAL BILL.
"To Repeal the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 19th April, and to be printed. (Bill 19.)
PLACES OF WORSHIP (LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT) BILL.
"To provide for the Enfranchisement of Leasehold Places of Worship," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 22nd February, and to be printed. (Bill 20.)
OLD AGE PENSIONS (NO. 2) BILL.
"To establish a system of Old Age Pensions," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 19th April, and to be printed. (Bill 21.)
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (1897) AMENDMENT BILL.
"To amend the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 3rd May and to be printed. (Bill 22.)
PLACARDS ON STREETS (IRELAND) BILL.
"To prevent the laying down of newspaper and other placards on the surface of streets, roads, and thoroughfares in Ireland," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 15th March, and to be printed. (Bill 23.)
PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
"To amend the Public Health Acts," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 22nd February, and to be printed. (Bill 24.)
UNIVERSITIES DEGREES BILL.
"To regulate the use of certain University Degrees in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 15th March, and to be printed. (Bill 25.)
CHEAP TRAINS BILL.
"Relating to Cheap Trains for the working classes," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 1st March, and to be printed. (Bill 26.)
SEA FISHERIES REGULATION (SCOTLAND) ACT (1895) AMENDMENT BILL.
"To amend The Sea Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Act, 1895," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 10th May, and to be printed. (Bill 27.)
RIVERS POLLUTION (PREVENTION) (No. 2) BILL.
"To make more effectual provision for Prevention of Pollution of Rivers and Streams," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 8th March, and to be printed. (Bill 29.)
COLONIAL MARRIAGES BILL.
"To legalise certain Colonial Marriages," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 15th March, and to be prined. (Bill 29.)
LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
"To enable Leaseholders to become Freeholders," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 22nd March, and to be printed. (Bill 30.)
MIDWIVES BILL.
"To promote the better training of women as midwives and to regulate their practice," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 12th April, and to be printed. (Bill 31.)
SCHOOL BOARDS (GRANTS TO VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS) BILL.
"To enable School Boards in certain country boroughs to make Grants in aid of efficient Voluntary Schools; and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 26th April, and to be printed. (Bill 32.)
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.
"To amend the Law relating to Agricultural Holdings in England; and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 22nd February, and to be printed. (Bill 33.)
WATER SUPPLY BILL.
"To amend the Law respecting the supply of Water by companies and other bodies and persons," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 8th March, and to be printed. (Bill 34.)
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
"To prohibit the Sale of intoxicating Liquors on Sunday," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 1st March, and to be printed. (Bill 35.)
COMPANIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
"To amend the Companies Acts," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 7th June, and to be printed. (Bill 36.)
SUCCESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
"To assimilate the Laws of Heritable with those of Moveable Succession in Scotland; and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 3rd May, and to be printed. (Bill 37.)
STREET NOISES BILL.
"To control and regulate Street Noises," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 26th April, and to be printed. (Bill 38.)
LIBEL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
"To amend the Law of Libel," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 26th April, and to be printed. (Bill 39.)
BOILERS INSPECTION AND REGISTRATION BILL.
"To provide for the Inspection and Registration of Boilers," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 10th May, and to be printed. (Bill 40.)
OLD AGE PROVIDENT PENSIONS BILL.
"To provide Pensions in Old Age to the Provident Poor," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 22nd March, and to be printed. (Bill 41.)
LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO BILL.
"To enable Localities, by a direct Veto, to prevent the issue of Licences for the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. (Bill 42.)
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL.
"To amend the Law relating to the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors in Ireland on Saturdays and Sundays,-and for other purposes connected therewith," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday 21st February, and to be printed. (Bill 43.)
SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL.
"To provide for the Earlier Closing of Shops," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. (Bill 44.)
PENSIONS (OLD AGE) (No. 2) BILL.
"To provide Pensions for poor persons over the age of sixty-five years," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 22nd March, and to be printed. (Bill 45.)
ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL.
"To abolish Disabilities still affecting Roman Catholics in the United Kingdom," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 12th April, and to be printed. (Bill 46.)
TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
"To consolidate and amend the Law relating to the election and proceedings of Town Councils in Scotland," presented and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday 16th March, and to be printed. (Bill 47.)
EXECUTORS (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
"To amend the Law relating to Executors in Scotland," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday 16th March, and to be printed. (Bill 48.)
COAL MINES REGULATION BILL.
"To amend the Coal Mines Regulation Acts," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 31st May, and to be printed. (Bill 51.)
FRANCHISE AND REMOVAL OF WOMEN'S DISABILITIES BILL.
"To establish a single Franchise at all Elections, and thereby to abolish University Representation and to remove the Disabilities of Women," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday 1st May, and to be printed. (Bill 50.)
SHOPS BILL.
"To amend the Law relating to Shops," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday,'21st February, and to be printed. (Bill 51.)
DISTRESS ABOLITION AND SUBSTITUTION BILL.
"To provide for the abolition of the right of Distress by a Landlord against a Tenant, and to substitute for it a better and simpler system for the recovery of possession of lands, tenements, and hereditaments when rent is in arrear," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 15th March, and to be printed. (Bill 52.)
OCCUPYING TENANTS ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
"To enable occupying Tenants of houses and places of business to purchase the fee simple of their holdings," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 22nd February, and to be printed. (Bill 53.)
OUT-DOOR PROVIDENT RELIEF BILL.
"To amend the Law relating to Outdoor Relief in sickness and widowhood to the provident poor," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 22nd March, and to be printed. (Bill 54.)
CORONERS' INQUESTS (RAILWAY FATALITIES) BILL.
"To amend the Law relating to Coroners' Inquests in the case of fatal accidents on railways," presented, and read the first time; to read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. (Bill 55.)
INTOXICATING LIQUORS LOCAL VETO (IRELAND) BILL.
"To enable the Local Government Electors of any locality to veto the issue of Licences for the Sale of intoxicating Liquors in Ireland," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 10th May, and to be printed. (Bill 56.)
CROWN CASES BILL.
"To amend The Crown Cases Act, 1848," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 22nd February, and to be printed. (Bill 57.)
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL.
"For the creation of a Court of Criminal Appeal," presented, and the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 22nd February, and to be printed. (Bill 58.)
POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
"To enable parish councils in Scotland to grant Superannuation Allowances to Poor Law Officers and Servants, and to officers and servants of committees of management of poor houses formed under a combination for poor house purposes," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday 21st March, and to be printed. (Bill 59.)
PASSING OF BILL.
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill intituled "An Act for incorporating and conferring powers on the General Power Distributing Company" (General Power Distributing Company Bill). [Lords.]
QUESTIONS.

  THE WHITE ESTATE, NEAR BANTRY.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the sale of the Lands of Beach, on the White Estate, near Bantry, to Doctor Bird, J.P., brother to the receiver on the property; whether the sale has been confirmed by the Land Commission; and whether he can state approximately when the other portion of the White Estate will be disposed of to the tenants?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): No proposal for the sale of the laneds referred to in the first paragraph has yet been brought before the Land Judge's Court. As regards the third paragraph, I am informed that in July last an order was made by the Laud Judge declaring that the circumstances of the estate were not such as to demand that the 40th Section of the Land Act of 1896 should be put into operation except in its due rotation.

LOUTH MILITIA.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, is it intended to permanently remove the annual training of the Louth Militia from Dundalk; and, if so, what was the object of the recent expenditure on the new rifle range; and is he aware that both the men themselves and the public locally are strong against the change to Belfast?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. G. WYNDHAM,): The Louth Militia will be trained this year at Dundalk, and will be trained there in future at least once in every three years. In the other two years it will, when possible, be trained in a Brigade Camp, in pursuance of a rule laid down for all Militia regiments. This could not be done at Dundalk.

DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, will he explain why a sergeant in the Dublin Metropolitan Police was promoted over the heads of fourteen other men, he having taken only fifteenth place at a competitive examination held in September, 1893, and never having done a month's practical police duty on the streets; was an undertaking then given to those who were passed over that this sergeant would not be allowed to qualify or compete for further promotion until each of them was first promoted to the rank of station sergeant; and has this sergeant nevertheless been allowed to compete for the rank of station sergeant in July last, and is he now about to be further promoted?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The particular member of the force to whom reference is made was advanced to the grade of sergeant by the Chief Commissioner of Police after having performed his duties in a highly satisfactory manner for a number of years. He had performed six months' duty on the streets. The examination referred to in the first paragraph was for the position of assistant clerk, and success in that examination gives no claim to promotion. No undertaking was given of the
492
nature indicated in the second paragraph. It was open to any well-conducted sergeant with three years' service in the rank, to enter for the competitive examination in July last, and the sergeant mentioned in the Question, who availed himself of this privilege, took first place at the examination. In due course he will be promoted to the grade of station sergeant, but he must first discharge the duties of sergeant on the streets for a period of six months.

LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1896.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state down to what year returns have, up to the present, been made out for the Land Judge under the rules made pursuant to Section 40 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, of estates to which that section in the first instance applies; how far the returns already presented have been gone through by the Judge in the regular course; how many "requests" have been issued by the Judge to the Land Commission under the section; how many reports have been made by the Land Commission pursuant to such requests; how many estates have been offered for sale to the tenants under the section, and accepted by the tenants, and what the number of such tenants is, and the total amount of the purchase money; how many estates have been actually vested in the tenants under the section, and what the number of such tenants is; and whether the offer of sale to the tenants has been refused by them in any and what cases?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The end of 1886 is the latest date to which the returns mentioned in the first paragraph have been prepared. These returns have been gone through as far as the estate of Maurice Fitzgerald, referred to at page 4 of the Return laid on the Table in March last. The answers to the third and fourth paragraphs are 111 and 75 respectively. In 51 of the latter the Land Commissioners have received the order of the Land Judge directing the offer to be made to the tenants. In the ease of 40 estates the holdings were offered for sale to 481 tenants, and the offers, representing 39 estates, were

493
accepted or deemed to have been accepted by 454 tenants. The purchase money for these 454 cases amounted to £142,302. In the case of three additional estates the offers have been made, but the time for the acceptance of such offers by the tenants has not yet expired. Twenty-eight estates have been vested in 367 tenants, the amount advanced being £109,673. In 30 cases on 11 estates the tenants did not accept the offers so made to them, but in three of these cases on two estates the Land Judge subsequently made orders deeming these tenants to have accepted the offers so made to them, and the sales have been made to them on the basis of this order.

IRISH LAND COMMISSION AND FAIR RENTS.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Land Commission still persist in the practice of having Fair Rents in many districts fixed by one lay Assistant Commissioner; when this practice was first adopted, and what its object is; whether it was adopted by the Land Commission of their own notion, or in consequence of any difficulty in obtaining Treasury consent to the number of Sub-Commissioners necessary to allow of each Sub-Commission being constituted with two lay Assistant Commissioners; on what principle the districts in which this practice is adopted are selected; what happens when there is a difference of opinion either on law or fact between the lay and the legal Assistant Commissioners; and whether, in view of the fact that the practice of having only one Assistant Commissioner is strongly objected to both by landlord and tenant, and that it has been condemned by the Fry Commission, the Land Commission will now revert to the long-established practice of having two Assistant Commissioners?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed by the Land Commissioners that the practice referred to in the Question still exists in seventeen wings of Sub-Commissions. It was first adopted about two years ago, its object being to
494
avoid unnecessary expense and waste of the public funds where, in the opinion of the Land Commission, the work could be carried out with equal efficiency by one lay Assistant Commissioner. The practice was adopted by the Land Commission on their own responsibility and in the due exercise of their statutory powers. The districts in which the practice is in force were arranged and the wings were selected by the Land Commission, in the exercise of their discretion. The Land Commission, availing themselves of their experience in the administration of the Land Acts, put the practice in force whenever they considered that it could be safely adopted with due regard to the efficiency of the public service. The Land Commission are only aware of one case in which the legal Assistant Commissioner and the single lay Assistant Commissioner were unable to agree. In this instance the case was reheard before another Sub-Commission, consisting of a legal and two lay Assistant Commissioners. The Land Commission have informed the Irish Government that, owing to communications they have received on the subject from both sides interested, and having regard to the recommendation of the Fry Commission, they have resolved to revert to the practice of having two lay Assistant Commissioners after Easter.

FAIR RENTS IN CORK.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of fair rent applications from the county of Cork lodged with or transferred to the Land Commission and still unheard, and how long ago the first of such applications was lodged; how many of such applications lodged in or prior to the year 1897 are still unheard; how many of such applications were lodged or transferred in the year 1898; how many were disposed of by the Sub-Commission in the year 1898; and how many lay Assistant Commissioners were assigned to the work of fixing fair rents in the county of Cork in the year 1898?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Of the fair rent applications lodged or transferred

495
to the Land Commission in the County Cork, 964 have not yet been listed for hearing; the earliest application now unlisted was received in the Department of the Land Commission on the 11th December, 1896. In only six of the unlisted cases were the originating notices lodged in December, 1896. Of the cases so lodged or transferred in the year 1897, there are 321 still unlisted, and 574 cases are still unlisted of those lodged or transferred in the year 1898; 459 cases were disposed of by Assistant Commissioners working in the County Cork during the year 1898, and three lay Assistant Commissioners, each dieting as a separate wing to a Sub-Commission, were employed in that county during the year mentioned, or portions of it.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: Is it not the fact that the Cork staff is not equal to the work which has to be done?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No doubt the work is very heavy.

LAY ASSISTANT LAND COMMISSIONERS.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many lay Assistant Commissioners and court valuers at present hold office under the Irish Land Commission, and how many of them respectively are allocated to the several duties of fixing rents pursuant to originating notice, valuing for the purpose of appeal to Chief Commission from Sub-Commission, valuing for the purpose of ordinary land purchase transactions, and valuing for the purpose of land purchase under section 40 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The present staff of lay Assistant Commissioners numbers 77. This includes Court Valuers. There are also three supplementary temporary lay Assistant Commissioners to take the place, for the time being, of any of the regular staff who may be absent from duty through illness or other special cause. The duties referred to are allocated amongst the 77 Jay Assistant Com-
496
missioners as follows:—Twelve are employed in valuing for the Commissioners in Appeal cases; twelve are employed inspecting in Land Purchase cases, including cases under 40th section of Land Act of 1896; and 53 are attached to Sub-Commissions.

REVISED PRISON RULES.
MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Departmnet whether he can conveniently state when he will be able to lay upon the Table of the House the Revised Prison Rules, in accordance with the provisions of the Prisons Bill of last Session; whether the Home Office Committee on Prison Diets has completed its labours; and when the Report on same, and the evidence tendered by witnesses, will be published.
THE SECRETARY OP STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): A draft of the new Rules has been presented, and I am to-day presenting the Report of the Home Office Committee on Prison Diets.

ARABI PASHA AND HIS FELLOW EXILES.
MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Toulba Pasha, one of the Egyptian exiles in Ceylon, has been pardoned and permitted to return home; how many political exiles now remain with Arabi Pasha under banishment; and how long their banishment has continued, and if, in view of the length of this punishment, the growing age of the exiles, and the changed condition of things in Egypt since the rebellion of 1882, Her Majesty's Government will recommend the pardon of Arabi and his companions to the Khedive.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): The answer to paragraph 1 is in the affirmative. Three exiles remain with Arabi Pasha under banishment. They left Egypt

497
16 years ago. In his Despatch repeating that he had obtained the consent of the Egyptian Government to the return of Toulba Ismet, Lord Cromer stated that on "previous occasions when he had raised the question of the return of the exiles he had always found the Egyptian Ministers most strongly opposed to granting the request. In the present instance he succeeded in obtaining their consent and that of the Khedive to the return of Toulba, whose case was somewhat peculiar and who is probably the least important of the exiles. Lord Cromer added that he could not at present hold out any hope that the permisssion given to Toulba will be extended to others in the same category.
MR. DAVITT: Is it not the fact that the Khedive himself is favourable to their return?
[No Reply.]

EXPLOSION ON H.M.S. "ECLIPSE."
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a spontaneous explosion of three 12-pounder shells occurred in the shell-room of H.M.S. "Eclipse" during her recent stay at Bombay, and whether similar explosions without any apparent cause have occurred in any other ships of Her Majesty's Navy; if so, whether inquiry has been held as to these occurrences; whether it has been ascertained if the explosions in question were due either to the character or condition of the metal composing the shell, or to the character or condition of the explosive wherewith it was filled; and whether precautions have been taken to prevent the recurrence of explosions of so grave and dangerous a character.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN, St. George's,): In June last, when the "Eclipse" was at Seychelles, two 12-pounder armour-piercing shells cracked spontaneously in the shell-room, and in cracking ignited the small bursting charges. The explosion prod iced was not serious, as the shells must have been open before the bursters ignited.
498
A similar explosion has not taken place in any other of H.M. ships, as far as is known. The matter has been fully inquired into, and steps have been take*i to prevent the recurrence of this accident.

NAVAL WARFARE AND PRIVATE PROPERTY.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any communication has been received from the United States Government proposing the exemption of private property from capture at sea in time of war; and, if so, whether he will lay a copy of that communication, upon the Table of this House.
MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir. No communication has been received on this subject from the United States Government.

IRISH LIGHTS COMMISSIONERS' CONTRACTS.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Irish Lights Commissioners have given the contracts for the repairs of their lightships to an English shipbuilding company at Appledore, who do not pay trades union rates of wages; and whether he will recommend the Commissioners to give their work only to such firms as have adopted the principle of the Fair Wages Resolution?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): In the case of the only contract undertaken by the Shipbuilding Company at Appledore for the repair of lightships belonging to the Irish Lights Commissioners during the past twelve months, the Company gave an assurance that they were prepared to pay the wages generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen in the district.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: Will the right honourable Gentleman suggest to the Commissioners to give their work to Irish firms?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: That does not come within my province.

AMERICAN MAILS.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has any objection to give the number of mail bags despatched from Liverpool direct to America by ship during the year 1898, and the number of mail bags put on board the American mail ships at Queenstown during the same period; and whether he will also give the number of American mail bags landed at Queenstown during 1898, and the number landed at Liverpool during the same period?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The number of mail bags carried by the mail packets to New York during the year 1898 were: from Liverpool, 57,331; from Queenstown, 65,498. The numbers landed were: at Queenstown, 34,781; at Liverpool, 56,892.

COUNTY COUNCIL AREAS IN IRELAND.
MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience caused by the new county council areas being, in very many places, situated in two or more Parliamentary polling districts, and whether steps will be taken to have the county council areas and Parliamentary polling districts made co-terminous?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It would be quite impracticable to adopt Parliamentary polling districts as areas for local government purposes, owing to the fact that the boundaries of those districts intersect the district electoral divisions which form the unit of the county electoral divisions and of the rural districts.

VACCINATION.
MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether Article 35 of the Code requiring all candidates for pupil teacherships to be vaccinated has been carried out in all cases since the passing of the Vaccination Act of last Session?
THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): Yes, Sir.
MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether vaccination is enforced on all men and boys who enter the Army?
MR. WYNDHAM: No man is enlisted unless he consents to be vaccinated.
MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether vaccination is now enforced on all men and boys who enter the Navy?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: Yes, Sir, in accordance with the Queen's Regulations.

BRITISH MUSEUM ATTENDANTS.
MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the attendants were examined, or any evidence invited from them concerning their alleged grievances, by the Committee that recently sat at the British Museum; whether he is aware that the attendants are the only class in the Museum who have received no increase of salary for more than 40 years past, though the same reasons for a higher rate of remuneration applied in their case as in that of other officials who have received substantial increases of salary; and whether he can see his way to suggest to the Trustees a further consideration of the grievances under which the attendants allege they are labouring.
MR. HANBURY: The answer to the first paragraph is in the negative. The maximum salary of the attendants has remained unchanged since 1857; but in

501
the meantime their position has been improved, first by converting the three classes into two in 1867, and subsequently by reducing the numbers on the lower class while the numbers on the first class remained untouched. A large number of special allowances for special duties have been granted during the last twenty years. When the salaries of the assistants were recently increased their hours of daily attendance were also extended. That has not been the case with the attendants. The duties of the attendants, the qualifications required of them, and the mode of their appointment differ so much from those of the higher staff of the Museum as to make it impossible to admit that their remuneration should be regulated by the same considerations. It is not the business of the Treasury to make such a suggestion to the Trustees as the honourable Member recommends.

ARMY HORSES ON THE ESTABLISHMENT.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what was on 1st January last the number of horses of the Royal Horse Artillery and of Field Artillery together on the British Establishment, and the corresponding number for 1st January, 1897; how many artillery horses on the British establishment were at the Cape and in Egypt on 1st January, 1899; and how many in the United Kingdom; and how many were in the United Kingdom on 1st January, 1879.
MR. WYNDHAM: The Horse and Field Artillery on the British Establishment had, oil 1st January, 1879, 5,714 effective horses; oh the 1st January, 1899, 4,787. Of these, on the 1st January, 1899, there were 469 at the Cape, 144 in Egypt, and 4,174 at home. On the 1st January, 1879, there were 5,651 at home. The right honourable Member will no doubt remember that the number of Horse Artillery batteries was largely reduced in 1887, and that in 1879–80 a reduction of about 700 waggon horses was made in the Field Batteries. There is now a reserve of horses, which did not exist in 1879.

RIFLE RANGES.
MR. WARNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what steps the War Office are taking for providing ranges both for the regular and reserve forces; and what arrangements have been made for providing a range near Whittington Barracks, Lichfield?
MR. WYNDHAM: Of the sums taken in the Military Works Act, 1897, half a million was assigned to the provision of ranges for the Regulars and Militia, and ranges are being acquired and constructed out of that assignment. In the selection of sites, regard has been had to the interest of the Militia and Volunteers and their requirements in respect of musketry. One of the sites selected is in close proximity to Lichfield Barracks.
MR. WARNER: Can the honourable Gentleman say what site has been selected?
MR. WYNDHAM: One very near the Barracks; I cannot give any particulars as to the locality.

POSTAGE RATES FOR TRADE JOURNALS.
MR. WARNER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will do something to abolish the grievance which exists in trade journals published in book form having to pay heavier postage than those published in newspaper form.
MRS HANBURY: The; honourable Member seems to be under some, misapprehension. Journals which, are published at intervals of not more than seven days, arid, which,, conform other respects to the conditions laid down by the Post Office-Act, 1870, are entitled to be registered for transmission at the newspaper rate of postage whether in book form or in newspaper form. There is no regulation as to the form in which such journals shall be published.

LAND TAX COLLECTORS.
MR. WARNER: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he proposes to do anything to do away with the system of collectors of land tax being paid by the surplus of the assessment over the quota, as in many cases the collector fixes the assessment, being himself the assessor.
THE CHANCELLOR OP THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH,): I do not see any necessity at present for interfering with the system of making allowances to assessors of land tax out of the surplus of the assessment over the quota. That system is a very ancient one, and I am not aware that it has led to any abuses. Collectors are not paid in this way, but by salary. Where collectors are also assessors, the assessments made by them are subject to review by the District Commissioners of Land Tax, and they are entitled as assessors only to such a sum of money out of the surplus as the District Commissioners may award, the special approval of the Board of Inland Revenue being necessary in the case of any award exceeding £5.

WEST INDIA DOCKS NAVAL STORE.
MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether arrangements are about to be entered into with Messrs. Sales and Sons, of Woolwich, to sub-contract for the loading and unloading of all barges and other craft at the Naval Store, West India Docks.
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): I regret that I am unable to make any: statement on this subject at the present time.
MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he Is aware that large quantities of useless rubbish is being conveyed by barges from Deptford Naval Store to the West India Docks Naval Store by a firm of Woolwich barge owners, at a cost of several thousands of pounds; whether he is aware that the barge "Greek," and others, of 50 tons register, are being
504
charged to the Admiralty as having carried from 180 to 210 tons in a single freight; and whether he will cause an investigation to be made into the manner in which the work of the removal of the stores from Deptford is being conducted.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first paragraph is in the negative. The answer to the second paragraph is: Steps were taken to verify the weights and measurements Of the quantities barged across. The "Greek" is 59 tons register, but she is quite capable of carrying more than the amounts mentioned in the Question, under favourable conditions. No investigation is necessary.

DEPTFORD VICTUALLING YARD.
MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, owing to the contractors having had the barge "Hilda" overloaded at Deptford Victualling Yard, a valuable cargo of chocolate, &c, was sunk; and whether the contractors will be held responsible for the damage.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: A barge containing victualling stores sprang a leak when alongside the Royal Victoria Yard, and a portion of the stores were damaged. The barge contractor is considered liable for the damage.

POSTAL RATES FOR PERIODICALS.
MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been directed to the differences in the rates charged for the transmission through the post of weekly, monthly, and other periodicals; upon what principle the proprietors of certain of these periodicals are permitted to transmit a weight of matter up to five pounds for a half-penny, while the proprietors of others in all respects apparently similar are restricted to a weight of two ounces only

505
for the same payment; and whether he will take steps to abolish these differences at an early date by the extension of the halfpenny rate up to five pounds weight to all periodicals published in this country.
MR. HANBURY: The answer to the first paragraph is, of course, Yes. The Post Office Act, 1870, restricts transmission through the post at the newspaper rate to periodicals published once a week, at least, and consisting "wholly or in great part of political or other news or of articles relating thereto or to other current topics," but exempts from the last of these conditions by Clause 7 newspapers which were stamped as newspapers prior to 1855. Newspapers fulfilling the conditions of the Act are transmissible at the newspaper rate of a halfpenny for each paper. Newspapers not fulfilling these conditions can only be sent at the book post rate of a halfpenny for two ounces. The Postmaster-General has no intention of proposing any measure for extending the halfpenny rate to all periodicals published in this country up to 51b. in weight. His reasons for not doing so are fully set out in the report of the Postage Rates Committee, dated 24th June, 1896, and presented to the House in January, 1897.

FLOGGING IN SWANSEA PRISON.
MR. LLOYD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a prisoner named George Attewell was flogged in Her Majesty's prison at Swansea, in December last, until the blood flowed freely from his back, and that at the end of the flogging he had to be removed to the prison infirmary; and whether, inasmuch as the prisoner was sentenced to a second flogging during the course of his term of imprisonment, and having regard to the above circumstances, he will direct a remission of that part of the sentence.
THE SECRETARY CF STATE FOB THE HOME DEPARTMENT: George Attewell was flogged in December last,
506
but the blood did not flow, and he was not afterwards removed to the prison infirmary. I am not aware of any circumstances which would justify an interference with the sentence.

ENNIS LUNATIC ASYLUM.
MR. ENGLEDEW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will see, in the event of the office of Resident Medical Superintendent to the Ennis Lunatic Asylum becoming vacant before the county councils take over charge of these institutions, that temporary arrangements are made for the performance of the duties of that office, and that a permanent appointment is not made until the county councils are empowered to deal with the question?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No vacancy has arisen in the office of Resident Medical Superintendent of the Ennis Asylum, and I cannot, by way of anticipating such a vacancy, give an undertaking of the nature suggested in the question.
MR. W. H. K. REDMOND: May I ask whether, if the vacancy does occur within a week or two of the County Council elections, the appointment will be left in the hands of the County Council?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I think we had better wait till the vacancy does occur.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Was not the resignation actually sent in; has it been withdrawn?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not aware of its being sent in. It has not been before me.

IRISH SHERIFFS' REMUNERATION.
MR. ENGLEDEW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether remuneration is about to be given to high sheriffs and sub-sheriffs for the counties in Ireland for the discharge of the duties con-

507
nected with these offices; under what statutory authority will these grants be made; and from what fund will these payments be drawn?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Treasury have extended a scale of recoupment to high sheriffs, out of money to be provided by Parliament, of the cost necessarily incurred by them in receiving Her Majesty's Judges of Assize. The Treasury have further decided that there may be a recoupment to the High Sheriff of vouched expenditure incurred by him, according to a scale laid down by the Treasury, in providing out of his own pocket a salary for his deputy. The latter payments will also, I understand, be made out of moneys to be voted by Parliament.
MR. ENGLEDEW: Who pays the salary of the sub-sheriffs at present?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In the majority of cases the salary of the Under-Sheriff is paid by the High Sheriff.

IRISH COUNTY COURTS.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Dublin Mercantile Association has been asking for years that the County Courts in Ireland should hold more frequent sittings; and whether anything is being done to give the same legal facilities in Ireland as exists in Great Britain?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Representations have been made to the effect stated in the first paragraph. Orders have been made from time to time for the holding of additional Civil Bill Courts in the counties of Armagh, Cavan, Galway, Mayo, Sligo, Tyrone, and Water ford. Additional sittings of these courts have also been provided in the cities of Dublin and Belfast.

QUICK-FIRING MACHINE GUNS FOR VOLUNTEERS.
SIR BARRINGTON SIMEON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will: consider the necessity for supplying one
508
quick-firing machine gun to each of those Infantry Volunteer Corps whose headquarters are on the coast, or who would be sent to the coast in case of mobilisation?
MR. WYNDHAM: The proposal to supply some of these corps with machine guns is now under consideration.

FARNEY (IRELAND) POOR RATE.
MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, owing to the poverty of the people of the barony of Farney, the Car-rickmacross Board of Guardians, in 1896, struck a poor rate £311 16s. 3d. less than 1895, and £875 13s. 7d. less than 1897; and whether he will request the Local Government Board, under Clause 49 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, when making their grant in aid of rates to Carrickmacross Union, to pay such a sum as, if a sufficient poor rate was struck in 1896, would have left the Union of Carrickmacross out of debt on the 29th September, 1897, the close of the financial year?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: As I stated yesterday in answer to the honourable Member's somewhat similar question regarding the County Cess in this Barony, any exceptional circumstances in connection with the poor rate raised in the Carrickmacross Union during the standard year will be carefully considered in determining the amount of the agricultural grant payable to that union.

ROYAL ARTILLERY COMMISSIONS.
COLOSEL WELBY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War whether commissions in the Royal Artillery have been given to subalterns of the Artillery Militia who had failed to pass the literary examination which qualifies Militia officers to compete for commissions in the Regulars, and to Militia officers who were University candidates, without their passing the competitive examination for such commissions;

509
and, whether he can say on what principle these exceptions are made?
MR. WYNDHAM: The increase of the establishment of the Royal Artillery created, last year, a greater demand for officers than could be supplied from the Royal Military Academy and from officers in the Militia Artillery who had qualified in the literary examination. It has, therefore, been found necessary to give Artillery commissions to Militia Artillery officers who had qualified for the Line; and, more rarely, to Militia Artillery officers specially recommended for military efficiency, without any examination. No Artillery commissions have been given to University candidates without examination; but, since the number of the Line commissions offered to the Universities was not exceeded at the last examination by the number of such candidates, there was no competition. So long as our exceptional demand for officers continues, it must be met by exceptional measures.

ARMY EXAMINATIONS.
COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that at the literary examination to qualify Militia candidates to compete for Army commissions, held in December last, the mathematical papers were the same as set for the competitive examination for entrance to the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, and the other papers, the same as for that examination, or for entrance to the Royal Military College, Sandhurst; that the standard of qualifying marks in the December examination had been raised 100, without notice to candidates; that out of about 146 who attended to be examined in all subjects only 29 qualified, whereas in the previous April 90 qualified out of about the same number; that in the April examination the 34th candidate made 4,607 marks, while in the December one the 29th made 4,600, or seven marks less than the candidate 55 places lower in April; and whether he can see his way to remedy this inequality, by specially admitting to the competitive examination those who have suffered by it?
MR. WYNDHAM: The number of candidates for the Militia Literary Examina-
510
tion in December, 1898, was 119 and not 146; otherwise the facts are correctly stated. In pursuance of the policy indicated in my reply to the last question, the Secretary of State has decided to admit to the further competitive examination so many of the candidates next below those who reached the qualifying minimum, as the exigencies of the service seem to demand.

METROPOLITAN TRAFFIC REGULATIONS.
GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can see his way to introduce in London the regulations which are in force in many foreign capitals, and which restrict the use of the most crowded thoroughfares by vans, drays, carts, and other heavy vehicles to certain hours in the day, early in the morning, and late at night?
THE SECRETARY OP STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I propose to bring in a Bill giving increased powers to the police to make regulations for the traffic in the streets of the metropolis.

WORKMEN'S TRAINS.
MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if application has been made by the National Association for the Extension of Workmen's Trains that all inquiries which have been asked for by them and other bodies and granted by the Board of Trade shall be held in the evening, and as far as possible in the local district concerned, so as to enable the working men and women who suffer hardships owing to the want of cheap workmen's trains to attend and give evidence; what reply (if any) have the Board made to his request?
THE PRESIDENT OP THE BOARD OP TRADE: Yes, sir, the Board of Trade have always made it their practice to favourably consider applications of this description, and an inquiry, which is to take place at Barking on the 15th, will

511
be held at 7 p.m. In several recent cases the inspecting officer has consulted the wishes of the applicants and held inquiries at times convenient to them. The workmen interested in those cases were, however, postmen and printers, and the evening was not so convenient as the afternoon. The Railway Commissioners are the judges of their own procedure, and applications in regard to their hearings should be made to them.

RHYL POLICE COURT CASE.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that at the Rhyl Police Court on the 30th November last a woman named Jane Lloyd prosecuted a man for indecent assault, and in cross-examination falsely swore that she had been legally married to one Lewis Lloyd, with whom she lived as his wife, and that one John Jones to whom she had been married was dead; and whether these facts have been communicated to the Public Prosecutor; and, if so, on what grounds has he declined to take any proceedings to punish the perjury?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The case referred to was reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who, after careful consideration of all the facts, and after communicating with the chief constable and the clerk to the justices, decided not to take action.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS: Will the right honourable Gentleman state the grounds for declining to prosecute?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: No, sir; it would not be proper for me to do so.

THE IMPLEMENT AND MACHINERY REVIEW."
MR. A. K. LOYD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, why The Implement and Machinery Review, weighing a fraction over
512
8 oz., is charged a postage of 2½d., while copies of The Ironmonger, weighing 13 oz., The Engineer, weighing 17 oz., and Engineering, weighing 18 oz., are carried to any part of the United Kingdom for one halfpenny?
MR. HANBURY: The Implement and Machinery Review, being published less frequently than once a week, does not in respect of frequency of publication conform to the definition of a newspaper contained in the Post Office Act, 1870. It is, therefore, liable to the book rate of postage of ½d. for every two ounces. The three other publications to which the honourable Member refers comply with the requirements of the Act, and are transmissible in the United Kingdom at the rate of ½d. each.

VACCINATION EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE FEES.
MR. JOHNSON-FERGUSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he can state the inclusive fee which he has recommended should be charged by benches of magistrates for a certificate of exemption under the Vaccination Act, 1898?
THE HOME SECRETARY: The inclusive fee, which I have placed in the Model Table for the Guidance of Local Authorities, is one shilling and sixpence. I am advised, further, that magistrates have power to remit or reduce in suitable cases any fee fixed by a Table for general use in their Court.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION WORKS.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, when the Return as to Reproductive Works carried-on by Municipal Corporations will be laid upon the Table?
THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): There has been a difficulty in obtaining the particulars from the local authorities, and there are

513
still some instances in which the necessary particulars have not been received. But every effort is being made to obtain the information as quickly as possible, and, in the meantime, the printing of the Return is being proceeded with.

RAILWAY COMPANIES AND THEIR SERVANTS.
MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he has instituted any inquiries into, and come to any decision as to the alleged cases of dismissal of railway servants by a railway company or companies owing to their activity in trades union matters?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: Communications are still in progress with reference to this matter.

HOOLEY REVELATIONS.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether, as a consequence of the Hooley revelations, any measures will be instituted by prosecution or legislation by the Government to obtain restitution to the shareholders in the various companies so manipulated of the large sums of money bestowed for the purposes of purchasing directors?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: As I have already informed the honourable Member, the legislative proposals of Her Majesty's Government have been made in another place. The other matters referred to in the Question are engaging the attention of the Court and of the officers charged by the Statute with the administration of the bankrupt's estate.

POSTMASTERS' OVERTIME CLAIMS.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, with reference to the passage in the Report of the Tweed-mouth Commissioners, page 3, which states that there should be a uniform payment for overtime throughout the service, whether it was intended to ex-
514
clude postmasters: and, whether he can state why postmasters or their substitutes are not allowed for overtime?
MR. HANBURY: The passage in the Report of the Tweedmouth Committee which states that there should be throughout the service a uniform payment for overtime, is held to apply only to those officers of the Post Office who had hitherto been allowed to claim for overtime. The arrangements under which the work of Postmasters is carried on will not, as a rule, admit of fixed hours being laid down for them; and their emoluments are calculated with reference to the fact that they may on occasion be called on to work overtime, and that their hours are largely dependent on arrangements made by themselves.

SLAVERY IN ZANZIBAR.
MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, in June last, Mr. Edward Lloyd, Acting District Officer at Mombassa, signed an Order of the Court for three slaves, named Kazibeni, Kombo, and Mamekombo, who had been living at Roebe during the previous ten years, to return to their master, on the ground that Roebe was within the Sultan of Zanzibar's dominions, and that the slaves had no plea wherewith to claim their freedom; whether such restitution of slaves by a British subject and official of Her Majesty's Government has the sanction of Her Majesty's Government; and, whether steps will be taken to prevent British subjects in future restoring fugitive slaves to their masters?
MR. BRODRICK: The official Report which has been called for on this matter has not yet reached Her Majesty's Government, owing to the fact that the officer named has been transferred to an inland station. It is understood, however, from inquiries made locally, that the return of the slaves was pre-arranged between the masters and themselves, as they were starving at Ribe, where there was famine at the time. Instructions have been issued that British subjects should not assist in restoring fugitive slaves to their masters.
MR. J. A. PEASE: Is it not the fact that the slaves were under the protection of missionaries at the time they were taken into Court?
[No reply.]

CASE OF MISS MAGILL.
MR. MANDEVILLE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, how does the Local Government Board propose to compensate Miss Magill for their having (under erroneous views of the state of the law) removed her by sealed order from the office of poor rate collector to which she had been appointed by the Guardians of the Clogher Union, and which office was her means of earning her livelihood?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In answer to this question, I would refer the honourable Member to the reply given by me yesterday to the question of my honourable Friend the Member for South Belfast. It is not the fact that the removal of Miss Magill from the office of poor rate collector was due to an erroneous view of the law on the part of the Local Government Board.
MR. W. JOHNSTON: Does the right honourable gentleman propose to compensate Miss Magill?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Certainly not.

IRISH RATING SYSTEM.
MR. TULLY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether Sub-section (b), Section 54, of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, entitles tenants of houses in towns, who paid half poor rate, to have their rents reduced by half the appropriate standard amount under the new rating system?
MR. J. ATKINSON: The meaning of the Sub-section mentioned is obvious. Its purport and effect were, I think, frequently explained during the
516
passage of the Irish Local Government Bill through Committee. Now that that Measure has become a statute of the realm and has passed into law I must respectfully decline to give, in answer to abstract questions, opinions upon the construction of any of its provisions.

CRETE.
SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what steps the Great Powers, and especially Her Majesty's Government, are taking to provide the necessary funds and military protection to enable the dispossessed and ruined Mussulmans of Crete to return to their former properties?
MR. BRODRICK: The question of providing funds to enable the Mussulman Cretans to return to their villages is a matter for the consideration of the High Commissioner in framing his Budget, the particulars of which have not been yet received by Her Majesty's Government, who are ready in conjunction with the other Powers to consider any reasonable proposals. A sum of 1,000,000 francs has been advanced by each of the four Powers for the expenses of the High Commissioners' administration to be eventually recovered by a loan. Some expenditure has already been incurred toward repatriation. The necessary protection to Mussulmans or Christians in Crete will be afforded.

CORK POST OFFICE.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether provision is made in this year's Estimates for the work of extending the Cork Post Office, and when the work will be commenced?
MR. HANBURY: The Board of Works are making provision in their Estimates for beginning the work during the ensuing financial year. It is impossible to state at present when the work will actually be begun, as the plans have not yet been finally settled.

SOUDAN BUDGET.
MR. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Soudan Budget for 1899 shows an estimated deficit of upwards of £317,000, the whole of which sum is to be defrayed out of the revenues of Egypt; and, if so, on what ground Egypt, which has only a share of the sovereignty of the new territory, is to be charged with the whole of the cost of its administration?
MR. BRODKICK: The estimated deficit of the Soudan expenditure in 1899 is as stated. The present arrangements for the financial administration of the Province have been approved by the Egyptian Council of Ministers. The military and financial assistance given by this country in past years for the protection of the Frontier of Egypt and recently for the reconquest of the Soudan, have given substantial relief to the Egyptian Exchequer, and the estimated deficit in the Soudan provinces is held to be fairly chargeable to the Egyptian Exchequer.

H.M.S. "COLLINGWOOD."
MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether, in view of the fact that the Board of Guardians of the Bantry Union have at the request of the Captain of H.M.S. "Collingwood" expended £700 to give that vessel an improved supply of water, he will cause her to return to Bantry Bay and remain permanently there.
THE FIRST LORD OP THE ADMIRALTY: I regret I cannot give the assurance desired. The "Collingwood," like all Her Majesty's ships, must go where she is wanted and when she is wanted. The Admiralty have agreed to make an increased contribution to meet the expense of an improved supply of water at Bantry.

IRISH CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD.
MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in
518
view of the fact disclosed in the report of the Congested Districts Board that the congested districts in the South of Ireland have not received their proportionate share of assistance from that Board, he will give the South of Ireland representation on the said Board?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not know to what statement in the report the honourable Member refers, nor do I know exactly what he means by the phrase "proportionate share of assistance from that Board." The Board do not consider themselves bound by any rule of proportion in the application of moneys at their disposal to different districts. Such application depends upon the necessities and opportunities arising in the different districts. As a matter of fact, I do not think the requirements of the congested areas in the Counties of Cork and Kerry have been neglected.

TITHE RENT CHARGE IN IRELAND.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, when the Bill dealing with the adjustment of tithe rent charge in Ireland will be introduced and whether it will be introduced in this House?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: As at present advised, I propose to introduce this Bill in the House of Commons, but I am unable, at present, to assign any date for its introduction.

CODIFICATION OF IRISH STATUTES.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, whether any Bill or Bills codifying Irish Acts of Parliament will be introduced this year?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I hope a Bill to codify the Grand Jury Acts will be introduced this Session, but I cannot give a definite promise as to this or any other Bills. The matter, however, is under the consideration of the Government.

IRISH PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION.
MR. DALY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state if it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation during the present Session of Parliament enabling the people of Ireland to promote railways, canals, and waterworks without having to come to the House of Commons for such powers?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: At the request of my right honourable Friend I will answer this question. The Irish Government do not propose to introduce a Bill dealing with Private Bill legislation in Ireland during the present Session. Whether the provisions of the Scotch Bill could or should be made applicable to Ireland is a question on which I am not in a position at present to express an opinion.
MR. DALY: When will a Bill be introduced?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have not the gift of prophecy.

MR, RHODES' PROJECTS.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any application has been made to Her Majesty's Government 'for a guarantee by this country of a loan or advance of money to enable any portion of Mr. Rhodes' project of a railway from the Cape to Egypt to be carried out; and, if so, what reply has been given by Her Majesty's Government?
THE FIRST LORD OP THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Proposals on this subject have been brought before the Government, but so far no arrangement has been come to.

SCOTTISH UNIVERSITIES AND SCHOOLS.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the provisions of the 25th Article of the Treaty of Union with Scotland, excluding persons from professorships and masterships in the Scottish Universities
520
and schools unless they subscribe a confession of faith in the Presbyterian Church, is still in force; and, if un-repealed, will any steps be taken to remove the disability thus imposed on members of the English Church, on Dissenters, and Roman Catholics?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The provisions of the 25th Article relating to Scottish Universities and schools are no longer in force, except so far as theological chairs are concerned. They were abolished, as regards professorships, by the 17th section of the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889; and, as regards schools, by the 17th section of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1882.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Surely the Constitution should be revised accordingly.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: If any doubt exists, I think the matter should be cleared up. Perhaps the honourable Gentleman will repeat the Question.

VACCINATION ACT, 1898.
MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will take an early opportunity of repealing section 2 of the Vaccination Act of last Session? May I also ask whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce the Re-Vaccination Bill which was promised last Session?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: It is not the intention of the Government to introduce any vaccination legislation in the course of the present Session.
MR. COGHILL: May I ask if section 2 applies to the Army and Navy and to the Education Department?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I think that Question ought to be addressed to my right honourable Friend the President of the Local Government Board.

TSAR'S RESCRIPT.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in accepting the invitation to the forthcoming conference to consider the possibility of limiting armaments, Her Majesty's Government propose to adopt the course followed by Lord Derby in 1874, by instructing its delegate not to entertain in any shape, directly or indirectly, anything relating to maritime operations or naval warfare, and not to be led into any discussion which may, however remotely, affect those operations or that warfare; and whether he can state generally what conditions; if any, have been made by Her Majesty's Government in accepting the invitation to this conference, and what steps, if any, have been taken to secure themselves against the adoption of any conclusions which might be calculated to impair the future development or the present exercise of the naval power of Great Britain in time of war?
MR. BRODRICK: The second circular of the Russian Government in connection with this question, recently published, contained certain suggestions, but no definite programme has yet been proposed. It is still under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. No answer to it has yet been sent, and no statement can be made at present on the subject, but further papers will be laid as soon as may be.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.

    FOURTH DAY.
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [7th February], "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as followeth:—
    "Most Gracious Sovereign,—
    "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament. (Captain Bagot.)
    Main Question again proposed:—Debate resumed:—
    Another Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question to add the words,—
    "And we humbly express our regret that there is no indication in Your Majesty's Gracious Speech that measures will be submited to this House dealing with the ownership, tenure, or taxation of land in towns."—(Mr. E. J. C. Morton.)
    MR. E. J. C. MORTON: I do not intend to take up more of the time of the House than is absolutely necessary for the purpose of bringing on a subject which I consider is of more importance than any other single subject which is dealt with by Parliament, in its influence and effect upon the social condition of the people of this country. I shall only endeavour to place before the House, as briefly as I can, the points which I regard as productive of the greatest evils which result from the existing land system in this country, and I shall, as shortly as possible, indicate one, or perhaps two, methods of dealing with this question. Now the reason why I have ventured to bring forward a question which, in the ordinary course, is of such great importance that it ought, perhaps, to have been introduced by a Member of this House of Cabinet rank, is that I happen to represent a constituency which, I believe, suffers more acutely than any other from these evils of the existing land laws of this country, and has inflicted upon it the very worst land system that is to be found in any town in the civilised or uncivilised world. We have in Devonport a condition of overcrowding which I believe, cannot be paralleled by anything to be found in the East-end of London, and, to my mind, this is particularly scandalous, because the reason of the congestion of population there is the existence of a Government dockyard. It seems to me, therefore, that it is a matter for which the Government deserves censure, that we have not heard anything whatever in the Gracious Speech from the Throne of any intention of dealing with the land question in the towns. In that Speech we have had certain Bills promised which may possibly touch some fringe of this question. We are promised, for instance, a Bill dealing with the government of London, and I imagine that any Bill that is to deal effectively

    523
    with that question must contain some provisions relative to the land system of London. We have also a Bill promised to enable the purchase of their holdings by small occupiers. But the case which I want to bring before this House is net a case where the grievance is that the inhabitants cannot purchase or become possessed of their holdings. It is a case where there is a famine in the land, and where the difficulty is to get land on which holdings can be built; where you actually have land held up by the landlord for the purpose, and with the intention, and effect, of running up the rent, of the remainder. Now, Sir, it seems to me that the difficulty can only be dealt with by drastic and effective legislation dealing with the whole land system and the whole of our land laws as affecting towns. I have had experiences, in this course of going through my own constituency, which are absolutely heartrending. I know one street of 51 houses with an average of a whole family for every room in it. I have gone into houses in which, going up the stairs, one is afraid that one would put one's foot through the wood—through the actual staircase—so absolutely rotten is the fabric. There I have found in one room a husband, wife, and five children. On the same landing, in the only other room on that landing, I have found the father of a family, an elderly man, and his wife, and a married daughter and her child living in one room, in which they have to do all their cooking and all their washing. They are living under conditions in which morality itself would appear to be almost impossible, and yet—and, to my mind., that is the most dreadful feature of the case—these people who exist in this condition are decent people—they are respectable people—and I have actually had people living like this come to me and beg me not to tell of the conditions under which they live, because they are ashamed of it themselves, and yet these conditions are absolutely inflicted upon them against their will, and without any remedy being possible by their exertions or the exertions of anyone else, excepting the exertions of this House. It is because of that that I have brought this matter before this House. This evil of overcrowding is, to my mind, the worst evil that we have to deal with with regard to the whole of the question, but it is not the only evil. We have in London and
    524
    in my own constituency instances of the way in which the land monopoly strangles the industries of a place. For instance, I may just give one illustration from my own constituency, and here, Sir, let me apologise for talking so much about my own constituency. I only talk about ii because it is the one I know best, and I have, therefore, taken my illustration from it. In the middle of my constituency, between the municipality of Devonport and the township of Stonehouse, which is added to the municipality of Devonport for Parliamentary purposes, there is a very narrow arm of the sea, which is about three-quarters of a mile long, or perhaps a little less than that. However that arm of the sea separates Stonehouse and Devonport, and it a1 so separates Devonport and Plymouth, and over it there is a bridge. Now, the whole land of Devonport was owned by one landlord, and the whole land of Stonehouse was owned by another landlord, and the ancestors of these two landlords, about 100 years ago—in 1796—got Parliament to pass an Act which provided for the building of a bridge, at their expense, over that arm of the sea; and by this Act of Parliament a toll was to be charged for passage over that bridge, and in addition to that, no one was to be allowed to use any other means of communication, either for one side or the other, except by the bridge. I will undertake to say this, that the whole cost of the building of that bridge and of the approaches thereto could not have amounted to more than £5,000. Since I have been a candidate for Devonport, and that is now eight years, these two successors to the two landlords who constructed that bridge 100 years ago have refused £120,000 to free that bridge. There, Sir, is a case in which we have got an absolute blackmailing of the industry of that place by the means of an artificial barrier put up between the two halves of one town which I have the honour to represent. I am at the present moment engaged in merely describing the evils of which we complain, the remedy to which is to be found, as I shall show, in my own opinion, at least, in a drastic reform of the laws affecting the land in towns. But, Sir, I have now mentioned two instances of the evils of which we complain—the overcrowding in towns and the paralysis of a town's industries, as in the instance I have just mentioned.

    525
    We now come to the way in which the land question and the land laws affect these evils in the next instance of grievance that I am going to mention. At the present moment we have the fact that the enormous value of land in towns has never been increased by anything that has been done, or by any money that has been expended by the landlords, but it has been done by the houses that are built upon the land, which houses are built at the expense of the immediate tenant of the landlord, who is a building tenant, and yet the extraordinary thing is this, that the value of land which has been brought about not in the least by anything the landlord has done, is absolutely free from any rate, whereas the houses which have produced that enhanced value are rated. The point I have to insist upon most strongly with regard to this is that you could not, by the ingenuity of man, devise a tax that would more heavily fall upon the shoulders of the poor than that system of rating houses when you do not rate land, for this reason: It is a matter of absolute notoriety that the poorer a man is the larger the proportion of his income which goes in rent, and if you rate a man upon his rent the effect is that the poorest people pay the largest proportion. That is a most iniquitous fact relating to the existing system of the rating of houses and land in towns, and it is one which I am sorry to think has not received that consideration from the public which it seems to me to deserve. The fourth point, or the fourth grievance, which I want to bring before the House is this: There is an enormous property of enormous value growing in our towns, and that value has been created by the community, and yet the community gets nothing out of it. Now, Sir, there has been a controversy recently going on iii my own constituency with regard to what the Lord of the Manor of Devonport takes from that town. In the first place, there is no doubt whatever about this fact, that he is an absentee. He does not own a house there, and, therefore, whatever goes into his pockets by way of rent does not come back to Devonport. In the course of that controversy it was urged that he took £80,000 a year out of Devonoort, for which he has never done anything. It was admitted by his agent that he took £40,000, so that we are, at any rate, within the mark in saying that that
    526
    amount of money—£40,000 a year—goes out by way of a constant drain upon the industry of the people of that particular town. But let me take a better instance—a more important instance—the case of London. Just let me for one moment, and I will hardly be more than a moment, epitomise, for the benefit of the honourable Members, what are the economic conditions of the land laws of London—and when I speak of London I speak of the area governed by the County Council. The County Council area of London is about 75,000 acres. Now we are all aware that if you take the rental of land in a ring round the County Council area of London which is used as agricultural land, I am putting it very high when I say that the rent of such land is about 25s. an acre per year, and the result is this, that the rental of that 75,000 acres would be, if it were used as agricultural land, about £100,000 a year. I am not concerned with any dispute as to whether it is more than that or not, be cause I am referring to land which is bonâ fide used as agricultural land. I am not referring to accommodation land, but to land on the London clay, on the same soil that is bonâ fide let for farming purposes. It does not matter, for the purposes of my argument, whether it is £100,000 or £250,000 a year, because I ask what is now the ground rental of London? I believe I shall not be far wrong if I say it is 20 millions. Some time ago a number of experts tried to make an estimate of what the ground rental of London was, and the result was that the smallest estmate made by any of them—I think it was ten years ago—was 15 millions, and, therefore, I am not very far wrong if I say it is now 20 millions. Now, Sir, that 20 millions of value goes into the pockets of the land lords, and very few of them, and it has been created by two causes; it has been created partly by the mere congestion of population, due to the fact that people want to live near their work, and their work is situated in London, and, there fore, the soil of London is not used as land for agricultural purposes, but is used as standing room or sleeping room for the population, and the com petition of these people for the room creates this enormous value. This being so, the actual rightful owners of that value are the people who created it. At any rate, it has not been

    527
    made by the landlords. There is one other source to which we can look for the inflation, of the value of this land, and that is the expenditure on the roads, upon improvements necessary for the benefit of the town, and so you have a landlord letting land at perhaps four or five times the rent that he could get for it for agricultural purposes, on building lease; and I suppose in London the common time for a building lease is 99 years. During the existence of that 99 years' lease you have houses built by the building lessee upon the land; you have streets made first of all by the building lessee, and maintained out of the rates paid by the occupiers or the building lessee; you have main drainage schemes carried out also by means of the rates; you have parts of the land bought up for open spaces for the benefit of the people; you have public buildings erected and paid for out of the rates by the occupiers or by the building lessee; but in any case not a sixpence is paid by the ground landlords; and yet, when this property has been made valuable by the expenditure of these rates, has been made valuable to a fabulous extent in some cases, at the expiration of the lease the whole of the value, to which not one single sixpence or one penny has been contributed by the landlord, becomes the landlord's. Now, Mr. Speaker, I know perfectly well that if we were to go to the logical conclusion which my argument leads me to, we should hear the word "confiscation." I think it was my right honourable friend the Member for the Cockermouth Division of Cumberland, who said that five syllables always fetches John Bull. The word "confiscation" is a dreadful bogey. I sometimes wish that that most orthodox of political economists, Adam Smith, would actually be read, and his teachings carried out, by some of those who are most opposed to the schemes which they regard as Socialistic. I recollect that in the last part of "The Wealth of Nations," Adam Smith argues that wherever in the necessity of things there exists a natural monopoly, that monopoly ought to be in the hands of the State. Well, land has become, by the nature of things, a monopoly since the days when Adam Smith wrote "The Wealth of Nations," and I can appeal to this great authority even in support of such a thing as land nationalisation. I have, Sir, made out as far as I can the
    528
    evils which, to my mind, are rampant, and which demand the legislative attention of Her Majesty's Government. It is no part of my business, as a matter of fact, to suggest a remedy; that is the business of the Government; but, nevertheless, I will suggest, at any rate, one remedy—a remedy which, to my mind, is called for, and is demanded by the horrible condition of things which I have referred to, and which I myself have seen in some of our towns. The remedy which will most meet it, and which, if properly carried out to the full, would probably be a complete remedy, is the taxation of ground values. I want particularly to point out the importance of the word "values" in that phrase. I do not mean merely that the landlord is to pay directly in proportion to the rent he actually receives; I mean that he is to pay both locally to the rates and also, if I could have my way, imperially to the taxes of the country, in proportion to the value of the land. Now, Sir, the greatest evil in the one instance that I have already mentioned of overcrowding is the fact that the landlord holds by the land, and will not let land at any price, because, by so doing, he is able to run up the rent of the remainder. A complete remedy for that particular evil will be, if you can bring a motive to bear upon the landlord to let the land, by rating the unoccupied land as well as the occupied land. It is a perfectly simple process in itself, and is a proposal which has a precedent. I do not know whether honourable Members realise the fact that it is universally the case in every State of the United States that they rate unoccupied land as well as occupied land. There is, at any rate, one exceedingly simple remedy that would do a great deal to remove the greatest of the evils of which I complain, and which I wish to bring before the attention, of the House. I said at the outset that I was not going to keep this House longer than I could possibly help, but I am bound to say, before I sit down, that I do not look with much hope to Her Majesty's Government for legislation to deal with this question. We have had some experience of them already. We know what their legislation would be like, as, for instance, in the Agricultural Rating Act, and I frankly confess that I have brought this question before the House simply because this House is the Grand Inquisition of the nation, and not

    529
    because I have any hope of getting any help out of Her Majesty's Government. The evils of which I complain are exceedingly old. I have here a most remarkable document sent by the local Commissioner of the Works at Devonport to the then Surveyor of the Navy in the month of January, 1697. In that document he complains of the overcrowding that was produced by the selfishness of the landlord of Devonport in that day, 200 years ago; and then the document goes on into an argument, with which I will not trouble the House, as to how the proprietor himself of those lands would probably make more out of them if he would consent to their being let for building purposes in what is now the municipality of Devonport. That, Sir, is 200 years ago, and from that day to this nothing has been done. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can call to mind the fact that as early—it is now nearly 60 years ago—as the year 1841, that was five years before the repeal of the Corn Laws, Mr. Cobden laid it down that in his opinion the evils resulting from the ineffectual taxation of land were as great as any evils of taxation that then existed. That was five years before the repeal of the Corn Laws. The Corn Laws have been repealed now for 50 years and more, but still nothing has been done of an effectual or drastic nature to remedy the evils of the land system of which Mr. Cobden then complained; and if I wanted to enforce that—and I think I have said enough to show what are the evils of which we complain—but if I wanted to enforce them on the attention of honourable Members opposite, I would quote the authority of one of their own colleagues, whom they certainly cannot gainsay in this matter. It was nearly two years ago that my colleague, the senior Member for Devonport, brought before this House on the Navy Estimates the fact that there were men in Devonport Dockyard who were receiving—grown-up and capable men—receiving not more than 18s. 6d. a week in wages, and he argued that the Government at least ought to
    530
    allow a sovereign. Well, now, Sir, what was the answer of the present First Lord of the Admiralty? It amounted to this, that it was no good increasing the wages of the men of Devonport Dockyard, because it would all go in increased rent. Here are his words. He said, in answer to my honourable Friend's demand—
    "If rent were to be taken into consideration, it came to this: this was a claim that the rent of Devonport was extravagantly high, and therefore, if these men were to receive more than 18s. 6d., they would have to diminish wages in those places where there was an excess of cottage accommodation. It was not merely a question of money."
    And then he said there would be great discontent in other dockyards. He goes on—
    "How would an additional 1s. a week do away with the difficulty of overcrowding? In the dockyards where the wages were raised, the rent of cottages had actually been put up. Devonport ought to see how far they could build artisans' dwellings."
    And then he goes on to ask how this increase in wages would remedy that state of things. He said—
    "Devonport must concentrate the whole of its attention in getting better houses for the working classes."
    Sir, that is exactly what I would like to do; but the difficulty is this, that we have not got the ground upon which to build the houses, and it is ground that we want. Unless some legislation of the nature of which I have hinted at, the taxation of the value of the ground, is adopted by this House and by Parliament, I see no hope whatever of remedying this state of things. Now, Sir, I have said that I have not very much confidence in this Government doing anything in this matter. Sir, the last instance that I shall take, the last quotation that I shall make, illustrates and proves the ground of my want of confidence in this Government. I will not tell the story myself, because more briefly, and, I think, more trenchantly, than I could put it, the case was put some 13 years ago; and, although it was 13 years ago, it is as true in every detail to-day as it was when this speech was spoken. On the 20th October, 1885, a speech was made upon the land question, in which one particular instance was taken, and it is this—and I

    531
    think I shall study the economy of the time of the House if I read from this speech instead of giving the story in my own words—
    "I will give you an instructive example. It is part of the history of the country; the whole of the circumstances will be found in the pages of 'Hansard.' In the year 1877 Mr. Fawcett called the attention of the House of Commons to the Bill which had been introduced by the Metropolitan Board of Works for a great Metropolitan improvement. It was proposed to carry a big street from Charing Cross to Tottenham Court Road. It was to go through a densely-populated and miserable neighbourhood, where there were hundreds of these wretched dwellings of the artisan classes of London which have since excited the commiseration and sympathy of Lord Salisbury and his colleagues. Well, the Metropolitan Board of Works proposed to take the land on either side of the street, according to their usual practice, and in some way to lessen the cost of the improvement by the increased value which the new street would give to the thoroughfare. But when the Bill came before the Committee of the House of Commons, one great landowner on the line of route, by his agent, opposed the Bill, and claimed the insertion of a clause for his special protection, which provided that the Metropolitan Board of Works should not take one inch more of his land than was necessary for the formation of the street, and that he should have the frontage along the whole line of his property. Just consider what that meant. It meant, in the first place, that this landowner was to have the fullest possible price for his land. It was to be bought from him at its prospective value. He was to have compensation for severance, and then he was to have 10 per cent. for compulsory sale, and, heaped upon all this, he was to have the enormous advantage and profit which the turning of his property into the front line of a great thoroughfare, so adding to its value, would give. Well, the Committee of the House of Commons, finding out that this proposal was altogether exceptional in its character, that there was only one single precedent for it, and that in the case of a great Tory Peer, a member of the present Government, Lord Cadogan, whose property had been protected in this way in connection with, I think, the Chelsea Embankment—finding that the proposal was altogether exceptional, the Committee of the House of Commons rejected the clause. But when the Bill got up to the House of Lords—this great landowner was one of its members, a Peer of great eminence in the Upper Chamber—the Committee of the House of Lords inserted this clause for his protection, and for his protection alone, although there were many other landowners affected by the same Bill. Mr. Fawcett, I say, called the attention of the House of Commons to this circumstance, and he moved that the House disagree with the Lords' Amendment, and, so strong was the feeling of the House of Commons, that the Resolution was started without a Division. A Tory Member, Sir James McGarrell Hogg, the Chairman of the Metro-
    532
    politan Board of Works, said in his place that if this clause were passed, it would imperil all future Metropolitan improvements, so greatly would it add to their cost; and another Tory Member, Mr. Bates, the Member for Plymouth, said the clause would be a fraud upon the ratepayers. Who do you think was the landowner, the conduct of whose agents was stigmatised by Members of Parliament in the language I have quoted? It was the Marquess of Salisbury, the Prime Minister of England."
    That is a fact which does not add to any hope that I might ever have held that this question would be taken up by Her Majesty's Government. But, Sir, any lingering hope that I might have had is completely dispelled when I know, as I do, that the speech from which I have quoted was made by the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, Since he made that speech, 13 years ago, nine and a half years have been occupied by Ministries which he has supported; three years and a half have been occupied by a Ministry of which he is an extremely important member; and yet nothing has been done to remedy the evils which he so eloquently, so forcibly, put before the country in the year 1885. Sir, I only know this, that whether the Government take up this question or whether they do not, it is a question which the people of this country are turning their attention to, and for which they are determined to find a solution; and therefore, although I have no hope whatever from the Government that now commands an unexampled majority in this House and an unexampled majority in another place, yet I have complete confidence that through the people of this country this question will have to be taken up, and will have to be solved, and will be solved. Sir, I beg to move the Amendment that stands in my name on the Paper.
    SIR JOHN BRUNNER: This Amendment ought to have been seconded by my honourable Friend the Member for East Northamptonshire, but as he has already spoken on the general question it would be out of order for him to do so. I have, therefore, with considerable doubt as to my abilities, taken upon myself that task. And it is, Sir, a matter of regret to me that my audience is not graced by the presence of the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, because we—most of us on

    533
    this side—have been for the best part of our lives disciples of the right honourable Gentleman when we have been considering matters of local taxation. There is no one, Sir, who has dealt more powerfully, and with greater and fuller information, with the question of local taxation than the right honourable Gentleman. I will imitate my honourable Friend who moved this Amendment in omitting to mention the name of any single landowner during the course of my remarks. This question is certainly not a question in any part of the country as against the individual. We complain not at all of the action of any individual landowner when he gets the full amount for his land which the law allows. Our complaint is, not against the individual, but against a system, and I therefore think it right to follow my honourable Friend in his reticence. I will take, Sir, two or three instances of what I have seen in a place where I have lived and where I have worked, to show the mischiefs of the system which endures to-day, and I will promise the House that what I say shall be said from the point of view of a man of business, and a cool-headed man of business. I was lucky enough, Sir, to be born in a place of a very sweet reputation—namely, Everton, where the toffy comes from. That was, at the time I remember it first, the prettiest suburb of a great town that you could find throughout the North of England. Its streets were lined with trees, and from one end to another you saw the houses and gardens of merchants and rich men. Then the town grew towards Everton, and the land of Everton became more and more valuable, until at last it was too dear for the rich man to live upon it. And I ask the attention of Members to that idea, and ask them to ponder over it, because they will find that wherever they go in England the rich men live upon cheap land and the poor men upon dear land. Now, when the land of Everton became too dear for the rich men to live upon it, they migrated to the south end of the town, where the land was cheaper, and as the land increased in value so it became occupied by the poorest—not quite the poorest, but very poor—people of the town, and Everton is now overcrowded to a disgraceful degree. I will take the case of a member of a very old Lancashire
    534
    family, who bought in the year 1845 an enormous extent of sand-hills in the west of Lancashire, near the seashore. I remember being told many years ago by the solicitor who advised that Lancashire squire, that he bought that property, a good many square miles in extent, for £45,000. The property had been at the time I was told this in possession of the family for less than 30 years. The income from that £45,000 was then £40,000 a year. It is now four times that, at the very least. And not one penny of rates—not one penny of rates have the owners of that land ever paid. That land had been vacant until it was occupied with houses. When it was vacant it paid no rates. Since it has been occupied by houses it is the tenants who have paid the rates. Well, Sir, I lived for 10 years in a manufacturing place in Lancashire, called Widnes, that is recognised, as a rule, not so much by sight as by smell. One knows when one is passing Widnes in the dark when going north, a little past Runcorn Bridge. I know the history of Widnes well. I was a personal friend of all the founders of Widnes. Widnes was occupied by chemical manufacturers on account of the fact that it had good railway accommodation, good water communication, and that it was near a coal-field, and coal was cheap. Now, Sir, the centre of the township—we speak not of parishes in the north of England, but townships—belonged to a family whose fortune is founded upon the purchase of land in Lancashire—land which had increased enormously in value, land which at the time of the death of the grandfather of the present head of that family was of such little value that his two sons doubted whether it was worth while to prove the will and claim that property. Now, Sir, that property is worth very decidedly over three millions, and the owners of it have never from beginning to end paid a penny in rates. Now, the centre of the township of Widnes, as I said, belongs to this family, the only wealthy landowners in the whole township. What was the result? The chemical manufacturers wanted cottages for workmen. They were prosperous men in those days; they were men who wanted to put money into their business which returned 10, or 20, or 30 per cent., and not to put it into cottages, which returned only 5 or 6 per

    535
    cent. But they were obliged to build these cottages. They could not carry out their work without cottages. They built cottageB—the poorest of cottages, the most wretched of cottages; and in these cottages, beginning with the year 1849 up to the year 1869, the workmen of these manufacturers lived. These cottages—every one of them built by the employer—every one of them rotted to such an extent that they were all condenmed as unfit for human habitation and pulled down. That is the result of the occupation of land in the centre of the township by one wealthy landowner, who paid no rates and no taxes at all for it. I have watched that land growing from a value of £40 or £50 an acre out-and-out until it has come to such a value that the representatives of the family thought it worth while to begin to sell, and they did not begin to sell until it had risen from £40 to £20,000 an acre, and not one copper of rates have they paid. Now, Sir, when we find not only a money injustice, but when we find a people living short lives, living unhealthy, immoral lives, in order that the landowner of the centre of the town shall become richer—then, Sir, I say we have a case for our serious consideration. Mr. Speaker, I will not go on. I believe that what I have said has been quite enough to impress every Member who hears me with the idea that I speak not as the enemy of any man because he is wealthy. (Laughter.) Well, my honourable Friends here evidently believe in my sincerity upon that point. I might go on, Sir, to speak of Bootle, which is practically the north end of Liverpool. When I lived as a child in my father's house at Everton, I remember very well looking over the fields towards the sea, and being unable in any direction to get two houses in a line between us and the sea. And now everybody knows—a great many people, at all events, know—what Bootle is. It is a very large and a very prosperous town, and it is all let upon short leases-building leases—and at the end of these leases, in the same fashion of which my honourable Friend the Member for Devonport has spoken, the whole of that town will belong to the owner of the ground; and in the meantime the occupiers of that town have first built their houses, then made their roads, then
    536
    their sewers, then bought their waterworks, and paid all rates, including those paid for the return of the capital borrowed from the Local Loan Com missioners—it has been paid off out of their hard-earned incomes—and then the whole, under the operation of this law, which I suppose will be maintained tonight by Her Majesty's Government, the whole lot will belong to one family. I might speak, Sir, of the power of the Borough of West Ham, with which I am familiar, because my firm has considerable works there, and I might point out that if the change in the law which my honourable Friend advocates, that is to say, the imposition of rates and taxes upon unoccupied land, or upon land kept under grass and held for building prices—if that change were brought about in West Ham, I believe that the occupiers of West Ham would be relieved to the tune of 1s. 6d. in the £ from the day when it came into operation. Well, Sir, I might go on giving instance after instance, but I will bring what I have to say to a conclusion in a few words. I say, Sir, that any Bill professing to provide easier means for the workpeople to get decent and healthy homes, any Measure whatever which does not provide a remedy for the inequalities in the law of rating will be a sham and mockery. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the Government that when I vote with my honourable Friend upon this question, I shall not be voting a censure upon them, but my vote will be a vote of encouragement.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN,): Sir, I have listened with considerable attention to the speeches of the mover and seconder of this Amendment. With regard to the terms of the Amendment itself, I must say that it seems to me to be so vague and so general in its character that it is difficult to form any precise conclusion from it as to the object which the honourable Member has in view. When I come to his speech, and to the speech of the honourable Gentleman who seconded the Amendment also, I must say I find but small justification for the course which he proposes to take—namely, to move for censure upon Her Majesty's Government. For what are the arguments upon which he has

    537
    founded a vote of censure upon us? In the first place, he dwelt upon a number of alleged shortcomings on the part of a great ground landlord in Devonport, and then he proceeded to refer to the fact—which, of course, was not unknown to the House before—that the unearned increment, as it is called, under the existing laws goes into the pockets of the landlords, without their contributing what he considers to be their fair share of the rates. For these shortcomings he says most drastic remedies are required, and they are to be found chiefly in two directions—the taxation of ground values on the one hand, and the rating of unoccupied land on the other. With the permission of the House, I will say a very few words upon each of the different points that he has raised. The House has heard the allegation which the honourable Member has made with regard to the landlords at Devonport. He says that Devonport all belongs to two landlords—I think he said two landlords—that there is great overcrowding of the population, that land is held up and cannot be got. He pointed to one street in which he quoted a number of instances where whole families of respectable people were living in each room; and I am bound to say that if there be no exaggeration at all in it, the statement the honourable Member made upon that particular point points to a position of things which I suppose all of us would agree is not at all satisfactory. But the statement made by the honourable Member to the House, admittedly, was an entirely ex parte statement, and I think it is only fair that the House should hear what is said upon the other side upon that particular question. I propose to give to the House some statements which have been handed to me by my honourable Friend behind me, who possibly is able to speak with as much local knowledge as the honourable Member on the subject, of which I have no personal acquaintance whatever myself, and which may give the House some opportunity of judging upon the merits of this particular case. Now, Sir, what is said is this. With regard to building upon this particular property, it has been the desire of the landowner to promote building; it is his desire to obtain as many builders as possible, and every facility for opening up new ground has
    538
    been and is offered to builders. The precise terms upon which these are offered are given: first, freehold; second, leasehold, for 90 years; third, leasehold, with the option of purchasing during four years, on the terms named at the date of the existing contract the freehold so as to allow the purchaser from the builder to select his own conditions; fourth, the power of applying any time during the 90 years' lease for terms for acquiring the freehold in reversion. It is also stated that about 1,200 houses, all adopted for the working classes, are in course of erection. In connection with them the landlord is laying out £20,000 in constructing works, such as roads; and this is not repaid by the district. Ground rents for workmen's houses vary from £1 to £1 10s. per annum, according to the frontage and depth, and in the case of houses of four rooms they are all, with the exception of one block of 30 houses, 25s. per annum. There we have two statements coming from two different quarters which I apprehend have some local knowledge, and which will enable the House to arrive at the conclusion that the representation made from the other side of this House this afternoon is very far indeed from being sufficient on that particular point to justify the honourable Member in the Motion he had made, which practically amounts to a vote of censure upon the Government. The honourable Member and his friends who supported him also dwelt upon the great iniquity of the fact that the unearned increment should go to the landlords. There are a vast number of arguments that can be adduced on both sides of the question, and I certainly do think that it is a very fitting and proper subject for discussion in Parliament. But there is nothing in the omission of this question from the programme of the Government, as put forward in the Queen's Speech, to justify a vote of censure on the part of this House of Commons; and if I say a word about its omission from the programme of the Government, still less do I find anything to justify any censure. The honourable Member has alluded to the remedies, which he thinks the Government ought to submit to Parliament without a moment's delay. One of the great objects which the honourable

    539
    Member has in view is apparently to compel owners of lands in towns to contribute more equitably to the rates. But the honourable Member appears to have forgotten that that is one of the matters which have been referred to the consideration of one of the strongest and most important Commissions that has ever sat in this country, and upon which they are deliberating at the present moment. He seems to forget that there is at the present moment a Royal Commission which has already made two reports, the reference to which is in these words—
    "To inquire into the present system under which taxation is raised for local purposes, and to report as to whether the contributions to such taxation of real and personal property are equitable; and if not, what alterations in the law are desirable in order to secure that result."
    And we are censured by the honourable Gentleman because, in the face of the reports of the Royal Commission, we have declined to deal hastily at a moment's notice with a subject of such importance. The honourable Gentleman proposed another remedy which he deems of vital importance—that land which is unoccupied should be rated as well as land which is occupied; and he founds his argument upon the system of taxation in America. I daresay that it is perfectly true that that is the case with regard to unoccupied land in America, but it is perfectly notorious, although one of the remedies which he proposes is in existence in the country at the present moment, that there are numberless instances where the overcrowding of the population in America is quite as bad and in some cases infinitely worse than it is in this country. There are many questions of great, of supreme importance which might be discussed under the very wide scope of the Amendment put forward by the honourable gentleman, and upon a proper and fitting occasion the Government will be neither slow nor backward in discussing them. But for the Honourable Member to come down to the House on an afternoon like this and move an Amendment which practically amounts to a vote of censure on the Government, because they had not included in their programme or in their announcement in the Queen's Speech proposals for dealing
    540
    with a variety of difficult questions, some of the most important of which are being at the present moment considered by a Royal Commission that the Party to which he belongs themselves had appointed, is one of the wildest propositions I ever heard made in the House. I do not think it is necessary for me to say any more on the subject.
    MR. ASQUITH: I confess I cannot share, and I do not think the House generally shares the right honourable Gentleman's horror at the audacity of my honourable Friend upon this afternoon of actually having the temerity to suggest to the House of Commons that the Government have been guilty of neglect of duty in omitting- from their legislative programme a Measure of Social Reform which we on this side of the House regard as being of greater importance and urgency than anything the Government have included in that programme. I cannot conceive a more legitimate use of the opportunities afforded to the Opposition and to independent Members generally by the Debate on the Address than to bring out in pointed contrast the studied and continuous neglect which we have foreshadowed on the part of the Government to deal with this great question, while they have put before us a number of more or less homoeopathic and infinitesimal instalments of legislation in fulfilment of the long-delayed programme of Tory social reform. The right honourable Gentleman appears to me to very much minimise the importance and extent of this subject. I will not go into the questions of the conduct of that particular landowner in the town which my honourable Friend represents, because I have not the local knowledge which will help me to deal with the subject as to whether the state of things which my honourable Friend describes does or does not exist. I have the fullest confidence in my honourable Friend's local knowledge, and as I believe him to be incapable of making a statement without the fullest previous investigation, I have no doubt that he has put the House substantially in possession of the facts of the case. But that is not the issue here. The issue does not depend on any particular case; the question is, whether

    541
    or not the state of things which my honourable Friend has described as possible can exist, and in fact does exist, in many of the great centres of urban population in this country. Such, indeed, is the state of things that I do not exaggerate when I say that the only security the community in some of those urban centres has of the right to the use and occupation of the land, upon which its life and health depend, is the public spirit or the enlightenment and self-interest of a single individual. I do not desire to draw up an indictment against a class, although I do not dispute that we have in this country among the owners of land a large number of individuals who, in their dealings with their land, are actuated, some by a sense of public duty, some by self-interest, and some by a legitimate combination of both; but still I say that where the vital interests of a community are concerned it is not sufficient, as experience has often shown, to rely upon safeguards such as those alone. Now let me just in two or three sentences recapitulate the situation as we, at any rate, understand it. What is the present state of the law in relation to this matter? Take any of our great towns where the ownership of the soil is, as is very often the case, in the bands of the single individual. What is the case there? In the first place, the owner may capriciously, or from a mistaken sense of his own interest, or a thousand and one other motives, refuse to allow the use of his land for building and other purposes—land which is absolutely necessary for the due development of the community—and he may hold back that land from the market in the hope that at some distant date he would obtain for it an increased value. In the meantime there is no power vested in the community to obtain the land which is so essential to its life and health; and while that land is lying idle it does not contribute, under our law, a single penny to defray the growing expenses of the community. Is that an exaggerated description of the existing state of things? That it is possible under an existing law nobody disputes; it appears in case after case, town after town, and is within the experience of hundreds of honourable Members of this House. If the matter stood there alone, we should still have got an
    542
    abundant case against the Government for not bringing forward legislation. But that does not by any means exhaust the powers and privileges, exercised to the detriment of the community, which the law places in the hands of the owner of the soil. I go a step further, and point out that where the local authority has compulsory powers, as in the case of a work of public importance, which obliged him to sell his land, the landowner is entitled in respect to the land he sells—though it adds to the value of the land he retains—to claim the utmost value in the market; he is entitled to immediate compensation for what is called costs for severance and 10 per cent. for compulsory purchase. That, again, I say, is inconsistent with the most elementary principles of common justice. Now lei us go one step further still, in order to complete the case. As we all know, and as my honourable Friends have both pointed out, the landowner may, by letting out his land on the leasehold building system, gain the whole benefit of the improvements executed on the land at the expense of the occupying community, without contributing one farthing, either in the shape of principal or interest, to the expenditure so incurred. At the expiration of the lease, when the loans have all been paid off, in the form of what is called a reversionary bonus, he puts every penny of it into his own pocket. That, I say, is a state of things which calls for a defence—not such a defence as the right honourable Gentleman has attempted to put forward—and calls for remedies such as those my honourable Friend suggests. Are those remedies of a dangerous or revolutionary kind? Are they remedies in the direction of confiscation or injustice? Let us examine them for a moment. In the first place you ought to give to the local authority of every urban community vastly larger powers than it at present possesses for the compulsory acquisition of land upon terms which would make it possible for the community to employ the land so acquired with advantage to its own interest. In the second place, you do not need the indefinitely delayed Report of a Royal Commission to propose such a reform of the law of local rating as will make it impossible for a man to withhold land from public use—or, at least, if he does so, will compel him to

    543
    do so at the price of contributing to the rates in the same proportion as the public spirited landowner who does his duty, is required to contribute. Lastly, and most important of all, we want a system of municipal taxation, under which it will be possible, in every case of great works of municipal development, which do so much to enhance the value of land in our great towns, to throw an appreciable and just share of the cost of such works on the owners of the soil instead of, as at present, throwing the whole of the burden on the occupiers. That is a very simple and a very intelligible programme, and if anyone on the other side of the House, as representing the Government or as representing Conservative opinion is prepared to traverse or to challenge it, I will venture to put to him these two simple questions. In the first place, is my statement as to the existing condition of things exaggerated or unfair, and, if so, in what particular? And in the next place, is any one of the remedies suggested either inconsistent with true principles of economy or the elementary rules of justice? I am confident that neither of these questions can be answered against me, and I, for one, shall most heartily support my honourable Friend's Amendment.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have listened with some surprise to the course of the Debate. On the Paper, the object of the honourable Gentleman opposite, who moved the Amendment, is stated in the most general terms. I waited for his speech, and I heard him describe no general evil, or great hardship awaiting a remedy, but some peculiarities which he alleged affect his own constituency and on the existence of which he bases, so far as I can make out, the demand for a revolution in the tenure of house property throughout the United Kingdom. Some honourable Gentlemen expressed doubt as to the accuracy of my version of the honourable Gentleman's speech. Those who did so can hardly have heard him. The honourable Gentleman gave us in great detail his view of the overcrowded state of Devonport and his view of the cause of it. The House was asked to accept from him, unchallenged, an attack upon a particular landlord.
    MR. MORTON: No, no.
    THE FIRST LORD OP THE TREASURY: Three-quarters of the honourable Gentleman's speech was given up to it. The House was asked to accept from him his account of the doings of misdoings of a particular landlord who is not here to defend himself.
    MR. MORTON: A particular land system, not a particular landlord.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: It was a particular landlord and it so happened, I believe, that the estate of that particular landlord was brought under the notice of a Select Committee of the House. There was examination and cross-examination on the subject, and I am informed that the agent of that landlord contradicted, and was not shaken in his contradiction, the very statement of the honourable Gentleman.
    MR. MORTON: What statement did I make?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Broadly, the statement of the honourable Gentleman was that for selfish reasons the owner of that property, taking, as the honourable Gentle man said, £80,000 a year from it—
    MR. MORTON: I certainly did not say that. I absolutely and expressly stated that the only thing I had to go on was the admission of £40,000. I said the allegation was £80,000 and I expressly stated that I did not make the allegation myself.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Very well; but I have been shown a statement which makes out the amount to be £14,000—the statement made by the agent of the landlord in question. But it, after all, makes no difference to the matter in hand whether amount to be £14,000, the statement ment of the honourable Gentleman was that the landlord was drawing all these ground rents for selfish reasons, and so managed his property and so refused to allow any legitimate extension of cottages on his property that a condition of overcrowding was produced in Devonport, not only dangerous to the

    545
    health and comfort of the community, but even to then- morals. Is that an exaggeration? I am told that all these facts are incorrect; that those competent to speak of his property deny the accuracy of these allegations. However, whether these allegations or the contrary allegations be true or not, it really is not desirable that the time of the House on the Address should be taken up with statements which from the necessity of the case are ex parte statements with regard to the doings of one particular landlord, and it really becomes almost grotesque when on a foundation like this there is built up the shadowy future programme of the Nationalisation of the Land. I have listened to the speech of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for East Fife, who has told us that the present system of ownership of land in England throws into the hands of the great landowner who may happen to be the possessor of the soil on which a town is built an amount of power which no individual ought to be allowed to be possessed of and which I gather from him is capable of being used and, as a matter of fact, is used in many instances to the great detriment of the town. On the facts it is impossible, upon the Debate before the House, to come to any conclusion on the matter, but I am informed by such who have had a greater opportunity of looking into it than I have that those towns which are owned and have been laid out by large owners are better laid out and are treated more liberally than will be found to be the case when the property is broken up into innumerable small freeholds. I know there are cases which support the contention and many honourable Gentlemen in this House know of such cases. I will not attempt to strike the balance between the evils of the two systems, but the question is not to be decided by the mere suggestion of the right honourable Gentleman that such powers may be used by the landlords to the great detriment of the towns. Now, Sir, the right honourable Gentleman having thus indicated the broad outlines of the rather shadowy evil he desires to remedy, proceeds to indicate his method of carrying out the cure. If I understand him rightly, he thinks the extension of the compulsory power of sale is one remedy, and the rating of land, not built upon, is
    546
    another. These are the two remedies which he suggests ought to have been announced in the Queen's Speech. The right honourable Gentleman must know perfectly well that the subject which he affects to think is so simple, so elementary in its character, so simple to be dealt with, and the justice of which is so obvious, is on the contrary most complicated. I do not think the right honourable Gentleman has made himself acquainted with all the complications which must necessarily attend the revolution he proposes, whether such a revolution be justified or not. Let us not have, in this matter of the taxation of vacant land, the example of America thrown at our heads. The system of rating in America depends upon a wholly different principle. The system of rating in America is a system of rating the capital value of property of all kinds, personalty as well as realty, plant as well as land, debts, land occupied and land built over. That is a principle which necessarily carries with it the taxation of vacant land, and if, in the right honourable Gentleman's opinion, that may be a recommendation so strong that he would like our system to be so far assimilated to the American system, is he prepared to adopt the American system all through? If it is his desire that we should substitute capital value for annual value, which is our present system; if he does indeed look forward to a revolution of that kind, then I gather it is he, and not we, who will have to prepare and defend the Queen's Speech in which that policy is first announced. I have no doubt there are defects in both systems; that both of them are at the present time defective and neither of them can be made by any ingenuity theoretically equitable. I am certain, however, that he would be a very rash man who would attempt to-substitute the American system for ours. The defects in our system have never-been denied on this side of the House or the other; but we have done what honourable Gentleman opposite have never done, we have attempted to inquire exactly what those defects are and to find out some way of remedying them.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Yes, by a Royal Commission.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: When the right honourable Gentleman sets himself seriously to work to master the evidence taken before that Committee, and its report, he will not talk so glibly in this House of the simplicity of the problem he wants Her Majesty's Government in hot haste to take up. We all admit—all of us who take any interest in what is, I believe, the greatest social problem of our day, the condition of our great towns—that overcrowding is one of the greatest evils from which these vast aggregations of population suffer. Has anything been done to mitigate the evil in this country? If so, by whom has it been done? But that may be regarded as an unimportant aspect of the matter, and I will dismiss it at once. So far as I know, there is one Act, the existence of which appears to be ignored by the honourable Gentleman who initiated this Debate, and with which the right honourable Gentleman who supports him appears not to be acquainted, which gives local authorities compulsory powers to purchase lands for the erection of workmen's dwellings, whatever may be the view of the owner of those lands as to the propriety of erecting workmen's dwellings upon them. I do not know why the Corporation of Devonport has not attempted to put the provisions of that Act in force if they suffer from the evils which the honourable gentleman so eloquently described. But in any case the Act exists. It is a genuine attempt to deal with the specific grievance brought forward to-day; it is the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890; an Act that was passed by a Government, of which I was a Member, which belongs to the same Party as now sits on this side of the House. We certainly are not the Party who have shown ourselves oblivious of the magnitude of this problem, or have shown ourselves reluctant to deal with it. I am the last person to assert; but certainly no remedy which has been suggested from the other side is likely to do more in the direction which we all desire than that simple and practical clause, the general substance of which I have just communicated to the House. But there is another and a broader aspect of the case alluded to by the President of the Local Government Board, which ought not to be lost sight of. We are
    548
    all apt, especially if we have any crotchet of our own to serve, to attribute evils, which are common to many different systems, to the peculiarities of our own system to which we happen to object. The honourable Member for Devonport dislikes ground landlords in general, but one ground landlord in particular. He, therefore, says, alter your land system, get rid of these ground landlords, nationalise the land. The right honourable Gentleman who spoke from the Front Bench paid, I think, a very fair tribute to the public spirit which has animated a large number of the great ground landlords of this country, but he also has his views as to the particular alteration of taxation that he desires to see introduced, and he also, therefore, suggests to the House that if they will only take his particular nostrum for dealing with local taxation the great evils of overcrowding in our great towns will be, if not altogether removed, at all events, notably diminished. A comparative study of the conditions of life in the great towns, not in this country alone, but in Europe and America, altogether militate against that view. In my own country—Scotland—hardly any land, broadly speaking, is let on terminable leases. Almost the whole of it is let on perpetual leases. We have not escaped overcrowding in Scotland. In America they have that system of rating for local purposes which the right honourable Gentleman apparently so much prefers to our own. In America, just as in London, Edinburgh, and Dublin the evils crowd upon them. You will find them in Paris, Rome, Berlin, St. Petersburg—wherever you go, whatever the form of Government may be, whatever be the system of taxation and land tenure, there seems to cling, like a curse, upon the existence of great cities this difficulty of the overcrowding of the working population, with all its consequent evils, sanitary and moral. Therefore, in setting ourselves to the task of doing something to diminish this great social curse let us not be led astray by particular animosities against a class or particular predilections in favour of this system or that system of taxation. If it be necessary to give compulsory powers more liberally than they have been given for the purchase of land for dwellings, that is a thing evidently worth considering. There may be other remedies, other palliatives,

    549
    which this House ought not to neglect, but I am fully convinced that we should do more harm than good if we approached this great social problem in that spirit which I think has animated the mover of this Motion, and if we are more desirous of dealing a blow at particular classes or particular interests than of serving the needs and the great object of our population.
    MR. HALDANE: Mr. Speaker. There is some reason, I think, to complain of the difference in tone between the speeches of the two right honourable Gentlemen who have addressed us from the Government Bench. The President of the Local Government Board addressed us in a speech that was all sweetness, but the Leader of the House, on the other hand, has spoken to us words that are full of acid. The President of the Local Government Board commenced his speech in a most conciliatory vein; his conciliation towards the close amounting almost to pathos. He told us, after what had fallen from my honourable Friend the Member for Devonport, that if his argument was well founded, it reflected a state of things that was disgraceful to our civilisation. He then went on to say that the whole question with regard to unearned increment was well deserving of consideration, and finally he appealed to us not to be led away with a notion that things were better this year than they were. When we were full of expectation that he was going to suggest a remedy, he shrouded his views in the graceful winding-sheet of the Royal Commission and hid them from us. The right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, was very different. He appeared to assume that there was only one grievous case connected with the land system, and appeared to think that the case centred in Devonport. It was on that basis that the right honourable Gentleman went on to ask whether on an assumption of that kind the policy of the nationalisation of the land should be enforced. The honourable Gentleman the Member for Devonport never, so far as I understood, proposed nationalising the land at all. Neither did my honourable Friend put forward the case, which he did put forward, in any other way than as an illustration. He described the evil as general, and
    550
    merely put forward the case of Devonport as an illustration of that condition of things which he suggested. In the course of the Debate the right honourable Gentleman who sits in front of me formulated a remedy, and the President of the Local Government Board complained that this should be done in general terms, and in the course of: the Debate on the Address. I agree with him it is inconvenient to discuss this matter on the mere general terms of a Motion, but whose fault is it that it cannot be discussed in the definite terms of a Bill. Can we bring in a Bill? We come here, and we raise this question on the Address because there is no opportunity given to private Members to raise it in any other way. Yet these questions must be discussed if we are to do justice to our constituencies. A good deal has been said about a class. I think there is another class to whom not only we, but the Government opposite, owe a duty; a class whose burden is very heavy and very hard to bear, and on whose behalf a word is very seldom said in any part of this House. I mean the class of the small shopkeeper, the man who is pressed down by this grievous burden of rates; a burden always increasing; a burden which must inevitably increase if our large towns are to be improved; a class who have as hard a struggle as any other class in the country, and with much less prospect. Take a shopkeeper in the Mile End Road, who builds up his business, and by years of industry and attention to it gets a goodwill of some value attached to his name and business, who finds his rent and rates are raised, and who cannot move because if he does he loses the custom which is attached to his name. It is on behalf of that class, I think, as much or more than any other, that the Government should, and I hope will, come forward before the termination of this Parliament with a remedy. Her Majesty's Government have muzzled their dogs and harried their children into the Church Schools, but they have brought forward nothing to touch this particular class and relieve it of this intolerable burden, which could be relieved by a moderate and reasonable amendment of the law. What has been suggested as the natural remedy for the condition of things with which we have to deal is shortly this. First of all, there

    551
    should be some moderate power of rating ground values given to the large and small municipalities; and, secondly, there should be some power conferred, which does not exist at present of purchasing the land compulsorily.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: You can purchase already for workmen's dwellings under the existing Act.
    MR. HALDANE: Yes, in the most limited and vague way. I know the inside of this Act; the right honourable Gentleman does not. If the right honourable Gentleman had spent as many hours as I have in trying to see how the present Act could be put in force in any way which would be of the least practical utility, he would not put that forward as an existing remedy.
    MR. RITCHIE: It has been used a dozen times.
    MR. HALDANE: I wish to see it used a dozen hundred times. In London it has been put into force, but only under circumstances of very great difficulty. It has been my duty to advise the London County Council in these matters, and I can assure the right honourable Gentleman it is not so simple a thing. The County Council have experienced the greatest difficulty in putting the Act in force in London. I admit it is an Act which the right honourable Gentleman deserves great credit for passing. It was a very useful consolidation Act, containing some very useful amendments of the law; but it does not give these municipal authorities as much power as they require to conduct their business. If they want to make improvements, if they desire to acquire more land for municipal works, for streets, or for anything except the very limited things which they can do under the Public Health Act of 1875, they have to obtain compulsory powers at great cost to the ratepayers. We are always running up the rates in this way by Private Bill legislation. Look, what a vast sum the London County Council has spent in this matter of Private Bills! The Act of 1890 was not anything like a remedy for that condition of things. Then there is the necessity of putting upon the owners of the poorer class of houses
    552
    some enforcible duty with a guarantee that it will be enforced for putting these dwellings into a decent condition, and keeping them in that condition. That is a part of the law which is extremely defective. I do not put these proposals forward as the end, or the beginning of the end, in this matter, but they are moderate reforms, which surely are within the compass of the Government. And, Mr. Speaker, not only are they moderate reforms, but they are practical reforms promoted by practical men. There is a great municipality in this country, the Corporation of Glasgow. That Corporation is, at the present time, in its corporate capacity, promoting a Bill for the purpose of acquiring power to tax ground rents. When a question gets to such a stage that one of the greatest cities of the Empire has to apply to Parliament for powers of that sort, surely it is little short of a scandal. But Her Majesty's Government say that this matter ought to be inquired into by a Royal Commission, in which the House is to do nothing, and not regard it as a practical question at all. Surely this is a very different thing to putting forward reforms which lead to land nationalisation, as was suggested by the First Lord of the Treasury.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, no.
    MR. HALDANE: Then what the right honourable Gentleman implied was that this Motion was a slender foundation for it. The right honourable Gentleman attributes to my right honourable Friend a policy far beyond anything he advocated in his speech, and far beyond what, as an Opposition, we are pressing upon the attention of Parliament. Mr. Speaker, I venture to say that if we had in this House to remake the Land Laws of this country, particularly those which apply to our great cities and towns, we should make them entirely different to what they are now. The state of things in the past is a scandal. We cannot interfere with rights which have accrued, but at least we can do something to prevent that scandal which has already grown to such a magnitude in the past, and which, at all events, can be restrained in its dimensions if this Parliament will only be a little in

    553
    earnest about it. The present Government are now in their fourth Session, but they have given us no promise to deal with these questions, which are urgent, and which have been, for some time, more than sufficiently clear to enable a practical body of men to deal with. We cannot accept the plea of non possumus, and we must take it that there is a difference of policy between the two sides of the House on this question. The Government have entered upon their fourth Session, and yet have shown no signs of dealing with this question in fulfilment of the promises made at the last General Election of 1895, with the exception of the suggestion of a small Bill which we shall know more about when the Government bring it forward, and which, I should think, will be something like the Workmen's Dwellings Act, and if it is such a Bill it will be absolutely useless. If that, Mr. Speaker, is the only remedy they have to propose, then I despair of seeing anything done in the direction of Land Law reform in this Parliament. There is a great deal to be said for taxing the capital value of land in a way we do not tax it at present, but we are not concerned with that just now. We are concerned with an evil at home which is not only established but admitted, and I for one should like to see, before this Parliament comes to an end, some measure of reform, moderate it may be in its scope, but still constituting a foundation upon which subsequent Parliaments might build, and by which something substantial might be done towards remedying a grievance which amounts to a public scandal.
    MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY: I regret very much that this subject of the enfranchisement of leaseholds is brought up in this way, because it is impossible for us to consider it properly, and vote upon it as many of us wish to do. I spent several years in this House trying to obtain some reform upon this subject.
    MR. SPEAKER: I may point out to the honourable Member that the enfranchisement of leaseholds and the housing of the working classes are subjects dealt with in Bills which are before the House, and, therefore he is not in order in discussing them now.
    MR. BARTLEY: Then I will address my remarks strictly to the Amendment, and will deal only with the ownership, tenure, and taxation of lands in towns, which we are discussing. Of course, this question of the ownership, tenure, and taxation of land is a matter of very great interest to London Members. We have for many years urged that some alteration should take place in this very difficult and complicated subject, and, although I agree heartily with what the Leader of the House said when he stated that this is not a matter which was so easily settled, or so simple as honourable Gentlemen opposite imagine; still, we have pledged ourselves over and over again to support some Measure by which the owner ship, tenure, and taxation of land in towns shall be amended and altered. A subject which has been referred to is the taxation of vacant land, and it is one which Ave have also had considered before a Committee. Now, although I should be sorry to see anything like the American system introduced into this country, still there is a great deal to be said for the rating, for local purposes, of land which is unoccupied in towns, and which has to be protected and looked after at the cost of the occupiers of adjoining land. It seems to me that everything of this sort which tends to make the tenure of land more easy, and facilitates transfers, is a strictly proper measure for this side of the House to propose. I am debarred, Mr. Speaker, by your ruling, from referring to the enfranchisement of leaseholds, except as relates to the ownership, tenure and taxation of land. Insomuch as the ownership of land touches very closely on the enfranchisement of leaseholds, I may say that it was clearly brought out before the Committee a good many years ago that, although there Was the practical question of changing the ownership of land in certain cases, popularly known as the enfranchisement of leaseholds, yet it was practically impossible to formulate a system which would act fairly and properly all round. I am anxious to see the extension of freeholds and the ownership of land increased, because I think nothing will promote thrift better than an alteration in the system of ownership of land, which will enable people, with greater facility, to obtain their

    555
    freehold. But there is a question which strictly relates to this subject—and which we were never able to fathom—and that is how we are going to tax these ground landlords. It is practically almost an impossibility to make any system which will act fairly. It is quite easy to pass a Land Law by which the present owners of land shall be taxed, or shall be defrauded and robbed of what they ought not to pay, who had entered into contracts on definite terms, and would, if the law was altered, have to pay what others had stipulated. When these leases expire and change of ownership comes about, there is no conceivable way in which you could prevent the landlord from increasing the rent to the occupier, and so really throwing the burden upon him. This was the real difficulty we met with on the Committee, and, although I am not going to throw any cold water upon the system, still, I say that those who bring for ward a motion, such as the honourable Member opposite has done, in a vague and general manner, make it more interesting and practical by telling us how this thing is to be done, because the Committee came to the conclusion that it would be practically almost impossible to prevent this increased taxation, and not only this increased taxation, but the possibility of rises being added to the unfortunate occupier's rent during the tenure to provide these in creases that will have to be met. I hope that before this Parliament ends we shall be able to go into this great subject. I pledge myself always to support any reasonable scheme of this sort. I have tried to get a discussion of this question for ten years, and I hope that the Government with all its good intentions, which we all believe in thoroughly, will, in the declining years of its life, remember that the subject of the enfranchisement of leases, and the subject of the tenure and rating of land, are matters of the greatest importance to London, and I hope they will remember that, after all, London is not an un important factor in the present Government majority.
    MR. WILLIAM FIELD: I wish to take part in this Debate because it is a subject which touches Irishmen as much as Englishmen. With regard to the honourable
    556
    Gentleman who has just resumed his seat, he said that this was a Government which had very good intentions. There is an old proverb which says that there is a place which is paved with good intentions, and that will apply to this House and also to another House. The right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House said this was a personal attack upon certain landlords. Now, I deny that entirely. From my point of view it is an attack on a system and a principle, and if that attack happens to operate against people who profit by the adoption of this principle, then I say that we should not be met by the argument that this is a personal attack upon certain landlords. The right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board went into a great deal of generalities, and spoke about various subjects. He mentioned certain cases in connection with Edinburgh, but does the right hon. Gentleman maintain that the ground landlords pay any local taxes, for that is the point of the whole discussion? The ground landlord absolutely pays none of the local charges, and he pays little in the nature of taxation. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board told us that they had a Commission sitting on this question, but when is this Commission going to report? When are we to have any actual practical results from this Commission? Don't we all know what Royal Commissions mean? What do they mean to every sensible and experienced member of the House? Why, simply a pretext for delay and an expensive procedure which leads to nothing; that is my experience of what Royal Commissions mean. I understand that this Commission on local taxation is going to last for another period, probably longer than the Government itself. I take it, that public opinion on this matter is pressing for something definite to be done. If we look around about us all over the three kingdoms, what do we find? We find that the general trend of events at the present moment is demanding a reform upon this subject. And, Mr. Speaker, what do we discover? We see that while the Government are decreasing the load of taxation on the agricultural community, our experience is that in cities and towns the load of taxation is

    557
    enormously increasing. Am I right or am I wrong? Therefore it is only fair that that favoured section which is rejoicing at greater incomes by the fact that ground is increasing in value should bear a fair share of taxation, and the time has come when they ought to be made to do so by the action of this House. Let me give you an example. I do not desire to make an attack upon any individual or person, but let me give you a concrete case of which I know the facts. The township of Kingstown, which is a few miles outside the city of Dublin, was a piece of agricultural land some 70 to 80 years ago. Leases were obtained for from 70 to 80 years, and now those intervening landlords who took long leases have been enriched by the fact that a harbour has been built there. These leases are ending about the year 1901 and 1902, and there has been any number of middlemen, and as a result of this system, we have had over-crowding, jerry-building, and all those other evils which always occur under the terminable of the leasehold system. What is the effect with regard to the whole township of Kingstown? This is a very remarkable case, because 70 or 80 years ago this place was simply a farm or an agricultural holding. Now in the year 1901 these gentlemen who are called "lords of the soil" (I don't know what that means, because I take the Creator to be the only lord of the soil) absolutely propose to take back, not only the land, but all the houses that have been built on that land by the industry and the labour of the inhabitants. They further propose to appropriate not only the houses, but the roads and all the improvements that have been created by the labour of the inhabitants in this township and the enhanced value arising from the taxation of the inhabitants. Now I want to know from the Conservative Government, who claim to be the protectors of property, upon what grounds they can justify the taking of the property of the inhabitants of this township, and transferring it from so many owners, who absolutely created this property, and putting it into the pockets and possession of the ground landlords. Where does equity or justice or philosophy come in there? I am giving this as a concrete practical case, with the
    558
    facts of which I am thoroughly acquainted. In connection with this matter there is another evil, which none of the honourable Members who have spoken have alluded to, and that is the evil of the middleman. When the term of a lease has expired we generally find that some dispute arises between the occupier and the landlord, and the result is that if a man is in business, and he has worked up the business, he must at any price purchase out that middleman in order to obtain the reversionary lease. The whole system is entirely wrong, and is opposed to the general good of the community at large. I maintain that this system injures a vast majority of the dwellers in towns, and if anyone desires to seek the reason for the prosperity of some of the towns in the North of England, remember it is to be found in the fact that nearly every one of the occupiers are owners of their own dwellings. I know something of this question, because I make it my business to inquire into the social conditions of those with whom I mix in business, and I find that wherever you have the owners of the houses in which they live, undoubtedly prosperity prevails in that city. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of criticising this Government any more than I have of attacking the late Government, for this reason, that both Liberals and Conservatives are equally blameable in this question. During the time the Liberals held office I presented 40 petitions from 40 different towns in Ireland upon this very subject, and I am bound to say that the Liberals were just as scant in their courtesy with regard to it as the Conservatives appear to be to-day. This is a social crux which must be agitated by the community outside. The right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House and the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board appear to think that this is a question which was sprung upon the House this Session. It is nothing of the kind. It has been agitated in this House for a number of years. I hold in my hand a report of Her Majesty's representatives abroad respecting dwelling-houses in the countries in which they reside. The date of this report is so long ago as 1884, and this report was moved for and obtained by the late Lord Randolph Churchill.

    559
    Now what does this report disclose? Why, that in every country in Europe—in France, Italy, Belgium, and in Russia, and even amongst the unspeakable Turk—the majority of the dwellers in foreign towns have more security than they have in Great Britain or Ireland. That is a disgraceful condition of affairs in a civilised and constitutionally governed country. Some honourable Members talk about the benefits to be derived by the community from a single owner having the privilege of owning the ground that is covered by the community in a large city, but what are the privileges of that owner? Take Kingstown for instance. The privilege there is that that man has the power of life or death over the community. The privileges is that every man who lives under him is only a tenant at will at the end of a lease, therefore this is one of the greatest questions, that can engage the attention of this Parliament. No doubt there are honourable Members on this side of the House, and also on the other, who will say that this issue ought not to be brought in by a side wind. But how are these subjects to be brought in? The Government, since I came into this House, have monopolised nearly all the time of the House. They have taken the days formerly given up to private Members, and unless you introduce a discussion by an Amendment on the Queen's Speech, you positively get no opportunity of ventilating these questions. The right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury taunted the honourable Member who introduced this subject with not bringing forward a certain form of proposal which would remedy this grievance. We all know perfectly well that a private Member's privileges are reduced to a minimum, and Members of this House are used simply as automatic voting machines, and unless a Measure is adopted by the Government it has not the remotest chance of passing. Unless an opportunity on the Queen's Speech is seized, you don't get a chance of stating your convictions upon any subject which may be of the most vital importance to your constituency. (Oh! oh!") I challenge contradiction. The only privilege we have now is that of putting questions, and even some of
    560
    those are ruled out of order, and we do not know the reason why, or bringing in Bills which will never be passed. Again I challenge contradiction on these assertions, and those who disagree with me on the other side of the House will be forced to admit the truth of my statement. I have no desire to detain this House at any length, but I wish to declare that this question of security of tenure, of improvements, and the fixing of fair judicial rents upon tenants in large towns, is the most important problem that could be brought before the House this Session. We have had promises from Ministers about old age pensions which have vanished into thin air. We have had a programme circulated by the Government which they never mean to carry out; and here, in the meantime, you have in London millions of people existing who are compelled to add charges to their businesses by reason of the fact that whenever the opportunity offers the ground landlord doubles and sometimes quadruples their rents. I know a case of a building in the Strand which was rented at £40 a year some years ago, and now that rent is £200 a year, and similar cases are to found in Dublin. And who has to pay for that? Why, the community at large. Here is a state of things where one select coterie of persons grow enormously rich, and yet the people cannot understand why it is that they gradually get poorer. I look upon this as one of the greatest questions of the time, because in its settlement the interests of the urban community are concerned. This House has taken into consideration the interests of the agriculturists, and are we to be told, because a discussion like this has been introduced through the medium of the Queen's Speech, that this is not the proper time or opportunity to deal with it? If so, then I ask the Government to appeal to public opinion and to the representatives of the people. What are the facts? A Commission was appointed many years ago, in 1885, and that Commission made certain recommendations, which were not acted upon, because the Governments, one after the other, did not desire to deal with this question. Sir, I take leave, as an Irish Member, to remind the Government that if they are not prepared to deal with this question, public opinion wiil soon compel

    561
    them to do so. It is not a question that is to be burked by mere generalities in expressions of opinion. What are the Government in office for? Are they in office to solve public questions, or to depute their solution to private Members, who have been deprived of almost all their privileges in this House? I say, Mr. Speaker, and I say it solemnly, that this is a question the importance of which is going to grow. Let me tell right honourable Members who so serenely adorn the Front Bench that this is a question upon which almost every section in Ireland is absolutely united; a Motion upon which a great many men who differ upon other points in England are united, in proof of which we find the honourable Member for Islington supporting this Motion. Since I came into this House, not so many years ago, we have had dozens of Bills dealing with town tenants, the enfranchisement of leaseholders and the provision, of dwellings for the working classes. Do the right honourable Gentlemen who occupy the Front Bench think we are to be left out of consideration in this matter? I tell them, no. I say we are thoroughly in earnest on this question, and that public opinion is ripening. Justice has been done to the agriculturists, and justice must be done to the dwellers in towns, and the issue will have to be fought out before the constituencies.
    MR. CHANNING: Mr. Speaker, having had a good deal to do recently with an important conference of municipal representatives on the rating of ground values, I should like to offer one or two observations upon what fell from the First Lord of the Treasury in answer to the Motion of my honourable Friend the Member for Devonport. The eloquent, the forcible, and the thoroughly rousing speech to which we have just listened from an Irish Member will have given the answer to one of the arguments of the First Lord of the Treasury which seemed to me to be a petty and unreasonable argument—namely, that this was a purely local grievance. Now, Sir, I hold in my hand a report of the conference, the most important and representative conference ever held on this subject, and attended by a large number of Mayors, Aldermen, Town Councillors,
    562
    Town Clerks, and other representatives of a large number of the most important municipalities in the country, besides many representatives of the London County Council, Metropolitan Vestries, and other bodies. I have no desire to detain the House with many details, but I should like to give examples of the state of things in one or two important towns which were laid before that Conference, not, be it observed, by special pleaders or Members of Parliament, but by officials representing the local authorities of those towns. I will first take the evidence of an alderman of the town of Harrogate. The Burial Board of Harrogate, desiring to extend their cemetery, asked the adjoining landlord what he would take for his land. He replied that he wanted £1,200 an acre. The alderman thus sent to our Conference to represent the Town Council of Harrogate told us that he was curious enough to go to the overseers to see what this land was rated at. He knew that it was poor agricultural land, and found that it was rated at 5s. an acre. He thought that he would be giving a fair price if he gave twenty years' purchase; if he gave twenty-five years' purchase, a very good price; and if he gave thirty years' purchase an extraordinary price. The landlord, however, demanded 4,800 years' purchase. The right honourable Gentleman, the First Lord of the Treasury, had gone on to speak about his Working Classes Act, which some of us on this side had helped to pass; but he knows perfectly well that the reason this legislation is a dead letter in many parts of the country is that the local authority have to give these gigantic prices for the land, imposing such enormous burdens upon the ratepayers that, burdened down as they already are by the continual pressure of rate after rate, these improvements cannot be carried out. Now, let me take the town of Huddersfield, as stated by its representative at the Conference. That is a town owned, practically by one landlord, who is reputed to receive not less than £100,000 annually from a property that was originally acquired by his ancestors, I believe, for the sum of £1,000 sterling; and the estate is being continually improved by public works at the expense of the occupying ratepayers. At

    563
    Huddersfield, "in the case of the Green-head Park, 28 acres were purchased for £30,000, of which the estate returned £5,000." Thus the landlord pockets £25,000 while "the Corporation spent many thousands in laying it out, and if they saw the houses since built they would see how it had improved the value of the sites." "They expected, in Huddersfield, to have to find money as a municipality for an institute for secondary and technical education; but 'if,' as stated at the Conference, other municipalities are in the position of Huddersfield, they will not be able to place additional burdens upon the rates without producing a revolution among the ratepayers." I might multiply illustrations from the facts collected in the inquiry for our Conference, and facts, etc., quoted by the delegates. I will give one or two more. In the city of Glasgow the Corporation recently paid £29,000 for eighty-two acres of land, to be laid out as a park, or £350 per acre. The price of the land in the immediate neighbourhood at once rose from £300 per acre to £500. In Halifax a certain piece of land was bought twenty years ago at 10s. per yard and had been left idle ever since. When a road was made by the Corporation the land was sold, in 1898, for £4 per yard. In another case land was bought in 1896 at 1s. 9d. per yard. A road was made by the Corporation, and the land sold in 1898—only two years afterwards—at 5s. to 7s. per yard. I do not want to weary the House, but I give these as one or two instances to answer the flippant argument of the right honourable Gentleman, in reply to the admirable speech of the honourable Member for Devon-port, that this was a mere local grievance based upon local animosities. If the right honourable Gentleman had attended our Conference and listened to the speech I heard from the representative of the municipality of Devonport, a speech couched in language far more scathing than that of my honourable Friend, he would have realised there was an ample case as to Devonport itself. Well, the cases in those other towns which I have named—and it is the same all over the country—are all germane to the subject. I could produce hundreds of cases. We had representatives of many municipalities at our Con-
    564
    ference. Over 200 local authorities, many of them large municipalities, petitioned this House last year for a reform in this matter. It is idle, therefore, to say that this is a local and not a national question. The right honourable Gentleman surprised me by his lack of information on the elementary points of this question. He referred to the housing of the working classes, and boasted of it as a question his own side had dealt with. He forgot, however, to mention that the Commission out of which the Bill of 1890 originated was appointed by the Liberal Party. In referring also to the question of rating ground values, he wished to attribute to my honourable Friend and Members on this side of the House a desire to plunge this country into rash and novel experiments in local taxation, and to introduce American methods. Where was the right honourable Gentleman's knowledge? He ought to have known that the Commission appointed in 1885 —one of the strongest and most representative Commissions which ever sat, containing some of the ablest men in English public life, and it would be remembered that the Prince of Wales himself took part in it—specially recommended the local taxation of unoccupied land in order to drive the owners of unoccupied land in the neighbourhood of large towns to use that land for the erection of dwellings for the working classes. The right honourable Gentleman not only forgot that recommendation, but he also forgot the very machinery which that Commission recommended for carrying out that object. It was idle for the right honourable Gentleman to attempt to parry this great question by asserting that it was wished to introduce American methods of valuation for local rating. He ought to have remembered that the Royal Commsision recommended the determination of the capital value of unoccupied building land as the only sound method of arriving at the true annual value for local taxation purposes. We know perfectly well that the unoccupied land in our large towns, is largely land which is used for agricultural purposes and let at a nominal rent compared with its true value. We know further that the owners of this land at the present time, under the Agricultural Rates Act of 1896, are receiving back half their rates. That adds to the gross.

    565
    scandal of refusing the proposed reform. Now, Sir, as to the general question of the rating of ground values. The right honourable Gentleman—I think both right honourable Gentlemen have twitted us with having no proposal ready for the acceptance of the House. The honourable Member who has just spoken has pointed out with force and with judgment that it was not for us to suggest the methods, but the Government. But, Sir, at the Conference to which I have already referred, a suggestion has already been made, and I believe it was communicated to the Government. Our suggestion was that there should be a separate quinquennial valuation of sites as distinct from buildings, and that a rate should be made to fall on the owners of such land. That is a plain and useful basis for a Bill which might easily be drawn up. I do not think it comes well from right honourable Gentlemen opposite to introduce the principle of the separation of the assessment of land from buildings in the Agricultural Rates Act for the benefit of the landlords, and refuse to introduce the principle, which their own example shows to be easy of application, for the benefit of the suffering ratepayers in our great towns. Mr. Speaker, I well remember the speeches of the First Lord of the Treasury before the election in 1895. The burden of the whole of them was the intolerable suffering of the ratepayers of this country. He appealed to the ratepayers to give him a majority in order that he might relieve their sufferings and protect their interests. But all that he has done in this direction since he has been in power has been to pay half the rates on agricultural land, and to do so, in such a way, by refusing even the continually-promised division of the rates between the owner and the occupier, as to insure that only a small portion of the benefit shall go temporarily to the unfortunate farmers, who have been used as a tool to rob the Treasury for the benefit of the landlords.
    MR. J. H. JOHNSTONE: I do not wish to intrude in this Debate, but I do wish, Mr. Speaker, to draw the attention of the House to two points which it seems to me should be borne in mind when, we are dealing with this question. The first is, whether the
    566
    system of ground leasing is a good or a bad one, it has been an enormous factor in the development of our large towns. And for this reason—the building tenant is, as a rule, a man who is desirous of acquiring a plot of land and of erecting houses upon it. He is not, generally speaking, a man of large capital, or a man who is willing to lock up his capital in purchasing the freehold. If he can keep his capital in his pocket he can turn it over in the shape of bricks and mortar, he can render himself responsible for the rent, which he can pass on to the occupier of the house. I think, Sir, that that is a point which never ought to be lost sight of in considering this question of ground values; because when we increase the accommodation, which I quite admit is not sufficient in our large towns, we want to see more of these smaller houses springing up occupied by the working classes. I am quite certain myself, and I speak from some experience—that this system has been an extremely useful and valuable one for promoting the development of our land in towns for building purposes. The other point which I will deal with is that our system of local taxation continues as long as we tax, not the capital value, but the yearly interest. It will make no difference to the common purse out of which our expenses have to be paid if the burden of rating is to be divided between two or left to be borne by one. The net result to the common purse will be exactly the same—it will only be a little more trouble to the collector, who will have to take out two demand notes instead of one. That, Sir, is my contribution to this Debate, and I cannot help feeling that it will have some weight here.
    MR. SPICER: I desire to say one word in support of my honourable Friend the Member for Devonport. The occupants of the Front Bench opposite have complained that it is hardly fair to raise this Debate at this time of the Session, especially when a Commission is sitting in connection with the same subject. I think the justification, Mr. Speaker, for occupying the time of the House on this subject is simply this—that this is one of the most important questions that can be brought before the House this Session. It is a

    567
    question that is exciting, I believe, the greatest amount of interest in the country. If I may say just a word or two in reply to the honourable Member for the Horsham Division of Sussex, who has just spoken, I agree with him in his first contention as to leaseholds. I maintain that there is nothing wrong or unfair in the leasehold system. It is a question of taxation and rating that has made the unfairness to the leaseholders. It is the system of rating which has enabled the freeholder to take, in a large number of cases, the value of the goodwill of the business, or the occupation carried on on the land in addition to the value of the land itself. With regard to the division of the rates making no difference, if this matter is to be dealt with simply from the local or municipal point of view I believe my honourable Friend is correct. But if this matter is dealt with from a national standpoint, and extra taxation is put on the whole of the land of this country according to its capital value, I believe you will create a reform that will strike at many of the present evils in connection with our social system. Another reason, applying also to the arguments of the Front Bench, was the inconsiderateness of bringing up this subject when there is a Commission already sitting on the subject. I would remind the Front Bench that we have had occasions even during this Parliament when interim reports have been brought up on special matters, and when those interim reports have been made the subject for new legislation, and I would urge the Front Bench to look on this subject from its great importance and see whether they would not be justified in urging the Commission to present to this House a special report on this subject and then initiate legislation. At the commencement of my remarks I said I believed that this was one of the most important subjects, and I will go so far as to say the most important subject, to be brought before the House this Session. Why has it become so acute a question througout the land? I think it is for these reasons: During the last 40 years this country has grown into a land of great towns, and the pressure in those great towns is ever growing greater. We have constantly been told during the Recess that one mil-
    568
    lion out of five millions of children are outside the schools of this country. These figures show the residuum that we are crowding regularly and systematically in all our great towns. There is a constant inrush from the country into the great towns. A certain portion of those who come out of the country districts and take the chances of the great towns are failures. They are failures in the occupation to which they go, and gradually they become more and more crushed by the difficulty of getting housing accommodation. Another point, I think, that is emphasised in this question at the present time is that we are coming to the end, in a very large number of cases, of the first series of leases. It must be borne in mind that the duration of those leases is very different. In a Welsh town the other day I was surprised to find that much of the property there was built upon 40 years' leases. We should not think it worth while putting capital on to land where we only got a 40 years' lease. After all, the trust of the ownership of land is a fearful responsibility. I do not wish to make an attack on landlords. I believe it is due to their general wisdom and common sense, and thanks also to the system of settlements, that the great landowners of this country have not as much power sometimes over their own land as many of the heads of great industrial concerns. And that in itself has put a great check on their action and powers, and has compelled them in view of the interests of those succeeding them to deal with the land in the interests of the community as a whole. But now they are coming to the end of their leases, and the pressure is being felt very considerably when they are called upon, in entering on a new lease with no more opportunity of making profit than their competitors in business, to bear, not only the higher rent that comes with the new lease, but, in all probability, an increased charge for the outlay that is required to be put on the property under the terms of the new lease. There were besides largely increased assessment and largely increased rates. Under these circumstances all through the country at the present time pressure is being felt by the great mass of dwellers in towns and by tradesmen

    569
    in towns with regard to this question. I know this myself, from my own experience in my own constituency, where I have not a word to say against the ground landlord who uses his power with moderation, and with generosity. But this is not a landlord's question; it is a question of a wrong system of taxation, and it will only be as we deal with this question from a national standpoint that it will be effective and for the benefit of the whole community. In spite of what the First Lord of the Treasury said, the honourable Member for Devonport deserves credit for raising this Debate, and in trying to impress on the Government the importance of the subject. I say that any Government which deals with this question in a bold and generous spirit will sweep the country when we come to make an appeal to the constituencies. I heartily support the Amendment, and I trust this Debate will not be without its influence.
    MR. ANDREW D. PROVAND: I would like to say a few words in regard to the remarks which fell from the honourable Member of Horsham, North Western Sussex, as to the development which he alleged had been made in our cities by means of the leasehold system. So far from development having been promoted by that system it has in my opinion prevented development to a very large extent. I could refer the honourable Member to as many instances as would fill a volume of the blunders which have been caused by the old leasehold system adopted a hundred years ago or so. There is not a district in the East End, or in the North side or the South side—the case is not so bad in the West End, where a different class of houses have been built —in which hundreds of buildings could now be found that are unfit for human habitation, and ought to be swept away. But these buildings having been erected on the leasehold system there is no power to the real owners of the land to deal with them until the leases actually fall in. I believe this system was dealt with by Lord Compton in a former commission. I might refer to the leasehold system in Scotland, where the land is let in perpetuity on an annual rent. Scotland is, generally speaking, free from the evils which grow up in England under the leasehold system. Within
    570
    the past few years I understand the leasehold system has been introduced, but in the whole of Scotland I believe there is only one town in which there is any land let on which to build houses on terminable leases. With the honourable Member who has just sat down I am sure that this House cannot but conclude that this leasehold system is one of the most serious and pressing social questions before the country. I am very surprised that the First Lord of the Treasury said that the grievances brought forward were shadowy, and to a large extent unreasonable, because the merest tyro who had inquired into or understood the system must be well aware of the great social difficulties that had grown up around it. Why, Mr. Booth published many years ago a book dealing with these difficulties, and he showed the bad economic results which followed from the unfair system of rating at the present time. The right honourable Gentleman cast a reproach on this (the Opposition) side of the House when he said that all that had been done to ameliorate those social and economic difficulties had been done by the party represented by himself He must have forgotten that the very first Commission appointed to inquire into the subject was by the Liberal Government in 1870, and the Chairman of that Commission was the right honourable Gentleman now the First Lord of the Admiralty. So important were the results of that Commission that its report was reprinted and distributed to the Members of the House about four years ago. There was also the Royal Commission of 1885 that was appointed by the Liberal Government, and so far as I know the only Commission to deal with this question appointed by a Conservative Government is that Royal Commission which is sitting at the present time. There is no foundation for the reproaches of the right honourable the First Lord of the Treasury that the Liberal Party had not given attention to the present pressing question. On the other side of the House we have had attempts to mimimise this question, and one reason given is that the big landlords are better than the little landlords. I am not going to discuss the point, though that was not shown by clear evidence. But what I wish to say in confirmation of what fell from my honour-

    571
    able Friend behind me—the Member for Northampton East—is that it is not against the landlords we make complaint. It is against the law. Probably we would all do much the same as they do if we were in the position of the landlords—we would do the best we could for ourselves. But under the present law the landlords who insist on doing the best for themselves will do very badly for the community. To reproach us, therefore, for bringing the question up on the Address in reply on such an afternoon as this— one of the few occasions on which we can do so with effect—is only another way for those who sit opposite to us of shirking a pressing social question. It was made a reproach to us that we would change our law for the American law of rating. Well, we should be much better off if we had the American law in regard to the taxation of cities, because then the full value of all land would be taxed, which it is not at the present moment. There are innumerable cases in which the land built upon escapes valuation because the houses were erected 40, 50, or 60 years ago, and until these buildings are swept away and houses are erected in their stead equal to the value of the land, the land will not be fairly rated. I was surprised to hear the First Lord of the Treasury say that the mover of the Amendment had made this a local question. And a Member for one of the Divisions of Lincolnshire said that there had been only a one-sided statement of the case, that there was no question but one of overcrowding, and that there was overcrowding not only in Devonport but in London and in every city in Europe and America. I would refer him to a remarkable series of articles which recently appeared in the Daily News, and in which the causes of the overcrowding are traced to the leasehold system. It is said that because there is overcrowding in Scotland and in the United States, it cannot be caused by the leasehold system. But the system of rating is as unfair in Scotland as in London. And as for the cities of the United States, anyone with the slightest knowledge at all of how these cities are governed would never suppose that these municipalities are very much concerned with measures to prevent overcrowding. To put it broadly, our complaint is based on unfair rating—
    572
    that is, the land in the cities pays too little, and consequently the occupiers of the houses in the cities pay too much. The value of the land in the cities is created by the aggregation of the inhabitants, by individual and municipal expenditure, and by the great industries carried on there. But just in proportion as the rental of the houses rises so in proportion the landlords reap the benefit, for the increased value falls into their pockets. The occupiers sometimes get a temporary benefit, but the permanent benefit falls to the landlords. The London County Council has an official valuer, and he says that, dividing the amount raised by rates into twelve parts, about seven of these parts go towards permanent improvements, which enrich the landlords, and five parts partly go to the landlords and partly to the tenants. There is a small fraction, the ultimate destination of which cannot be traced to the one or the other. Now there are numerous towns which require great public improvements, which require technical schools, and libraries, and new streets, but in many of these towns these improvements cannot be carried out because they have no means of doing them. The whole value created by the inhabitants is taken by the landlords, whereas that value would go to the municipalities as representing the community under a proper system of rating, and it could be applied for the general benefit. These improvements under the present system cannot be carried out except by the imposition of more rates, which again increases the profit of the landlords, who thus benefit at every turn of the screw. In regard to the non-rating of vacant land, that is perhaps worse than the evils arising from leaseholds. Within five minutes' walk of the House there are vast areas of land which only pay a trifle in rates, but which are worth thousands of pounds per annum per acre. The Commission of 1885 mentions several cases in which the value of land had been enormously increased by people building round it, and yet the people themselves received no rates from that land. That is why the suggestion was made by the Commission that all unoccupied land should be rated at 4 per cent. If that were done in London, what an enormous sum would fall to the London County Council! London stands on 75,000 acres of land. Leaving out parks, there are

    573
    14,000 or 15,000 acres that are rated at some microscopical ratio compared with their real value. There is a belt of land round London which pays on an average a rate of £2 per acre, but if it were rated at what the land is really worth, it would yield thirty times that sum. As a matter of fact, the amount raised by the rates goes largely to enrich the landlords by adding to the value of the unoccupied land. Instead of that unoccupied land paying a fair share of the rates, it pays practically nothing, while the increase in its value is created by the buildings on the adjoining land and the general expenditure of the rates. The remedy has been alluded to. There is no way of meeting this question except by separating the rating of land from the rating of houses. A Bill is to come before the House which will provide for the rating separately of lands and houses. It is the first Bill of the kind which has ever been presented to this House, and we shall then see what are the real intentions of the Government with regard to this question. The Government themselves are introducing a Bill to enable workmen to buy their own houses—to become their own landlords. Next after the small shopkeepers, on whom the rating falls heavier than on any other class, the workmen are most heavily rated. A workman pays a fifth of his whole wages in rent, and the rates will be a fourth or a fifth of that again. In some parts of London it is calculated that the rates paid by a workman are 5 per cent, of his whole money wages. There is no class of the community that pays in proportion to income such an enormous share of the rates. The Government ought to give us some indication of how they are going to deal in their Bill with this question If they are not going to improve the present law in some way, the Bill will be more worthless than that which was introduced two years ago. Unless the land is to be charged a fair rate on its value, then all proposals to enable workmen to buy their houses will be of no practical use, and the Government will remain, as reformers, mere pretenders.
    MR. JASPER TULLY: I intend to support the Amendment. This grievance, while it applies to England, also applies to Ireland. We have been agitating this question in Ireland for a large number of years, and I
    574
    am glad to see that it is now stirring up an agitation in this country. The recent land laws passed for Ireland have accentuated a great deal the difference between country householders and urban householders. A person in the country, whose lease expires, is protected when leaving his holding for the expenditure he has made on it; whereas a townsman is not so protected for his expenditure on buildings. The result is that we have the confiscation of the property of the townsmen. In the town I live in, I only get a short lease of the land, and at the end of that lease the house I have built is taken from me, and I become a trespasser in my own house. Whereas if I had built the house on agricultural land that house would have been mine, so long as I paid the judicial rent. If (the principle of the land laws that we have got in Ireland were applied to the towns here and in Ireland, instead of having the improvements confiscated they would be in the same position as those of the Irish farmer when he pays a judicial rent. That is one of the reasons which induce me, as an Irish Member, to support the Amendment. There is not a townsman in Ireland who has not felt this grievance, and the grievance is felt more acutely there than even in England. The question of rating is also important. I have heard a good deal as to the manner in which the rates are levied on property in England. Of course, in Ireland, the rating is done by a Government central authority — by the General Valuation Office in Dublin. There seems to be a different system applicable to England. In Ireland, under the system of rating that exists there I know that a great deal of hardship falls upon owners of houses in the towns. Speaking to an experienced Member of the Valuation Department, he told me that very great hardships fall on the townsmen who make improvements in their houses. He pointed out to me that so long as a townsman makes no improvement on his holding there is no power in the Valuation Board to come in and increase his valuation, and, therefore, his rating. In Grafton Street, the principal street in Dublin, there are houses rated at as low as £30 or £40, whereas other houses in the same locality, and of the same size, where improvements have been made, have been rated at hundreds of pounds. The result is to put a tax on industry and on a man's

    575
    own expenditure for improvements. That is a grievance that will have to be dealt with. There should be some equality of taxation in this matter. There is a further grievance which was accentuated by the Local Government Act of last year. In that Act the Government inserted a clause which provided for differential rating in Irish towns. Under the Towns' Improvement Act in Ireland the rates of the 1854 Act were levied on certain classes of property, but the full rate was levied on houses. The result was that the remaining three-fourths of the rates were put on the shoulders of the shopkeepers and traders. The Government last year inserted a provision by which they extended the vicious system of differential rating. The result is that county cess and other rates, instead of falling equally on towns and country— only a fourth falls on the land, and the remaining three-fourths on the towns—thus causing a great hardship to traders, shopkeepers and householders in the towns. I therefore support the Amendment before the House as a very proper and most useful Amendment. It is one that will command the approval of every townsman in Ireland who suffers from the grievances connected with the leases of house property. This question of the differential rate is one that bears with exceeding hardship on business people in Ireland, because town parks are excluded from the benefits of the Land Act, since they are supposed to be of greater value than land farther away from the towns. But there is not the least reason why they should be included in the differential system of rating. It is very hard that these town parks should only pay a fourth of the rate levied on the lands just inside the boundary of the town. Now, Sir, under the Act of last year, you have given Urban Authorities to Ireland. These Urban Authorities are bound to start systems of waterworks, street-lighting and improvement, and the erection of houses for the working classes. It will be a very exceeding hardship if the people in the towns—shopkeepers, and those who own houses on short leases, have to pay every penny of the rates to make these waterworks, to carry out a lighting system, and a scheme for the better housing of the working classes and after having paid for years, and added all these improvements to the town so as to im-
    576
    prove the property of the landlords, and add to its permanent value, while the landlords have never paid a farthing— to find that, at the end of their leases, they will be treated as trespassers, and left without a foothold on their own property. As I have said, this is an old agitation in Ireland. We have been ventilating this question of tenant right in towns for years, and I am glad it is spreading to England, and to see honourable Members on the English Benches advocating the redress of this grievance, as we have done for years in Ireland. I remember the time when English Members came over to our meetings in Ireland, and heard us discussing this question, how they looked on incredulous, and heard us with surprise. I am glad to know that, since then, the grievance is becoming felt in England and Wales and Scotland, and that the doctrines we preached years ago are now their doctrines. The agitation is spreading, and I am glad that we have found in this question one on which reformers can unite together.
    On the return of Mr. SPEAKER after the usual interval,
    MR. BILLSON: Mr. Speaker, I think this Debate would not have lasted so long if the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had not seemed to infer in his opening remarks that the grievance that was brought before us was one that depended almost solely on the isolated instances given by the honourable Member for Devonport. He mentioned the fact that the instance to which the Mover of the Amendment particularly addressed himself was one that was capable of two or three interpretations, and that possibly if the other side had been heard the grievance under which the people of Devonport suffered would, be found to be not altogether owing to the conduct of the landowners. That remark on the part of the First Lord of the Treasury, and the fact that he seemed to consider the matter rather a light one, has led to other speakers being constrained to get up and testify to the great importance of the Amendment that has been brought forward, and the great interest that is shown in this subject by large numbers of people throughout the country. I gladly rise

    577
    in order to bear my testimony also to the fact that this is a matter that is attracting a great deal of attention throughout the country, and that people are more and more beginning to think that it is in the direction of the reform indicated by this Amendment that the difficulties of our social problem will ultimately be solved. As evidence of the interest which is taken in this matter, I may call attention to the fact that upwards of 300 Municipal Town Councils or Urban District Bodies have passed resolutions expressing the opinion that unoccupied land in towns should be rated for local purposes. A year ago the Town Council of the constituency which I have the honour to represent (Halifax) requested me to move a resolution at the Conference of the Associated Municipal Corporations in this direction. In compliance with this request, I moved that resolution, and it was carried by an overwhelming majority in a meeting of two or three hundred persons. Now, these two or three hundred people who assembled at that Conference were men of considerable standing; they were not people who were actuated by the sort of motives which the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury seems to imply that the Member for Devonport is actuated by. On the other hand, they were Mayors of their Boroughs, Chairmen of their Finance Committees, and Aldermen of their respective Municipalities. These men, seeing that the expenses of the districts in which they were engaged in public work were constantly growing, and that new demands were constantly being made for further expenditure, looked about, as sober-minded, business men, to see in what direction they could find a new source of taxation, and they came to the conclusion that in these unoccupied lands, which are at present escaping from rating, there was a source from which it was reasonable and possible to obtain a new supply of funds for municipal purposes, and that these funds could be obtained in a perfectly equitable and fair manner. The matter now comes, Mr. Speaker, before us in this House, and, to judge from the attitude which has been assumed towards it by the First Lord of the Treasury, you would imagine that this was an entirely novel idea, that it had not been discussed or considered by other countries,
    578
    and that it had not been tested in other parts of the world. But, Sir, in the last year or two we have had brought before us very prominently the fact that this has become the law in New Zealand. They have introduced a system there for the taxation of land values, and, judging from all the reports we have received with reference to this system, the result has been such as to give the greatest satisfaction. The point we feel most strongly about here is this, that where a piece of land lies in the centre of a city, and is acquiring year by year additional value owing to the expenditure which has been poured out from the rest of the sources that produce wealth in the city, that land also should become liable to some assessment for the purpose of assisting in carrying on the municipal work of that city. Not only in New Zealand have land values been taxed, but we have been told to-night that in most of the United States there is a law to the same effect, and it is, I daresay, a matter of common knowledge to many Members of this House that in various parts of the Continent, notably in Germany, this is also the law. I do not think, however, that we who urge this proposition should conceal the fact from the House that there have been difficulties found in the way of carrying forward this particular amendment of the law. I notice, from a; Report issued by the Foreign Office last month, that it was there stated that the difficulties in the way of taxing unoccupied land had been found to be very serious in Berlin. It was stated, in regard to Berlin, that there was so large a difference of opinion as to the value of speculative land that there were constant appeals against the assessment, and that there were some who thought it would be wise to drop the system. I do not forget, Sir, that when the Budget of 1894 was before this House exactly the same sort of objection was made to the proposals then* brought forward for taxing capital values; but in spite of those objections that Finance Bill passed, and I fancy there are few in this House, and few up and down the country, who would wish to alter the law then made with such good results in the direction of increasing the financial income of the country. After all, if one considers what objections can be urged to this system of

    579
    taxing unoccupied land, the one that we have most clearly to consider is the objection which is urged against the taxation in England of capital. We are told that hitherto the whole system of taxation in England has been the taxation of income and not of capital, and so it is contended that if you once introduce the principle of taxing or rating the capital value of land you will, as the First Lord of the Treasury holds out with great apprehension, be bringing before this country the whole of the evils and difficulties of the American system. I do not see that at all, and I do not think the shrewd men who are now filling the positions of Chairmen of Finance Committees in the municipalities throughout the country will be at all frightened by difficulties of that sort. I do not think they will have any difficulty in rating the actual piece of land which they see before them, and which they consider ought to be made available for the general benefit of the community in which they live. I have always found, in talking over these matters with people who in political opinions may differ from me, that they did not find any particular objection to the taxing of unoccupied land, and they agree that a corner of land that is being held for a rising value ought to be made available for taxation. They say, however, "The difficulty we do see is, how are you going to rate and fax land which is covered with buildings?" The whole point of the contention which those of us who have urged these matters on the public have in our minds is that land should be used to its best advantage. When you have a piece of land in a crowded thoroughfare that is obviously worth several thousands of pounds, it cannot be said to be occupied for practical purposes if it only has on it a tumble-down shed which is merely producing a few pounds a year in rent. There are in our crowded cities pieces of land in satisfactory and fine positions which are occupied by warehouses entirely out of keeping with the general character of the streets by which they are surrounded, and which are being maintained there because the owner of the land is waiting for his rise in value, just as certainly as if it were not occupied by any buildings at all. I urge that those lands which are not used up
    580
    to their full value should also contribute according to the real net value of the land, just as much as properties which are not occupied at all. The course of this Debate has wandered over various features of the subject, and the discussion has certainly derived additional interest from the amount of attention which is just now being paid to the housing of the poor. Every one who has read the accounts in the Daily News and other newspapers of the vast number of people in London who are improperly housed, and who has tried to follow in his mind the causes which have led to this state of affairs, cannot but see that it has been owing in a great measure to the fact that land in London is of such enormous value. It is stated that in London upwards of 900,000 people are living in houses which come within the law preventing such houses being occupied. That shows how very important it is that Parliament should as soon as possible take such steps as may be found desirable for the purpose of extending the area of land that may be brought into use, and in this way render a larger amount of land available for building purposes. Well, Sir, there is another point which has been touched on to some extent, but not, perhaps, to the full extent. We are desirous of having taxation put upon unoccupied lands in our municipalities, so that in this way the burden may be more equitably distributed, and the oc occupiers round about no longer be required to pay in rates more than they ought to do because of the unoccupied land now escaping taxation. If I am occupying a suite of offices in a town, and adjoining there is a large piece of land which the owner is retaining for the purpose of getting a larger price— so long as he keeps that land idle and does not put offices upon it, I am paying a larger sum in rates than I would otherwise have to do. This reform, therefore, will not merely bring new land into rating and add in that way to the amount the municipalities will have at their disposal, but will also ease the burden of the ratepayers who are now paying high rates because at the present time their burdens are not shared as they ought to be by others who are equally liable. There is this peculiar feature about taxes on land, that they cannot decrease the utility of land. If

    581
    put on commodities, you handicap commodities. If you tax thrift, you make it less desirable. If you tax industry, you handicap industry. But you have this great advantage in regard to land, that however much you tax it you cannot tax it out of existence. You only make the owner of the land more eager to put it to such a use as will not only yield him the amount of the tax he is paying upon it, but also a profit. Constituents of mine have said to me—
    "We have got our own cottages, and we pay rates and taxes on them. If you are going to add additional taxes, shall we not be worse off?"
    And I have replied that we are going to bring into taxation land which hitherto has not had any taxation, and therefore we shall benefit them and reduce their taxes instead of making them worse off. I have in my hand a letter from the Town Clerk of Brisbane, Queensland, which I think is of great interest. In Brisbane they had our system of taxation, and the general rate was one shilling in the £. Being animated by the views which are moving some of us, they changed the system of taxation, and instead of raising it on the annual income value of the land, they raised it on the capital value of the land, and they struck a rate on it which would produce the same sum as previously. The Town Clerk of Brisbane in his letter says—
    "The object of this Legislation was primarily to secure, an equitable distribution of the incidence of taxation, and we find that as a result vacant lands, which are in this way being taxed, are rapidly being filled up, and there has been a decided effect in urging on building operations."
    Coming to the point as to whether owners of cottages are likely to suffer by this alteration in the law, the writer calls attention to the fact that cottages on the outskirts of the town which were previously rated at £1 0s. 10d., were rated 'after this alteration came into force at 16s. 10d. The rating on superior houses was reduced from £3 13s. 0d. to £1 5s. 0d., and this fully bears out the estimate of one honourable Member of this House that if this system of rating all unoccupied land came into force in this country, it would reduce the rates of the ordinary ratepayers,
    582
    and especially householders, to the extent of 1s. 6d. in the £ at least. Therefore I contend that this is a matter which does not depend on the statement or experience of any particular Member for any particular constituency. It is a matter which has been brought before a great many municipalities, and has been discussed by them. They approve of the reform, and are eagerly looking; forward to its adoption. I have spoken in my own constituency and in many other constituencies during the recess, and I can assure the Government that this is a question which does attract the keen attention of the people of this country, who look to it not merely for a more equitable distribution of the burden of taxation, but also as a means of raising a larger sum for municipal purposes, and of bringing into industrial use vast tracts of land in various parts of the country that are not now being, used as they might be, with this further result also that home trade will be revived and encouraged, and the resources of our country developed.
    MR. FLYNN: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to enter into this Debate, but I think the right honourable Gentleman, the Leader of the House, introduced an unnecessarily personal tone into the reply he gave to the honourable Member for Devonport. This question is of vast importance, and is one that has been ventilated in the newspapers and in the speeches of public men for many years past. The great difficulty, even among those who agree in the main principle, is to decide on the very best possible way of dealing with this evil in this country. It was, I think, John Stuart Mill who once wrote:
    "It is not because it is impossible to achieve perfect justice that no attempt to achieve any justice should be made."
    And it is not because it is not easy to find a remedy at first hand that men interested in public life should turn their backs upon the question altogether, and give it the "go-by" in the manner adopted by the First Lord of the Treasury. It is the old and familiar process of shelving. Some may think this is perhaps not quite so pressing a grievance in Ireland as it is in England. It is quite true that in Ireland ground

    583
    values are taxed to a very small extent—for the Poor Rate, the Water Rate, and the Income Tax; but they escape the great body of municipal taxes. I could give you glaring instances of the manner in which the rates of shopkeepers and the working classes are piled up for the purpose of making public improvements, whereas the men who are drawing immense revenues from ground rents practically do not pay a shilling. To state the case is, in my opinion, to demand a remedy. Take the case of Queenstown. A large landlord there is Capt. Rushbrook, and owing to the conditions under which the people hold their leases, the architect of the estate can dictate the class of house that is to be built, the manner in which it is to be built, and, as the leases fall in, fines are exacted and enormously increased rents charged, while Capt. Rushbrook contributes not a penny to the improvements. He may occasionally, like the man who "built a bridge out of his bounty at the expense of the county," give a trifle towards the erection of baths, etc., but it would be better for the ratepayers if he were brought into the meshes of legitimate taxation, and obliged to subscribe to the development and improvement of the town from which he draws these large revenues. There are many causes operating towards the impoverishment of Ireland, notably the system of landlordism. But if there is one thing more than another which has tended to keep many of the towns of Ireland in that backward, wretched, and dirty condition which so unfavourably impresses visitors and every traveller through it, it is the system of ground landlordism which enables one landlord to hold the land of an entire town in his grasp, and to refuse to part with it for building purposes except on the payment of enormous fines. There is no escape, under such circumstances, from increased rents when the leases fall in. There is nothing more depressing than to drive into an average Irish town and see the tottering cabins, on which no sane man would think of laying money out, because of the precariousness of the tenure, and the certainty that improvement would result in profit, not to the man who made the improvement, but to the ground landlord. It is different only in a degree in this country, but it is not
    584
    felt so much owing to the greater prosperity that exists. When first I came into this House this question was a burning question, and one which I thought would have been forced to the front within a few years. But it appears, so far as some of those who 14 years ago spoke in burning language—in their salad days of Radicalism—on this subject are concerned, that this social reform no longer occupies their great minds. It is depressing to one who believes in Radicalism and in Progressive ideas, to find the reactionary notions that seem to have taken possession of this House, and to some extent of the voters who elect this House. I would have thought that a very short consideration of the question would have led any reasonable man to believe that an unanswerable case for taxation of some sort or another has been made out. I would go further than the Amendment, and say that the unearned increment in respect of unoccupied land belongs not to the landlord, not to the nominal owner, but either to the municipality or to the nation. Owing entirely to the increase of population and to other peoples' industry unoccupied land in towns in the course of ten years gets a greatly increased value, and this increased value in its entirety ought, in my opinion, to belong to the municipality. But all that the amendment claims is that land of that character should be made to contribute in some way or another to the general benefit of the community. It is disappointing to find a Government, which came in such a short time ago upon a great programme of social reform, adopting this attitude towards a question of this kind. The electors of England were asked to withdraw their minds from the troublous questions of social reform like Home Rule, and to concentrate their minds on questions such as this. But, as it will be with Old Age Pensions so it is with this question of ground values, and all I can hope is that the Radical Party will buckle on their armour, push great questions of this kind to the front, and show themselves not unworthy of the Radicals of forty years ago.
    MR KNOWLES: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to defend the landowners, but, as I happen to have

    585
    been a member of the Town Holdings Committee for several years,. I think I am justified in speaking on this subject. We have heard, in effect, from the speech of the honourable Member who moved this Amendment, the evidence of one of the witnesses who came before that Committee, but we have not beard an allusion to the evidence of the other witnesses. Now, according to the evidence of one of them, there was no great want of unencumbered sites for cheap buildings for the working classes in Devonport. The witness further explained that a great number of working men lived away from the town, and he pointed out that they lived, in some instances, as many as four miles from the town of Devonport. He gave as a reason that they belonged to those places in which they lived, that they had their friends and relations there, and that the conditions of their work permitted them to go to and fro. In addition to that, he stated that the Government authorities in the Dockyards had given facilities to their workmen in the shape of boats and launches, and so forth, to enable them to go to and from their homes. That gives a reason for working men not living so much in Devonport, and shows that it is not because they cannot find houses there. The witness was asked if a demand for small houses in Devonport for the artizan classes could be met, and he replied that a demand could be met, and that the landowners would be only too anxious to develop their estates. He also said that the builders were building as fast as it paid them to build, and that the landowners offered freehold property, but that there was a difficulty with regard to the sale of it, because the builders, as a rule, preferred to build on property on a leasehold tenure. I do not wish to labour that question. A comparison has been made in this Debate between the leasehold system and the freehold system in favour of the latter. But, so far as I could gather from the evidence taken by the Town Holdings Committee, the leasehold system has been vastly more to the advantage of the working classes. And for many reasons. Take the illustration of the London landlord. As the House knows, the London landlord—I take him as an illustration of the class—arranges that
    586
    the leases in a particular district shall fall in at a particular date. When that date arrives, the houses are taken down en bloc and rebuilt in a better way, and on a better scale. Thus you get uniformity of buildings, uniformity of sanitary improvements, and you get the advantage of modern sanitary improvements. Further, it frequently happens that the landlord vastly benefits the community by giving open pieces of land to be laid out as public gardens, so that the people can get fresh air. Let me give you an illustration of what I mean. Take the north-west corner of Berkeley Square. Look at the way in which the houses have been pulled down and rebuilt. No one can say the new buildings are not an improvement on the old. Then I take you to Bond Street, which is supposed to be one of the most frequented streets in the West End. Bond Street is practically freehold—its leases are perpetually renewable, which is much the same thing—and there you have side by side a comparison of leasehold and freehold property. Then, again, before the Town Holdings Committee it was argued that it would be to the advantage of the working man that he should be able to obtain the freehold for himself. It was a very fascinating proposition, but I noticed that those gentlemen who put it forward—mostly Members on the other side of the House—soon dropped it for various reasons, one reason in particular being that, however fascinating it might be to enable a working man to become a freeholder—and one could wish that every working man in the country might have his own freehold—yet, if you enable him to have it, you must also ensure that he will have permanent employment on the spot. We had instances of this brought before the Committee. A member of the Committee asked the question, "What would workmen engaged at slate quarries"—this was merely an illustration—" do when those quarries gave out?" They could not crawl about like snails with their houses on their backs, and it was generally felt that working-men would be in a difficulty if they had freehold property on their hands. The Debate to-night has resolved itself into a discussion on the taxing or rating of building land. That was a subject which was also considered by the Town Holdings Committee. Again, I do not

    587
    wish to labour the point, but the main reasons put before the Committee for taxing building land were these—that under the present system the owners of land available for buildings being only rated on the small yearly return it produces, if any, until it is used for building, are thus induced to hold their land out of the market, but that if they had a more direct incentive to part with it they would dispose of it at an earlier time, the price would be less, and that fact would be of consequent advantage to the working classes. One witness attributed overcrowding to the excessive price at present paid for building land, and another point was this—also urged by the opposite side—that building land is largely benefited by public local expenditure. Those are the main points, I take it, in favour of the taxing or rating of vacant building land, and the Committee dealt with them by saying that practical objection had been made to the proposal in question on the ground of the impossibility of defining what is vacant building land, or fairly estimating its value. And then they said—
    "It is pointed out that if a distinction has to be drawn between building land and other neighbouring land not laid out, or not yet ripe, for building, great difficulties and in equalities must necessarily arise.… The existence of open spaces in private occupation, or of a semi-public character, which might be used for building purposes, such as pleasure grounds and large gardens, would give rise to further complications."
    Then they went on to say—
    "As regards the effect of the measure in forcing land into the market, we are doubtful whether, on the whole, that result would be produced: "The effect would, we think, vary according to the different circumstances of each locality, and according to the conditions of the land-market and the circumstances of individual owners. It would, no doubt, add to the inducements already operating upon owners to dispose of their land as quickly as possible, but it would also promote the accumulation of land in the hands of rich proprietors or syndicates; and, as regards the smaller class of builders, it would tend to hamper their transactions."
    Then the Committee pointed out another objection to which allusion has not been made this evening, and that is with re-
    588
    gard to vacant houses. The Committee said—
    "If vacant land is taxed, such a measure must, we think, logically be followed by the rating of empty houses.… For instance, an empty house evidently derives more benefit from the current expenditure, of the locality on such purposes as police protection, lighting etc., than is the case with vacant land. There can be little doubt that such taxation would check the supply of houses by making house property less de sirable and convenient as investments.… In view of these conflicting- influences we are not able to say that the measure in question will increase the supply of well-built houses, and thus benefit the working-classes… It appears to us that the only proper object of any system of taxation is to raise the sum required by the community in the most con venient and equitable way possible, and that it is unjust and impolitic to impose taxation with a view to forcing the owner of property to part with it before he thinks it is to his advantage to do so."
    This subject has been carefully considered and reported upon, and in answer to the last speaker, the honourable Member for North Cork, I may say that the reason why it was not forced to the front is given in the report to which I have just alluded. It has been said that there is no desire on this side of the House to deal practically with the subject of the Amendment. That has been already denied. Allusion has also been made to the Act of 1890, which enables local authorities to buy land compulsorily, and an inquiry is now-being made with regard to the incidence of taxation. It seems to me that sufficient energy is being displayed at the present time with regard to the subject of this Amendment, and that there is no reason for calling attention to it on the Address.
    MR. W. REDMOND: Mr. Speaker, I desire only to intervene for one or two moments, but I have on the Paper an Amendment somewhat similar, as affecting Ireland, to the Amendment moved by the honourable Gentleman the Member for Devonport. I am given to understand that the honourable Gentleman's Amendment, which we are now discussing, is so similar to the one of which I have given notice, that mine will not be in order. Therefore I take this opportunity of making a few remarks in favour of extending the principle of the Amendment to Ireland. I noticed,

    589
    Mr. Speaker, that the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, and also the President of the Local Government Board, in dealing with the case made out by the Member for Devonport, endeavoured to centre the whole discussion on the reference made by the honourable Member to the particular case of Devonport. There is no doubt the honourable Gentleman who moved this Amendment did refer, naturally enough, to the case with which he was particularly conversant in his own constituency, but I am bound to say it was an extremely weak line of argument for the Government to take up, to attempt to make this House and the country believe that a Debate had been initiated having reference simply to the town of Devonport, instead of a Debate which, as a matter of fact, is of the deepest interest, not merely to Devonport, but, I venture to say, to every town and city with a large population, not only in Great Britain, but in Ireland as well. Now, Mr. Speaker, I was moved by several reasons to give notice of the Amendment which stands in my name, and one of the principal reasons is this—that I have recently had greater opportunity than I have ever had before of witnessing the extreme evil which exists in large centres of population like Dublin from overcrowding and the unsanitary way in which large numbers of the working people are obliged to Jive. A short time ago, while I was prosecuting my canvass for the Municipal Council for the city of Dublin, I had opportunities of visiting portions of the city which are inhabited almost exclusively by the working class, and I may say that I was shocked to find the crowded way in which they live, and to see the very insanitary houses in which they are obliged to try and bring their families up. I made inquiries as to what the principal reason of this overcrowding was, and there is no doubt that the principal cause of the overcrowding in Dublin, as elsewhere in every large centre of population, is to be found in the state of the law with regard to the ownership of land. I do not suppose there is any Member on this side of the House, or in the House, who would advocate, in supporting this Amendment, anything in the shape of confiscation. Nobody proposes to deprive a man who has acquired land which, through a set
    590
    of fortunate circumstances for him, has become very valuable, of participating in the increased value of the land, but what we do claim is this, that it is the business of the Government of the day, while allowing full and fair compensation to owners of land in urban areas, to put in practice a compulsory system of purchase which, while giving full compensation and fair value to the owner, will enable local authorities to acquire land on reasonable terms and build proper houses for the working classes, and, besides that, to let houses under fair conditions which will secure to all the enterprising men who have given up business, but who spend their capital in raising houses, some security that they will be allowed in perpetuity to enjoy the fruits of their industry and the money which they have spent. Some honourable Gentlemen opposite appear to think, that it is an extremely unfair thing to put into force the principle of compulsory purchase at all; but as the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has pointed out, that remedy is not, in any way, new in principle. It is a principle which has been acted upon, to some extent, by the Conservative Government itself. The Bill of 1890 is a Bill which recognises that, under certain conditions, it is the duty of the Government—
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: The municipalities.
    MR. W. REDMOND: I say that the Government give power to the municipalities to compel the landlord to sell, and an honourable Gentleman reminds me that the scope of the Bill of 1890 is limited, but nevertheless the principle of compulsory purchase is there. He reminds me that it is only in cases where it is proved that the sanitation of the district is imperfect and improper that the municipalities have the power to promote compulsory purchase; and I submit, in the face of the principle now in force and acquiesced in by the Government, that the Government ought not to be shocked or alarmed when they are asked to extend the principle of the Bill, and give the local authorities of the urban districts the power of acquiring land, at a fair value, for the purpose of letting it to persons who desire to

    591
    build upon it in order that they may have security for the capital and labour expended. What is the case in Ireland? In Ireland the Government has been compelled to interfere with what is called the rights of property in the rural districts; that is to say, the management of the land by the landlords; and the country generally has been found to be so bad, and the people have listed in such a miserable condition, that the Government has actually stepped in, in in the rural districts of Ireland, and taken the management of the property out of the hands of the landlords altogether. Now, why should not the same principle be applied to towns and large centres of population in the country? I cannot see the difference between the rural landlord and the town landlord. If the rural landlord is incapable or unwilliam to manage his land for the bench t of the community generally and the people at large, why should he have restrictions placed upon the management of his property, and the landlords of the property in the congested areas of the towns be allowed to have a free hand in the management of theirs? What I want is that courts should be established lished where the tenants in the towns in Ireland and elsewhere should have the power to appeal to perfectly impartial judges to have their rights protected and their property preserved from confiscation at the end of a lease of a limited number of years. That is very badly wanted in Ireland, and the towns of Ireland particularly require some reform of that kind. I do not see that it need in any way be feared that the Boards of Dublin and elsewhere would deal unfairly, or in any way unjustly, if they had this power in their hands; but certainly the system which is at present in force is one which, in my opinion, ought not to be allowed to continue for a moment. Just take the experience in Kingstown, where leases are falling in in all directions, and where the property of the people, which they have built and upon which they have expended their capital, is being confiscated; and they are obliged to consent to exorbitant terms for the renewal of the leases. We are told that this is owing to the glorious principle of freedom of contract. We are told that where a man has built up a house upon which he has expended his capital, and a business upon which
    592
    he has expended his labours and energy, that when his lease expires he is not bound to renew it, but that if the terms of the renewal are not satisfactory to him he can go elsewhere; but everybody knows what sort of freedom of contract it is that the tenant in Ireland has to meet when his lease runs out, when he is told that he must either pay a very much increased rental because of the buildings he has put upon the land or go elsewhere. I say that the present state of things is an unjust one. It is unjust to the country; it cripples enterprise; it prevents the expenditure of capital and the extension of business generally. As this Amendment has been moved by an English Member I do not desire to say another word upon it, and I should not have interposed in this Debate or made any remarks at all but for the fact that there is a similar Amendment of which I have given notice standing on the Paper in my name with reference to Ireland.
    MR. MUNKO FERGUSON: Mr. Speaker, I was for some time, though perhaps not so long as the honourable Gentleman, a Member of the Town Holdings Committee, and, according to my recollection, we spent very little time on the subject of Devonport. We did not spend much time upon the difference between leasehold and freehold tenure; but we spent a considerable amount of time upon the question of the incidence of local taxation, and that, I imagine, is the subject of the discussion this evening. The honourable Gentleman the Member for Southwark spoke of the considerable length of the Report of the Town Holdings Committee; but that was not the only report that was issued by the Committee; there was a Minority Report, which expressed very contrary views. I only point out this to call the attention of the House to the fact that there was the same divergency of opinion expressed in the Committee upon the discussion of ground values as that which we have listened to to-night. The supporters of the Government upon that Committee were satisfied with the existing incidence of taxation; the Members of the Opposition upon that Committee were all dissatisfied with it. I believe that the real question before the House at the present moment is the unfair incidence of taxation, and it is urgent

    593
    not only because of the overcrowding and pressure of population, but because also of the pressure of taxation. The amount of the rates, especially in urban districts, is so high that the public service of the town is starved because of the want of adequate funds, they cannot raise more money out of the existing sources of supply. That is one of the reasons why we should look around us keenly and see whether there is not some section of the community, or some property, which could be made to yield a larger quota to the general rates. Now it happens that in the case of unoccupied building land you have areas of land, both inside the towns and outside, which bear a considerable value, but which pay nothing to the rates. This value has been enhanced by the situation of the lands, they sell for very large sums in the open market, yet often they do not contribute one farthing to the up-keep of the town which has given the land its value. Now, seeing that great public enterprises are being carried on, not only in Glasgow, but in all our great cities; seeing that works of sanitation and public health are impaired and starved by the want of the money necessary for their completion, because if the pressure put upon that section of the people upon which the taxation falls, is it fair that this great wealth, which has been created to a large extent by the growth of the town, should not contribute? Apart from the question of vacant building land, another subject which received considerable attention at the hands of the Town Holdings Committee was whether land and houses were fairly taxed—whether the same rate should be levied on both. In houses you have a property which has to be maintained, and the honourable Gentleman opposite knows what that means in connection with a large estate; but he will recognise that the value that conies from a ground rent is a nett rent. You could not possibly have two more different sources of income than the value coming from a ground rent and the value coming from a building which you have to maintain on the land. I think that there could be no fairer system than that which was, put in the Minority Report, which is that when you have a different rate on land to that which you have on houses, you ought to have a higher rate on land
    594
    than you put on houses. As the rates are levied now, an undue amount falls upon the owners of the houses, whilst the owners of the land values escape their proportion of the local taxation. The great relief that would come to the community from a change in the incidence of local taxation would be, first, that the vacant land would be taxed on its capital value; and, secondly, a larger rate would be levied on the owner of land than the owner of the house, because he gets a net income from the land instead of a deteriorating one from the house. When a community like Glasgow is prepared to take up the subject matter of this resolution and to bring it before the House as a private Bill, we may take it that this is an urgent matter, and whether Her Majesty's Government like to attend to it now or not, they will have to attend to it before long. It is far more important than any item in the Queen's Speech. All we seek in 'supporting this resolution is to secure absolute justice as between one class of ratepayers and another; we believe that the present system is wholly unjust. We do not profess by the proposals we make to-night to be able to provide against the overcrowding of the population, though we may make our towns the more worth living in for the working classes, but, what we do say is, that were such gross injustice is shown, as is shown under the present system, it is a question that ought to receive the immediate attention of the Government.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I desire to add a few words to the remarks that have fallen from the honourable Gentlemen who have spoken in support of the motion now before the House. It appears to me that the whole matter is crystallised in the fact that under the present system the interest of the landlord is superior to the interest of the community which lives upon the land, and which forms the source of supply from which the rates are drawn. Like my honourable Friend the Member for Leith, I think that the honourable Gentleman, who quoted extracts from the Report of the Town Holdings Committee, hardly gave a strictly accurate account of what was the conclusion at which the Committee arrived. Not only was there

    595
    a Minority Report presented, as my honourable Friend the Member for Leith truly observed, but on the Report itself, when it came before us, for days and weeks a prolonged controversy occurred upon every clause and every line; and when in process of time the stage of the amended Report arrived the conclusions which were come to in it were only carried by a majority of one. The honourable Member opposite read particularly the recommendations made by the Committee upon the question of vacant land. I recollect that there was a strong difference of opinion upon that subject, and I have refreshed my memory on that point. I find that upon the clause embodying that part of the subject there were no less than seventeen divisions, the whole of which were only carried by small majorities of one or two. Now, the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, early in the evening, represented the matter which had been brought forward as an attack on a particular landlord at Devonport; I think that that was an unfortunate remark. I think that it is an unfortunate method to adopt in Debate, and, more than that, I think it shows great ignorance of the extent of the evil in the country. I remember perfectly well that in that Committee we had presented to us evidence from all parts of the country, England, Scotland, and, lastly, Ireland. We had evidence from Manchester; it is felt in Liverpool and in London, and, so far as I know, in various parts—in the greater part—of Scotland. It is sometimes said with regard to Scotland that owing to our system of feus the grievance is not so greatly felt there as it is here, but still we have it. But in Scotland there has been instituted a system of long building leases, and I know that in Aberdeenshire there have been communities founded under those long leases, and that the property of the men who have built their houses and made all their improvements upon them is falling into the hands of the landlords. The grievance is to be found there as it is in England. But we suggest that as ground values are to be taxed, so feus ought to be taxed. We know that the man who holds back his property in order that he may obtain greater feu duties is pursuing the same policy as the landlord in England who holds back his property to get a higher ground rent.
    596
    Now, there have been many instances given in the course of this discussion, but I will just say that there is a community with which I am connected—the town of Fraserburgh—where the whole of the town is owned by one individual, and the whole of the land around the town. He has held out for higher feu duties, and the consequence is that the growth of the town has been hindered. It is in a great measure strangled. It is the chief town of the herring industry' in Scotland, and, as many acquainted with the fishery industries know, the herring fisheries industry tends to gather in large centres, where the men so engaged must come to lodge. They come there now for a few months only, and then have to go back, but they would come for good if they could obtain suitable and permanent habitations. I believe that if the authorities of this town, and other parts of the north-east coast of Scotland, could acquire land to erect suitable and permanent habitations, there are many who are desirous of going into (hose towns and permanently living there, who would take advantage of the opportunity; but they cannot go there now because they cannot obtain a permanent and suitable habitation. It o light not to be in the power of a single individual, either for his own selfish interests or through short-sightedness, or sours other reason, to damage and hinder the development of a community. And the gentleman who obtains all the feu dues from the community pays nothing whatever towards the local taxation of the place. We think he ought to pay something towards the local taxation. And in the interest of the community, where such a thing as this is possible, the community ought to have compulsory powers to obtain land all round its boundaries for the purpose of extending them and giving suitable and permanent dwellings for the inhabitants. The interest of the community ought to be made paramount to the interest of the individual. That is the essence of the complaint before the House, and for the First Lord of the Treasury to say that this is simply a a personal, a local question is to endeavour to throw dust in the eyes of the House of Commons, or show that he must be blind to one of the most important questions of our times.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: My right honourable Friend never said that this was a persronal or local question, what he did say was that it had been so treated in one of the speeches delivered this evening.
    MR. BUCHANAN: And he treated it himself in that way, and if he looks upon it in that light it shows that the right honourable Gentleman is very blind to the importance of the grievance which is felt in all parts of the three Kingdoms, and which is a question which will be constantly urged upon Her Majesty's Government until they undertake to deal with it.
    SIR W. FOSTEU: Mr. Speaker, I think in this discussion there are certain points to be regretted on both sides of the House. In the first place I think we must regret that the speech of my honourable Friend the Member for Devonport was misconceived by the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Board, and there was a misconception in the mind of the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House when he spoke also. They looked upon it as a local grievance, whereas it is a question which affects all parts of the three Kingdoms. We have evidence from Scotland, from Ireland and from England, that it is a burning question in the minds of the public. Under the circumstances, I regret that those speeches were made under that misconception, and I hope a Member of the Government will get up and reply, having regard to the importance which the subject has developed. I think that my honourable Friend the Member for Devonport delivered a most eloquent speech, full of convincing facts and illustrated by the locality with which he was best acquainted. I think he said that although he drew his illustration from his own locality there existed all over the country a grievance of a very burning character. Now the Debate is necessarily limited in its scope by your ruling, Sir. The form of the motion limits it to the towns and to the question of the incidence of taxation; but the question, if I may say so parenthetically, is as burning in the country. In the rural districts there are thousands and hundreds of thousands of labourers housed in a manner that is a disgrace to that civilisation in which we
    598
    live; and they cannot be better housed because the local authority cannot get the land upon which to erect proper dwellings. That being so, I think it becomes the more important that a Member of the Government should reply. I am glad to observe that the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty is at present in his place, because I am sure that both sides of the House would be glad to hear from him—a master of the subject—his views of the taxation which we are proposing. Now, the third point in which we have a matter of regret is that a good deal of the defence of the Government was founded upon the Act of 1890. That Act is absolutely useless in the rural districts of the country, and at the present time there is only one instance on record where the Act has been used to get land for improvements. There is one more point of regret that I might usefully for a moment allude to if I might trespass upon the kindness of the House. I would point out one great abuse upon which our case rests. In the first place this is not a new question; it goes back to the first Royal Commission on the Housing of the Poor. That Commission reported in 1884, and one of the most insignificant features of that report was the suggestion that there was need both in town and country for an alteration in the condition of local taxation and the conditions for acquiring land for the housing of the poor. It was under the stimulus of the report of that Commission in 1884, and under the stimulus of the crying evils that were then existing, that the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies made that speech, which has been quoted this evening by one of my honourable friends behind. I remember sitting near the right honourable Gentleman when he delivered it, and I remember cheering him in the expression of those admirable sentiments. We had, after that, a great Commission called the Labour Commission, and that also teems with evidence in the same direction; and there is plenty of evidence to be obtained from the report of that Commission to show that the housing of the poor in this country requires some alteration in the law, which is what we are now asking the House to adopt. We had the other day the Welsh Land Commission, which also

    599
    supported, by its evidence, the pleas that we are now urging. Therefore, I say the question is an old one, and does not want any more Commissions to report as to exact details. I think these Commissions have shown fully the necessity for something being done in the direction which we demand. The right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has tried to soothe us by saying that there is a Commission now sitting, and that they have been patiently waiting for it to present a report upon this subject. I do not regard interim reports from Commissions with the same affection as the right honourable Gentleman. We had an interim report of a Commission a year or two ago, and the right honourable Gentleman cannot yet have forgotten what occurred then; for although he carried his Agricultural Rating 15111 into law, I do not think it is a matter for much congratulation on the part of the Government that that Act was placed on the Statute Book. We have in the interim report a suggestion that we should also meddle once more with the Rating Act in order that we may remove some clerical errors, so that I am very suspicious of interim reports, and I don't want any more. Well, then there is a third ground upon which I wish to base the importance of this amendment of my honourable friend. It is not a question that has been got up by a few political agitators, and it is not a question which is new to this House. It is a question upon which I have shown the necessity for action; and more than that it is a question in which the great municipalities of this country have shown already a keen and living interest. My honourable friend behind me has pointed out that the Association of Municipal Corporations has practically adopted the principle of this amendment, urging that something should be done to carry it into law. I believe that 300 local authorities throughout the country have passed resolutions in favour of such a reform, and, therefore, it cannot be said that this represents simply a local grievance, for that argument is swept away by the fact that these 300 local authorities are demanding a reform in the direction we ask. This is also a matter of considerable importance to great cities like Glasgow and the Metropolis. In Glasgow a few years ago there
    600
    were some 300,000 people housed in houses of one room, but even at the present time it has been calculated that there are still 100,000 people living in houses one room. That condition of things, in many cases, makes decency impossible and morality a miracle. It is a state of things that ought not to exist in a civilised country, for it breeds poverty, disease, misery, and vice, and so great a municipality like Glasgow is now seeking to get powers by which it can overcome this great hot-bed of vice, disease, and misery. Glasgow, above all the cities in the United Kingdom, has already done some of the most splendid work in the way of improving the condition of the dwellings of the poor. We want that city, and other cities, to go on in the same blessed course, and we don't want the expense of private Bills forced upon different localities, but we want them to have general powers given them by Parliament. In the course of the Session, when the Government is going to deal with the great metropolis, there is a splendid opportunity for them to introduce into that Bill some provision that will give the various municipalities of London an opportunity of housing the poor. Why, it has been stated to-night, in this debate, that some 900,000 people in this metropolis are living under these conditions of misery to which I have referred—probably living in houses, or dwellings, or tenements of one or two rooms. In these new municipalities which you are creating you may have opportunities of making an instrument for a great and blessed work, and while it alters the condition of the poor as regards their dwellings, it will bring increased happiness, and wealth, and prosperity to the better classes by giving them less chances of disease, and the various things that result from the misery of their poorer brethren. I want something to be done in this direction, for every town in the country is, at the present time, crippled in this line of work by the conditions which we are endeavouring to alter. There is no municipality in the country that would not gladly do more for the public health than they do under the present system if they only had the power. My honourable Friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board, and the right honourable Gentlemen the President of that body know well enough that the

    601
    one cry, above all others, that comes from the local authorities when a question of sanitation, of water supply, of drainage work, or the isolation of disease has to be dealt with, is that the rating of the locality is high enough already. And yet to the suggestions of my honourable Friend contained in the Amendment we receive such replies as have been given us by the right honourable Gentlemen who have spoken upon this subject. I say that these bodies are afraid to carry out these improvements, and they fear to erect dwellings for the poor and carry out sanitary improvements which are necessary because of the burden on the rates. Some of them have been bitten very severely by the existing state of the law, and there is no better example than the City of Glasgow itself. That city, some hundred years ago, was foolish enough to sell a plot of land, which belonged to the Corporation, at about 2s. 8d. a yard, and this amounted to the sum of £800. One hundred years passed away, and the industry, energy, and capacity of the people of Glasgow made that land of great value, and the Corporation had occasion to buy the land back for municipal purposes. Now, what had they to give for it? Why, they had to give £35 a yard for land which they sold for 2s. 8d. a yard, and for that piece of land which they sold for £800 they had to pay £175,000 out of the rates levied on the people in order that they might get their land back. That is a scandalous state of things, and it is unjust to the ratepayers of this country, for it interferes with the sanitation, the health, and the well-being of the people. In the name of justice, and in the name of right between man and man; in the interests of these communities over whom they have charge, we ask you to do something that will enable local authorities to carry out their blessed work of improving the dwellings of the poor more easily and more justly than they have been able to do in the past.
    MR. J. HAVELOCK WILSON: I do not intend to detain this House very ling with my remarks upon this resolution in favour of the taxation of land values, but as a Member representing a labour constituency in this House, I think I am entitled to say a few words in this Debate. Now, Sir, the honourable Member for Salford has
    602
    made one or two very remarkable statements to-night with regard to working men that I cannot quite understand. He said that leasehold property was more advantageous to the working man than freehold property because after the lease has expired the property has to be pulled down.
    MR. KNOWLES: My argument was this: that leasehold property was more valuable than freehold because with freehold property it would be necessary that we should ensure permanence of employment on the spot.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: The honourable Member was quoting from a Report of the Committee, and he made the statement that one of the arguments brought forward by some witness who gave evidence before that Committee was to that effect. If any honourable Members of this House have had an opportunity of visiting the large towns, where there is a great amount of leasehold property, they will find that when the leases are about to run out the property is allowed to decay and falls into an insanitary condition, and consequently it is the working classes who suffer. It is not at all reasonable to suppose that any persons who have houses with some 20 years of their leases to run are going to spend a lot of money in putting their property in a perfect state of repair. Their whole aim is to do as little as possible to the property, because they know that, in the course of a few years, the leases will expire, and the landlord will get the property. Therefore, it cannot be to the advantage of the working man to have those leases. Now, Sir, with regard to the taxation of land values, I venture to say that once the working men of this country begin to understand this question, no party will be returned to this House who is not in favour of reform. If my information is correct, I believe the total amount of revenue derived from the land at the present time is less than £800,000. Now we have a certain amount of taxation in rates and taxes to get in for revenue purposes, and whilst the working man and the manufacturers and others are paying their fair share towards the taxation of the country, the ground landlord does nothing whatever, although he is scooping in his money, and is paying less than £800,000 towards the taxes of the nation. Why, Sir, in times of

    603
    depression the manufacturers suffer, and the working men have to submit to a reduction of wages. The manufacturers have to submit to smaller dividends and sometimes no profit at all. But the ground landlord is always there, and he will have his money even if he takes the property that is on the land. When we look at this question from that point of view, I venture to say that the only gentlemen in this House who can be opposed to the taxation of land values are the landlords. I tell you honestly if I were a ground landlord I should be opposed to the taxation of land values, because we always look at this question from our own point of view. ("No, no.") Some honourable Gentlemen say "No." Well, I am not a ground landlord, and, therefore, I think I can speak with some freedom. I confess that I do not know of any ground landlord, either on this side of the House or the other, who is at all anxious to tax land values. There may be some gentlemen more liberal on this question than I am, but I tell you I should be opposed to it. I think it is one of the burning questions of the day, and as sure as working men begin to realise the importance of this question as affecting the industries of this country, you may depend upon it that no party will be returned to this House who is not in favour of that reform. I will not add any more to the Debate, but I have great pleasure in giving this Amendment my hearty support.
    MR. J. FLETCHER MOULTON: I should not have risen to-night if it had not been for the fact that I am one of those who, for many years, have put this question in the very foremost rank, and, therefore, I am bound not to be silent on such an occasion. I feel more that it is my duty to speak, because I find that the subject, both in its nature and its importance, is so little appreciated by those who sit opposite to us that I think it is time that someone should get up and tell them plainly our view of it, what we believe it to be and how we mean to work for it. Now I do not agree with the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that this is a local question for the municipalities to wrangle out with the taxpayers. In my eyes, it is the next great step in putting the taxation of England on
    604
    those just and firm foundations which will make it last for many a century. The great question of Customs Duties was settled many years ago under the great man whom we have lost. The next great question, the just incidence of direct contribution, was settled in the last Parliament; and now we are coming to the third great source of national income, the contribution of the land. I do not say the taxation of land—the great bulk of it is no taxation at all—the great bulk of the contribution of the land is of a nature of co-ownership with the State in the land. It is a portion of the land that has paid to the State that never has belonged to the landowners, for which they have never paid, and in which until recently, when the Government started the example of lavishing public money on its own supporters, they had never participated. Now, as in the case of direct imposts, as in the case of the great income tax, and the great capital tax, the death duties, there was a vast injustice done both in the amount of the tax, which was not enough for the shoulders that bore it, and the incidence of the tax, which made it bear on earners and not upon owners, and both these two great iniquities were remedied by the Finance Act. Just in the same way, when you come to the contributions from land, you find the same thing. You find that both as to the inadequacy of the contribution from the land and the incidence' of that contribution a crying injustice is done, and instead of that portion of the tax being borne by the shoulders that can bear it, it falls almost entirely upon those who pay the rents. Now the object of those with whom I have worked so long is to remedy this, and remedy it radically, and to take care that in future the contributions of the land come from those people who receive the revenue of the land, and that those contributions shall be adequate to repay the services that the land is receiving from the lavish and the continuous expenditure of the community. Now, in order to realise bow this can best be done, you have got to go to the root of the matter. You have got to examine what is the nature and the origin of the contribution of the land. Now the land, happily, in England, from time immemorial, has been the subject of contribution. The idea was fully

    605
    realised by our ancestors that the land, which was the great wealth of the country at that time, must contribute to the expenditure, and I am not at all sure that if we had clung firmly to those ideas of contribution, and insisted upon it in past times, that this question would ever have assumed the critical position which it is in at present. Unfortunately, blind Governments allowed the redemption of the land tax. They allowed it to be fixed at some permanent sum, ignorant that the future was going to make the land enormously more valuable. But still, in one respect, the feeling that the contribution of the land must keep pace with its value remained unchanged, and in the towns our taxation of rates has always been intended to be—and always has been—the contribution of landed property. So that we stand in this position: that, by tradition, the land has paid these heavy contributions; that everybody who has purchased land has purchased it knowing that the full benefit of it did not come to him; that a fraction—it may be one-eighth, a quarter or a third—had to be rendered to its co-owner, the State, and that he only purchased and had a right to enjoy the remainder. But we have come now to see yet more clearly the justification of the taxation of land. I am speaking now of land in towns, because that problem is so much more pressing than the question of the land in the country, and I say that the growth of political economy, and the extent to which it has entered into the minds of the people, has made them realise what the true nature of the payment from land in towns to municipal expenses is. It is just as much a payment for services rendered as if they themselves employed the muncipality to do that which alone makes their land valuable. When I hear people say that it is unfair for the owners of the land of London to have to bear the heavy rates with which we are supposed to threaten them, I ask myself: what would be the value of their land if the municipality, for one short six months, declined to do anything for them. If it did not do the drainage and the lighting, and if it did not do the policing, what would be the value of the sites in Mayfair? What I say is that they would not be saleable if the landlords did not do, what they ultimately
    606
    would, and that is take the whole of these expenses on their own shoulders. Our right to claim from the landowers of London these high contributions is a right dependent not only on tradition, but it depends also on the fact that they should bear a fair proportion of the burdens which the wealth of this country ought to bear. It comes to this, that the municipality is tired of pouring out the wealth of the people simply to make the values of the towns sites yet more and more valuable. Just take the case of land which is lying there getting more and more valuable every day and paying only microscopic taxes. Every new street which is made is bound to give it better access and add value to it. Every improvement in lighting, and every increase in the amenities of the neighbourhood, makes that land more valuable. And what return is given by the owner of that land, what return is given for the expenditure which is absolutely necessary to give that additional value to his land? Why he grumbles if we attempt to put on him a tax proportionate to the value which, day by day, his land has acquired, and he wants us, seeing this, and knowing this to look upon that as agricultural land measured by its capacity for producing turnips. Well now, Sir, those are the two feelings and the two motives with which we start on our work. The one is that the great portion of this burden having always been borne, is no tax at all; it is a portion of the land which is as much, and always has been as much, the property of the State as the remainder which has been claimed by the so-called owners. The other motive is that whether that is so or not we are not going to admit that the municipality is under a perpetual servitude to spend this money in order that the land in the town should get more valuable. We consider this ample justification, and I can assure you that we consider that that is a strong enough motive for our action. What we have to consider is how can we do it, and how can we do it justly? How can we do it? Well, from my experience in the discussion of this question, I have always noticed a most amazing fact. Every alternate man who speaks to me about it says "it is not the slightest good whatever you do, for the landlord bears all the taxes." ("Hear, hear,"

    607
    from the Ministerial benches.) There is the alternate man. Now about the other alternate man. He says: "it does not matter what you do, because the taxes have always to be borne by the tenant." I have often thought that it would be advisable to lock those two alternate men up, and let them fight the question out, and then I should be willing to argue it with the survivor. There is a certain amount of truth in what each of them says, but there is so much misunderstanding about the matter that both their opinions are equally useless. I think I shall be able to show you that it is quite possible for us by a simple plan to make this burden come on those who reap the revenue, but in order to do that we must start with one principle of action from which we must not swerve, and that is, that for the future we allow no divorce between burden and revenue. We will not allow contracts, custom, or anything to interfere with the revenue that comes from the land of the town paying its own share. The burden of rates and taxes, as all the speakers have testified, has grown intolerable. Why is that? Not because they are too heavy, but because by almost universal custom in England arrangements are made whereby a great part of the revenue of the landlords in the towns is divorced from its burden. You allow them to contract for their rates with people who probably do not own any of the property, except the right to occupy it at rack-rent. The consequence is that as long as we allow people to shift burdens on those who do not possess the property, our taxes must be, every time they vary, an intolerable injustice. I often hear it said, Why do you trouble about the rates of London? There is 28 millions of rental in London—cannot it pay an extra penny? Yes, exactly; but the people who pay the extra penny are the people who pay the 28 millions, and I would not care to bring about all the taxation of ground-rents that I have argued for, if the principle is not carried out to the fullest—that the money that is paid shall come from the man who gets the revenue on which it is paid. Without that you may complicate your tax-gatherer's papers, and do no good. If you follow up the money that comes from the land, and get from the person into whose pocket a hundred pounds
    608
    stops the taxes on that hundred pounds, you will be able to calculate what the increase of the burden is. Now, however, the bitter cry of the inhabitants of the towns is, when there is the slightest increase of the rates, that you do not know what misery and injustice you are inflicting upon even the most necessary and the most deserving increase of expenditure. Well now, one other thing. We talk about the taxation of ground values, and many people say, "If you are going to tax landed property and house property, you are justified in doing so: but why ground values?" Let me tell you that we shall be content with nothing short of clearly severing the value of the building and the value of the ground on which it is placed, and we shall not be content unless the ground is taxed much more heavily than the building which is put upon it. Now, what is our present system? Our present system is to put a tax on the total revenue from landed property. Where does it come from? It comes partly from the land and partly from the house that is upon it. Now it costs no more to build a house in a town than in the country; it costs less.
    Ministerial cries of "Oh," and "Hear, hear."
    MR. J. FLETCHER MOULTON: I am delighted to find that many gentlemen opposite, who have probably houses in the country, rejoice in thinking that houses may be built cheaper in the country than they can in towns; but, taking it all round, I think they are wrong. But whether that is so or not, what makes the difference between the rental of a house in a town and the rental of a house in the country? Why is it that a house in a town, if you take it as a freehold, is worth so many times the value of a house in the country We of course know that all the money spent on a town, the accumulated energy and enterprise of the people of the town, have made that site valuable. If you want to know that, get two landowners to talk, one possessing agricultural land, and the other town land. You will hear one say, "It is perfectly marvellous how, in this era of prosperity, we find values going up." You will find the other in the deepest despair saying, "Agricultural land has gone down terribly beyond all expectation" Why, that

    609
    portion of our aristocracy that has kept pre-eminently in wealth is almost entirely composed of those who had land in towns. If you put an over-all tax on the revenues of landed property, you are really letting off the land with one-half the real burden that should come upon it. Well, ought it to be in that position? In my view the land ought not to be let off with a burden equal to that on the house. We want people to spend money on good houses. We do not want to make our municipal revenues come from taxes which dissuade people from putting ample money into building enterprises. The consequence is, from the point of view of wise policy, we ought to spare as much as we possibly can the money that is used in building houses, and we shall do nobody any harm at all, except the person who has to pay it, by putting any tax whatever upon the land, because we can neither better the land nor make it worse, neither increase its amount or diminish it. It is therefore essential to our plan that we should separate the land from the houses; that we should put the just amount, but the full amount on the land, and spare as much of that capital which is put in the houses. Well, how are we to distinguish? It means a separate valuation, no doubt, of the site of the house. And here it is among us to see the way in which people drop their hands and say, "Oh, it is impossible; you cannot separate them in value." I see opposite on the Treasury Bench an old comrade taking notes (the Attorney-General). I trust this means that the hon. and learned Gentleman is going to give the House the benefit of his experience; and I challenge him, with all his unrivalled experience of compensation cases under the Land Clauses Act, to deny this statement—that whenever you meet the Surveyors to value the house and the land, the first thing they do is to value the land separately, and then they consider what the house adds to it. I say without fear of contradiction that the attempt to make it difficult to value broadly and accurately the value of the land site as distinguished from the value of the house upon it is a perfectly hopeless task. Any surveyor in the City of London would be perfectly willing, for adequate remuneration, to do so. Now, how are we to put a tax upon it so that we may be
    610
    perfectly certain that it comes out of the pockets of those who receive the revenue? Well, Sir, I do not think that it is difficult. We know perfectly well how to pursue revenue when we are dealing with the income-tax, and I see no reason why we should not apply the same principle to all rents. There is not the slightest doubt that we are justified in saying, if the value of a house is £400, and £100 is ground value, that this £100 is the first portion of the rent. If one man retains that in his hands as the superior landlord he is retaining the value of the land site, and if you allow people to deduct this ground tax all the way up, you will find that it comes out of the pocket of the man who really holds the revenue in his hands. But I am told to take the case of land let for £10 a year and now worth £100 a year, ask, what I am going to do there? I say again that the man who holds land under a rent of £10 a, year, the true value of which is £100 a year, is for that year a ground landlord to the extent of £90. He will have to pay under the scheme I advocate, the tax on his £90 just as if he were the freeholder. Well, I have detained the House longer than I ought to have done, but I should like for a moment to consider the question of introducing this system. Beyond question it is a very great gain to the nation to derive a large portion of its revenue from rates upon rent, because when those are once established they cease to be taxes at all. Rent must be paid to somebody, and every attempt to evade that law has always failed. But two people who are joint owners of a property cannot get any more rent out of it than if one person holds it. If the State and a landlord own a piece of land they cannot get from the user of that land any more together than if one of them held it. The consequence is that when the impost on land, measured by a fraction of the rent, has once been settled and has come into the coffers of the State, from and after that time it ceases to be any burden at all—that portion which alone becomes a subject for investment in the remainder, after the State has taken its proportion; and therefore we are lucky in places like Bengal, where we have the rent of the land to bear the expenses of the State. The difficulty when we want to make the change is that people who have in-

    611
    vested in land will find a much heavier burden put on them, and a much larger proportion taken out of their wealth; and, therefore, we have to be very careful, in inaugurating this system, that we do no injustice. I have never shut my eyes to that. But what I feel is this, that we can, with the very greatest justice, largely increase the impost on land. My first justification is this—that we are taking money for services not rendered yesterday, but rendered to-day and to-morrow. If people bought land, thinking that for all time the community would go on paying for that which gave their land value, they had no justification for thinking that the community would be idiotic for ever. We have a perfect right to say: "You shall, now that we realise the true source of the value of your land, pay us a fair return for the money which gives it that value." Then we have another justification. We have a perfect right within moderation to alter taxation, and when we find the evils that exist in towns by reason of this system, which enables a few people to hold land at little expense, until the crowding of the population makes the matter so unbearable that they get enormous prices for the sale or use of the land—when we see the consequences of that system of taxation, we are justified in altering it. If we had and doubt on the point, this Government has removed it. This Government has thought that Parliament is justified in taking a million and a half of public money, and giving it to the owners of land. That was not part of the return of the land which the landowners bought. They bought the land with the burdens on it, and, therefore, there is something for us to take back. That is not the property of the landowners, it is their plunder. When Parliament can remove burdens on land it can also put them on. The Government gave public money to its supporters, without even having whispered its intention at the time of the election, and I have come to the conclusion that a nation that has been thus treated will support us, if after full warning we put very much increased burdens on those people whose land has thus risen in value from the necessities of the community. That is the problem as we understand it. It is a great re-adjustment of one of the greatest sources of revenue
    612
    of this country. It is a re-adjustment based not only upon traditional burdens, but justified by the services of the day. It is a re-adjustment based on the nature of the property—putting the heavy burden on that part of the property which can bear it without loss to the community, and it is a re-adjustment which, though it may cause friction at the present time, will, I am sure, like the Franchise Act, be recognised, not only as a wise, but a righteous measure.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The honourable and learned Gentleman who has just sat down has been tackling one of the most difficult problems in politics. He has been endeavouring to settle whether rates are paid by the landlord or the occupier. It is a conundrum which many people have endeavoured to answer, but which few have been able to answer without in the long run contradicting themselves. Even the honourable and learned Gentleman has sometimes contradicted himself, for I learn, with reference to his last observation, that the boon under the Rating Act has gone into the pockets of the landlords. That was the statement made by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Fife; but the honourable and learned Member last June took pains to inform the farmers in the constituency which he was wooing that the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Fife was mistaken in that statement.
    MR. MOULTON: I beg the right honourable Gentleman's pardon. I never did anything of the kind. I said that for a year or two the boon would go into the tenant farmers' pockets, but that ultimately it would go to the landlords.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I do not carry with me the honourable and learned Member's speeches.
    SIR JOHN BRUNNER: But he does.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The honourable and learned Gentleman does not deny that he said it would go into the pockets of the tenants.
    MR. MOULTON: Excuse me, I do deny it. This is a personal matter, and I think I am entitled to say that, not once, but a dozen times in the cam-

    613
    paign I pointed out how, when there came to be a renewal of the lease, it would go into the landlords' pockets.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The honourable and learned Gentleman said that the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Fife was wrong in his assertion.
    MR. MOULTON: It was reported to me that the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Fife had said that no portion of it would go into the tenant farmers' pockets. I pointed out I did not agree with him because, for a year or two until the next adjustment of rent, it would go to the tenant farmers; but that after that it would inevitably go to the landlords.
    THE FIRST LORD OP THE ADMIRALTY: The Bill is only going to last for five years.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The Bill is only going to last for five years. But let me point out that I only wish to illustrate the point to which the honourable Member's answer refers—that it is extremely difficult to say into which pocket the rates go. It has been the difficulty over and over again, and I know frequently that those who on some occasions have argued that we were giving benefits to the landlords for the remission of taxation, have afterwards admitted that it was the tenants who were most benefited. It is notorious that it is one of the most difficult questions to deal with. I regret that I have causd any heat, and I am extremely sorry if I have said anything to give offence, or which would mar, in the slightest degree, the general tone of the discussion which has taken place. I will now come to the Amendment before the House. That Amendment refers to legislation regarding the ownership, tenure, and taxation of land. The question is, to which of the three has most importance been attached tonight? Some honourable Members have spoken as if the whole question were one of overcrowding. Others have said that the main point was that of local taxation. The honourable Member who introduced the Debate dwelt mainly upon the tenure and ownership of land, and it is to that I will, in the first instance, address myself. But let us remind the House that honourable Members have spoken of this question over and over again as a burning question, and as an
    614
    urgent question. When we speak of the urgency of this question let us begin at the beginning. Let us know, when we talk of recruits and of a burning question, when it began to be such. I welcome many Members as recruits in the field of local taxation reform, for it was a field in which I was occupied many years ago. One of the first speeches which I made in the House of Commons was as to the bitter outcry and the grievances which existed on that subject —I mean with regard to the division of rates between owners and occupiers, Distinguished statesmen, colleagues of many right honourable Gentlemen opposite, have been Chancellors of the Exchequer, have been at the Local Government Board, since that time, and I have not seen that the division of rates has been treated as a burning question during all that time. I do not deny that it is an urgent question, but why has the question been left over? It has not been entirely, I believe, from any indifference on this or on the other side of the House. But why has the problem remained unsolved? Because the question is not so simple as some honourable Gentlemen opposite seem to think it to be be; because so many people have endeavoured to deal with it, and because it comprises some of the most complicated matters which any Government can have to deal with. I drop for the moment the question of local taxation, and turn to that of the ownership and the tenure of land. It is to remedy the overcrowding that legislation is called for. It is said that it is urgent to give the municipalities more power, but the weakness of the Bill of 1890, although it has been asserted, has not been proved. It has been said that that Act has not been successful, but it has been a great success. If it has been unsuccessful, why have not its imperfections been pointed out, rather than these general remarks to which we have been listening? There was one argument which was urged by the Leader of the House, which Las never been replied to, and which, I believe, cannot be replied to, and I say that with the deepest regret, because it shows how extremely difficult the question is. My right honourable Friend asked: How is it that where there is no system of land tenure—how is it that where there is a different system of taxation altogether—how is it that in

    615
    New York, Paris, Berlin, and in all parts of Europe, and in almost all the large cities, you have the same state of thing's prevailing as you have here?
    AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Because you have landlordism.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: They had a revolution in France, and killed most of the landlords, but that did not cure the system. Why is this? I do not say that the Government could not deal with it successfully, and if they saw their way to deal with it successfully something might be done; but the difficulty is that in these great centres of population more people wish to live in a particular spot than there is room for. That is one of the difficulties. Supposing you pull down old buildings and rebuild a better class of building; do you think that you would add to the prosperity of London? Do you think you would add to the trade of London? Do you think you would add to the rate-paving powers of London? Not a bit of it. It is not by means of that kind that you would be able to help either the working classes or the great manufacturing establishments in Wood Street or elsewhere. Where is room to be found? It is only to be found in the outskirts, and the question will baffle you because of that concentration of population which is beyond your power to remedy. Let me say, in passing, take care that by any new system you introduce you do not make building in the outskirts of London more difficult than it is. Take care that by some change with regard to ground rents or contracts you do not throw burdens on the land, you do not (make buildings more difficult, which would prevent the very erection of those dwellings some little distance from London which now we see continually springing up all around London. The subject is so large, and it is so difficult to deal with, that I am not surprised that right honourable Gentlemen opposite have not found themselves able to deal with it when in office, though they are able to speak upon it when they are in opposition. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Fife, the honourable Member for Leith, and the honourble Member for East Lothian, have spoken upon this question this evening. But they have done more than speak on the question. They once introduced
    616
    a Bill. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Fife endorsed a Bill when he was in Opposition, and that Bill never reappeared when the right hon. gentleman was in office as Home Secretary. Here it is. It is a Bill "to enable local authorities to value and purchase lands." That is a step in the direction of the speeches which have been made to-night. I see a number of names on the back of that Bill, and amongst them I see the names of the Member for Fife, the Member for Leith, and the Member for East Lothian. What became of that Bill?
    MR. ASQUITH: It was rejected.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: It was rejected at that time, but the matter became more urgent because another year had passed; it became still more urgent because two more years had passed. The overcrowding had gone on, but, when the right hon. gentleman was in office, what because of the Bill? Why did the right hon. gentleman not deal with the matter?
    MR. KEARLEY: We passed the Finance Act instead.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: No. I will tell the honourable Gentleman what happened to the Bill. I believe it was lost amongst the papers of the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church. Why do I point this out? In order to show the extreme difficulty of this question. If this had been an easy question, with this feeling in the country, which there must be; with this feeling in London, which there must be; why did not the late Government deal with it? Why has it not been dealt with before? They have had the ablest gentlemen to deal with the finances and with the local government of this country, but they found that this problem was one with which they could not deal. And the same with the rating question. They found that to be too difficult. If I may venture on a personal reminiscence, and I hope it will not be thought to be out of taste, I may say that some years ago when the late Mr. Gladstone was conducting his campaign in Mid-Lothian, he was questioned with regard to the taxation of ground rents and of ground values. What was his answer? I was sitting in the audience, and he paid me the compliment to say, "There sits a right honourable Gentle-

    617
    man who knows all the difficulties of this question and how it is surrounded on every side with every kind of impediment. And that was all the answer that Mr. Gladstone gave with reference to the taxation of ground rents. I have dealt with the question of over-crowding in this sense, and I say it is not the fruit of landlordism such as, we have, because the whole system of land tenure in other countries is different to ours; and it is not the fruit of local taxation, because the same difficulties occur in other cities where there is not the same system of local taxation. But if local taxation is a matter of the greatest possible importance, and of Imperial importance, it cannot be said that it is that which is responsible for over-crowding. My right honourable Friend expressed the views of the Government at an earlier period of the evening; but if other measures can be taken with reference to preventing over-crowding we should certainly look upon it, not only as our duty, but with the greatest satisfaction if we could contribute in some measure to that end. It is a pleasant reflection to those who held office in 1890 that by one Act we were able to do some good, and, at all events, to set an example and lay down a system which might possibly be followed and improved upon. That was in 1890, when many of the present Ministers were in office. I pass on to say something with reference to the taxation of unoccupied land and of the taxation of ground values. With regard to unoccupied land, the matter is not so simple as the honourable and learned Gentleman who has just sat down supposed. It is very difficult indeed to deal with. The honourable Gentleman caused a legitimate laugh by saying that this land should be rated as land for growing purposes. But that is precisely the attitude which some municipalities and the friends of the honourable and learned Gentleman opposite take with regard to this land when they want—not to tax it, but to buy it. Then they speak of it as prairie value. It is valuable to tax, but not when they want to buy it. That seems a difficult proposition to lay down. Reference has been made to the taxation of unoccupied land, but it is one of those details to which not many honourable Members have condescended, although they have expounded with great eloquence and ingenuity on
    618
    the general principles. It is very difficult occasionally to define what unoccupied land is. It is by no means one of those easy questions that some honourable Members probably think it is. I should have no objection that unoccupied hind, if it were to continue unoccupied, should be taxed, if it could be done upon just and fair principles, and if there would not be evasions. But you would have run up easily-constructed and-simple buildings of the most inconvenient, insanitary, and unsatisfactory description, and you would soon turn your unoccupied land into very badly occupied land. Therefore, you would change it and change its nature. But, besides this, I have seen it argued that it would not be desirable to force all the owners of unoccupied land to sell at once. Unoccupied land frequently means great expense in crowded portions of the metropolis. It is frequently not desirable to force a sale, it would be undesirable that every piece of unoccupied land should immediately be pounced upon by the speculative builder. What I say is this: that this is a matter which requires to be carefully thought out and investigated, as we wish it to be investigated, by the Commission, who have not to deal with general principles, who have not to lay down merely a system, but to elaborate a way by which a system could be carried out. That is the duty which has been put upon the Commission, which was appointed with every hope and desire that they would submit such recommendations as may enable us to make some reform in the system. I have still to deal with the question of ground-rents. Upon that point, the honourable and learned Gentleman who has just sat down was very ingenious, but his ingenuity did not reach to the point of telling us how it was to be done, although he told us what ought to be done, and he laid down certain conditions, without which, he said, it could not be done, and ought not to be done, and his great principle was the principle of divorce. He seems to think you can divorce the two things— that you can separate the house from the from the land.
    MR. MOULTON: There must be no divorce between taxation and Revenue.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: He wishes for separation of the house from the land. You must, as the keynote of the system, be able to separate the two interests, and he says that it is always done in compensation cases. The Attorney-General, who has had great experience in these matters, says that that is not so, and that in the great number of compensation cases the tenement was valued as a whole, and the house and land taken together. In compensation cases you do not establish that divorce. Unless you do that you cannot carry out the honourable and learned gentleman's scheme. The only cases where you do value the two separately, are in cases of tumble-down houses which are to be rebuilt. I now come to the most difficult and complicated part of the honourable and learned gentleman's speech. Ingenious as his argument was, with all his ingenuity he was not convincing. He has given many years of study to this question, and it has been a labour of love to him, and, therefore, I listen to him with the greatest attention. The whole point is this:—He says that you can separate the two interests. He quoted the Income Tax, and said that income tax follows income tax. As an Ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, I can say that is so—only to get it out of the pocket of the tax-payer into the pocket of the Government. But whether all the income tax-payers consider that a portion of the tax ought not to be paid by somebody else is another question. Now the keynote of the honourable gentleman's argument is this:—He says you must be able, by law and by an iron system, to lay down, as an inexorable demand, that you ought to know what is the interest of the landlord, and what of the tenant. I say it is absolutely impossible. You may define it, in some cases of better houses, where there are long leases or where there are leases still to run, and where the interests in question are mixed up. In the case of tenements which are let to the working-classes at weekly rents, can you so separate contracts—so regulate rents as
    620
    to know how much of the 6 s. a week that the artizan is paying represents rate, or simply rent? I say it is absolutely impossible that you can do so. If honourable Members opposite have got a system by which it can be done, then let them put their proposals in a Bill, and it will give us extreme satisfaction to consider it. But I think the better thing is to await the result of the labours of the Royal Commission. Those labours are protracted. But why? Because, as every honourable Gentleman who looks at this matter, knows, the difficulties and complications of the question are very great. Take care that in endeavouring to reform the present system you put the burden on the shoulder which ought to bear it. But that is not at all certain. But is it to be supposed that you can trace in weekly tenements how much is rent and how much is rates? It would baffle every effort of statesmanship to fix ultimately where the taxation is to be placed. The question of the rating of ground rents stands on a different footing, but even there, I doubt whether you will be able to value the tax imposed in the way in which the honourable and learned Gentleman suggests. It is a problem, at all events, that many Chancellors of the Exchequer, and certainly many Presidents of the Local Government Board have looked at. I do not know whether the right honourable Gentlemen opposite have looked at it, but if they have they have shied at it, because in all their proposals when they are anxious to secure revenues in many ways, this is not a proposal which has seemed to recommend itself to them, although, theoretically, they would be glad if it could be carried out. I close, Sir, as I commenced. The Government have appointed this Royal Commission. They hope that its researches and recommendations will be valuable, and will be practical. We should value assistance in solving this problem from whatever quarter it came. Honourable Gentlemen opposite are mistaken if they think that on this question there is a clear cleavage of parties. Friends of the ratepayers sit on both sides of the House, and many efforts have been made to give effect to the desire to assist the ratepayers on this side of the house. This is not a Party question. I remember several years back that when first this question came to the front in 1868, we were not

    621
    ranged on each side simply as Liberals and Conservatives. There was a cleavage between parties, between representatives of town and country, partly because of the difficulty of seeing what the results of the change would be, and partly because the elementary problem could not be solved—namely, the incidence of rates as they are and of taxes as they are.
    MR. CALDWELL: The right honourable Gentleman said, it is not possible to separate the values of land and the values of buildings. I am only rising for the purpose of saying that if he will refer to the Agricultural Ratings Act, passed by the Government in this present Parliament, he will find that in valuing and apportioning the

    AYES.

    Abraham, Wm. (Cork N. E.)

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Hammond, John (Carlow)

    Pinkerton, John

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Allen, W. (N, under Lyme)

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

    Asquith, Rt, Hn. Herbert H.

    Hazell, Walter

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Richardson, J. (Durham)

    Billson, Alfred

    Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Birrell, Augustine

    Hedderwick,Thomas Charles H.

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees)

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Jones,David Brynmon(Swansea

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Burns, John

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Shee, James John

    Burt, Thomas

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarshire

    Buxton Sydney Charles

    Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Caldwell, James

    Labouchere, Henry

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Cameron Robert (Durham)

    Lambert George

    Souttar, Robinson

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Langley, Batty

    Spicer, Albert

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Laurie, Lieut. -General

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Lawson, Sir Wilfred (Cum'land

    Steadman, William Charles

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Colville, John

    Lloyd-George, David

    Stock, James Henry

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    MacAleese, Daniel

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Daly, James

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal,W.)

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

    M'Dermott, Patrick

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Davitt, Michael

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Tennant, Harold John

    Dillon, John

    Maddison, Fred.

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Maden, John Henry

    Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan,E.)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Mandeville, J. Francis

    Ure, Alexander

    Duckworth, James

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

    Molloy, Bernard Charles

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Weir, James Galloway

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Fenwick, Charles

    Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

    Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Murnaghan, George

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro.)

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Woods, Samuel

    Gibney, James

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    O'Malley, William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Mr. Thomas Ellis and Mr. M'Arthur.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Philipps, John Wynford

    amount of grant to the agricultural land you must separate the value of the land and the value of the buildings. It was contended, when that Bill was passed, on this side of the House, that you must take the rent as a whole on land and buildings, but the Government then maintained that it was perfectly possible to separate the land from the buildings, and it is the whole basis of the Agricultural Act that the land so separated from the buildings to determine the agricultural value and the rates that are to be levied.
    Question put, "That those words be there added."
    House divided: For the Amendment, 123; against, 157.

    NOES.

    Archdale, Edward Mervyn

    Gedge, Sydney

    Milner, Sir Frederick George

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John.

    Gilliat, John Saunders

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gordon, Hon John Edward

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man.)

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    Mount, William George

    Balfour,RtHnGerald W. (Leeds

    Goschen,RtHnG. J. (St. Georges

    Murray,Rt.Hn. A. Graham(Bute

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Myers, William Henry

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Gray Ernest (West Ham)

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Northcote, Hn. Sir H. Stafford

    Beach, RtHn Sir M.H. (Bristol)

    Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Beckett, Ernest William

    Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

    Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

    Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Bigwood, James

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Pilkington, Richard

    Blakiston-Houston, John

    Heath, James

    Plunkett,Rt.Hn.Horace Curzon

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Helder, Augustus

    Purvis, Robert

    Bond, Edward

    Henderson, Alexander

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

    Ridley, Rt.Hn. Sir Matthew W.

    Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

    Hobhouse, Henry

    Ritchie, Rt.Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Broderick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Houston, R. P.

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Howell, William Tudor

    Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham

    Butcher, John George

    Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Carlile, William Walter

    Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

    Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

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

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

    Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

    Sham-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wrc'r

    Kennaway,Rt.Hn. Sir John H.

    Skews-Cox, Thomas

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

    Charrington Spencer

    Knowles, Lees

    Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Lawrence,Sir E.Durning-(Corn

    Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

    Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth)

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

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

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Stewart,Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Lea, Sir Thomas (Londond'y)

    Strauss, Arthur

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Leckey, Rt.Hn.William Ed. H.

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Leighton, Stanley

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Curzon, Viscount

    Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset)

    Thorburn, Walter

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Lockwood, Lt.Col. A. R.

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Davies,Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Valentia, Viscount

    Denny, Colonel

    Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (L'rpool)

    Ward, Hon. Robert A. (Crewe)

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

    Webster,Sir R.E.(Isle of Wight

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lowe, Francis William

    Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

    Doxford William Theodore

    Lowles, John

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Drage Geoffrey

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Williams, Joseph Powell- (Bir.

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Wodehouse,Rt.Hn. E. R. (Bath

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Wyndham, George

    Fisher, William Hayes

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Malcolm, Ian

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Forster, Henry William

    Maple, Sir John Blundell

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

    Massey-Mainwaring,Hn. W. F.

    Garfit, William

    Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

    Main Question again proposed:—Debate arising;
    MR. H. LEWIS: Sir, I hope the House will not be required to start on a new subject during the last few minutes of the week. I beg to move the adjournment of the Debate.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not wish to resist the motion, but I confess that I view with some alarm the encyclopædia contained
    624
    in the number of Amendments to the Address on the Paper. I truly hope that it will not be necessary to survey the whole field of politics before we reach the end of the Debate on the Address.
    Question put.
    Motion agreed to.
    Debate adjourned.
    House adjourned at 11.40 till Monday next.

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  GENERAL POWER DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
  Standing Order of 29th July, 1898,—
  "That the Promoters of the General Power Distributing Company Bill [H.L.] shall have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the same Bill, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament.
  "That when the Bill is brought from the House of Lords in the next Session of Parliament the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill which was brought from the House of Lords in the present Session, and so soon as one of the clerks in the Private Bill Office has certified that such deposit has been duly made, the Bill shall be read the first time and ordered to be read a second time.
  "That all Petitions presented in the present Session against such Bill within the time prescribed by the Rules and Orders of this House, which stood referred to the Committe on such Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the same Bill in the next Session of Parliament," read.
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Certificate from the Private Bill Office that the declarations required by the Standing Order of 29th July 1898, in respect of the Bill have been duly deposited.
  Lords Message (10th February) considered.
  Bill read the first time; to be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petitions for the following Bills, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely—
  Belfast Corporation Bill; Coatbridge and Airdrie Light Railway Bill; Lancashire Electric Power Bill; Leicestershire and Warwickshire Electric Supply Bill; London Water (Aqueducts and Works) Bill; London Water (Welsh Reservoirs and Works) Bill; National Telephone Company (No. 1) Bill; National Telephone (No. 2) Bill: South Lancashire and Cheshire Electricity Company Bill.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS [H.L.] (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petitions for the following Bills, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely—
Newhaven and Seaford Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Skipton Gas Bill [H.L.]; Southport and Lytham Tramroad Bill [H.L.]
Ordered, that the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

PRIVATE BILLS [H.L.]
MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in respect of the Bills comprised in the List reported by the Chairman of Ways and Means as intended to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with in the following cases, namely—
Aberdeen Corporation; Aberdeen Harbour; Aberdeen Joint Passenger Sta-
634
tion; Airdrie and Coatbridge Water; All Saints' Church (Cardiff); Arbroath Corporation Gas; Barton-on-Sea Water; Bexhill and St. Leonards Tramroads; Birkenhead Corporation; Birmingham, North Warwickshire, and Stratford-upon-Avon Railway; Bognor Urban District Water; Brighton Marine Palace and Pier; Bristol Floods Prevention; Bristol Gas; Bury Corporation; Bury Corporation Water; Caledonian Railway (General Powers); Caledonian Railway (Grangemouth Connecting Lines); Cambridge University and Town Gas; Church Stretton Water; Clyde Navigation; Coalville Urban District Gas; Cobham Gas; Colonial and Foreign Banks Guarantee Fund; Cromer Protection; Douglas and Sanquhar Railway; Dumbarton Burgh; Dundee Gas, Tramways and Extension; Friends' Provident Institution; Furness Railway; Fylde Water Board; Gainsborough Urban District Council (Gas); Glasgow and South Western Railway; Glasgow Corporation (Gas and Water); Glasgow Corporation (Tramways, etc.); Glasgow District Subway; Glasgow, Motherwell, and Sanquhar Railway; Glastonbury Water; Great Eastern Railway (Amendment of London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Act, 1898); Great Eastern Railway (General Powers); Great Northern Railway; Great Yarmouth Corporation; Great Yarmouth Pier; Great Yarmouth Water; Greenock and Port Glasgow Tramways; Grosvenor Chapel (London); Hampstead Church (Emmanuel, West End); Harbour and Dock Rates (Bristol, etc.); Hastings and St. Leonards Gas; Hastings Corporation Tramways; Hastings Harbour; Heme Bay Water; Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock; Humber Conservancy; Imperial Markets and Stores; Infant Orphan Asylum; Inverness Harbour; Kew Bridge; Kirkcaldy Corporation and Tramways; Knott End Railway; Lanarkshire (Middle Ward District) Water; Lea Bridge District Gas; Leigh-on-Sea Urban District Council; Liverpool Overhead Railway; Llanelly Harbour and Pontardulais Railway; London and South Western Railway; London Hospital; Loughborough and Sheepshed Railway; Loughborough Corporation; Loughborough Gas; Lowestoft Water and Gas Company; Manchester Corporation

635
Tramways; Maryport Harbour; Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Finance); Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Pilotage); Mid-Kent Gas; Milford Docks; Moss Side Urban District Council (Tramways); Muirkirk, Mauchline, and Dalmellington Railway; Nene Valley Waterworks; Norfolk Estuary; North Eastern and Hull and Barnsley Railways (Joint Dock); North. Eastern Railway; Northern Assurance Company; North Staffordshire Railway; Oldham Corporation; Oystermouth Railway or Tram-road; Paisley and Barrhead District Railway; Perth Water, Police, and Gas; Port Talbot Railway and Docks; Portsmouth Corporation; Queen's Ferry Bridge; Rawtenstall Corporation Water; Renfrew Burgh and Harbour Extension; Rochdale Canal; Rushden and Higham Ferrers District Gas; St. Alban's Gas; St. Neot's Water; Salford Corporation; Skipton Urban District Gas; Southampton Corporation Water; South Essex Water; South Hants Water; Southport Tramways; South Staffordshire Tramways; Stockton and Middlesbrough Water; Stretford Gas; Stretford Urban District Council (Tramways); Sunderland Corporation; Surrey Commercial Docks; Totland Water; Transvaal Mortgage Loan and Finance Company; Wakefield Corporation; Wallasey Tramways and Improvements; Walton-on-Thames and Weybridge Gas; West Highland Railway; Weston-super-Mare, Cleve-don, and Portishead Tramways Company (Light Railway Extensions); Weston-super-Mare Grand Pier; Whitehaven Corporation; Wick and Pulteney Harbours; Wishaw Water; Withington Urban District Council (Tramways); Wolverhampton Corporation; Wolverhampton Tramways; Workington Corporation Water; Yeadon and Guiseley Gas.
And that they have certified that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in the following cases;—
Newhaven and Seaford Water Board; Skipton Gas; Southport and Lytham Tramroad.

PRIVATE BILLS [COMMONS].
  AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Frederick Milner and Mr. Beckett.
  AYR BURGH.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Orr-Ewing, Sir William Arrol, Mr. Cochrane, Sir James Fergusson, and Mr. Baird.
  BAKER STREET AND WATERLOO RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Boulnois, Mr. Halsey, and Mr. Pym.
  BARKING TOWN IMPROVEMENT.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Louis Sinclair and Sir Fortescue Flannery.
  BARRY RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alfred Thomas and Mr. David Thomas.
  BELFAST AND NORTHERN COUNTIES RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. O'Neill and Colonel M'Calmont.
  BELFAST WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir James Haslett, Mr. Arnold-Forster, Mr. William Johnston, and Mr. Wolff.
  BEXHILL AND ROTHERFIELD RAIL WAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lafone and Mr. Wanklyn.
  BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain, Sir Benjamin Stone, and Mr. Parkes.
  BLACKPOOL IMPROVEMENT.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Secretary Sir Matthew White Ridley and Mr. Maden.
  BOOTLE CORPORATION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Colonel Sandys and Lord Stanley.
  BRADFORD TRAMWAYS AND IM PROVEMENT.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Captain Greville, Mr. Wanklyn, and Mr. Flower.
  BRIGG URBAN DISTRICT GAS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir James Woodhouse and Mr. Harold Reckitt.
  BROMPTON AND PICCADILLY CIRCUS RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alban Gibbs and Mr. Whitmore.
  BRYNMAWR AND WESTERN VALLEYS RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Frederic Morgan, Mr. Charles Morley, and Mr. M'Kenna.
  BURLEY-IN-WHARFEDALE URBAN DISTRICT WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Fison and Mr. Wyvill
  CARDIFF RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Lord Edmund Talbot and Mr. Alfred Thomas.
  CENTRAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lyttleton and Mr. Boulnois.
  CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to he brought in by Sir Reginald Hanson and Mr. Alban Gibbs.
  CHARING CROSS, EUSTON, AND HAMP STEAD RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Henry Fowler and Mr. Bonsor.
  CITY AND BRIXTON RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alban Gibbs, Mr. Hubbard, and Mr. Bond.
  CLAY CROSS WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Walter Foster, Mr. Jacoby, Mr. T. D. Bolton, and Mr. Thomas Bayley.
  CORK CORPORATION (FINANCE).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to b4-brought in by Mr. Maurice Healey and Mr. James F. X. O'Brien.
  COUNTY OF LONDON AND BRUSH PRO VINCIAL ELECTRIC LIGHTING.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Boulnois and Sir Weetman Pearson.
  CROWBOROUGH DISTRICT GAS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Brookfield and Mr. Loder.
  CROWBOROUGH DISTRICT WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Brookfield and Mr. Loder.
  DARWEN CORPORATION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir William Hornby and Mr. Rutherford.
  DERBY CORPORATION TRAMWAYS, ETC.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Henry Bemrose and Mr. Drage.
  DERBY CORPORATION WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Henry Bemrose, Mr. Drage, and Mr. Jacoby.
  DUBLIN CORPORATION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hemphill, Mr. John Redmond, Mr. Field, Mr. Harrington, Mr. T. M. Healy, and Mr. Carew.
  DUBLIN CORPORATION (MARKETS).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Campbell, Mr. John Redmond, Mr. Field, Mr. T. M. Healy, Mr. Harrington, and Mr. Carew.
  DUBLIN IMPROVEMENT (BULL ALLEY AREA).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Carew, Mr. Harrington, Mr. James Campbell, and Mr. Field.
  EAST LONDON WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Colonel Lockwood, Mr. Banbury, and Mr. Boulnois.
  EAST LONDON WATER (TEMPORARY SUPPLY).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Colonel Lockwood, Mr. Banbury, and Mr. Boulnois.
  EDINBURGH CORPORATION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. M'Ewan, Mr. Robert Wallace (Edinburgh), Sir Lewis M'Iver, and Mr. Cox.
  FISHGUARD AND ROSSLARE RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David MacIver, Sir John Dillwyn Llewelyn, and Mr. Maurice Healy.
  FISHGUARD WATER AND GAS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by General Laurie and Mr. David Randell.
  GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Boulnois and Mr. Aird.
  GATESHEAD AND DISTRICT TRAM WAYS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in Mr. Atherley-Jones and Mr. Boulnois.
  GLASGOW CORPORATION TELEPHONES.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Charles Cameron, Mr. Provand, and Mr. Alexander Cross.
  GODALMING CORPORATION WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Brodrick and Sir Seymour King.
  GOOLE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.
  Petition, and Bill 'ordered to be brought in by Sir John Austin and Mr. Wilson-Todd.
  GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be to be brought in by Sir John Maclure and Mr. Henderson.
  GREAT NORTHERN AND STRAND RAIL WAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Fison and Mr. Boulnois.
  GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN AND WATERFORD, LIMERICK, AND WES TERN RAILWAY COMPANIES AMAL GAMATION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hemphill, Mr. Collery, Mr. MacIver, and Mr. Llewellyn.
  GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Horace Plunkett, Mr. Ffrench, Mr. Thomas Healy, Mr. MacIver, and Mr. Llewellyn.
  GREAT WESTERN AND GREAT CEN TRAL RAILWAY COMPANIES.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir William Wills, Mr. Llewellyn, and Mr. Stuart-Wortley.
  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir John Dillwyn-Llewel-lvn and Sir William Wills.
  HARROW AND UXBRIDGE RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Frederick Dixon-Hart-land and Mr. William Ambrose.
  HIGHLAND WATER POWER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nicol, Mr. Gordon, and Colonel Denny.
  HORSFORTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (WATER).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Priestly and Mr. Law-son Walton.
  HORSFORTH WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jackson and Sir James Kitson.
  ILFORD GAS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Woods and Mr. Louis Sinclair.
  ILFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL GAS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Louis Sinclair and Colonel Lockwood.
  IONIAN BANK.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Courtney and Mr. Usborne.
  KENSINGTON AND NOTTING HILL ELECTRIC LIGHTING.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Samuel Montagu and Mr. Rider.
  KINGSCOURT, KEADY, AND ARMAGH RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. M. Healy, Mr. Daly, and Mr. John Redmond.
  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAIL WAY (NEW RAILWAYS).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir William Hornby, Mr. Cawley, and Mr. Ascroft.
  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAIL WAY (VARIOUS POWERS).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir William Hornby, Mr. Knowles, and Mr. Ascroft.
  LEEDS CORPORATION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jackson, Mr. Herbert Gladstone, Sir James Kitson, and Mr. Walton.
  LEICESTER CORPORATION WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Broadhurst and Mr. Hazell.
  LEICESTER, GROBY, AND BRADGATE PARK RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Johnson-Ferguson, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Hazell, and Mr. Henderson.
  LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCKS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Donald Currie and Mr. Cox.
  LINCOLN AND EAST COAST RAILWAY AND DOCK.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Anstruther and Mr. Pollock.
  LISBURN TOWN COMMISSIONERS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir James Haslett and Mr. Macartney.
  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAIL WAY (ADDITIONAL POWERS).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir William Houldsworth, Colonel Lockwood, and Mr. Macartney.
  LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY (NEW RAILWAYS).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir William Houldsworth, Colonel Lockwood, and Mr. Macartney.
  LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY (PENSIONS).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Loder and Mr. Pym.
  LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Loder and Mr. Pym.
  LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Akers-Douglas and Mr. Wyndham.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Stuart and Mr. John Burns.
  LONDONDERRY AND LOUGH SWILLY RAILWAY).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arthur O'Connor and Mr. Thomas B. Curran.
  LONDON IMPROVEMENTS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Stuart, Mr. John Burns, and Mr. Cohen.
  LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Atherley-Jones and Mr. William Abraham (Cork).
  LONDON, WALTHAMSTOW, AND EPPING FOREST RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Wanklyn and Mr. Lafone.
  LONDON WATER (FINANCE).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Stuart, Mr. Sydney Buxton, and Mr. Moulton.
  LONDON WATER (PURCHASE).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Stuart, Mr. Sydney Buxton, and Mr. Moulton.
  MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by the Marquess of Lome, Sir William Houldsworth, Mr. Schwann, Sir James Fergusson, and Mr. Galloway.
  MENSTONE WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Wyvill and Sir Fortescue Flannery.
  METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir William Hart Dyke, Mr. Boulnois, and Colonel Lockwood.
  MIDLAND AND SOUTH-WESTERN JUNCTION RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bathurst and Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice.
  MIDLAND AND SOUTH-WESTERN JUNCTION RAILWAY (NORTHERN SECTION).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir John Dorington and Mr. Bathurst.
  MIDLAND RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Frederick Mappin and Mr. Allison.
  MILTON CREEK CONSERVANCY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Akers-Douglas, Mr. Hardy, Mr. Barnes, and Sir Horatio Davies.
  NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENT.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Charles Hamond and Mr. Cruddas.
  NEW MILLS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (WATER).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. de Tatton Egerton, Mr. Tollemache, and Mr. Bromley-Davenport.
  NORTH PEMBROKESHIRE AND FISHGUARD RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir John Dillwyn Llewelyn and Mr. David MacIver.
  NORTH-WEST LONDON RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Edward Hoare, Mr. Boulnois, Sir Samuel Scott, and Mr. William Ambrose.
  NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Lord Henry Bentinck, Mr. Bond, and Mr. Yoxall.
  NUNEATON AND CHILVERS COTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Newdigate and Mr. Muntz.
  OTLEY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Priestley and Mr. Alfred Hutton.
  REDDITCH GAS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Colonel Long and Mr. Bill.
  RHONDDA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alfred Thomas and Mr. William Abraham (Rhondda).
  ST. DAVID'S WATER AND GAS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by General Laurie and Mr. Randell.
  ST. JAMES'S AND PALL MALL ELECTRIC LIGHT.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lyttelton and Mr. Butcher.
  SCUNTHORPE URBAN DISTRICT GAS AND WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harold Reckitt, Mr. Doughty, and Mr. Perks.
  SHEFFIELD CORPORATION (DER WENT VALLEY) WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Stuart-Wortley, Sir Howard Vincent, Mr. Batty Langley, and Mr. Maddison.
  SHEFFIELD CORPORATION MARKETS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Stuart-Wortley, Sir Howard Vincent, Mr. Batty Langley, and Mr. Maddison.
  SHIREBROOK AND DISTRICT GAS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Thomas Bayley and Sir Frederick Milner.
  SHOTLEY BRIDGE AND CONSETT DISTRICT GAS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Atherley-Jones and Sir James Joicey.
  SOUTH-EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY COMPANIES.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Akers-Douglas, Mr. Bonsor, Colonel Mellor, and Mr. George Wyndham.
  SOUTH-EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAIL WAY COMPANIES (NEW LINES).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Akers-Douglas and Mr. Bonsor.
  SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bonsor and Colonel Mellor.
  SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE STIPEN DIARY JUSTICES.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Henry Fowler, Sir Alfred Hickman, and Mr. Gibbons.
  STOCKPORT CORPORATION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Melville and Mr. George Whiteley.
  STOCKPORT CORPORATION WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Melville and Mr. George Whiteley.
  STOCKPORT DISTRICT WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. George Whiteley and Mr. Melville.
  TAFF VALE RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Edward Hill and Mr. Alfred Thomas.
  TELEGRAPH ACT (1892) AMENDMENT.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir John Lubbock, Colonel Denny, Mr. David MacIver, and Mr. Perks.
  TENTERDEN RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Laurence Hardy and Colonel Mellor.
  THAMES FERRY (GREENWICH TO MILL WALL).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Wanklyn and Mr. Lafone.
  UXBRIDGE AND RICKMANSWORTH RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Llewellyn, Mr. Atherley-Jones, and Mr. Bryn Roberts.
  VALE OF GLAMORGAN RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alfred Thomas and Mr. David Thomas.
  WALKER AND WALLSEND UNION GAS (ELECTRIC LIGHTING).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Charles Palmer, Mr. Cruddas, and Mr. Joseph Pease.
  WARRINGTON CORPORATION.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in Mr. Pierpoint, Mr. Oldroyd and Sir Joseph Leese.
  WATERFORD AND CENTRAL IRELAND RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James Campbell and Mr. T. M. Healy.
  WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Llewellyn and Mr. Colston.
  WEST METROPOLITAN RAILWAY.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bill and Sir John Maclure.
  WEST MIDDLESEX WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Boulnois and Sir Frederick Mappin.
  WETHERBY DISTRICT WATER.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Colonel Gunter and Mr. Clough.
  WOKING WATER AND GAS.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir John Baker and Mr. Cohen.
  WOODHOUSE AND CONISBROUGH RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arnold and Mr. Billson.
  WORCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL.
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Colonel Long, Mr. Baldwin, and Mr. J. W. Wilson.
  BELFAST CORPORATION.
  Petition for Bill; referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  COATBRIDGE AND AIRDRIE LIGHT RAILWAY.
  Petition for Bill; referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  LANCASHIRE ELECTRIC POWER.
  Petition for Bill; referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  LEICESTERSHIRE AND WARWICK SHIRE ELECTRIC SUPPLY.
  Petition for Bill; referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  LONDON WATER (WELSH RESERVOIRS AND WORKS).
  Petition for Bill; referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  SOUTH LANCASHIRE AND CHESHIRE ELECTRICITY COMPANY.
  Petition for Bill; referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  INEBRIATES ACT, 1898.
  Two Petitions from Patricroft, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  Two Petitions from Croydon, for extension to women; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW RELIEF (DISFRANCHISE MENT).
  Petition from Malton, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—from Aston; Beccles; Birmingham (five); Winson Green (two); Norwich (two); Barnstaple; Lynton (three); Landkey; Old Newton; Topsham; Thursby; Stowmarket; and, Milton next Sitting-bourne (two); to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION ACT, 1898.
  Petitions for repeal;—from Wang-ford; Whitby; Newport Pagnell; Barnstaple; Portsea; Tiverton; and Thirsk; to lie upon the Table.
  VIVISECTION.
  Petition from Bath, for prohibition; to lie upon the Table.
  REVENUES OF CYPRUS.
  Return presented,—relative thereto (ordered August 11th, 1898; Mr. Pierpoint); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 42.)
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  GREEK LOAN.
  Account presented,—of Moneys paid out of the Consolidated Fund for Interest and Sinking Fund on that part of the Greek Loan guaranteed by this Country and of the amount repaid by the Greek Government on account of the same to December 31st 1898 (by Act); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 43.)
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DE PARTMENTS (APPROPRIATION ACCOUNTS).
  Appropriation Accounts presented,—for the year ending March 31st 1898, together with the Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon, and certain Reports upon Store Accounts (by Act); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 44.)
  ARMY (ORDNANCE FACTORIES) (APPRO PRIATION ACCOUNT).
  Appropriation Accounts presented,—of the sums granted by Parliament for the expense of the Ordnance Factories, the productions of which have been charged to other Votes for the year ended March 31st, 1898, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon (by Act); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No, 45.)
  ARMY (APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT).
  Copy presented,—of the Appropriation Account for 1897ߝ8, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon, etc. (by Act); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 46.)
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 AND 1896.
  Copy presented,—of Two Orders, dated respectively the 7th and 10th February 1899, prohibiting conveyance of Animals by the Steamships "Ulverston" and "J. W. Taylor" (by Act); to lie upon the Table.
  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CON DITIONAL LICENSE).
  Copy presented,—of License granted to Camilla Nicholls, a Convict under detention in Wormwood Scrubs Prison, permitting her to leave prison on condition of her proceeding to Westminster Hospital, there to remain for such time as is necessary to undergo an operation, and afterwards to return in custody to Wormwood Scrubs Prison (by Act); to lie upon the Table.
  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CON DITIONAL LICENSE).
  Copy presented,—of License granted to Alice Holmes alias Wilson, a convict under detention in Knutsford Prison, permitting her to be at large on condition that she enter Saint Mary's Home, Wantage, Berkshire (by Act); to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented,—of Further Regulations relating to the Army Reserve (by Act); to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (MILITIA).
  Copy presented,—of Further Regulations relating to the Militia (by Act); to lie upon the Table.
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.
  Accounts presented,—for the year ended March 31st, 1898, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon (by Act); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 47.)
  AGRICULTURAL RATES, CONGESTED DISTRICTS, AND BURGH LAND TAX RELIEF (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented,—of Return showing Valuations, Amounts Certified, and Annual Amounts Distributed (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented,—of Banking and Railway Statistics (Ireland) to 31st December 1898 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1877.
  Copy presented,—of Order in Council, dated February 3rd 1899, giving effect to provisional Rules of Court relating to Election Petitions, under the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898 (by Act); to lie upon the Table.
PAPERS LAID ON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  LUNACY.
  Copy of Return of all sums received by the visitors of lunatics for travelling expenses, or upon any other account, from 1st January to 31st December 1898 (by Act); Copy of Report to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made, the number of patients seen, and the number of miles travelled by the visitors of lunatics between 1st July and 30th September 1898 (by Act).
  BANK OF ENGLAND.
  Copy of all Applications made by the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England for advances to Government authorised by Parliament, from 5th January 1898 to 5th January 1899 (by Act).
  COLONIAL PRODUCE OF SPIRITS (RESTRICTIONS).
  Return ordered, "showing the precise nature of the local excise restrictions to which Producers of Spirits in Her Majesty's Colonies are at present subject."—{Mr. W. F. Lawrence.)
QUESTIONS.

  H.M.S. "BULWARK."
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty when the "Bulwark" was laid down at Devonport; whether she is on the slip on which she is to be built; and what has been the result of the inquiry of last year as to the wisdom of providing additional slips for building battleships in Her Majesty's Dockyards?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): The work on the "Bulwark" has been started by fitting together certain portions of the structure on a slipway, adjoining the one upon which she will be laid down as soon as the "Implacable" is launched early next month. Information with regard to the last paragraph of the right honourable Baronet's Question will be given when the Estimates are laid before Parliament.

  SUPPLEMENTARY NAVAL PROGRAMME.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the position as regards order for construction or construction of the large (14,000 ton) cruisers of the Supplementary Naval Programme of last Session?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The orders for two of these cruisers, to be built under the Supplementary Naval Programme were placed on the 21st and 24th January—one with the Fairfield Company, Glasgow, and one with Messrs. Vickers and Co., Barrow. Tenders for the remaining two cruisers will be invited shortly. They will be of a different type and smaller size.

ATHERSTONE LEVEL CROSSING.
MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now considered the many representations made to him
656
complaining of the loss of time and the inconvenience and delay caused at Atherstone level crossing, where hundreds of trains are daily required to reduce their speed to four miles an hour, owing to the injunction obtained by the Warwickshire County Council; and whether he will recommend that this level crossing should be closed, and that traffic pass by the subway, or a bridge be constructed over the railway?
MR. NEWDIGATE: Before the right honourable Gentleman answers the Question I wish to ask him one of which I have sent him private notice—namely, whether he is aware that on more than one occasion during the last few years numerously-signed petitions have been presented to the London and North western Railway Company from the inhabitants of Atherstone and the surrounding neighbourhood, pointing out the great inconvenience and danger of this crossing; and is it not the fact that the cost of a bridge would probably be only £10,000, or, at the out side, £13,000; and whether the Lon don and North-Western Railway Company—
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member is exceeding the proper limits of a Question.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): The Board of Trade are fully aware of the inconvenience to both the travelling public and to the road traffic by the unfortunate dispute between the London and North-Western Railway and the County Council. The Board have no powers in the matter, and the County Council have obtained a decision of a Court of Law in their favour.
MR. CHANNING: In the event of similar cases arising will the right honourable Gentleman consider the possibility of acquiring powers of dealing with them by legislation?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I do not think there is anything which has come to my knowledge to justify me in asking the House to change the law with regard to this thing.

TRADES UNION FUNDS.
MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has further considered the question of extending the statutory limit of the amount which may be deposited by trades unions in Consols; and whether he will consent to place the trades unions in the same position in this respect as the friendly societies.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH,): I understand the question of the honourable Member to refer to the deposit of trades union funds in savings banks, as there is of course no restrictions on the purchase of Consols in the open market. On the 15th of December last I received a deputation from the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress on this subject. explained to them the reasons which made it difficult to treat trades unions on the same lines as ordinary friendly or provident societies, and indicated the manner in which, in my opinion, these difficulties might be lessened. I understood that the Parliamentary Committee would further consider the matter on the lines I suggested, with the object of submitting to me a definite proposal. This proposal I have not as yet received.

IRISH LETTERS OF PROBATE.
MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, in regard to resealing in England Irish letters of probate and administration, is he aware that some English Insurance Companies will not pay claims in Ireland under policies unless the process of resealing, which devolves delay and expense, has been gone through; and, whether he will recommend such a change in the law as will make this practice illegal?
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr ATKINSON,): The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. A general change in the law relating to the administration of assets of deceased persons would be necessary to effect the object of the honourable Member. This I cannot undertake to recommend.
MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland will he explain why probate taken out in England is acted upon in Ireland, but probate taken out in Ireland is not acted upon in England?
MR. ATKINSON: The honourable Member is under a misapprehension. Under the 94th Section of the 20 and 21 Vict. cap. 79, probates granted in England can be resealed and acted upon in Ireland, just as under the 95th Section of the same Act, probates granted in Ireland can be resealed and acted upon in England.

RAILWAY COMPANIES AND TRADE UNIONS.
CAPTAIN, GREVILLE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the complaints made by the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants as to the alleged dismissal of certain members of their body by various railway companies on account of the trade union action of such servants; and, whether he will institute an inquiry into any specific cases which may be brought before him?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: Yes, Sir, as I informed the honourable Member for North Manchester last Friday, communications are still in progress with reference to the matter.

JUTE v. LINEN GOODS.
MR. DALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Messrs. Jones Brothers, Holloway, London, were recently convicted for selling jute goods for linen; and, whether he has taken any steps since the conviction of Messrs. Jones to prevent jute goods being sold as linen to the detriment of one of the remaining industries of Ireland?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I have seen a report of the case referred to. The decision is now,

659
I believe, the subject of appeal. In cases in which a false trade description is applied to linen, the existing law would seem quite adequate to protect the industry.

CHINESE CONCESSIONS.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have received from the French Government communication of the notes addressed by the Tsung li Yamên to M. Dubail, Chargé d'Affaires of the French Republic at Pekin on 9th April 1898, and published in the French Yellow Book in October last, whereby the Chinese Government gives to the French Government an assurance similar in terms to that given to Her Majesty's Government relative to the Yang-tsze region, that the three provinces of Kwang Tung, Kwang-si, and Yunnan bordering on Tonkin will not be ceded or leased to any other Power, and whereby the Chinese Government further grants to the French Government the right to construct a railway from the frontier of Tonkin to Yunnan-fu and undertakes to grant the land required for that purpose, and is addition gives to the French Government a lease of 99 years of the Bay of Kwang-tcheou-ouan as a naval station; and, whether Her Majesty's Government are now able to lay upon the Table o; the House papers relating to those matters and to Chinese affairs generally or, if not now able, when they expect to be able to do so?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (MR. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): Tin cotes in question have not been communicated to us either by the French o Chinese Government. Further paper relating to China will be presented a soon as possible. The voluminous character of the correspondence will cause some little delay in issuing them.

WEI-HAI-WEI.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have now received the reports of the officers sent to Wei-Hai-Wei to make surveys and to obtain information, and whether he is now able to give any information as to the plans of Her Majesty's Government with regard to that port, and especially as to whether they propose to fortify and garrison it; and whether Her Majesty's Government propose to communicate to this House, before carrying them into effect, any plans they may finally form for dealing with Wei-Hai-Wei?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: Yes, the reports have been received. The question of the defences of the Island and the necessary garrison to man them is far advanced, and practically ripe for decision. Financial authority will have to be obtained in one form or another for any necessary expense, so that the proposals of the Government must necessarily come before the House of Commons. Certain provisions, on a moderate scale, with regard to Wei-Hai-Wei, will be included in the Navy Estimates.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Do I understand the right honourable Gentleman to say the Government have decided to fortify and garrison Wei-Hai-Wei?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I have stated that the question of defences is far advanced and practically ripe for decision.

WAIMA.
MR. BILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to an article by M. Lavisse, a distinguished member of the French Academy, in the Revue de Paris for this month, in which it is stated that the geographical position of Waima has been determined to be in Liberia, and not in the Protectorate of Sierra Leone, and whether Her Majesty's Government accept that statement as correct; whether Her Majesty's Government have agreed

661
with the Government of the French Republic to treat a collision which occurred between English and French troops at N'Compah, in the Colony of the Gambia, as a set-off against the Waima affair; and, if so, what was the date of that incident, and what were the casualties to the respective forces; and in what way do Her Majesty's Government now propose to secure adequate compensation to the families of the officers and men killed at Waima in December 1893.
MB. BRODRICK: 1. The attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the article mentioned. Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to accept the statements contained in it as correct. Waima has been proved to be situated about twelve miles on the British side of the frontier. 2. The answer is in the negative. 3. A claim has been made on the French Government for compensation, and any case of urgency will be considered.

WAGES AT HAULBOWLINE.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, seeing that the men employed at Haulbowline receive lower wages than those engaged in similar work in Great Britain, he will equalise the pay of these employees; and whether he can arrange that more work be given to Haulbowline, and that it will be done by the Directors of Works Department, and not by contractors who pay still lower wages and carry the men to and from their work in old and inferior boats?
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMI RALTY (Mr. W. E. MACARTNEY,): The assumption in the first paragraph of the honourable Member's Question is not admitted. There is no intention, therefore, of altering the rates of pay at Haulbowline, which compare favourably with those paid in other Dockyards. I am glad to say that the work carried out at Haulbowline has been considerably extended of late, and if the necessities of the service require it the capacity of the yard will be fully considered. The work of the
662
Director of Works Department will be carried out by the Department or by contract, as is most convenient, and I may remind the honourable Member that the Fair Wages Clause is inserted in all contracts.
DR. TANNER: Will the honourable Gentleman answer the last paragraph; will the suggestion there made be carried into effect?
[No Reply.]

SLAVERY IN ZANZIBAR.
MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to the Correspondence printed in Africa (No. 6, 1898), whether Her Majesty's Government has sanctioned Sir A. Hardinge's action, as reported by him on 5th July 1897, in reprimanding the missionaries near Mombasa for harbouring runaway slaves; what precautions are being taken, in accordance with the Secretary of State's instructions to Sir A. Hardinge of 15th December 1897, to prevent the slaveholders thereby sanctioned to recapture their runaway slaves from seizing the wrong persons or cruelly treating their captives; and whether the conditions of paid labour under contract which, in the Secretary of State's Dispatch of 29th June 1898, the Sultan of Zanzibar is commended for having substituted for the servile status, are such as to secure for the servants freedom of contract?
MR. BRODRICK: The words used by Sir Arthur Hardinge were not regarded by the Secretary of State as being in the nature of a reprimand, and no action was necessary on them. Every precaution is taken against cruel treatment of slaves or the capture of wrong persons. British officials are not permitted to restore slaves who have escaped from their masters. Recent advices from Zanzibar show that emancipated slaves are freely contracting with their former masters and with others.

FAIR RENTS IN WEST WICKLOW.
MR. JAMES O'CONNOE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that several tenants residing in Donard and Kil-baylet, West Wicklow, more than two years ago lodged notices to have fair rents fixed; and that the cases are still unheard by the Sub-Commissioners; and can he explain what is the cause of the long delay, and when the cases are likely to be dealt with?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD W. BALFOUR,): There are no applications to fix fair rents from the district mentioned in the first paragraph pending for so long a period as that stated. There are only four cases not yet listed for hearing from this district, and the applications in these cases were received by the Land Commission between the 23rd June and 9th November 1897. They will appear on the next list for the district, but no definite date has yet been fixed for the next sitting of a Sub-Commission for the district.

PHARMACY ACTS.
DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lientenant of Ireland whether he is aware that persons convicted of offences under the Pharmacy Acts can and have placed themselves outside these Acts through their incorporation under the Companies Acts, and whether companies can be registered to do acts for which qualification by education and examination is required by Parliament; and whether the Government will take into account and remedy these grievances complained of by the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The matter complained of formed the subject, last year, of a correspondence between the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland and the Select Committee of the House of Lords on the Companies Acts Amendment Bill. The subject appears to be one calling for considera-
664
tion when any amendment of the law is proposed affecting Great Britain and Ireland as a whole.
DR. TANNER: When may we expect some outcome?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am unable to say.

SANITARY RATES IN IRELAND.
MR TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Local Government Board have issued a circular to the various Boards of Guardians, inviting them to make charges on contributory areas for sanitary purposes union at large charges; and whether, inasmuch as Sub-section 9, Section 54, of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, makes the landlords liable for half the sanitary rate as at present, the Local Government Board in their circular have directed the attention of the Boards of Guardians to this provision.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Local Government Board recently issued a circular to Rural Sanitary Authorities suggesting the desirability of making the future area of charge for all small sanitary expenses the entire rural district, so as to reduce the possibility of complication in the County Accounts, and to effect other objects in harmony with the spirit of the Act. The incidence of the rate for sanitary purposes does not appear to be affected by the enlargement of the area over which the rate is to be levied, and as the Board's circular does not interfere with the right of tenants to make the deduction from rent referred to in Section 54 (9) of the Act, it was not considered necessary to deal with this question in the circular.

CORK CITY ORDNANCE SURVEY MAP.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture as to the date when the present 6-inch Ordnance Map of the city

665
of Cork was published; and when the revised 6-inch map of the city was published?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG,): The present 6-inch map of the city of Cork was published in 1876. It is not possible for me as yet to fix a date for the issue of the revised 6-inch map, which is dependent on the progress made with the 25-inch re-survey. The 5-foot plans of the city were revised in 1890–3, and have been published.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman if there are any other cases where a community of the importance of Cork has to be content with an ordnance map 20 years old?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: I am afraid there are other cases, but I am doing all I can to expedite the re-survey.

ABERDEEN POST OFFICE.
MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he can inform the House when the plans for the new post office buildings in Aberdeen will be completed and submitted to the Aberdeen Town Council; and whether, in view of the fact that the properties on which the proposed building is to take place were acquired by the Government eighteen months ago, and that the tenants, with the exception of two, quitted them in May of last year, he can explain the delay which is taking place in undertaking the work and the consequent loss to the country?
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): In reply to the honourable Member, the sketch plans for the new post office buildings at Aberdeen are completed. The site was, not actually acquired until Whit-Sunday last, and considering that the plans had to be, prepared in consultation with the Post Office Department, I cannot consider that any undue delay has occurred.

THE ST. HELEN'S OUTRAGE.
Mr. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the case of a child six years old, the daughter of a collier named Flaherty, who was outraged and then murdered near St. Helen's in December last, what steps were taken by the local police to discover the author of the crime; whether the Home Office supplemented these steps; and, if so, in what manner; and whether any clue of any kind has been obtained up to the present to lead to a hope that the murderer may be discovered?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M, WHITE RIDLEY,): Careful inquiry has been and is still being made by the police into this dreadful affair, but hitherto, I understand, without result. I am not aware how the Home Office could profitably supplement the steps taken by them.
MR. DAVITT: May I ask whether it has occurred to the Home Office to offer a reward in connection with this case?
THE HOME SECRETARY: We do not offer rewards in these cases. It has been found by long experience that the offering of rewards does more harm than good.

QUICK-FIRING GUNS.
MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what progress has been made in arming the Horse and Field Batteries with quick-firing guns?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. G. WYNDHAM,): Steps have been taken to convert all Horse and Field Batteries to a quick-firing system. The issue of these converted Batteries will commence next month, and be completed with the least possible delay.

THE WEARING OF THE SHAMROCK BY SOLDIERS.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether any change has been made during the past year in the military regulations with regard to the wearing of shamrock by Irish soldiers on St. Patrick's Day, with a view to prevent punishment being inflicted on soldiers who may desire to wear the Irish National favour on that day; and, if so, whether he has any objection to say what these changes are, and whether they will come into operation on St. Patrick's Day next month?
MR. WYNDHAM: In accordance with the reply given to a Question put by the honourable Member on the 28th February last year, paragraph 1953 was introduced into the Queen's Regulations to the effect that no officer or soldier is to wear any unauthorised ornament or emblem when in uniform, unless expressly permitted by his superior officer to do so. All soldiers will therefore be aware that they must apply to their superior officer for permission.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: May I ask whether it will still be possible for soldiers to be given seven days' cells for wearing the shamrock?
MR. MACNEILL: As there are 21,000 Irish soldiers, will the honourable Gentleman have this answer printed and exhibited at every recruiting station in Ireland?
[No reply.]

IRISH PROVISIONAL ORDERS.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the Resolution of the Killiney and Ballybrack Urban District Council, and the letter of the Chairman, Mr. Joseph Ward, which says that the cost of borrowing £629 from the Local Government Board for the purchase of land for the erection of artizans' dwellings, built at the instigation of the Local Government Board, amounted to £250, and that £124 6s. 9d.
668
of that sum represented the cost of a Provisional Order and Confirmation Act; and whether this statement of the total cost is correct; and, if so, whether the Government intend to introduce any legislation to relieve the ratepayers of such burdens, and remove the obstacle which such heavy charges for borrowing place in the way of local authorities providing dwellings for artizans in Ireland?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The amount of the loan estimated to be required for the purpose of carrying out this scheme was £3,000. The costs charged by the Local Government Board to the Killiney township for the Provisional Order of 1898 amounted to £54. This sum covered the Local Government Board's advertising and shorthand writers' notes, arbitrator's fees, and law costs in connection with the preparation of the Order. I may take this opportunity of stating that the Irish Government have arranged to have the Bills for confirming Irish Provisional Orders carried through Parliament in future at the expense of the Local Government Board for Ireland, so far as such Bills are and continue to be unopposed.

DEATH DUTIES.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, has he considered the question whether Estate Duty is charged by the Finance Act, 1894, at the death of a life tenant of settled property who has surrendered his life interest in such property within twelve months of his death; has he taken the opinion upon that question of the Law Officers of the Crown; and, if so, will he state the general effect of that opinion; and does he, having regard to the language used by the Attorney-General in the Court of Appeal during the case of Attorney-General v. Beech, propose to take into the High Court the question whether the duty is payable in such cases with the contention on behalf of the Crown that it is so payable; and, if so, will he, as was done in the case of the Attorney-General v. Beech, undertake to pay the reasonable costs of both sides incurred in obtaining a final judicial decision on this question?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: This is a legal Question on which my view is of no value. Nor do I think it could be settled by taking the opinion of the Law Officers—for even the present Law Officers are fallible, and the opinion of the late Law Officers on the case that has been already decided has been shown to have been wrong. I think the Question must go to the High Court, and, as it is really a part of the same matter as the case referred to, I think the Inland Revenue would be justified in paying reasonable costs in the same way as in that case.

RELIEF WORKS AND MEMBERSHIP OF IRISH COUNCILS.
MR. ROBERT AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, under the Order in Council made under the Local Government (Ireland) Act of 1898, a person who has obtained employment on the relief works recently carried out in the congested districts is disqualified for being elected or being a member of a council established by the Act if he has been so employed within twelve months of the date of election?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Section 4 of the Outdoor Relief (Ireland) Act, 1898, provides that no electoral disability or loss of any Parliamentary or other franchise shall be incurred by any person by reason of a grant of outdoor relief having been made to him under that Act or by reason of any such grant ratified under that Act. The intention of the clause was to protect from disqualification under the circumstances mentioned, and I believe that to be its effect.

LOUGH CORRIB FISHERIES.
MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries propose to enact a bye-law prohibiting the use of cross lines in Lough Corrib and its tributaries; is he aware that a petition
670
against the bye-law has been presented by 42 fishermen, who state that for the past 50 years fishing with cross lines has been carried on; and whether, in view of the face, that the district is a very poor one, and a large number of these men are solely dependent upon the fishing for the maintenance of themselves and their families, he will interfere to prevent the confirmation of the bye-law?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The fact is as stated in the first paragraph. The petition of the fishermen aganst the confirmation of the proposed bye-law was heard before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council at its meeting held on the 4th instant, when the fishermen were represented by counsel. The decision of the Judicial Committee will come before the Privy Council at an early date, but I have no power to interfere in the matter as suggested at the conclusion of the Question.

LIGHT RAILWAYS IN COUNTY CORK.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received resolutions from the inhabitants of Carrignavar and Whitechurch, near Cork, pressing for State assistance for the construction of a light railway through that district to connect with the city of Cork at one end and the Rathduff Station of the Great Southern and Western Railway at the other; and whether, as the funds at the disposal of the Government for railway development in Ireland are now exhausted, and in view of the fact that all the moneys voted for the purpose under the Railways (Ireland) Act, 1896, were spent in one county in the north-west of Ireland, he will introduce legislation enabling something to be done for light railway development in the south of Ireland.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Copies of the resolutions referred to in the first paragraph have been received. It is not correct to say that the whole of the money provided by the Railways Act of 1896 has been expended in one county in the north-west of Ireland. I cannot at present undertake to introduce legislation of the kind suggested in the second paragraph of the Question.

THE LADIES' GALLERY.
COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the trial and strain to the eyes caused by looking for any long time through the heavy lattice-work screen of the Ladies' Gallery; and whether he can gee his way, by making the screen lighter or more open, to remedy this inconvenience?
MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: The question of the "grille" in front of the Ladies' Gallery is no new one, having been often under consideration; and I regret that I cannot promise to make any alteration.

RENT DECREES AT CARRICKMACROSS QUARTER SESSIONS.
MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many decrees for rent and possession were obtained by landlords at the Quarter Sessions held at Carrickmacross in October 1896, 1897, and 1898, also at Castle-blaney in Octosber and January 1896, 1897, and 1898, and January 1899, and at Coothill in January 1896, 1897, 1898, and 1899; and, if he can also state the number of decrees obtained by the. Irish Land Commission against tenants at Car rickmacross and Castleblaney for dates mentioned above?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have not yet received full reports enabling me to give the honourable Member the information he desires to-day. In any case, the reports will deal with a mass of figures which it would be inconvenient to read in the form of an Answer to a Question, and as soon as I am in possession of complete reports I will privately communicate the figures to the honourable Member.

TITHE RENT-CHARGE.
MR. J. G. TALBOT: On behalf of the noble Lord the honourable Member for Rochester, I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government intend to make
672
any proposal to Parliament in order to carry out the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation that immediate relief should be given to owners of tithe rent-charge not severed from the benefice pending a complete settlement of the rating question?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): My right honourable Friend requests me to answer this Question. The Government do intend to make a proposal to Parliament on the subject, but the decision as to what the precise terms of the proposal shall be is not rendered more easy by the fact that the Royal Commission have not made any recommendation as to the means by which what is universally admitted to be a grievance should be remedied.
MR. LEIGHTON: Can my right honourable Friend say whether the Government proposes to give any relief in the case of tithe rent-charge or funds applied to scholastic or hospital purposes?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I think perhaps any Questions as to the details of the Government proposal should be deferred until the Measure is produced.

PUBLIC HOLIDAYS IN SCOTLAND.
MR. WALLACE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether, in the event of Christmas Day and New Year's Day falling due on Sunday, the statutory public holidays in Scotland are held on the Mondays following; and, if so, why Monday, 26th December, was not recognised as Christmas holiday in Scotland last year?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): In Scotland, as in England and Ireland, six public holidays are observed by the Post Office. In England and Ireland these days are Christmas Day and Good Friday, and four Bank Holidays. In Scotland they are Christmas Day and New Year's Day, or January 2nd when New Year's Day falls on a Sunday, and

673
other days not exceeding four proclaimed by the public authorities. At offices in Scotland where the staff had not already received four holidays corresponding to the four Bank Holidays in England and Ireland, Monday, December 26th, was counted as a Public Holiday, and paid for extra at the authorised rate. But at offices where the staff had already received four such holidays, Monday, December 26th, was treated as an ordinary day. Under any other arrangement the staff in Scotland would have received more favourable treatment than the staff in other parts of the United Kingdom.

THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.
MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of the Treasury whether arrangements have been made, as promised last Session, to distribute free copies of the "Debates" from day to day to such Members who desire to have them; and if so, what steps are necessary in order to procure them?
MB. HANBURY: No such promise was given last Session. It is, however, proposed to arrange as an experiment to issue copies of the "Debates" to such Members as specially apply for them by signing the pink paper in each case.
MR. LOUGH: Daily?
MR. HANBURY: Yes.

NEW ROYAL YACHT.
MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he could state to the House what are the dimensions of the new Royal Yacht building at Pembroke Dockyard, and what is to be her indicated horse-power; whether paddle or screw engines are to be fitted; and what type of boiler is to be employed for the generation of steam?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The dimensions of the new Royal Yacht are: Length between perpendiculars, 380 feet; breadth, 50 feet; displacement, 4,700 tons; indicated
674
horse-power, 11,000. Twin-screw engines have been adopted. Steam will be sup plied by Belleville boilers, fitted with economisers.

BRITISH TRADE WITH MADAGASCAR.
MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the value of British exports to Madagascar during each quarter of the years 1897 and 1898?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: The values of the exports of British and Irish produce from the United Kingdom to Madagascar during the four quarters of 1897 were £34,105, £74,617, £34,770, and £15,118 respectively. In 1898 the corresponding totals were £9,681, £7,773, £10,987, and £6,152. These figures have already been published in the Monthly Accounts of Trade and Navigation for April, July, and October, 1898, and January, 1899, which are accessible to the honourable Member.

ENNIS PRISON.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is intended to reopen Ennis Prison?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The prison at Ennis, which has latterly been used as a lock-up, is no longer to be used as such, but will be adapted to the purposes of a State Inebriate Reformatory under the provisions of the Act of last year.

DISTRESS IN ENNIS.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that great distress exists in the town of Ennis from want of employment; and whether it is the intention of the Irish Government to take any steps in the matter?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed that there is little, if any, destitution of an exceptional kind in the town of Ennis, and certainly none that cannot easily be relieved by means of the existing Poor Laws. The answer to the second paragraph is in the negative.

THE WATERFORD ETC., RAILWAY. COMPANY AND THEIR EMPLOYEES.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the recent letter issued by the Directors of the Waterford, Limerick, and Western Railway Company to their employees in the railway workshops at Limerick, charging the employees with a breach of discipline in taking part with other citizens in opposing the amalgamation of the Waterford, Limerick, and Western Railway Company with the Great Southern and Western Railway Company, and threatening them with serious consequences if their action be repeated; and whether the Board of Trade can in any way interfere to stop such attempts on the part of the railway directors to prevent the exercise by their employees of their rights as citizens in opposing Private Bills before Parliament?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: No, Sir, the Board of Trade cannot interfere in this matter. I think the proceedings of the employees were ill-advised, but I hope the consequences anticipated by the honourable Gentleman will not follow.
MR. J. REDMOND: As the right honourable Gentleman has given his opinion about the acts of the employees will he say whether he does not think that the act of the directors in threatening these men with penalties if they opposed a Bill before Parliament was not also ill-advised?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I think for employees of a railway company to meet and state that they are going to oppose a Bill brought in by the railway company is a course not likely to lead to the efficiency of railway administration, and I think the
676
railway directors were quite justified in expressing their opinion upon such a proceeding.
MR. J. REDMOND: Were they justified in threatening to dismiss men if they opposed a Bill before Parliament?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I think any man would be perfectly justified in oposing a Bill in his private capacity, but I think the directors were quite justified—I do not know exactly what the directors said to the men—but I think they were quite justified in expressing their disapprobation "of such proceedings as are referred to in the Question of the honourable Gentleman.
MR. FIELD: Are we to understand that the Board of Trade are in favour of intimidating the workmen?
MR. P. O'BRIEN: I wish to ask, was it action to be taken by the men in their private or in some other capacity that was complained of by the directors?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I have no knowledge other than that conveyed in the Question. I have already expressed the views I hold on that.

ALLEGED JURY PACKING IN IRELAND.
MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings at the last Winter Assizes held in Cork, when on the trial of four men, Thomas and John Culligan, John Hannahan, and John Riddan, who were charged with wounding Daniel Ryan, near Crusheen, county Clare, not less than 29 gentlemen of the jury panel were ordered to stand by; and, was this proceeding on the part of the Crown Prosecutor adopted with the sanction of the Attorney-General; and, if so, what reason is put forward for challenging this large number of jurors?
MR. ATKINSON: The prisoners mentioned were tried twice. On the first trial the jury disagreed. On the second

677
trial 28 jurors, not 29, were ordered to stand aside; this included several jurors who had served on the first jury. In addition, there was every reason to believe that jurors had been extensively canvassed in this and other cases from the county Clare. The Crown Solicitor, in setting aside the jurors, acted in conformity with the directions contained in the Circular of February, 1894, addressed by the late Government to Crown Solicitors, issued by the late Government. No special instructions were issued by me in the matter. The jurors were set aside because the Crown Solicitor had reason to believe that, if sworn, they would not be likely to give an impartial verdict.
MR. FLYNN: Are we to understand that this invidious practice of jury packing will be continued?
[No reply.]
MR. REDMOND: Will the right honourable Gentleman state the reasons for believing that these men were not capable of giving an impartial verdict if sworn to do so? Does he know of any case in England where 29 jurors have been ordered to stand aside?
MR. ATKINSON: I have nothing to add to my answer. I cannot give the reasons.
MR. W. REDMOND: Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that the ordering of a large number of jurors to stand aside causes a widespread belief amongst the people that justice is not done?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is arguing upon the Question.
MR. FLYNN: What ground has the right honourable Gentleman for believing that the jurors had been canvassed? My personal information is that no such canvassing took place.
DR. TANNER: The right honourable Gentleman has not given us the reason for challenging this large number of jurors.
[No reply.]

CASE OF MICHAEL MINOGUE.
MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that at the last Winter Assizes held in Cork, Michael Minogue, a young lad 15 years of age, indicted for posting a threatening notice, was put on his trial a second time, the jury having disagreed on the first occasion; and, were these proceedings taken with the concurrence of the Law Advisers of the Crown in Ireland?
MR. ATKINSON: It is the fact that the prisoner referred to, who was, as I am informed, 17, and not 15, years of age, was put on his trial a second time, as it has never been understood that the age of a prisoner protects him from a second investigation of the charge against him. The answer to the second paragraph is in the affirmative.
MR. FLYNN: In this case, also, were not a large number of jurors ordered to stand aside, as in the case mentioned in the last Question?
MR. ATKINSON: Not that I am aware of.
MR. W. REDMOND: I call it a scandalous practice.

LEVENSHULME EDUCATIONAL DISPUTE.
MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether, in reply to an application from the parents of 40 children at Levenshulme, near Manchester, to have free places for these children, the Education Department has directed the parents to send their children to the Roman Catholic school, although these parents were Protestants; whether, in the case of the Board schools at Barrowford, some time ago, the Department informed the School Board that Roman Catholic parents were not to send their children for free places at the Board school, bcause it was not suitable for them; and, whether he will state to the House what are the regulations of the Department which justify this different treatment of Protestant and Roman Catholic children?
THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): The answers to paragraphs (1) and (2) are in the negative. There are no such regulations as those asked for in the third paragraph.
MR. CHANNING: I shall put a further Question on this.

BURNHAM NATIONAL SCHOOL.
MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the action of the Vicar of Burnham, Bucks, in compelling the children of the National School to march in procession into church and witness the celebration of the Holy Communion with the ritual of the Roman Mass on the Feast of the Purification of the Virgin Mary; whether he is aware that a number of parents have objected to their children being compelled to attend this service; and whether he will warn the Vicar and Managers that the grant will be withdrawn if such practices are persisted in?
SIR J. GORST: The Committee of Council are not aware of the facts stated in the first paragraph. No complaints have reached the Education Department.
MR. CHANNING: I shall repeat the Question.

OFFICERS' EXPENSES TO INDIA.
GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government have come to any decision regarding the repayment of their travelling expenses to officers who were on leave at home on the recent outbreak of hostilities on the North-West Frontier of India, and who were obliged to rejoin their regiments and to take part in the campaign?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): It has been decided to maintain the rule under which passages are granted only to those officers who are recalled from leave by the Govern-
680
ment of India or the Commander-in-Chief in India. As regards officers who rejoined their regiments from leave during the recent campaign in India, the Commander-in-Chief has been asked to represent any specific case which he deems deserving of special consideration.

BRITISH TRADE IN MADAGASCAR.
MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any, and, if so, what steps have been taken to restore to British commerce in Madagascar the most favoured nation treatment, and to enforce the stipulation that the duty upon British imports shall never exceed an ad valorem duty of 10 per cent.; and whether these privileges to British commerce are not only secured to this country by treaty, but also confirmed by France when, she took over the Protectorate of Madagascar?
MR. BRODRIC: The fullest information on all the points raised is contained in the Madagascar Blue Book, recently laid before Parliament, and I am unable to supplement that Paper by any more recent information.

COAL FOR THE NAVY.
MR. FIRBANK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if Russian naval experiments have yielded good results with' briquettes instead of coal; is there a dense objectionable smoke emitted by the fuel; and is an Admiralty Committee now investigating the entire question of patent fuel, and when will its labours be concluded?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The results obtained on the trials of Russian vessels are not authoritatively known. Some kinds of briquette fuel emit dense smoke; other kinds emit comparatively little smoke. A Departmental Committee is making inquiry into the qualities of various kinds of briquette fuel, but no date can be stated when the investigation will be concluded, as exhaustive trials are contemplated.

WEI-HAI-WEI.
MR. FIRBANK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that Wei-Hai-Wei is without cable communicator with the Admiralty or Hong Kong, and that there is constant risk of interruption by land telegraph, the Government will consider the desirability of laying a cable from Shanghai to Wei-Hai-Wei?
THE FIRST LORD OP THE ADMIRALTY: The important subject of telegraphic communication with Wei-Hai-Wei has not escaped the' attention of Her Majesty's Government, but I have no authority as yet for making a statement on the subject.

POSTAGE BATES FOR PERIODICALS.
MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if he will consider whether a uniform halfpenny postage rate for all periodicals in this country, with some weight limit between two ounces and five pounds, might be adopted without loss to the revenues of the Post Office Department?
MR. HANBURY: Even if a weight limit, say of eight ounces, could be imposed, the admission of all periodicals within that weight to the privilege of the halfpenny rate, irrespetcive of frequency of issue or of the nature of the contents, could not be conceded without extending the concession to books and publications of every kind, and the loss to the revenue which such a measure would involve would be enormous. The whole question was considered by the Postage Rates Committee, to whose report I referred the honourable Member in reply to his Question of Friday last.

BOUNTY-FED SUGAR IN INDIA.
SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the imports into India of bounty-fed sugar are seriously affecting the refining industry and reducing the cultivation of the sugar plant, and consequently the revenues of the Government of India; whether he
682
expects to be able to lay upon the Table at an early date the results of the inquiries now being carried on by the Indian Government as to the extent and effects of the competition of bounty-fed sugar in India; and what steps the Government of India propose to take to prevent the destruction of the industry?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOE INDIA: I have been for some time past in communication with the Government-of India upon the subject of the Question of my honourable Friend, but our correspondence has not yet arrived at a point which enables me to publish it.

INDIAN STAFF CORPS.
SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of any further correspondence which has passed between the Government of India, the India Office, and the Home military authorities on the subject of the retardation of promotion in the Indian Staff Corps?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I have no objection to lay upon the Table of the House the further correspondence regarding promotions in the Staff Corps, if my honourable Friend will move for it.

INDIAN COOLIES AT REUNION.
SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the proposed Convention with France as to the immigration of Indian coolies into Reunion has been ratified; and, if so, whether he will lay a copy of it upon the Table of the House?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOE INDIA: The matter is still under the consideration of the French Government.

FISH OIL SYNDICATE AND VOLENITE COMPANY.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the proceedings of the Fish Oil Syndicate and Volenite Company directors; and

683
whether, under the existing Companies Act, he can cause an inquiry to be instituted respecting those operations?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: The Board of Trade have no authority on their own initiative to institute any such inquiry as that suggested.

HOUSE TENURE ABROAD.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the continuation of Reports (Commercial, No. 36, 1884) by Her Majesty's representatives abroad on the system of tenure of dwelling-houses in the countries in which they reside is being prosecuted, as ordered by the House last Session; and when the Report may be expected?
MR. BRODRICK: All the Reports have been received, and are now in course of preparation to be laid before the House.

WAGES IN THE ELECTRICAL DEPART MENT OF THE HOUSES OF PAR LIAMENT.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the electrical department of the Houses of Parliament has refused to pay and observe the conditions that are recognised and current outside; and whether an employee was discharged because he asked for the current rate of pay?
MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: The answer to the first paragraph of the honourable Member's Question is in the negative. With regard to the second portion, I cannot find that any employee at the Houses of Parliament was discharged on the grounds stated; but one employee, working for a contractor under the Office of Works in electric lighting at St. Stephen's House, was recently discharged on account of the unsatisfactory quality of his work, but not for the reason stated in this Question.

ENNISKILLEN POST OFFICE.
MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, can he state if the Board of Works have yet finished the plans of the new post office for Enniskillen, or what steps have been taken by the Department towards its erection.
MR. HANBURY: The Board of Public Works have not yet completed the final plans for the new head post office at Enniskillen, but the Board are making provision in their estimates for commencing the work of erection during the ensuing financial year.

COMPANY LAW.
MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether he is aware that, owing to the fact that, under the Companies Act of 1862 (s. 69), it is provided that a meeting of shareholders shall be held at least once a year, but no penalty is mentioned for non-compliance with this provision, in the case of several companies meetings are not held once a year, and the shareholders are at the mercy of the directors; and whether he will recommend such an amendment of the Act as will provide a penalty for non-compliance with the section referred to?
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): It is true that there is no penalty for non-compliance with the provisions of section 49, but penalties can be enforced because, by section 26, annual returns have to be made subject to a penalty, and it has been decided that the fact that no meetings have been held affords no answer to proceedings for penalties. Suggestions for amending the law in this respect have already been considered by the committees who have been investigating the provisions of the Companies Acts, and I have no doubt the honourable Member will have an opportunity during the present Session of proposing some amendments of the law.

THE DEATH SENTENCE.
MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether his attention has been directed to the grave defect in the Criminal Law whereby, under the provisions of 24 and 25 Vic., c. 100, s. 2, the Court is compelled to pronounce sentence of death upon every conviction of murder, and consequently in cases such as "Regina v. Wark," in which the circumstances preclude the possibility of the infliction of the death penalty; and whether, having regard to the fact that from 1824 till 1861 the sentence of death was not pronounced but simply recorded in cases in which there was a certainty that the death penalty would not be inflicted, the Government will introduce legislation by which the Court will have the discretion, in cases of conviction for murder, of either pronouncing the sentence of death or of merely recording that sentence?
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am fully alive to the objections which exist to the pronouncement of the sentence of death under circumstances in which there is no reasonable probability of the sentence being carried into effect. The matter is one of very great importance, and I must ask my honourable and learned Friend to address any further question to my right honourable Friend the Home Secretary.

NORTH SEA FISHERIES.
MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government have received an invitation from the Government of Sweden to co-operate with the North Sea Powers in a systematic and scientific investigation of the North Atlantic and North Sea with a view to the ultimate adoption of international regulations in the interests of the fisheries in those seas; and what answer, if any, has been returned by Her Majesty's Government?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Her Majesty's Government have been invited by the Swedish Government to co-operate with them and with the
686
Governments of Germany, Denmark, and Holland in a scheme of scientific investigation of the North Sea and the Baltic, with special reference to fish life and fishing interests. Her Majesty's Government have accepted the invitation and are using their best efforts to secure a meeting of the proposed Conference in the early spring.

SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if it was in pursuance of any Order or Resolution of this House, or by direction of the Treasury, that Mr. Attorney-General appeared before the Court of Queen's Bench in the case stated by justices in the matter of a servant connected with the refreshment department of this House; whether Mr. Attorney-General was directed by the Government to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Queen's Bench in this matter; and what are the precedents for this House submitting itself to the jurisdiction of the Queen's Bench by the appearance of Mr. Attorney-General to defend its privileges before the Courts?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: It has been the invariable practice for the Treasury, on the instruction of the Government of the day, to defend the employees of the House in the case of legal proceedings brought against them in the discharge of their duties. In accordance with this practice the Attorney-General was instructed by the Treasury Solicitor to appear before the Court of Queen's Bench in the case referred to. No question of the jurisdiction of the Queen's Bench Division could be raised in the case as the summons was for a personal offence, and no submission to the jurisdiction of the Court was made by the Attorney-General in any way.

AMENDMENTS TO THE ADDRESS.
SIR JOHN MACLURE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether in view of the considerable number of Amendments of

687
which notice is given upon the Address, the difference of importance in regard to them, and the necessary limitation of time that can be devoted to the discussion upon it, and the Amendments, it would be desirable that those which 50 Members have signified they are desirous should be submitted to the House could not have precedence?
MR. DILLON: In connection with that Question I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to inform the House what is the rule of the order now in force with regard to the precedence of Amendments to the Address.
MR. SPEAKER: The only rule is that whoever may catch my eye is called upon; that is the only rule. My practice is to follow mainly the order of the Amendments set down on the Paper. I am not bound to follow that order, but in following it I use my own discretion.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: In answer to the Question put by my honourable Friend, I presume his object is to confine, as far as possible, the Debates on the Address to important controversial subjects and to general matters having some special reference to the situation at the moment. I am sure that I, at any rate, heartily sympathise with him in that object, and I regret that the House has so far departed from tradition in this matter. But I do not think the particular scheme proposed would have the effect of carrying out his and my object.

SIERRA LEONE.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information as to the reason for, and the result of, the recent Military operations in the Protectorate of Sierra Leone, directed against Bey Burai; and when he will be able to lay upon the Table the Report of Sir David Chalmers in regard to the circumstances which led to the disturbances which took place last year in the Protectorate, and in regard to the state of affairs in the Protectorate generally?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): Sir D. Chalmers' Report will have to be submitted to the Governor for his observations. As Sir F. Cardew will be in this country on leave in a week or two I hope that there will be little delay in completing the consideration of the Report, after which it will be immediately presented to Parliament with Sir E. Cardew's observations. Meanwhile, it is not possible for me to express any opinion at present as to the cause of the disturbances or the reasons for the operations against Bey Burai. But I am glad to say that by the latest advices the country was tranquil, a general amnesty had been proclaimed, trade was rapidly improving, and the Hut Tax was being collected without any difficulty.
MR. DAVITT: Will this general amnesty include Bey Burai?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: He is not at present charged with anything except general participation in the rebellion.
MR. DAVITT: He is under arrest, is he not?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: Yes, at present, but the future disposition of him is still under consideration, and' will depend in some measure upon the Report.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.

    FIFTH DAY.
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Main Question (7th February), "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as followeth—
    "Most Gracious Sovereign,
    "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our

    689
    humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament"—(Captain Bagot)—
    Main Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.

    WELSH INTERESTS.
    Another Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words—
    "And we humbly express our regret that no reference is made in your Majesty's Speech to questions specially affecting the interests of the people of Wales."—(Mr. Herbert Lewis.)
    MR. HERBERT LEWIS: The situation which I described to the House at the beginning of last Session, when I moved an Amendment in the same terms, has not altered, and another year of delay has made it more necessary than ever to draw attention to the neglect by Parliament of the reforms which are demanded by the people of Wales. Last year the Leader of the House opposed this Amendment on the ground that it was based on the fallacy that Wales received no benefit from legislation passed for Great Britain. That is a complete misconception of our argument and position. We did not say that legislation passed for Great Britain does not apply to Wales. What we say is that much of the legislation that is acceptable to England is neither asked for nor needed by Wales; that much of it is strongly-repudiated by Wales. Wales is ripe for the settlement of many questions which England is not ready to accept, and what we ask is that our country should be exempted from legislation which she detests, and that she shall have a moderate share of the legislation for which she asks. To this question it is impossible to make the reply that Wales cannot be separately dealt with, and, indeed, that line was not taken by the Government in the Debate of last Session. The Leader of the House said—
    "No doubt there are times and occasions when legislation for one fraction of the United Kingdom is alone to be desired."
    690
    And the Chancellor of the Exchequer said—
    "I do recognise, as Parliament has already recognised, that the circumstances of people who live in Wales are in some respects peculiar and different from those of people who live in the rest of England, and that they require to be dealt with in certain matters very differently. That is a principle which I accept, but you cannot do everything at once. We will endeavour, as far as we can, to meet those necessities as far as time permits, but it is impossible for us to describe every proposal that is under our consideration, or every matter with which we may hope to deal, within the limits of Her Majesty's Speech."
    That is clearly an acceptance of the principle for which we contend—the right of Wales to separate treatment, and a promise to take action, upon that principle. Nobody now doubts that Parliament not only has the right, but that the duty rests upon it, to make such legislative changes as the special circumstances of Wales may require. Let me instance two Acts of Parliament, one passed by a Liberal, the other by a Conservative Government. They relate to subjects so> contentious as Temperance Reform and Education. The Welsh Sunday Closing Act was passed under Mr. Gladstone's Government of 1880. The Welsh Intermediate Education Act became law under Lord Salisbury's Government of 1886. Those two statutes alone have placed the claims of Wales to separate treatment, as and when occasion may arise, upon an impregnable basis. But those two pieces of legislation have not exhausted the needs of Wales to separate treatment. Sunday Closing is only a part, and a small part, of Temperance Reform. Intermediate Education is only one phase of a great subject. Acts of Parliament relating to Temperance and Education have been passed for Wales because that country is riper than other parts of the country for legislation of that kind; and in all questions which relate to religious equality, education, temperance, and land reform, you will find that Wales is permanently ahead of England. That is conclusively proved by the state of its representation in the present and every preceding Parliament since 1868. But the line taken by the present Government with regard to contentious questions amounts to saying, "If you cannot get what, you want, wait until

    691
    another Government comes into power. It is not our business to promote temperance reform, land reform, or religious equality." But that is not a sufficient reply, because, while the present. Government has not the will to carry out these reforms, a Liberal Government, under the present constitution, has not the power to pass them. Even a Liberal Government, commanding a clear and strong majority in the House of Commons, would be perpetually confronted by a Chamber whose one object, when a, Liberal Government is in office, is not to decide judicially upon the questions that may be submitted to it, but to play a party game. It may be true that when England has really set her heart upon carrying a great reform the House of Lord does not dare to stand in the way; but that. Chamber does not care a rap whether it offends Wales or not. Lord James of Hereford said the other day that the House of Lords would bow to the will of the democracy when that will way clearly ascertained. If that is so, why should not that rule apply to the Welsh democracy when they asked for reforms which relate to Wales alone, and do not impair the integrity of the United Kingdom? The moral, so far as Wales is concerned, is perfectly clear. Her voting strength may be small, but, such as it is, it will always be cast into the scale against that continued injustice, and she will not readily forget the means by which her education schemes have been mutilated, and Measures, in which she as a Nonconformist country is deeply interested, have been frustrated; nor the readiness with which the House of Lords will pass any Measure to which Wales objects, no matter how strongly that objection may be expressed in the only constitutional way open to her. The Government know perfectly well what are the demands which Wales has put forward. I shall only run over them briefly in order to show the importance of the subjects with which they are concerned, and the practically unchanging support given to them by the Welsh people. The first is the demand for Disestablishment. If the Government think that that demand is dying away they are greatly mistaken. It gathers strength as time goes on. Whatever may be said to the contrary, there is now, for a variety of reasons, on the part of both Clergy and
    692
    Laity in Wales, less hostility to Disestablishment than they formerly entertained. The feeling in favour of Church reform, and of giving the Laity their rightful place in the government of the Church, is so strong that many of the best and soundest Churchmen are ready to welcome it, even if it conies through the portals of Disestablishment. There are honourable Members on the other side of the House who are able to speak better than I can of the happy results of Disestablishment in Ireland—a Measure that was strongly supported by the present Archbishop of Canterbury. Churchmen are looking at the matter in a new light, and are beginning to realise that the Measure they so much fear may prove to be not only the bestowal of a tardy and long-delayed act of justice to Nonconformists, but a, great spiritual blessing to the Church herself. The demand for Disestablishment represents the steady and permanent conviction and resolve of the great majority of the Welsh people. As a political question in Wales it continues to overshadow every other, and Wales will continue to agitate for it in and out of season until she receives the act of justice which was granted to Ireland with such happy results in 1868. Closely allied to the question of religious equality is the subject of elementary education. How has Wales been treated in this respect? Against her will, against the emphatic protests of the great majority of the people and their representatives in Parliament. The Established Church, in Wales has been further established and endowed in the present Parliament by a grant to what are termed Voluntary schools. I make no comment upon that Measure as affecting England, but as regards Wales. The Ministry must by this time be convinced that the treatment which has been accorded to their country in educational matters has been deeply resented by the people. The First Lord of the Treasury must have recollected the strenuous opposition to that Bill which came from the Welsh Members, and that was only a faithful reflex of the feeling amongst the Welsh constituencies upon the subject. What we ask is that the public who contributed so largely to the maintenance of these schools should have some local representative control of them. We may not be able to expect

    693
    any help in that direction from the present Parliament., but we have a right to make a protest against the continuance of the present injustice in Wales, which has never accepted the educational policy of the present Government. Wales has also her special position in regard to Temperance Reform. There is hardly a man in the House who has not admitted the necessity of Temperance Reform. The difficulty is to know in what direction to move. Now, in Wales you have a country which knows her own mind on the subject—a country that offers itself as an experimenting ground for Temperance Reform. If England is afraid to try it, let Wales have a chance. But, we are told, the Government can take no action until the Report of the Royal Commission has been laid upon the Table of the House. They can do one thing before that report is made. Many years ago a Royal Commission was appointed by a Conservative Government to inquire into the operation of the Welsh Sunday Closing Act. That Commission was asked for by those who sought to destroy the Act; but the Commission blessed instead of cursed it, and, after taking evidence in every part of Wales, issued a report recommending not only the continuance of that Act, but also its extension, and strengthening it in several important particulars. Although a Bill based on the report of that Commission has been introduced into the House of Commons, every Session since then, nothing has been done to remove those defects in the Act which can be easily remedied by legislation. I regret that the Government have not given even a promise to deal with that question, which, in view of the report of the Royal Commission, ought to be treated as a non-contentious question. Wales has also a land question, which occupies an exceptional position. I ask the special attention of the Government to it, because their responsibility is perfectly clear. When a, Royal Commission is appointed, and when that Commission unanimously makes recommendations of a definite character, it is only right that the Government should either introduce a Bill to carry those recommendations into effect, or should state specifically why they are not carried into law. Now, in this case the majority of the Royal Commission on Land in
    694
    Wales made certain recommendations which have been embodied in a Bill. That Bill was fully discussed in 1897, and the Government refused to accept it. Bui if they decline to go so far as the Bill brought in by Welsh Members sitting in opposition, will they not introduce a Bill based on the unanimous report of the Royal Commission? and, if not, why not? It is not enough to reply that the Government has promised to introduce a Bill for the amendment of the Land Law in England and Wales, because the very terms of the announcement show that it was to apply to the quitting and not to the sitting tenant, and the unanimous recommendations of the Royal Commission on Land in Wales relate to the sit ting as well as to the quitting tenant. I invite the Home Secretary to deal specifically with this question in his reply, and to say why the Government cannot bring in a Bill to deal with the unanimous recommendations of the Royal Commission. Now, these demands not merely occupy a small corner of the legislative field—they cover the greater part of the whole field of domestic politics, and what we ask is that the special position of Wales in regard to legislation, as evidenced by the remarkable and permanent disparity between her Parliamentary representation and that, of England, should receive due consideration; that Measures which she hates, like the Voluntary Schools Bill, should not be forced upon her; and that some portion, at any rate, of her claims should be recognised, even if those claims should not altogether accord with those prevailing on the other side of the House. We have precedents in point. Supposing the land legislation for Ireland passed by the present Government had been introduced by a Liberal Government, does anyone doubt for a moment that it would not have called forth the bitterest opposition from the Conservative Party? The Irish landlords would not have been left alone in the fight. The Government legislated for Ireland against the wishes of the minority. Why should they not legislate for Wales, if need be, against the wishes of the minority? If the Government is determined to prevent Wales from having her desires carried into effect in regard to those great contentious questions to which I have referred, what of the non-contentious ques-

    695
    tions to which reference was made in the Debate of last year? The honourable Member for Swansea seconded my appeal to the Government to give Wales a Measure dealing with Private Bill legislation. A Bill of that character relating to Scotland was mentioned in the Queen's Speech. I am glad of it. I congratulate the Scotch Members on the recognition of the principle, and hope the Bill to be introduced will be framed in accordance with their wishes. But although the case of Wales for Private. Bill legislation has not been put forward as strongly as that of Scotland, it is a remarkable fact—one perhaps not generally known—that the number of Private Bills from Wales is larger than that of Scotland. For example, in 1897 there were 23 Private Bills from Wales and only 9 from Scotland. Will the Government not give Wales a Bill carrying out the same principle—a Bill settled by the Government, in consultation with the Welsh Members? It is a very small and a very reasonahle request to make, and if it be not granted we can only infer that the Government have no effective desire to promote in Wales those great municipal and commercial interests which the passage of a Bill of this character would materially assist, But if the Government feel they cannot help Wales in legislation, we ask that something should be done in the way of administration. For many years we have asked that Wales should have her due share of the Museum Grants of the United Kingdom. She gets practically nothing now, although she bas striven hard to complete her system of education. Every county in Wales has rated itself; the Local Taxation Grant has been devoted to that purpose; a, great host of individuals, from the highest to the humblest, have taxed their private resources to establish the National Colleges, to erect Intermediate Schools, to found scholarships, and to complete the fabric of education in Wales. All we ask is that the Government should, in regard to Museum Grants, treat Wales as they have treated Scotland and Ireland. We ask for no more, but we do not think it right that Wales should have less than her proportionate share of the grant. The Museum Committee which sat last Session, within the limits of its reference, supported our recommendation very
    696
    strongly. Wales suffers from every year of delay in this matter. Opportunities of acquiring valuable and interesting collections are being lost from year to year. The existence of a Museum, a National Library, and a National Art Gallery would be a, continual incentive to liberality on the part of the public; and the need of national institutions of this character, like those established and maintained by the Imperial Government in Scotland and Ireland, is more keenly realised as time goes on. Last year we made an appeal to the Treasury on behalf of the Welsh University. We made the very modest request that the Welsh University should be supplied with the necessary funds to continue its work. To show how the University has grown, I may mention that in its first year 89 students were matriculated, in its second year 216, and in its third year 425. It is a young but very flourishing institution, which has done admirable educational work for Wales, and is capable of doing more. The reply of the Treasury to cur appeal was to cut down the grant. To put it on the lowest and most material ground, the nation cannot afford this miserable parsimony, and when we compare it with the vast sums spent on the engines of war, it seems to me to be political folly to cripple and starve the means by which the men and women of Wales are equipped for leadership in the battle of life. I might compare the treatment accorded to Wales under the last Government and the present Government in regard to matters of a purely noncontentious character, and that would show conclusively the generosity of the late Government towards Wales at a time of great financial stress, and the meanness of the present Government towards Wales when the Exchequer was overflowing with money; but I shall only say, with reference to Welsh claims which involved a Parliamentary grant, that when the Local Government Bill of 1888 was passing through the House, and the Welsh Members drew the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the unfairness of the financial arrangements as affecting Wales, they were met by a partial concession on the part of the Government; but we contend that a large balance, amounting to about £60,000 a year, is due to us, and that these educational grants, although pro-

    697
    portionately less than similar grants to Scotland and Ireland, are really only payments on account of what is due to Wales. To refer to another matter which comes within the sphere of administration; three years ago the Welsh Members asked for a Departmental Committee to inquire in what way, and to what extent, the existing pier and harbour accommodation on the coast, of Wales might be improved. That request was backed by evidence which showed that such improvements were quite as necessary as the provision of light railways. The Government are going to incur additional vast expense upon the construction of new warships, but when are they going to spend anything upon harbours which will make it possible for a larger proportion of the population to make their living by the fishing industry, increasing the harvest of the sea, and providing the Navy with the best possible recruiting ground? For a strong Navy men are now needed more than ships, and if a trivial part of the money required for an enormous and extravagant naval building programme were spent in pro-viding better harbours for fishermen on the Welsh coast, and incidentally improving means of communication, much more good would be done. Another practical proposal which has been made, and made so far in vain, on behalf of Wales, is that portions of the Welsh mountains over which the Woods and Forests Department have certain rights, should be re-afforested. We contend that this would in the end be a source of profit to the nation, and a great advantage to the commoners, who ought to receive fair compensation for any loss of interest. I am aware that this particular reform is by no means free from difficulty, but the work can be done; it ought some day to be carried out, and the sooner a beginning is made the better. Another way in which the Government might help Wales is by transferring a large amount of work that may with great advantage be handed over by departments in Whitehall to a body representing the Welsh County Councils. An attempt was made ten years ago to transfer a, vast amount of administrative business to the County Councils. That attempt was defeated by the Association of Municipal Corporations, which resented the proposed subjection of the non-Quar-
    698
    ter Sessions boroughs to the county councils. But the devolution of business from Whitehall to a body representing the County Councils of Wales and Monmouthshire would hardly meet with the same opposition. The transfer of, administrative work to such a body would be no novelty in Wales. For some years past all the Welsh counties and county boroughs have, for educational purposes, been associated with other public bodies in one official body called the Central Board, to which important powers, which under ordinary circumstances would be exercised by the Charity Commissioners and the Treasury, have been transferred. Moreover, the Welsh County Councils have repeatedly asked for the transfer of departmental powers to a body representing Wales as a whole, and conferences of the Welsh County Councils have been held with that object. We admit the favourable attitude of the Government, but we should be glad to see some practical step taken in that direction. But no matter how small the request made by Welsh Members of both parties in relation to noncontentious matters of administration, whether a quartering on the Royal Standard, or a place on the coinage, or anything else, not one of them has been granted. The Welsh Members do not ask for anything unreasonable. We admit, in the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Government cannot do everything at once. We simply point to the fact that three Sessions, have passed by, that the programme of the fourth Session is before us, that the present Parliament will before long be among the things of the past, and that nothing has been done to satisfy the special demands of Wales. Our request—and I cannot conceive one more reasonable in character—is that year by year Parliament by legislation, and the Government by administrative action, should do something to carry out the true function of the Government which is to give to each part of the United Kingdom, subject to whatever reasonable limitations and restrictions may be required by the common good, those reforms which each constituent part of the United Kingdom clearly requires. We ask that that rule should be proportionately applied to Wales as it is applied to other parts of the kingdom.

    699
    When the right honourable Gentleman comes to reply, let there be no mistake in his mind about our position. We do not deny that legislation passed for Great Britain does apply to Wales. What we say is that much of the legislation which is acceptable to England is neither asked for nor needed by Wales, and what we ask for is that our country should be exempted from legislation which she rejects, and that she should have a moderate amount of the legislation for which she asks. Wales is a small country, but I venture to say that she contains within her borders the elements of as good citizenship as can be found within the coasts of the United Kingdom. If the majority of her people are at variance with the Party now in power, still let that Party remember that they are constitutionally responsible for the good government of the country. It is not good government to deny to a loyal and law-abiding part of the United Kingdom, like Wales every one of those reforms which are demanded by its special circumstances. It is not a safe policy from an Imperial nor a wise policy from a Party point of view. Are we to go back and tell our constituents and the constituents of the honourable Gentlemen opposite that this Government, now in its fourth Session, has done nothing, and' will do nothing, for those special questions, legislative and administrative, in which Wales is interested, except to pass the Berriew Bill, which was rejected by an overwhelming majority in the one small parish to which it related? In that case the Government gave the Second Reading of that Bill the first place on a Thursday night and pushed it through all its stages. They did that to please a single supporter who had rendered them political service which they refuse to do for a nation. The rule which has prevailed in this Parliament, as distinguished from the last and the preceding Parliament, is that, however clear a case we may present for any reform in Wales, no matter by what majority that reform is supported—even if every one of the 34 Members returned by constituencies in Wales and Monmouthshire were to ask for it—we might ask for it in vain. Is that rule to continue to prevail; and, if so, is that time statesmanship? That is not just to Wales, which has deserved fairer treat-
    700
    ment at the hands of the Imperial Parliament.
    MR. ALFRED THOMAS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to second the Amendment of my honourable Friend. I think he is quite justified in, taking the step he has done in moving the Amendment to the Address in the Speech to which we have just listened. My honourable Friend has said that we are a law-abiding and loyal people. I believe that is quite true, but in saying that I must also add that we have suffered to a great extent from the effects of having a good character On both sides of the House Liberal and Conservative administrations alike have taken it for granted that we have no grievances. Those of us who live in Wales and know the feelings of the majority of the people know full well that we have grievances which have been and are resented, and I wish to say that we have not always been so tranquil as some people would have liked to see us. There are some occasions upon which we have got excited and upset even in Wales. Sixty years ago we had the Rebecca riots, and there have been occasions upon which the collection of tithes has not been accompanied by such tranquillity as has characterised other times. Very possibly we cannot expect the present Government to remedy all the grievances that we have. We have had some surprises from that side of the House, and who knows that upon some similar occasion the Government may rise to the sublime height of disestablishing the State Church? I would say that there is no man who has any regard for the Christian religion but what is sorry to see the spectacle of what the Church of England has to undergo in consequence of its being a State Church. There are, however, some grievances that we can expect even a Conservative Government to redress, and I will proceed to name one or two. There is one that I would wish to place especial stress upon, and that is the land question in Wales. Now, Sir, the Royal Commission some four or five years ago made two reports. One was a unanimous proposal, and the other was a majority proposal. One would have thought that even a Conservative Government would have done something in the way indicated by a

    701
    unanimous report. I do think, Sir, that I know something with regard to the condition of the tenantry in Wales. I am glad to say that we have some good landlords in Wales, and I can see one or two before me now. In this connection I would particularly mention Lord Tredegar. But while we have some good landlords in Wales who treat their tenants well, and who do not need drastic legislation, the great majority of the tenants are rack rented. The case of the tenant was stated to me the other day by a farmer who farms 40 acres of land. He said, "Cannot something be done for us poor farmers? There is no class of the community so helpless as we are. You know how hard I work, and all about my position. I have my rent raised upon my own improvements, and I have no security but what at any moment I may receive notice to quit; and if I do, I shall be turned out on the roadside without a penny in my pocket. That is the prospect before me after having slaved for 50 years!" That is a very poor prospect, and is one that no honest man ought to have in front of him. It is quite time that something should be done for the Welsh tenant. With regard to Private Bill legislation, I quite agree that we have a very strong case indeed for consideration upon this question. I have known one Bill alone, coming from my part of the country, the Barry Bill, the cost of which was no less than £30,000. No one is going to tell me that it would have cost that money if it had received consideration upon the spot, as it ought to have done. I know a very hard case that occurred in Wales with regard to proceedings in the Private Bill legislation on this House. A Bill was projected some years ago by a company to schedule a district—a portion of the constituency which I have the honour to represent in this House. The District Council of the district deemed it their duty to oppose the Bill, and they took the ordinary steps to do so. In order to cover the expense of simply opposing that Bill, they had to impose an additional rate of 2s. in the £, and honourable Members will all know what that means to tradesmen and others. Another question my Friend dealt with was a question of the Museum Grant. That is not a burning question, but still it is a question for us to consider. I was
    702
    very much struck, when this question was being considered before, at the reply given by the Vice-President of the Council. He then sheltered himself behind the plea that there was no recognised town in Wales for the capital of Wales. That is quite true. A suggestion was made as to how the difficulty could be met. It was suggested by my honourable Friend the Member for Merioneth that in order to meet this difficulty the same course should be adopted as was adopted 15 years ago upon the question of sites of University Colleges. Well, Sir, let the same course be adopted with regard to this. I am not going to mention any particular town, but there are places that could be chosen; and, at any rate, none of these excuses are reasons for withholding these grants from Wales. I trust that the Government will take notice of the grievances brought to their attention. Undoubtedly there are many grievances in Wales which require to be remedied.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. W. Ridley,): The very wide range which this debate has taken has only served to show its utter unreality. The mover and seconder of this Amendment complain that Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech does not contain a promise of legislation upon the various points they mention, and then they go on to complain of a variety of matters most of which are administrative and not legislative. I do not think that the speeches we have heard on this Amendment have shown any case against the present Government, at all events for not having mentioned a particular measure which the honourable Members desire to see passed for the benefit of Wales. I entirely associate myself with what was referred to by the honourable Gentleman who moved this Amendment, as to what was said by the Chancellor of the Ex-Exchequer on a corresponding occasion at the commencement of last session, namely, that, although we do not agree with those who think it only desirable to have separate legislation for Wales generally, because that is no part of the Unionist policy, yet we do admit, both from experience and from our own knowledge, that there are certain urgent and important questions which may be fairly

    703
    dealt with specially in the case of Wales; and, as the honourable Gentleman has already shown, neither Party has shown itself indifferent in that respect, or, when the case was proved, unwilling to deal with Wales separately. On the one hand, one Party dealt with the question of Temperance, and on the other hand the other Party dealt with the question of Intermediate Education, both of which measures were passed in this House for the benefit of Wales alone. I am really driven to ask the honourable Gentleman what are the reforms which he thinks Her Majesty's Government could properly have introduced in their legislative programme for the especial benefit of Wales. He has spoken on every conceivable subject affecting almost every Government Department, and I really ought to be supported by all my honourable and right honourable Friends when I say how liberal the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been towards Wales; at all events he has not dealt ungenerously. But it is impossible for me to deal seriatim with all the points raised. Does the honourable Gentleman pretend that it would have been within the reach of practical politics that we should have proposed a measure for the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales? Of course it is utterly impossible. Whatever may be the feelings of the Welsh members on that subject they must assuredly realise that the great majority of this present Parliament are not in favour of such a measure. It may be dear to their own hearts, but it is equally foreign to ours. Then comes the question of Secondary Education. The honourable Member complains that there was no special mention of that. I do not understand that he proposes that we should have had anything to do with a measure for Welsh Education particularly.
    MR. HERBERT LEWIS: What we object to is that certain legislation in regard to education has been forced upon us against our will.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: Oh, I see, the honourable Gentleman now complains of too much legislation. He is a member of a portion of the United Kingdom whose political majority at the present moment is not in accordance with the
    704
    political tenets of Her Majesty's Government, and because the policy of the Welsh members is not in accordance with that of Her Majesty's Government, he contends that Wales ought to be exempted from the legislation which we propose for the whole of the United Kingdom. That is not the policy upon which the United Kingdom is to be governed, and I think it is an assertion of Welsh nationality which will not be approved of by the majority of this House. The honourable Gentleman knows very well that the Welsh people are, by the sacrifices they have themselves made for Secondary Education, and by the assistance of this House, far ahead even of Scotland, and most certainly of England, in that respect, and really when I observe the position which Intermediate Education has attained in Wales, I do not understand why the complaint should be made of Her Majesty's Government not having introduced a measure respecting Secondary Education for Wales. Surely it cannot reasonably be expected that we should have introduced any such measure in the Queen's Speech. Then I come to the question of Temperance. The honourable Gentleman says that in 1881 a measure was passed carrying Sunday Closing for Wales. Perfectly true? And that he says was an instance in which a Government (Mr. Gladstone's Government) passed a measure affecting Wales only. In consequence of criticisms passed upon that Act, a Commission was appointed to inquire into its working, and that Commission has made certain recommendations. Does the honourable Gentleman complain that we have not put into the Queen's Speech some proposal to carry out those recommendations? What are the recommendations of that Commission? I have read that report, and I know what the recommendations are, and I venture to think that if we at the present moment did propose legislation to carry out the recommendations of the Commission, we should have been very justly blamed for introducing legislation which would be special to Wales. Those recommendations included the question of the licensing of clubs, and a more chronic question can hardly be realised or imagined—they included the question of shebeens, and the question of the raising of the rateable value of the low class beer-houses; questions of the wholesale

    705
    beer trade, and so forth. If we had dealt with these we should have been dealing with questions which could not be applied to Wales exclusively. It is true that those questions were raised by the Commission which sat upon the Welsh Sunday Closing Act, but the recommendations of that Commission could not have been dealt with without dealing with the whole of the licensing question, and we could not deal with that until we had seen a report of the extremely interesting Commission which is now sitting; therefore I think I am dealing fairly with the honourable Gentleman when I ask, if he thinks that any of these subjects could have been mentioned in Her Majesty's gracious Speech? The honourable Gentleman who seconded the Amendment spoke of the exceptional distress of the Welsh tenant. So far as I am concerned, I know nothing about it. I do not believe that although there are many parts of Wales in which tenants have difficulties those difficulties are of an exceptional nature; and if he wants to know whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to act upon the recommendations of the Welsh Land Commission, I am hardly prepared to say that they are. In fact, I will say certainly they are not. I will say what was said by my right honourable Friend in answering a question at the beginning of the last Session of Parliament: That the honourable Members from Wales forget that legislation which is proposed for the benefit of agriculture in England and Scotland is also for the benefit of the Welsh tenant, and if those Bills which have been promised by my right honourable Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture for dealing with the adulteration of foods and agriculture generally do not come up to the expectations of honourable Members opposite, at all events they are generally designed for the benefit of the agricultural community, whether it be in England or in Wales, and it is not necessary, in our opinion, that we should bring in a Bill to deal with these questions in Wales alone. Now comes the question of Private Bill legislation. That is not a question of nationality. It is a question primarily of distance. I fully admit that if there is any general feeling in England and Wales, as there appears to be undoubtedly in Scotland, that there ought to be given facilities for enabling Private
    706
    Bills to be carried through this House with less expense, it would receive our best consideration. But, at all events, we have shown ourselves as ready as other Governments to attempt legislation of this nature, and if satisfactory means could be found for improving the method of Private Bill legislation as regards Scotland, then this Government or any other Government would be ready to consider the question as regards the rest of the United Kingdom. The difficulties of Scotland are exceptional, and to say that we ought to propose a Bill for dealing with Private Bill legislation respecting Wales in the same Session as we are proposing to deal with the Private Bill legislation of Scotland, is, I think, going quite beyond what can be reasonably expected. I do not think there has been the same demand on the part of Wales for Private Bill legislation as there has been on the part of Scotland. At any rate I do not think that that demand has been so universally acknowledged in this House as it has been in the case of Scotland; and I again ask whether, supposing the Government have reasonable expectations of dealing with the Private Bill legislation of Scotland, it would be fair to suggest that we should also add the case of Wales. Sir, the Mover of this Amendment went into a great many other interesting subjects. He proposed a grant for a museum, and seemed to anticipate that I should be able to give him an answer of a satisfactory character with reference to a grant for two or three of them. Well, whatever may be my personal view, I am not Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I cannot admit that such subjects should be mentioned in the Queen's Speech as proposed in the Amendment before the House. Then, again, the Mover of the Amendment touched upon University Education. Has this House, has the Party of which I am a humble member, shown itself unwilling to assist University education in Wales? I think there are other parts of the United Kingdom who may feel somewhat envious of the grants which have been made to Wales—and grants very properly made, because the Welsh people have shown themselves very anxious for University education, and have themselves made considerable sacrifices towards that end. I pass over the question of the re-afforestation of Crown lands; I will say only one or two words

    707
    about the question of devolution. Some allusion was made—I think by the honourable Gentleman who moved this Amendment—to a Central Board, which exists in Wales, consisting, as I understand, of certain county councils and boroughs who are associated for the purpose of local government in Wales.
    MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: The right honourable Gentleman has misconceived the reference. The Central Board to which my honourable friend referred is exclusively for the purpose of dealing with intermediate education. He only referred to it as an example of what might be done with regard to local government generally.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I would remind honourable Members opposite that the original draft of the Local Government Bill of 1888, proposed by my right honourable Friend who is now the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Ritchie), contained a great many more powers of devolution, especially with regard to Provisional Orders, than when it became an Act, but, owing to the opposition of the Association of Municipal Boroughs and of certain quarters of the House, it was impossible to carry out views of a larger scheme of devolution. As a Lancashire Member, I know the very great difficulties and jealousies which exist in that county between the County Council and the non-county boroughs on a number of matters, and I should be slow to give my adhesion to a scheme of devolution which I believe would not be satisfactory to the boroughs. I admit the discussion raises a subject which may fairly be argued, but if the Government are to be censured for not putting into Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech a reference to some further devolution of the powers of the Local Government Board on the lines of the Central Board in Wales, then all I say is that I do not think anybody could make such a charge fairly against the Government. The honourable Member who seconded this Motion spoke very much on the same lines. He dealt with the question of the Church and of the land, and I think I have answered him on both those points. The honourable Member cannot, and probably does not, expect us to be prepared to deal with the question of the English Church in Wales and of Welsh
    708
    land, with special and separate reference. If honourable Members desire it, then they must get other people to do it. Honourable Members opposite know perfectly well the opinions the Government and the Party of which I have the honour to be a member entertain on both these questions. We may be right or wrong, everybody knows that we entertain those views; and to ask us to accept an Amendment to the Address to the effect that we are to blame for not including these things in the Queen's Speech, is, I venture to say, rather trifling with an occasion which ought to have been engaged with something more important. I can only say that any proposals which honourable Gentlemen opposite may make with regard to Temperance or other questions on which they have a good case for separate treatment shall be anxiously considered on their merits by this Government, as by any other Government; but, speaking generally, we regard Wales as a part of the United Kingdom, and we are not going to propose, except under very special circumstances, exceptional legislation for Wales as distinct from the United Kingdom. I deny that the Government have shown themselves unwilling or unable to deal with special Welsh questions, and hope that the House will not think it necessary to prolong this Debate to any great length.
    MR. J. H. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the statement of the right honourable Gentleman that if Welsh Members desire these important questions to be dealt with separately for Wales, we must get other people to do it, will be made known throughout the Principality, and will be duly notified by the electorate. Now, Mr. Speaker, although I hold that it would be almost impossible for us to expect to receive any definite assurance from the Government on these points, I still think that a Debate of this kind is really an advantage in the case of Wales. It is quite clear that the view of the Government is that Wales is only a geographical expression, and the right honourable Gentleman opposite has plainly announced the fact that the policy of the Unionist Government is to deny that there is anything such as Welsh nationality in existence, or that Wales has any claim to demand treatment as a separate nationality. [Dissent.] I think I am not misquoting the

    709
    right honourable Gentleman. Sir, this is undoubtedly the view of the Government, but it does not alter the fact that these grievances remain. They do not cease to impede the progress of Wales. Sir, I think one or two indirect advantages may be reaped from a discussion of this kind on Wales. In the first place, I think there is still not a little ignorance in the mind of English people in regard to the true position of the Welsh people. And, more than that, following necessarily from this state of things, I am afraid that there still exists a certain amount of prejudice amongst our English friends with regard to the true condition of the Welsh people. It seems to me that the very fact of a Debate like this taking place, and the case of Wales being stated, as it has been stated, so fairly by my honourable Friend this afternoon will be of real benefit in pointing out the necessity—and that soon—of making some change in our Parliamentary machinery which will enable the overwhelming opinion of portions of the country to be carried out into legislation without any great delay. Sir, although we have not this afternoon any very great encouragement from the Front Bench, it is necessary for me to say that this continued neglect of Wales will have no effect at all in damping the ardour of the Welsh people. I do not wish to go into any detail, but I should like to point out to the House the real strength of the demand in Wales in the direction referred to by my honourable Friend this evening. Sir, in Wales politics stand upon a different footing from the position they take in other parts of the country. In Wales, owing to the special circumstances of the case, politics have become an integral part of the public life of the people. Now the reason for this, I think, can be ascribed to two dominant factors in the life of the people. First of all, the strong and evergrowing sentiment of nationality, and, in spite of anything the right honourable Gentleman opposite may say, it is a factor which has to be taken into consideration. And what is the second cause? That this political sentiment, so far as Wales is concerned, has been during the last 50 years largely shaped and inspired by the principle of Nonconformity. Now I do not desire to take up more than a very few minutes of the time of the House, but I would like, with the permis-
    710
    sion of the House, to refer to and to emphasise one or two points to which my honourable Friend has alluded. I would first of all, Mr. Speaker, emphasise the point he made in regard to the urgency of the Welsh Land Question. It is undoubtedly the fact that the Government in the Queen's Speech on this occasion has a reference to legislation with regard to land dealing with the whole of the country and I am not going to refer in any detail to any legislative reforms this afternoon. But I wish to point out to the House in one or two words the position of the Land Question in Wales as it stands to-day. Sir, I hold at once at the present moment that Welsh agriculture is not in such a depressed condition as it was some time ago, but owing to the conditions surrounding our agricultural system it is simply impossible to hope that any real improvement will take place in that interest until some thorough reforms are effected in our land laws. I am not going to refer, Mr. Speaker, to the Majority Report of the Welsh Land Bill; the recommendations of that report have already been placed in the Bill. But I would like to refer for one moment, first of all, to the practical administrative suggestions unanimously made by the Commission in regard to Welsh agriculture, none of which were referred to in any way by the right honourable Gentleman opposite, and the Government has never on any occasion, I think, referred to them either. One of the unanimous recommendations of the Welsh Land Commission upon administrative matters was the need for increased facilities for agricultural education. Now, Sir, that is a small thing in itself, but it is capable of being operated for the real benefit of the farmers in the Principality. Secondly, the unanimous report of that Commission recommended the diffusion by the Board of Agriculture of useful information to the farmer—of literature giving every information as to prices and so forth. Now, Sir, these are practical things. They can be carried out at the initiative of any Government, and I do not think that the present Government would betray the policy of denying the nationality, of Wales in giving effect to those simple but practical reforms. I wish to make this further comment in regard to the dealings of the Government with the unanimous report of the Welsh Land Commis-

    711
    sion. Sir, it seems to me to be perfectly plain, as has been already pointed out by my honourable friend the Member for Flint, that a different treatment is to be accorded to Wales, from every standpoint, from that to be accorded to other parts of the United Kingdom. Take one point, namely, the recommendations of this Commission, and those of another Agricultural Commission of two years ago. In connection with the latter Commission a hurriedly framed recommendation with regard to the relief of the rating of the land was passed. Upon that a Bill, a few months or weeks afterwards, was introduced by the Government, and forced through all its stages in a comparatively short space of time. Then, again, I want to ask the right honourable Gentleman why, in the face of the practically unanimous recommendation, of the first Land Commission, the Government have, at Question Time this afternoon, promised to introduce a Bill to carry out one recommendation, and one only, made by the Local Taxation Commission in regard to relieving the Clergy of the country of a certain portion of their rates. Now, Sir, it seems to me to be manifestly unfair to regard the recommendations of one Commission differently from the recommendations of the other, when you take into consideration that the Commissions were unanimous in one case if not in the other. I have one further point to impress upon the House with regard to the urgency of the Land Question in Wales. It is all very well for the right honourable Gentleman opposite to get up and say that it is really trifling with the time of the House to bring forward such an Amendment as this, calling attention to these questions affecting Wales. I fear the present urgent condition of the farmers in Wales can be scarcely understood. Welsh farmers stand upon an entirely different footing from those in the country generally. The tenant farmer is placed in a position of peculiar difficulty and disadvantage in comparison with the tenant farmer throughout England, and I would like, before I leave this question of the urgency of land reform in Wales, to quote one fact, and one fact only—namely, that Ave should hardly think the House of Commons realises how very serious the drain has been
    712
    during the last 40 or 50 years upon the agricultural population of Wales. There has been a steady exodus from the country to the towns. I find that during the last 40 years the number of agricultural labourers in Monmouthshire has diminished 40 per cent. The whole agricultural population has decreased 30 per cent. during the same period; whilst, on the other hand, the population of the country as a whole has more than doubled. Sir, that is an alarming fact—a fact that is to be all the more deplored when you realise that, so far as Wales is concerned, the best life of the country is drawn from, the agricultural and rural districts. It is here that we have found our leaders in the past—the men who have led the thought and the life of the Principality; and it is here, in the midst of the rural life of the Principality, that we have always found in the past the real intellectual and moral fibre of the country. Now, I am not going to deal with the other aspects of the case, but I cordially associate myself with all that my honourable Friend has said with regard to the pressing need of amending the Sunday Closing Act. The right honourable Gentleman the Home Secretary in his reply said that it would be impossible to carry out the recommendations of the Commission appointed, be cause they were of such a general character. Now, when you consider that that Commission was appointed to deal with the Welsh Sunday Closing Act, and that Act only, and when you consider that the recommendations they made referred directly to the Welsh case, it seems hardly a reply for the right honourable Gentleman to get up and say that it is impossible for any Government to deal with the recommendations, because some of them, at all events, might have been equally applicable to other parts of the country. Now, Sir, none of those recommendations) would have been specially applicable to the case of the country generally, because, as far as England is concerned, there is no Sunday closing. The recommendations were made, and made solely, in connection with the Welsh case, and as such, I think, might have easily been carried into law. Sir, I do not desire to refer to the question of giving the people of Wales the right to solely control the liquor traffic within the boundaries of the Princi-

    713
    pality. A Bill has been introduced by an honoured colleague of mine on this subject, and I should be out of order in referring to it; but, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that there is no question in Wales which has more unanimous support throughout the country than that mentioned, and the sentiment in favour of the Bill is growing daily. As to Disestablishment, I am forced to admit that we could not hope to receive any support from the Government; but I should like to point out, before I deal with the matter further, the effect the existence of the Establishment has upon the life of the people. Speaking for myself, Mr. Speaker, I consider the money part of that question as of secondary importance; but what I do consider of the greatest importance to the life of this country is the fact that now in Wales, owing to the condition of the country, the Establishment acts as a kind of dividing line, clearly separating the population of the country into two opposing camps. It is impossible, Sir, under such circumstances, for any united effort to take place on the part of the people on behalf of those great religious and social movements upon which so much of the welfare of the country depends. The Establishment flings today the torch of discord into every nook and cranny of the Welsh life. It is upon these higher grounds that I, for one, appeal to the House to recognise that there is an urgent necessity in the case of Welsh Disestablishment. As I have said before, I admit that it is impossible for us to hope for very much' comfort from the Government; it would be equally impossible for us, representing as we do in this House the predominant political faith of the country, and conscious as we are of the sacrifices that have been made in Wales by the people in order to vindicate their principles at the poll, General Election after General Election, to miss a single opportunity of stating the case of our country clearly to the House of Commons. I admit that we can hope for nothing from the Party opposite, but there is another, and a sterner, side to this question. Whilst admitting all this, no one can ask us to stand silent and watch the life of the country becoming impoverished by an acute land problem and desolated by the drink traffic without making a strong
    714
    protest on every possible occasion against the existence of the evil. It has been said in the course of the Debate that we have been trifling with the time of the House. Whether that be so or not, Mr. Speaker, I hope the Government will recognise that upon the questions raised by my right honourable Friend in this Amendment the people of Wales feel most keenly.
    MR. HOWELL: After what has fallen from the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary of State, it is hardly necessary for me to detain the House for many minutes, but it may be necessary to remind the House of the existence of such a class of persons as the Welsh Unionists, and to remind the House that, although honourable members sitting on the opposite side of the House have loudly voiced the opinions of a certain section of the Welsh people, there are' those who disagree with those opinions and not an inconsiderable number. Now, Mr. Speaker, I must commence my remarks by congratulating the honourable Gentleman the Mover of the Amendment. When I look down the Motions standing in the Orders of the Day, I see interesting Motions, and uninteresting Motions, long Motions and short Motions, but I think the honourable Gentleman takes the prize for width. He has moved the widest Amendment, and the most vague I can find at the present time—an amendment so wide as to enable him to drag once more into the light of day the poor old Berriew School Bills, which we thought had disappeared from the proceedings of this House—an Amendment so wide as to enable him to touch such questions as Temperance Reform, Disestablishment, Elementary Education, and Private Bill Legislation. I must say that I, for my own part, have learnt a lesson from him, for if I wish to speak upon anything and everything, in season and out of season, I have only to take an example from the honourable Gentleman and put down upon the Paper an Amendment to the Address such as this, and I can do so. Perhaps it would be as well that I should say that to a certain extent I agree with the honourable Gentleman; there are two points on which I do agree with him. Those two points do not, however, touch the question of legislation; they are matters of administration. I

    715
    refer to the question of the administration of our Museum Grants, and the administration of our grant for University education. I do agree with the honourable Gentleman, the Mover of the Motion, that the time has come when the Government must give to Wales that which it is entitled to. With regard to the Museum, we have been told on one or two occasions by the Government that the reason why we do not get the money to which we are entitled under this grant is because we are unable to agree among ourselves as to the locality in which the Museum shall be placed. All I can say in answer to such a suggestion as that is that if the Government give us the money we will do the rest. With regard to the question of the Welsh University, no man could feel more interest in the Welsh University than I do, and no one can feel prouder of the absolutely wonderful position which it has made for itself in the few years of its existence. It has established a degree which I believe in the future will be considered, and justly considered, second to none of the degrees granted by the Universities of England. Now, having agreed with the honourable Gentleman upon those two points, I am afraid I cannot carry my agreement with him further, and for this reason: with regard to the whole of the rest of the remarks of the honourable Gentleman who moved this Amendment, he made the foundation upon which he built up his criticisms of the Government in regard to the Address, separate legislation for the Principality. That is an opinion which I cannot share with him. Commencing with the question of separate legislation for Wales, the honourable Gentleman called to the attention of the House two instances in which he claims that separate legislation had been recognised in the case of Wales. He referred to the Welsh Sunday Closing Act and the Secondary Education Act. I, for one, would not say that under no circumstances ought we to give separate legislation for Wales, but what I do say is, that before you do give separate legislation you must make out a special case which can only be dealt with by special legislation, and that until a special case is made out, you must do as little as possible for Wales by that method. With regard to secondary education, there was a great difference in the conditions of England and Wales.
    716
    At the time of this Act England was not ripe for dealing with this question, and, therefore, I say that the subject was clearly one which required special legislation, and in that case we were rightly given a special Act because of the special circumstances. With regard to the Welsh Sunday Closing Act, I do not accept that as an instance which binds me in any way. If I were asked whether that was an Act which it was right to pass or not, I would say that at the time it was passed it was passed for a condition of things that affected Wales and England in a like degree, and it is not such an instance as can now be given. With regard to the many questions touched on by the honourable Gentleman moving this Amendment, I cannot follow him into all the matters over which he travelled, but, first of all, he touched on Disestablishment. Now, as the right honourable Gentleman has reminded the House, Disestablishment could hardly be expected by any possibility whatsoever to find a place in the programme of a Unionist Government. My honourable and learned Friend informed the House that it was the intention of the Welsh Party on that side of the House to agitate, in season and out of season, the question of the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church. I hope he will forgive me for saying that in advocating it upon this occasion he is agitating it out of season. Because, so long as the present Government is in power he could not possibly expect that his suggestion would receive their acquiescence. Then the honourable Gentleman referred to Land Reform. Well, a Special Commission sat for the purpose of inquiring into the conditions of land in Wales, not because there was any broad difference between the laws of landlord and tenant in Wales and England, but because it was contended that in Wales some special reason might be found for differentiating the case of that Principality from that of England. The Commission published the evidence and its report. The report of the majority was not a report that would find favour in the eyes of the present Administration. The Majority Report, which has been referred to by the honourable Gentleman, advised that there should be set up in Wales a Land Court for the purpose of regulating the conditions subsisting between the landlord and the tenant. The Land Law in

    717
    Wales is exactly the same as the Land Law of England, and with regard to the question of Land Reform, that surely is one of those general questions which, although recommended upon evidence found in Wales, would affect not only Wales but England as well; therefore, I say that to adopt such a recommendation as that would be wrong. It is a general question, not a question affecting Wales alone, and to treat it as a matter of that kind, as a case for dealing with the Principality alone, would be most improper. With regard to the subject of Temperance Reform, we have heard from the honourable Gentleman, the last speaker who appealed to this House to deal with that question, that there is a sincere desire on the part of the Welsh people that it, should be dealt with because of the evils which it engenders. I hope the honourable Gentlemen will give us the credit of believing that we on this side of the House are just as sincerely anxious to deal with the question as he is. I think I can remember that the honourable Gentleman introduced into this House—the Government not having taken up the Sunday Closing Act—a Bill for that purpose, and that this House, constituted as it is at present constituted, rejected the Measure.
    MR. J. H. ROBERTS: It was talked down.
    MR. HOWELL: And to invite an expression of an opinion on the question, as is suggestd by this Amendment, that Government should put into their programme a similar Measure to that which was rejected by them two Sessions ago—
    MR. H. ROBERTS: It was talked down.
    MR. HOWELL: Is little less than absurd. Now there is one other matter dealt with by the honourable Gentleman the Mover of the Amendment now before the House, the question of Private Bill Legislation, and I think with regard to that, that if ever there was a question of interest to the whole of the general Members it is this question of Private Bill Legislation. Surely, the honourable Gentleman who moved this Amendment must know that during last Session an
    718
    attempt was made to deal with a Measure of this character for Scotland. That is an experiment, and if the Measure is a successful Measure it will form the type of a Measure from which we may hope to derive great benefit. Surely all these matters; Temperance, Reform, Disestablishment, Elementary Education, and Private Bill Legislation,—they are all very wide questions—are not interesting to Welshmen alone, but are questions of great interest also to those who represent other parts of the United Kingdom. Let me say, with regard to the claim of the Welsh Nationalists, and I think my Friends will agree with me, that I may claim to be as fond of the language, literature, customs, manners, and life of the people of the Principality as they are: I believe that you can be as sincere a Welsh Nationalist on this side of the House as on that, keeping your nationalism free from all questions of legislation. But the question is whether nationality, as regarded in that way, entitles Welsh people at the present time to become a unit of Legislation in the United Kingdom. If you once introduced a difference in the law as between the two countries you would, in my opinion, be doing not only a very unwise thing, but you would be adopting a retrograde policy.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think I have this advantage in this debate, that I share with my honourable Friends who have taken part in it the qualification of living in what has been somewhat inaccurately termed "the Celtic fringe," the inhabitants of which are always struggling as best they may against the sluggishness of the Saxon. Sir, the speeches that we have listened to I have heard, with a little amusement, because they so exactly revive my recollections of many debates amongst Scotch Members making exactly similar complaints. One is not allowed nowadays to quote even the least recondite piece of Latin, but certainly the old line, Mutato nomine, de te fabula narratur, applies in this instance if ever it did. The very same complaints have been made again and again with regard to Scotland, and, therefore, it is with the most complete sympathy that I have listened to my honourable Friends. Now, the right honourable Gentleman who made so

    719
    charming and friendly a reply, pointed out that they had not suggested any measure which could have been included in the Queen's Speech. Then, if that was so, I think it is only natural that they should take this opportunity of making, as it were, a general protest against what they conceive to be the neglect of the wishes of the people of Wales in matters for administration as well as in matters of legislation. But there are one or two questions which have been mentioned which surely have a strong claim upon Parliament for consideration. There is the question of the land. We have had, as we all know, a Royal Commission to inquire into the conditions of agriculture in Wales. The majority of that Commission rendered a report which, no doubt, would be considered of a somewhat advanced character. We could not expect—my right honourable Friend could never expect—that the Government should adopt the proposals of that report. But there was also a unanimous report; and this Commission was not entirely drawn from this side of politics. It comprised one or two of the most respected and best informed Members of the Conservative Party in Wales, who agreed with that unanimous report. It did not sound very alarming. Then there was the other Commission which was appointed—and, perhaps, appointed not with altogether favourable intentions towards the Act, which was its subject—to inquire into the working of the Sunday Closing Act in Wales. It made certain recommendations favourable to the extension, or, at any rate, better application, of that Act. It discharged, to a considerable extent, functions which we associate with the name of Balaam. It blessed where it had been intended to take a very different course. And those recommendations that right honourable Gentlemen passed aside by saying they were recommendations which would have been equally applicable to England and Wales. I do not think it is enough to say that they would have been applicable to the rest of the country, because there was no Sunday Closing Act in operation in the rest of the country, and, therefore, those provisions were not required. But these are the results, Sir, of the operations of Royal Commissions. The right honourable Gentlemen said that Royal Commissions were not, within his knowledge,
    720
    always appointed for the purpose of shelving a question.
    THE HOME SECRETARY: Not always.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: But even supposing that they are not, there may be different objects in a Royal Commission. A little time is always a good thing to gain. They may not absolutely shelve the question, but a Royal Commission may always do one or two things: it may throw light upon a fog, and it is also an admirable instrument for the purpose of creating a fog, and, I think, has not infrequently been used for that purpose, besides the subsidiary purpose, which has been made familiar of late years, of passing an interim report of great apparent urgency, which may or may not be the foundation of some serious legislation, while the rest of the subject referred to the Royal Commission is being left alone. Well, Sir, these are two things that have been mentioned—Royal Commissions, whose recommendations might certainly have been made the subject of legislation. But, Sir, the complaint is more general, as I understand it. As I said, it is a complaint that we all suffer, because we have not the advantage of being full-blooded Englishmen. In Scotland and Wales both we find a very natural disposition to think little of the wishes and desires of people of this country when they conflict with the necessities and the requirements of the other parts of the island. The Welsh Members have brought this complaint forward on this occasion, and, I think, with great ability and moderation, and I confess that although, as I began by saying, I am in a happy state of ignorance as to the details of most Welsh questions, and I have not the advantage of being connected with the country, I still have great sympathy with them. On one question it is really cheering to find that there is comparatively little complaint, and that is the question of education. And the reason that there is comparatively little complaint is that the Welsh people have done so much for themselves in that matter, and they have secured from Parliament an amount of attention and an amount of development for their own educational system, which is really a refreshing thing to hear of in these days.

    721
    The right honourable Gentleman said that they had even, in some respects, gone ahead of Scotland. I should be sorry to hear it for my own country's sake, but glad to hear it for the sake of Wales. In these days, to hear of this competition between different parts of the country as to the one in which education shall make the greatest progress is one of the most satisfactory pieces of information that we can receive in this House. Well, Sir, I only rose to express my general appreciation of the complaints made by my honourable Friends, and I hope that if the right honourable Gentleman opposite has anything to do with another Queen's Speech, perhaps Wales may find in it a better place than she has to-day.
    MR. MCKENNA: The sympathetic character of the speech of the right honourable Gentleman the Home Secretary was such that he seemed only to lack occasion for giving us some hope of a little Welsh legislation. May I be allowed to suggest to him that such an opportunity is now to be found. There are at the present moment in South Wales many thousands of miners who are electorally disqualified for what I think is no fault of their own. I can fully understand that on the general law of the disqualification of paupers a great deal may be said in favour of the existing system, but that disqualification is based upon the ground that, as a rule, pauperism is discreditable. Whether it is possible to disassociate any discredit from the state of pauperism may be a fit subject for discussion. Certainly the attitude taken by those who have made proposals for old-age pensions seems to show that, in their opinion, mere pauperism in itself—the fact that a person for a subsistence is obliged to receive certain local assistance—is not of itself a sufficient ground for disqualifying him from voting. Now, Sir, in the case of the miners in South Wales, there cannot be a doubt that, so far as their being reduced to a state of pauperism is concerned, there is no fault whatever to be found with them. It is not the miners who went out on strike, but it is they who were locked out, and if they were unable to earn a livelihood, whatever the reason for the lock-out may have been—whether the masters were right or wrong, I am not now discussing
    722
    —undoubtedly the miners were not themselves responsible for this enforced pauperism, nor, as a matter of fact, have they been paupers in any numbers in the ordinary sense of the word. They have been employed in some local relief works, and they have been paid out of certain funds which, to some extent, were provided through Boards of Guardians. It is only by a very technical construction of the existing law that such assistance has been held to be pauperism, and to disqualify for a vote, and it would be a very simple matter for the Government to introduce a measure giving to the Local Government Board power to make rules specifying the kinds of pauperism which should disqualify from the franchise. It is a simple matter, and it is a matter calling for immediate attention. It is not a small matter because there are at least 6,000 or 8,000 miners who are disqualified at the present moment. The feeling in South Wales is exceedingly strong on the subject, and I, therefore, submit to the Government they should favourably consider these men's claim, and give immediate relief.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Mr. Speaker, if any justification were required for the Motion of my honourable Friend, I think it is to be found in the speeches which we have heard from the two Front Benches. With regard to the speech delivered by the Leader of the Opposition, he frankly admitted that he knew very little about Welsh questions, and, if it was necessary, I think the character of his references to Welsh questions would be proof that that was the case. With regard to the speech which has come from the Home Secretary, while he showed some acquaintance with some of the subjects dealt with by my honourable Friend, he frankly stated that he could never concede any of the demands that have been made by the Welsh representatives on behalf of their constituents. I think that declaration by the Home Secretary will be taken note of in Wales when the time comes. I congratulate my honourable Friend the Member for Denbigh Boroughs upon his courage, he being the only Welsh Unionist Member who has taken part in this Debate, or has shown any indication of a desire to take

    723
    part in this Debate. Nothing can show more clearly the overwhelming preponderance of Welsh feeling upon this question than the way in which Welsh Members sitting on the other side of the House have shirked any opposition to the Motion of my honourable Friend. There are nine Welsh Unionist Members. My honourable Friend the Member for Denbigh Boroughs is the only one who has put in an appearance, and we may well ask: Where are the other eight? They have all disappeared. It shows how very strongly Welsh opinion centres in this question, that the Welsh Unionist Members have been so very anxious to avoid giving us their opinions here. There are one or two points I should like to refer to raised by the speech of the right honourable Gentleman the Home Secretary. He said on the Welsh Early Closing question that the recommendations were of a general character, and he referred to the bona-fide traveller, the question of clubs, and also the question of shebeens. It is quite true that these particular recommendations were of a general character. The question of Sunday Closing of public houses might also be the subject of general legislation if public opinion generally were prepared for such legislation, but public opinion was not prepared for it in England, and so the subject has been dealt with sectionally for Ireland, for Scotland, and Wales. All we now ask is that this Government, having unanimously conceded the principle of legislation with regard to temperance, should adopt the unanimous recommendations of a Tory Commission and make the Welsh Act effective. I submit to the House that the right honourable Gentleman's point falls to the ground. We simply want an Amendment of the Law which at the present moment is a separate one so far as Wales is concerned. The honourable Member for Denbigh Boroughs said,
    "Take the question of Intermediate Education. If it was a good Bill at all, it was equally good for England and for Wales."
    That may be true. I do not controvert it. The Intermediate Education Act would probably work as well in England as it has in Wales, but English public opinion was not ripe for it while the House of Commons, at the instance
    724
    of a Unionist Government, unanimously passed for Wales a purely undenominational democratic Act which commended itself to the Welsh people. I venture to say that if the Unionist Government at that time had proposed a Bill of that character for the whole of the United Kingdom they would not have carried their own Party with them. The Member for Denbigh Boroughs, and the right honourable Gentleman the Home Secretary, have fallen into the same error. They said they would not recognise separate Nationality, and that we form a component part of the United Kingdom. We do, and we do not want it otherwise. If you can educate English people up to the point of accepting the Measures we ask for Wales, we are prepared for you to give them to England. It has been recognised in legislation that many conditions create differences of opinion in the two countries, and make separate legislation necessary for the Principality. With regard to Intermediate Education we are 15 years in advance of England. We are also in advance of England with regard to Sunday Closing. Why is this? Because public opinion in England, in the judgment of the Government at any rate, has not been educated up to the point of Scotch, Irish, or Welsh public opinion, and it is impossible to legislate in advance of public opinion in any part of the United Kingdom. The same thing applies to land. The right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out that there are several unanimous recommendations made by the Welsh Land Commission, and, the request now made to the Government is that they will introduce or support a Bill embodying the recommendations which were passed by the Commissioners without protest. We do not ask the Government to adopt the drastic recommendations of the Welsh Land Commission. We cannot hope to get from a Unionist Government legislation on these lines; but what we do say is that the perfectly unanimous recommendations of the Commission should receive consideration. The honourable Baronet, the Member for Swansea, a typical Welsh Conservative in every respect, is a large landowner, and, I believe, an excellent landowner. He understands the opinion of Welsh Conservatives on that point, and is a better spokesman than possibly any Member

    725
    in this House, and yet the honourable Baronet signed that unanimous report containing two or three most important recommendations. What we ask is, will the Government not accept a Bill from this side of the House adopting the recommendations of the Commissioners which were arrived at unanimously? That is all we ask them to do, and the right honourable Gentleman the Home Secretary has given no answer at all, except to refer us to some vague paragraph in the Queen's Speech about a Bill which is to be introduced by the President of the Board of Agriculture, and to which annual reference has been made since 1895. This is the fourth time it has been in the Queen's Speech. Will the right honourable Gentleman say that the Government are prepared to introduce that Bill and to press it through Parliament in the present Session? What is the good of referring to a Bill which is simply there for show purposes? We have had the legislation upon Agriculture, but the one Bill which the farmers of Wales, and, I believe, the farmers of England, want has not even been introduced into the House of Commons. No one acquainted with Welsh life will contend that the conditions of land tenure in England and Wales are similar. The right honourable Gentleman may say that what is applicable to Wales is applicable to England also, so far as Agriculture is concerned, but that is not so. You have got the same state of things in Wales as you have in every Celtic country. In England a farmer regards his occupation from a business point of view purely, and if the farm does not pay he gives it up. He has none of that sentimental attachment to his home which induces the Welsh farmer to spend his last shilling for his rent rather than quit his farm, even though other creditors remain unpaid. Land in some parts of the country is not worth one-third what it was. You have no part of Wales in which that is so. There was evidence before the Commission that Welsh farmers had been evicted because they declined to vote for the candidates recommended by their landowners. That is a state of things which would not be tolerated in England, and the report of the Land Commissioners unanimously recommended legislation to meet such cases. Then on the question of devolution some declaration
    726
    should be forthcoming from the Local Government Board. This matter has been raised for four years. It was first raised in the Session of 1895, and we had an exceedingly satisfactory answer from the President of the Local Government Board—so satisfactory that I thought we were going to get legislation on the subject in that Session, but up to the present we have had nothing. Last Session we had a report from the Local Government Board, which was of a very serious character. It was admitted that the Local Government Board was inadequately equipped for the enormous amount of work thrown on the Department, and the result is that sometimes matters of grave local importance are decided by second or third-rate clerks. Able as these gentlemen may be, and the Local Government Board have an excellent staff, they cannot deal so satisfactorily with local grievances as could the elected representatives of the locality in which the grievances have arisen, and therefore I ask the President of the Local Government Board to say that if a scheme is substituted for referring such matters to Welsh County Councils, he will give it favourable consideration. The Welsh County Councils could deal much better with the questions than the Local Government Board. I observe that the Secretary of the Local Government Board shakes his head. I say it is absolutely impossible for the Chief Official of the Local Government Board to deal with all the questions that come before that body. For instance, they had 166,000 letters from different localities on different subjects in one year. Would it be possible for Sir Hugh Owen or any other Chief Secretary in that Department to deal with all these different questions? It is quite beyond the power of any one man, even though he be assisted by a very efficient staff. All these questions I think we are perfectly justified in asking the Government to favourably consider, as they are entirely non-contentious. With regard to the contentious questions, such as Religious Equality, Disestablishment, and Local Veto, we fully recognise that if Wales wants these things it must go to a different set of men for them, but for all that we are entitled to make our protest year by year against the continuance of this system by which one part of the country, which sends an

    727
    overwhelming majority here to demand certain reforms, is constantly neglected. The mere fact that the Government will not undertake legislation on the larger questions is an argument in favour of their dealing with minor and non-contentious matters, and we are entitled to let Wales fully realise that there is nothing to be expected from this Government on any of these questions.
    MR. PHILIPPS: Mr. Speaker, the right honourable Gentleman the Home Secretary has said that Wales would benefit from much of the general legislation which was promised in the Queen's Speech. Nobody disputes that Wales will benefit if, for instance, the legislation promised with reference to Agriculture is really carried into law. The complaint we make, and the reason why my honourable Friend, the Member for Flint Boroughs, has moved this Amendment is this, that in the Queen's Speech special legislation is promised to England, special legislation is promised to Scotland, and special legislation is promised to Ireland, but no special legislation whatever is promised to Wales. That is our complaint. I quite admit that the right honourable Gentleman is correct in saying that we are not entitled to complain because the Government would not give us any party legislation. It is quite true that for Welsh Local Veto and Welsh Disestablishment we cannot look to the present Government, for they pledged themselves against such things. Their candidates in Wales, who supported their policy, pledged themselves against these Measures, and Wales is in no way entitled to complain because she does not get them. But are we to go to Wales and tell our constituents that with regard to non-party proposals the Government are going to be equally deaf in listening to our demands? Non-party proposals have been put forward which Conservatives are just as much in favour of as are the Liberals. I will allude to two of them. The first one has reference to loans to freeholders. That was one of the unanimous recommendations of the Welsh Land Commission. It is a recommendation to which Tories and Unionists set their hands, as well as those who are opposed to the Unionists in politics. I should like to point out that in this very
    728
    Queen's Speech the Government propose—and I am glad to see it—that some advances of money should be made to enable working men to buy their own houses. There are numbers of our small farmers in Wales—small freehold farmers—who are every bit as poor as the working man. They bought their farms at very high prices, and borrowed the money to do so; they are paying on their mortgages four per cent., and some even as much as five per cent.; and having year by year to meet the interest on these mort gages, they are every bit as poor as any of the working men in Wales. The Government are proposing to lend money to working men to buy their own houses, but why should they not lend money to these small farmers to enable them to keep their own houses? I am certain that if the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was here he would bear me out when I say that at the present price of Consols the Government can borrow money at two per cent., or the merest fraction over it. Under the Land Purchase Acts the Government are lending money to the Irish landlords in millions to buy their own farms. Why should they not lend money to equally poor farmers in Wales to keep their own farms? The security is as good as it possibly could be. Land cannot fall in price, because Parliament has passed a Bill preventing the importation of live cattle. In many parts of England the business of the farmer is to fatten live cattle. It is only in Wales and Ireland that young cattle can be bred. It is because land in Wales is so suitable to the breeding of young cattle that it can never fall in value so long as the importation of foreign cattle is forbidden. If it is safe to lend money to Irish farmers to buy their farms it must be ipso facto safer to lend money to Welsh farmers to keep their own farms. The Government could not win a single county in Wales by a candidate who pledged himself against this proposal. If he is not in favour of it when he goes down to Wales, he will be before he has been at three political meetings. That is my experience. [Laughter.] Honourable Members laugh, but I must correct myself. I personally was in favour of it before I started canvassing. I was

    729
    referring to my own opponents. There is another absolutely non-party proposal with reference to salmon fishing in the Welsh Rivers. I believe that in Wales we have rivers which ought to be some of the best salmon rivers in the country. Why should they not be developed? It would benefit the landowners along the rivers more than anybody else. The salmon rivers in Wales are far from what they ought to be. I have some experience of the rivers in South-West Wales. They are controlled by a Board of Conservators who have not got sufficient funds at their disposal to adequately protect the rivers, the result being that poaching goes on for miles and miles. Some of the rivers have only four or five water bailiffs to look after them along their whole length. I have been writing to the President of the Board of Trade very frequently on the subject, and I hope something will be done. What happens is this: when salmon gets scarce in the district, the Board of Conservators stop the net fishing at the mouth of the rivers. That is not what is done in other countries. We buy in this country enormous quantifies of tinned salmon from British Columbia, a great quantity of which might be grown here. In British Columbia, when there are not salmon enough in a river, they establish salmon hatcheries, and they breed a lot more salmon and keep up the supply. That is what we ought to do in the Welsh rivers if the Government would pay attention to the matter, instead of allowing the Board of Conservators to stop net fishing at the mouth of the rivers. The Conservators impose regulations which make it difficult for the net fishermen at the mouth of the rivers to catch any salmon, and the fishermen naturally stop taking out licences. This reduces the funds of the Conservators, poaching increases, and things become worse than before. A proposal to remedy this. I submit to the Government, is about as non-contentious a proposal as anybody could possibly make. This Government did not promise us Welsh Disestablishment or Welsh Land Reform, but they said they were going to bring in non-Party legislation for the benefit of all classes of the community. They said they were going to develop trade. They have, however, refused to turn their attention to any of these non-
    730
    contentious proposals by which they might earn the gratitude of the people of Wales, and they have put us in this position. We shall not only go down to Wales to say, "Vote against the candidates because they are not in favour of Disestablishment and Land Reform"; but we shall say, "Vote against the Tory candidates because, when we propose non-Party legislation, the Government veto it just as they veto Party legislation to which we know they are opposed."
    MB. R. JASPER MORE: Mr. Speaker, I rise merely to reply to a remark made by the honourable Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. I can assure him that we take the greatest interest in the aspirations of our gifted neighbours, and I was surprised at their modesty in underrating their natural advantages. If the Liberal Leader had not said that it was not allowable to quote Latin, I should have been tempted to apply the remarks of Virgil to the farmers—namely, that the Welsh Members are too fortunate if they only knew their own peculiar blessings. One is that of being a bilingual nation. I went to Rhyl to study the tithe question, but I found I was beaten by the Welsh language. I was told that the best way to ascertain the views of the farmers was to travel in a third-class carriage, and I got a friend to do so. He told me he asked them why they objected to the burden of the tithe, and they said it was because it was imposed upon them by that rascal, George III. With regard to what the honourable member for Carnarvon Boroughs has said about salmon fishing in the Welsh rivers, I would like to point out that an Exhibition is being organised of Welsh industries. I am sure we should be delighted to have a few specimens of tinned salmon from Wales. I congratulate the Welsh people on putting aside all religious differences, and attending in such large numbers at the service held at St. Paul's on the eve of the celebration of their Patron Saint. Whatever they may say of agriculture, their mutton is most famous in London, and a peculiar dish of theirs, which they no doubt will use at the banquet, is very popular at the restaurants in the Metropolis. We have heard a good deal about Welsh education, and we know that all

    731
    places in the State are open to the highly educated, and it would appear to extend to foreign countries as well. The Leader of the House spoke the other night of the honourable Member for York, hut his attention was not called to the fact that one of his own supporters, the Member for Merthyr, known as the "Gold King of Wales," went out to China and advised the Chinese Government of Peking on mining concessions. When we remember his contests with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this House on Mining Royalties it would be most interesting to know what passed between him and the Emperor of China on the subject. This illustrates the great advantage of being a bilingual nation, for most of the Members of this House are conscious of the fact that they do not know even the Chinese or the Welsh term for royalty. One of the great grievances of Wales, which has frequently been mooted in this House, and which seems to me appropriate to recall on this occasion, is the want of a capital. Welsh Members appear to me to be unable to agree on that question, and it gives us great satisfaction in Shropshire to know that the Welsh Members hold all their meetings in Shrewsbury. And when they speak in this House of some new system of Private Bill legislation, I am reminded of the line of railway between East and West Wales. We have heard before, indeed we heard last year, of a Bill promoting a railway from the East to the West of Wales, and there was to be a capital of a million pounds sterling. So much interest was taken in the scheme that it even attracted the attention of Royalty itself. The disappearance of that scheme has caused me very great regret, because it is very obvious to me that the constituency I represent—Ludlow—would be the natural capital of Wales again, as it was formally, when,
    to some extent, the seat of the Government of Wales was at Ludlow. They were governed by a President, a Council; their meetings were extended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and two Judges; and this we should like to see restored again. The Cambrian Archaeological Society came to Ludlow last year, and felt quite at home in their old haunts.
    MR. SPEAKER: The terms of the Amendment are very wide, but I think the honourable Member is now travelling beyond them.
    MR. JASPER MORE: My only desire, Mr. Speaker, was to call attention to one of the grievances, or supposed grievances, in Wales—namely the want of a museum there, as they all thought this town has the best of provincial museums. I shall, in conclusion, make this one remark. I have to congratulate the Welsh Members upon the fact that Birmingham is spending no less a sum than £7,000,000 in getting a supply of water from Wales, and that there is a prospect of London doing the same. I really do this because I think I shall be justified in calling the attention of the London County Council to their un-acquaintance with the history of the district, especially when we recollect that they have suggested the erection of a statue to Boadicea on the Thames Embankment, instead of to Caractacus, the hero who defended Wales, and who was betrayed by Boadicea. From all points the Welsh may be congratulated on the favourable impression they have made on this great Metropolis.
    Question put, "That those words be there added."
    The House divided—Ayes, 144; Noes, 194.—(Division List No. 4.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

    Blake, Edward

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Colville, John

    Allen, W. (Nwc. under Lyme)

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Ambrose, Robert (Mayo, W.)

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Crombie, John William

    Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert H.

    Burns, John

    Daly, James

    Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

    Burt, Thomas

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

    Baker, Sir John

    Caldwell, James

    Davitt, Michael

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Baylcy, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Dillon, John

    Billson, Alfred

    Cawley, Frederick

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Birrell, Augustine

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Doogan, P. C.

    Duckworth, James

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Dunn, Sir William

    Lloyd-George, David

    Roche, Hn. James (East Kerry)

    Ellis, Thos. E. (Merionethsh.)

    Logan, John William

    Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees)

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

    Lough, William

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Evans, Sir Francis H. (Sth'ton)

    Lyell, Sir Leonard

    Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Mac Aleese, Daniel

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

    Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift

    Shee, James John

    Ffrench, Peter

    M' Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    M' Dermott, Patrick

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    M' Ghee, Richard

    Souttar, Robinson

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    M' Kenna, Reginald

    Spicer, Albert

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    M' Laren, Charles Benjamin

    Steadman, William Charles

    Gibney, James

    Maddison, Fred.

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Gilhooly, James

    Mandeville, J. Francis

    Strachey, Edward

    Gladstone, Bt. Hon. Herbert J.

    Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Molloy, Bernard Charles

    Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

    Gold, Charles

    Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

    Morgan, J. Lloyd Carmarthen)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Hammond, John (Carlow)

    Morgan, W. Pritchard (Merthyr

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Harwood, George

    Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

    Thomas, Alf. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Hazell, Walter

    Morris, Samuel

    Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Morton, Ed. J. C. (Devonport)

    Tully, Jasper

    Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

    Moss, Samuel

    Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

    Hodderwick, Thos. Charles H.

    Murnaghan, George

    Walton, John. L. (Leeds, S.)

    Hemphill, Bt. Hon. Charles H.

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Hogan, James Francis

    O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

    Weir, James Galloway

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Pease, Joseph T. (Northumb.)

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Woods, Samuel

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Pinkerton, John

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth

    Price, Robert John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Labouchere, Henry

    Reid, Sir Robert Thresie

    Mr. Herbert Boberts and Mr. Brymor Jones.

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cum'land

    Richardson, J. (Durham)

    Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Acc'gton

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Leng, Sir John

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Garfit, William

    Archdale, Edward Mervyn

    Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth

    Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H.(C. of London

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

    Gilliat, John Saunders

    Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

    Coddington, Sir William

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fred'k

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Balcarres, Lord

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Curzon, Viscount

    Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

    Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

    Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

    Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.

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

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

    Beckett, Earnest William

    Denny, Colonel

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Bethell, Commander

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Heath, James

    Biddulph, Michael

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Bigwood, James

    Dorington, Sir John Edward

    Helder, Augustus

    Bill, Charles

    Douglas, Bt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Drage, Geoffrey

    Hoare, E. Brodie Hampstead)

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Dyke, Bt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

    Hobhouse, Henry

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh

    Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

    Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas

    Hornby, Sir William Henry

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Houston R. P.

    Brown, Alexander H.

    Fergusson, Rt.Hn.Sir J. (Mnc'r

    Howard, Joseph

    Butcher, John George

    Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

    Howell, William Tudor

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

    Finlay, Sir Bobert Bannatyne

    Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

    Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

    Jenkins, Sir John Jones

    734

    735

    Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

    Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

    Joliffe, Hon. H. George

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Spencer, Ernest

    Kenyon, James

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

    Knowles, Lees

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Northcote, Hn. Sir H. Stafford

    Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

    Lafone, Alfred

    O' Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart

    Leighton, Stanley

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darl'ton)

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Pender, Sir James

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

    Penn, John

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liv'pool)

    Pilkington, Richard

    Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Thorburn, Walter

    Lowe, Francis William

    Plunkett, Rt. Hn. Horace Curzon

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Lowles, John

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    Valentia, Viscount

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Purvis, Robert

    Wanklyn, James Leslie

    Lubbock, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Pym, C. Guy

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of Wight

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Whiteley, George (Stockport)

    M' Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

    Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.

    M' Calmont, Col. J.(Antrim,E.)

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas Thomson

    Williams, Joseph Powell- (Bir.)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Round, James

    Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

    Maple, Sir John Blundell

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Wolff, Gustav Welhelm

    Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

    Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham

    Wyndham, George

    Milbank, Sir Powlett C. John

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Wyvill, Marmaduke D' Arcy

    Milner, Sir Frederick George

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

    Ward, Hon. Robert A. (Crewe)

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

    Young, William

    Monk, Charles James

    Seely, Charles Hilton

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Seton-Karr, Henry

    More, Robert Jasper

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Morrell, George Robert

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Main Question again proposed.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Another Amendment proposed.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move, as an Amendment to the Address, at end, to add—
"And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that, in our opinion, it is expedient that any Bill which shall have been passed by this House, and shall not have been submitted to Your Majesty for Your Royal Assent in the Session in which it was passed by this House, shall, if passed by this House in the ensuing Session, be submitted to Your Majesty, and, upon Your Royal Assent being signified, forthwith become law."
All reforms have their origin outside the House of Commons, because the people, for some reason, are more zealous outside than their representatives are inside the House of Commons. When a suggestion for a reform has acquired a certain amount of consistency outside, it is moved by some Member inside in the form of a Resolution or an Amendment, and if the reform be sound it is moved again and again until at length it reaches a period when it is ripe for legislation.
736
This is very much the case with regard to the House of Lords. It is a great many years ago since I put upon the Orders of the Day a Motion conceived in the terms of that excellent Parliament, the Long Parliament, in regard to the House of Lords. On that occasion Members on the other side of the House were so startled, Mr. Speaker, and regarded this as monstrous, that a Gentleman got up in his place and asked your predecessor whether such a Resolution could be allowed to remain on the Notice Paper. Your predecessor told him, of course, that I was in order. I moved the Resolution, and I have moved several on the same subject subsequently. On the first occasion my supporters were more select than numerous—I believe, in fact, I only had two Members voting with me from Great Britain. But I persevered, and the minority got larger every time I moved it until, in the last Parliament, my Amendment was accepted by the House. It is perfectly true that the Amendment was not sent up to Her Majesty, but that in no sort of way concerned me. I was addressing it to this House and the country, and I attained the end which I sought. We are now, I think, in the fourth year of the present Parliament, and up to now there has

737
been no Resolution moved in regard to the House of Lords. Therefore, this House has not had an opportunity of expressing its views, either by speaking on the matter or by voting on the matter. The consequence is that the idea has got abroad, amongst those who have sent us on this side to the House, that we are not very earnest in the matter. I trust that, after this Motion has been put by you, Sir, and after the Division has taken place, that delusion will be thoroughly dispelled. There are outside this House a very large number of persons who are desirous of abolishing the House of Lords. There are others—all Liberals, I think, come in this category—who are desirous of limiting the veto of the House of Lords. On this occasion I range myself amongst the Moderates, and my object is to ask the House to consent to a Resolution limiting the veto of the House of Lords. We are often told that this country is self-governing—that it is governed by its representatives. This is perfectly true when the Conservatives are in power. They have no House of Lords to control them; they do precisely what they please. I do not complain of that. They represent the majority of the country, and they ought to be allowed to legislate as they please—with, of course, a protest and criticism from us—but when the Liberals come into office the position is different. We can do absolutely nothing. We are faced by the Conservatives in the House of Lords, to which they retire, as to a fortress, and bid us defiance. When a Bill is brought in—some good, sound Radical Measure—one of three things happens. Either it is amended—in a Conservative sense—by the House of Lords, and we are obliged to accept the Amendments rather than lose the Bill: or the Bill is so emasculated and mangled by the House of Lords, that we are obliged to allow it to lapse; or it is entirely thrown out by the Lords. In the last Parliament we had instances of these three ways in which Bills are treated by the House of Lords. We had the District Councils Bill amended by the House of Lords, and we had to accept the Amendments, but the Bill was not passed in the form in which it was introduced. We had the Compensation for Accidents Bill. That Bill was so emasculated that we allowed it to lapse. Then we had the
738
Home Rule Bill. That Bill, I need not remind honourable Gentlemen opposite—they are, judging by their cheers, proud of it—was thrown out. There are also a vast number of minor Bills, containing very sound and Liberal views, that are sent up to the House of Lords, and which are very seldom thrown out, but are so amended—in a Conservative sense—that they do not become law in the sense that we should desire. The result of all this is that when the Liberals are in office they have, in regard to their major Bills, only one or two things to do. Either they have to allow the Bills to be shelved, or they have to dissolve. They have office, but they have no power. They have the majority in this House, but the majority can do nothing. I think all honourable Members on this side of the House will agree with me in thinking that this system has lasted very much too long already. In the last Session of the last Parliament nothing was done. I think the honourable Gentleman the Member for West Fife clearly put the position when he said he ploughed the sands of the seashore. He said we did that as an object lesson. I did not think an object lesson necessary, but I have no doubt that Liberals have taken that lesson to heart, and are determined, so far as they are concerned, that if they do have a majority in the next Parliament the Executive they select shall not plough the sands of the seashore. My own impression is that unless they make it very clear that whatever Liberal Executive gets into power they are not prepared to plough the sands of the seashore, they will not get a majority at all. The notion of honourable Gentlemen opposite seems to be that we Liberals are such weak and vacillating creatures that we require some sort of control over us, and that it is a good thing for us that the House of Lords should exist to save us from ourselves—as a kind of appeal from Liberals drunk to Liberals sober. We do not quite admit that explanation of what we are. We think ourselves quite as intelligent, with all respect to honourable Gentlemen opposite, as we regard them to be. If a Bill is thrown out by the Lords, and if we do appeal to the country, we are by no means certain, supposing the country does decide in our favour, that the Bill will be passed by the Lords.

739
There are many pretexts on which the House of Lords has thrown out Bills from Parliament to Parliament; and probably will continue to throw out Bills from Parliament to Parliament so long as they maintain their present power. They say the country has not been consulted on this particular Bill, etc., etc.; but, as a matter of fact, excellent Bills which have been carried Parliament after Parliament in this House have not been passed by the House of Lords. Broadly speaking, we may say that when an appeal is made by the House of Lords to the Liberals outside this House to reverse the decision of Liberals inside this House they never succeed. I believe there are one or two cases to the contrary which may be quoted by honourable Gentlemen opposite—for instance, in the last century, there was Mr. Fox's Bill; but I very much doubt, when the question was raised, whether the people, in giving their decision, troubled themselves much about the Lords having thrown out the Bill. With regard to the Home Rule Bill, honourable Gentlemen opposite are undoubtedly under the impression that the country decided against that Bill and in favour of the Lords at the last General Election. I will not express a strong opinion myself of the matter, but I am bound to say I have always regarded the question as one which is at least arguable. The Liberals in the country might very possibly have assented to Home Rule had they thought that if they did so the Bill would not be again thrown out by the House of Lords; and I am inclined to think the country did not give the Liberals a majority because the Liberals had not clearly and specifically informed them that if they did get that majority they would so act at once, in regard to the powers of the House of Lords, as would prevent the possibility of the Home Rule Bill being again thrown out. The Liberals had a good opinion of the electors, but the electors had got very little bread from the Liberals. On the other hand, they thought they might as well take the crumbs, such as old-age pensions, which honourable Gentlemen opposite offered them. The Pensions Bill, if I remember rightly, was the next Bill interfered with. The Leader of the House told us that the Pensions Bill was to be passed during the present
740
Parliament. Assuming for the moment that we are, on this side, that beastly, reckless, impulsive body of men that we are supposed to be by Gentlemen opposite, surely the House of Lords is not a fitting tribunal to decide whether or not the legislation of the Liberals when in power represented the views of the country. The House of Lords, as this House well knows, is composed of hereditary members and of Bishops. It is recruited sometimes by distinguished gentlemen—sometimes by a distinguished man of science, and sometimes by some ex-Minister, who has to be "shelved"; but in the main it is recruited from rich men, who are ready to pay for the privilege. We had a curious light thrown during the vacation upon the mode in which titles are bartered in regard to a little cheque dangled about by a gentleman of the name of Hooley. I do not wish to say anything more about this incident, because I always wish to be fair to this House, because, to my mind, I do not think there is much to choose from in the matter of selling titles between honourable Gentlemen opposite and honourable Gentlemen on this side of the House. I only mention the case of the revelations with regard to this man Hooley to show that they do not tend to lead us to consider that every member of the House of Lords is so absolutely scrupulous in money matters, and so exceedingly intelligent, that he ought to sit in judgment over us. The members of the House of Lords are not elected, as we are. We, therefore, are far more in touch with the constituencies than they are, and we are far more likely to know what the constituencies really desire, and what are their opinions, than the Gentlemen who sit in the other part of this building. They are all the same class, and that class is the smallest. We represent all classes, and surely we are better able to say what those classes feel or think upon any subject, because we are more in touch with them. Again, the Gentlemen of the House of Lords are nearly all of one Party, and it must be remembered that the issues upon which they are called upon to judge are most essentially Party ones. Naturally, they have a certain disposition to decide in favour of their own Party. But, besides this, a very large number of these noblemen have a personal interest

741
in the matter. We know very well that when a Ministry comes into office—putting aside those who occupy permanent official offices—there are a large number of posts, well-paid posts, such as lords-in-waiting, the gold-stick, and so on, which are distributed by Ministers to Members of the House of Lords. Consequently, those Gentlemen anxious to become Gold-Sticks would be inclined to decide in favour of the Ministry, and it could hardly be expected that they would give an independent judgment. As a matter of fact, on this issue—whether the Liberal Party in this House really represents the Liberals in the country or whether it has ceased to represent them—if we had the power that any man has who goes before a tribunal as a litigant, we should object to nearly everyone in the House of Lords having a vote upon the matter. When these Lords come to judgment they have a Party bias, and they have a personal bias in the matter of their judgment. We are often told that no doubt the House of Lords is an antiquated institution; but it adequately fulfils the functions for which they are brought together. I do not deny that for a moment, if their function is, as I believe it to be, to impede and crush all Liberal legislation; but that is precisely the reason why we object to them being invested with those rights. Sir, the only effective remedy for this is, in some sort of way, to limit the veto on our measures now possessed by the House of Lords, and this is what is contained in my Amendment. My Amendment simply means this: That when a Bill has been once rejected by the House of Lords, if it goes up again in a subsequent Session—I say "the next ensuing Session"—of the same Parliament to the House of Lords, it shall be passed into law whether the Lords approve or whether they do not approve. In conversation I have heard a little criticism upon the terms of my Amendment, and I have been asked to explain one or two things, and I will. I have been asked whether the Amendment, or the first point to which we have agreed, will be incorporated in the second Bill. Well, Sir, I think, according to the language of my Amendment, that that would be so; but it is a very minor question, and it is not a question upon which anyone need vote against
742
this Amendment. Well, then, I am asked would the Bill under this resolution go a second time to the House of Lords I What I mean is this: After having passed a second time in this House, is it to go to the House of Lords again to give them an opportunity to accept or reject it, or would it be sent direct to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent? Well, it is a matter of perfect indifference to me either one way or the other. As far as I can see you might choose either. You might send it to the Lords, and if they liked to accept it they might; but the essential point is this, that they would not be able to make any Amendment in it; and whether they did or did not accept, the Measure would be sent up to Her Majesty, and if we had Her Majesty's Assent, which we might hope for, then it would be the law of the land. Someone has suggested to me that, by saying one Session after another, the day for bringing in the Measure might be unfairly sprung upon the country directly it had been thrown out by the Lords, and then we might recommence the second Session, so that there would be no interval. That, however, is not my intention. I think there should be the usual interval of about five months, and there is nothing in my Amendment which would not enable anyone acting upon it legislatively bringing in a Bill with that pro^ vision. I put down "the next ensuing Session," but I really am very indifferent myself whether it is the next ensuing Session or whether it is any one of the Sessions of the same Parliament. I said the next ensuing Session because I believe that no Member of Parliament in this House would get up and say that, if a Bill does pass in one Session of this House, if it could be passed into law, it would be necessary to bring it in in this House in the next Session. I think Gentlemen opposite, who are Conservatives, would have a very fair right of complaint if these Bills were hung up from Session to Session. I am perfectly sure that, with regard to the feeling outside, there is no desire to perpetuate this agitation. Another question I have been asked, which I thought was rather an extraordinary one. I was asked whether I really meant that we should, by Resolution, take away the veto of the Lords. Certainly I do not mean that. The thing would be impossible in itself. We have

743
a law now that a Measure can only become law when it has received the Assent of the Crown, the Lords, and the Commons, and that is the law. Secondly, we could only alter this by altering the law. We might as well say that we could, by a Resolution in this House, declare that Her Majesty's Assent was not necessary, and if we did so, and passed a Bill, until the consent of Her Majesty had been obtained, that Bill would not have the effect of law. I do hope that I have made my meaning clear, for that is my object. I am asking the House to vote for the principle, and not to go into all these minor matters of detail. If they agree with me that the veto ought to be what I should call Sessional, then they will vote for me. If they do not agree with that, then by all means let them vote against me. I ask them to vote for the principle of this Amendment very much as they are in the habit of voting for the Second Reading of a Bill. A Member may vote for a Second Reading because he thinks the principle is sound, although he intends to amend it in all sorts of ways in Committee, and any Amendment might be made to my proposal when we come to legislation; but the fact would remain that the veto would only be Sessional. It has been often suggested that it would be more fair if we do limit the veto to limit it from Parliament to Parliament, so that if the two Houses did not agree the country should decide between the two. Now, Sir, I remember speaking to an exceedingly old Parliamentary hand upon this matter, who I regret very much is no longer with us. This eminent man was talking about what was to be done with the House of Lords. I do not wish to imply that he agreed with me in my views entirely. What he said to me was this, that if the veto is touched it should be reduced to a Sessional limit, because no Liberal Government could possibly carry on the affairs of the country if the veto was thrown from Parliament to Parliament. I think that anybody who takes the trouble to consider the matter will agree in this view of it, and will agree that if we were to carry such a veto, the power of the House of Lords would be limited and specified, and we should recognise it, and the House of Lords would use these limited powers very freely. On minor Bills we should get perhaps a
744
quarter of a loaf instead of the-whole loaf, and with important Bills, either they would be "shelved," or we should have to come every year persistently to an election; in fact, representative government would be put an end to hi favour of government by plebiscite. Unfortunately, we are the poor Party, and honourable Gentlemen opposite are the rich Party, and if we have these perpetual elections the money bags would be sure to win the day. I am a Parliamentarian, and I never would consent to anything that would weaken this House before the country. Well, Sir, we have to consider this, and it is rather more a domestic question than a question that concerns honourable Gentlemen opposite. The moment has arrived at which we ought to express our view with some clearness as to what we desire to be done. I think the moment arrived long ago, but I am perfectly certain that the moment has arrived now. We have been sitting trying to hatch this egg for many years, and the egg is now in a somewhat addled condition. I am a practical person, and I want to enable the Liberal party to legislate, if it gets the majority, as it best pleases But if the veto of the Lords is absolute, we cannot legislate as we best please. What then occurs to the practical mind? Why, limit the veto, and then you will do what you want and get what you want. I do not believe that there is any other way to deal with the matter to enable us to have full legislative powers to carry out the objects for which we are elected as a majority in this House, except by limiting the veto. Of course, a Resolution of this kind is not like the laws of the Medes and the Persians, because if any Heaven-born genius appears to tell us of a better plan, we should accept that plan in preference to this. For my part, I do not think it probable that anyone will elaborate any better plan. Why, Sir, it is settled and clear. Now, this being an obstacle in your way, and you want to proceed on a particular rule, everybody in this world knows that the only way to proceed is to remove that obstacle. There is a notion in some men's minds that if the Liberals get a majority, unless they were under some species of control, they would always be bringing in Measures upon which the country had never been

745
consulted, and to which the country might, in all probability, object, and that they would pass these Measures. Well, I think this would be a most improper course. Admitting that we are knaves, I do not think honourable Gentlemen will say that we are absolutely fools on this side of the House. If a Ministry were to do this, that Ministry would be turned out neck and crop at the next General Election, and what is more, I think they would be most deservedly turned out. If the Ministry of Radicals—the ultra-Radicals, the wild men I speak of—were to attempt to do this, they would be pulled up uncommonly short on this side of the House. It may not be known—and perhaps I am revealing a secret—that we are not always on this side of the House an absolutely united family. On other occasions I have found in this House that we have had to drag along with us an exceedingly heavy 'bus load of Moderate Gentlemen, and you may depend upon this, that that 'bus load will always exist, and would step in and side with the Conservatives if we attempted to do anything unfair, in order to prevent its being carried into effect. I know I feel so strongly in the matter myself that should join the Moderates in voting against such a Ministry. A good deal has been said about a Resolution of this kind being a mere waste of time, because the Lords would be sure to refuse their assent to it. Well, Sir, it seems to me that it is a somewhat extraordinary doctrine on the part of Liberal Members to say that we ought not to vote for any Measure which we may think desirable, because it is possible that the Lords would refuse their sanction to it. But, Sir, I have no sort of fear of the Lords not assenting to such a Measure. There are constitutional means by which we can make the Lords assent to it. Everybody in this House knows that in the time of George I., I think it was, a Bill was brought in to limit the creation of Peers, and it was thrown out upon the specific ground that we ought always to retain the right to equalise the balance of parties in the other House, if we desire it, by a large creation of Peers, and our predecessors have acted upon that doctrine. In 1711 there was a Jacobite—a Tory Jacobite—majority in the House of Lords, and it is very possible that if that Tory Jacobite majority
746
had remained the present Dynasty would not have come to the Throne. What happened? Why, a number of Peers were created in order to give the Whigs a majority. There was no nonsense about it; it was definitely settled, and it was no use the Lords objecting to it. Then, Sir, we have the later experience of Lord Grey with his first Reform Bill. At that time the Lords did throw out the Bill; but they were faced by the declaration that if they threw it out a second time, a sufficient number of Peers would be created to pass it. The Lords were threatened in this way, and they were frightened, and ran away, which was all we wanted them to do. To that incident we owe the fact of Her Majesty the Queen being on the Throne, and we owe to it also the fact that a very large number of electors have a vote who would otherwise not have had it. I am convinced that that threat would be enough again. What do the Lords gain by having this power? What is the advantage socially of being a lord? Personally I do not see any advantage, but I presume the Gentlemen like it because they are few in number, and if you create more of them you will reduce the social advantage. They would not wish to lose their full political rights or have their social distinction watered down. But, Sir, if we are obliged to create Peers, why should we not create them? If we cannot get the veto, or this limitation to their veto, without creating Peers, what in the world does it signify except to the Lords themselves whether there be 1,000 or 500,. I, for my part, would infinitely sooner have 1,000 Lords with a limited veto than 500 Lords with an unlimited veto. If I had to go through a bear-pit I would rather face a 1,000 bears without claws or teeth than half a dozen with claws and teeth. I can assure honourable Gentlemen opposite that I regard them as a respectable and intelligent body of men, and I will put to them this case: Supposing that, instead of the House of Lords, there was another House of Lords consisting of hereditary shoemakers, with a few deacons added to them from the Primitive Methodists. Supposing all these men were sound Radicals, and supposing they were perpetually interfering with the legislation of the Conservatives when they had a majority in this House.

747
Would the Conservatives accept that state of things? No, Sir, I have far too good an opinion of them to suppose they would. They would do their best to overcome the difficulty, and would very soon put an end to this state of things. I always feel myself that honourable Gentlemen opposite have a right to despise us so long as we wear the Conservative fetters, and I almost fear that Gentlemen opposite think we are somewhat humbugs, and that we pass Liberal Measures in the sure and certain hope that the Lords will prevent them ever being carried into effect, But notwithstanding my good opinion of the Conservatives, I have not such a very high opinion of Conservative nature as to suppose that they will vote in favour of this motion. They may think it is a just one, and they would probably do the same thing under the same circumstances; but, after all, they think that the House of Lords is an admirable institution to put a stop to what they call "pernicious legislation" when the Conservatives are not in office. I do hope that all Liberals on this side of the House will vote for this Motion, because I am perfectly certain that they will only be carrying out the view of their constituencies. I do not believe that there is one single constituency in this country in which, if a meeting were held and my Resolution was put to the meeting, it would not be carried with acclamation. The only opposition to my motion would be that it is too moderate. Sir, I think that the Leader of the House, with his usual fairness, will admit that I have put this question fairly and squarely before the House. I do not think that the right honourable Gentleman will take' refuge in little minor details about this word or that word, but I think he himself will meet it fairly and squarely on his side. All we want is to be put in the same position as the Conservatives are in when they have a majority. The right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury himself coined a word which, if he will allow me, I will adopt. The right honourable Gentleman, speaking of China, said that we demanded only equality of opportunity. Sir, all we demand here is equality of opportunity to do good according to our rights. I cannot understand why, if it is good in China,
748
it is not also good in this House. Such, then, is what I have generally asserted in my Amendment, and as fair and honest men we cannot accept less than this equality of opportunity, which is the basis of my Amendment.
MR. S. F. MENDL: My honourable Friend, who has moved this resolution has very wisely confined himself, in a considerable portion of his arguments, not to the theoretical objections entertained to an hereditary House of Lords, not only to showing that the existing system is a very unjust one, but to the practical argument that, by the continuance of that state of things, a condition of affairs has arisen, or may at any moment be expected to arise, which is so serious that it calls for an immediate remedy. That condition of things was described by Mr. Gladstone, in the last speech he delivered within these walls, in words sufficiently familiar to the majority of honourable Members of this House to make it unnecessary for me to recall them. So far as I understand the case of my honourable Friend on this side, the words which Mr. Gladstone used upon that occasion constitute our case against the House of Lords. If, Mr. Speaker, my honourable Friend and I lay stress upon this practical issue more than upon the theoretical objection to an hereditary right to legislate, it is not that we do not think that principle ridiculous and anomalous, because I conceive that in the minds of all the men on this side of the House the whole idea of a man's right to make law resting upon the accident of birth is farcical when it is not dangerous and dangerous when it is not farcical. The hereditary principle would not to-day find many defenders even among honourable Members upon the other side of the House, except perhaps amongst those who are looking forward to a date next May or next January, and who are conscious of their capacity to transmit their great legislative abilities to their descendants. Of course this is a practical country, and we do not destroy anomalies simply because they are anomalies. Anomalies are dear to our Constitution, and unless we can show, as I believe we can abundantly show, that the House of Lords is not only an anomaly, but it is a dangerous anomaly, our case is not made out.

749
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have no intention to dilate upon the historical record of the House of Lords even since 1832. Before the year 1832 the question was an entirely different one. The relations of the House of Lords to an unre-formed House of Commons, which was largely controlled and the constituencies of which were largely owned by individual Peers, was one thing; and it is not surprising that there was very little difficulty or friction in working together at that time. But the relations of the Lords to a reformed House of Commons, one which is in fact as well as in name representative of the people of the United Kingdom, is another matter. I think we might find sufficient grounds for the readjustment of these relations in the fact that while in the period of 1832 to 1884 the constitution and the composition of the House of Commons underwent three fundamental changes, completely altering the centre of gravity of the electorate, during the same time the House of Lords underwent no change at all. To-day the House of Lords is what it ever was, the principle on which its authority is based has remained absolutely unchanged since the earliest days of Parliamentary Government, and the authority claimed and exercised by it is one from which the representative principle is entirely divorced. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is happily not necessary for me to go into historical details in order to show what I believe to be the fact, that the record of the House of Lords since 1830 has been one continued record of opposition to great Measures of progress and reform, an opposition rarely successful in destroying or stopping those reforms altogether, often successful in mutilating them and thereby decreasing their value, and nearly always successful in interposing vexatious, irritating, and unnecessary delay in carrying those Measures into operation, a delay which in more instances than one has robbed acts of justice and social amelioration of more than half their grace, and more than half their capacity to heal sores and allay strife. There has been one aspect of the House of Lords, to which my honourable Friend has referred, to which not sufficient attention has been paid. On the great party questions and issues the record of
750
the House of Lords is well known and remembered. The history of their opposition to Parliamentary reforms; to the extension of religious liberty and equality; the way in which for 36 years they barred the doors of Universities to the Nonconformists of this country; their perpetuation of compulsory Church rates for eleven years after the principle of their abolition had passed the House of Commons; their sinister obstruction to the reform of the Irish Land System; all these are matters of notoriety. What is not equally remembered is the action of the House of Lords with reference to minor Measures, but yet Measures of great social importance to the general community. The action of the House of Lords with reference to such Measures has been of frequent and more or less successful opposition and mutilation, and the compulsory abandonment by Liberal Governments of many effective Measures of reform. There was the great movement to prevent the enclosure of commons. A Liberal Government introduced a Bill for the purpose of preserving commons in 1866, but the House of Lords excluded from that Bill all commons except those near London. In 1873 they again rejected the same Bill, and it was only in 1876 that they accepted it, when a Tory Government asked for it. Many Members present will remember that the House of Lords also rejected the proposal to share the expenses of London improvements between landlord and occupier, and it is not the fault of the House of Lords that the purchase of commissions in the Army is not going on at present, and that the paper duty is not still in operation. The Labour record of the House of Lords is, I think equally bad. They mutilated Lord Shaftesbury's Miners' Regulation Bill in 1812, in the one particular which is most in sympathy with present-day legislation on the subject, namely, the restriction of the labour of women and children, with the result that Lord Shaftesbury declared they had destroyed the usefulness of the Bill. They mutilated the first Bill to Improve the Housing of the Working Classes, which the Leader of the House now takes great credit to his Party for having passed. That Bill was introduced in 1868 by Mr. Torrens; was mutilated by the House of Lords to

751
such, an extent that it had to be dropped. The House of Lords, in the first Criminal Law Amendment Bill of 1891, compelled the insertion of a clause making peaceful picketing a criminal offence, and it was left to a subsequent Tory Government to repeal that clause. The treatment that they meted out to the Bill of my right honourable Friend, the Member for Fife, for the extension of Employers' Liability by their Contracting Out Amendment is too recent to require reference. It is, however, worthy of notice that in the three cases I have mentioned—the Housing of the Working Classes, the penalising of peaceful picketing, and contracting out, it has been left for a subsequent. Government of the political opinions of honourable Gentlemen opposite to undo the mischief done by the Lords during Liberal Governments. The Lords have allowed honourable Gentlemen opposite to steal a horse, while Liberals have not been allowed to look over the hedge. What is the record of the House of Lords with regard to Educational progress? They voted against the first grant of £30,000 and they rejected a provision in the Miners' Regulation Bill to allow pit children the same facilities for education as factor children. In 1870 they struck out the one clause in the Act of that year which permitted the establishment of free schools. Now we find instances of the way they act when Tory Governments are in power. They passed in 1890 a measure of Free Education, but their opposition to educational reform is still none the less strong, as is shown by the manner in which they have treated the various Welsh Secondary Education Bills. Now I ask can anyone say to-day of this record that the House of Lords was right and that the House of Commons was wrong? But what can be said for the avoidable harm caused by the mutilation and delays which resulted from the action of the House of Lords. With reference to Home Rule, I have no desire to shirk that question, and what I have to say about it is that I do not believe the last word has been spoken, and that the contemptuous rejection of the Home Rule Bill will prove not less unwise and unstatesmanlike than other acts of admitted unwisdom which at the time met with the approval of honourable Mem-
752
bers opposite, but which they would now hesitate to defend. All this may be ancient history, but what reason have we to believe that the Lords have reformed. The answer to that must be that their capacity for mischief and their will to exercise that capacity are still in existence. Look at the practical effects which the working of this condition of things has produced to-day. If honourable Gentlemen opposite are in a majority the Lords are quiescent so far as action is concerned. They may growl and protest, but they will give way. Look at the three Measures recently passed. The Irish Land Act, the vaccination Act, the Workman's Compensation Act, and the Free Education Act. Can there be any reasonable doubt that if these Bills had been introduced by a Liberal Government that the Lords would either have thrown them out or mutilated them. But because a Tory Government is in office they swallow them. When the Liberals are in office the House of Lords wakes to life, and scratches and mauls every Measure submitted to them. A Liberal Government has not a fair chance. It has to introduce its Measures with one eye on the House of Lords and accept modifications in order to save its Bills from destruction. During the last Liberal Government we heard of "ploughing the sands," a melancholy occupation which I hope is not to be repeated. The game is not fairly played. The dice are loaded against the Liberal Party. If honourable Gentlemen opposite win at an election it gives them entirely the government of the country and the control of legislation. We have then government by single chamber, but if we on this side of the House win, we always have to fight the second line of defence, which the First Lord of the Admiralty once called a Permanent High Tory Committee. That state of things is an obstruction to the fair play of the Constitution. The Amendment of my honourable Friend will put a limit to that obstruction. Like all definite proposals it is open to criticism, but it is not a revolutionary but a moderate Amendment. Under it the Lords will have large powers, namely, to suspend the passing into law of any Measure passed by this House for a minimum of six months. That gives time for reflection, consideration, and, if neces-

753
sary for agitation. After that it will have to pass here again and run me gauntlet of Party criticism in this House where there is no undue haste and precipitancy. Naturally, my honourable Friend does not expect that honourable Members opposite will agree to his proposal, but I believe on this side of the House we are agreed in recognising the intolerable nature of the grievance, and the necessity of finding a remedy for it. I believe my right honourable Friend the Member for Stirling Burghs and his colleagues could not adopt a more popular policy than to make it clear that when they next assume office they will do so armed with the powers necessary to carry this most just and necessary Amendment of the Constitution. I believe if they do that they will get a majority. They will be able to show that this Amendment of the Constitution is based on justice, because it asserts the principles of fair play and equal treatment, and that it is necessary because it secures the predominance of this House, on which the whole principle of Democratic Government is based, and which is now becoming jeopardised by the action of those who have no representative authority, and should, in my opinion, have no power to interfere with the deliberate decisions of the representatives of the people.
Question put.
On the return of Mr. SPEAKER after the usual interval,
MR. PURVIS: Sir, I desire to say, to begin with, that the honourable Member for Northampton has, in my humble opinion, put his case, as always, fairly and squarely. I hope the Front Opposition Bench will support him or repudiate him fairly and squarely. I trust the new Leader of the Opposition will not, like Achilles—I do not say sulk —but hide in his tent; that he will, to use Scotch law language, either reprobate or approbate the Amendment. I hope, in short, that the new Leader will not run away, and that this new chapter of the history of the Liberal Party, under entirely new management, and giving local option to different sections of the Opposition, will not run to total abstinence from Debate. The honourable Member for Northampton says all reform
754
has its origin outside the walls of Parliament, and I agree with him; but in going on to talk of public feeling as to the House of Lords he did not say what grounds he had for supposing the people were against the House of Lords. It is true there is always a Radical feeling about it. A Radical is never quite happy about the House of Lords save when he gets a peerage. Some seek to end it, but that seems even to them too much for the English people to digest—too much, indeed, for them to swallow, because English people consider that the ship of the State rides more safely and securely at two anchors in all weathers, and so the greater number of Radical authorities for the present say, "Mend the House of Lords by pruning down its right to reject as often as it likes Bills sent up from the House of Commons" when it considers that this House is not at one with the people; that so the will of the House of Commons shall prevail over the wish of the people, and that so the people shall be at the mercy of the House of Commons.
Notice taken that forty Members were not present.
Forty Members having come in,
MR. PURVIS (continuing): Sir, the English people, when this is explained to them, will not submit to be at the mercy of the House of Commons or any other House, and the Radicals will find that they have themselves fallen into the pit which they digged for us, just as in the crazy Home Rule matter, when they pretended to draw closer the United Kingdom by dividing it into several parts. I think I may say for many Radicals as to Home Rule, that they voted for it with the conviction that the House of Lords would reject it and save them (the Radicals) from themselves. Sir, as I have said, it is against the traditions and the very intuitions of the English people to be at the mercy of one House of Parliament, for the question has already been fought out not so long ago, as measured by a nation's life. In the seventeenth century the House of Commons did get rid of the House of Lords, and then got rid of the King. When their time came to go themselves they refused to dissolve, sat for thirteen years, and arrived at such a pitch of

755
tyranny as, among other enormities, to get hold of a poor ignorant agitator— Naylor by name—had him whipped and a red-hot needle run through his tongue. And so the outcome of that Revolution, the child of that Long Parliament— Oliver Cromwell—turned on them, turned them out, looked the door, and put the key in his pocket. Sir, let me put it thus shortly: the House of Lords is the fly-wheel of the British Constitution to regulate the energy—the steam of the House of Commons—and keep it in accord with the permanent—not the spasmodic—convictions of the British public.
MR. CAWLEY: The honourable Gentleman who has just sat down endeavoured to persuade us that the English people are averse to taking away the veto which is in the hands of the House of Lords. Now, I took up this question very strongly at the time of my election, and I do not think that, during the whole of my campaign, I ever made a single speech without drawing attention to the right of veto claimed by the House of Lords. I think the position of that House with regard to the first Ref win Bill is no argument for their being given a right of veto. If the House of Lords was in any respect a court of appeal, I do not think that I should oppose it for a moment, but if it is a court of appeal, it is an extremely unfair one. When the Compensation Bill was passed it was truly said that if that Bill had been brought in by a Liberal Government the House of Lords would have rejected it. If the Irish Land Bill of the Session before last had been brought in by a Liberal Government the House of Lords would have thrown it out. Therefore, it comes to this, that when a Conservative Government passes a measure, however unfair or unjust, the House of Lords allows it to go through; but when a Liberal Government passes a Measure, however fair or however just, it is thrown out if a Party advantage is to be got by doing so. I do not think that a. House founded on these principles can be a permanent institution in this country. Another objection I have to the House of Lords is that it is composed of men who are all in one business or trade—they are all in the trade or
756
business of landowners—and landowning is as much a business as any other. They have land, and let it out for the purpose of being cultivated, much in the same way as a cabowner lets out his cabs for hire. I should object to a House of Lords composed of cotton-spinners and engineers, and any other class in the country, and I equally object to a Chamber composed of landowners. The landowners of the country are the kernel of the Conservative Party in this House, and I object to them having the other branch of the Legislature to themselves. Naturally, as landowners, when a question affecting the land comes before them they seek to protect and advance their own interests. I have no doubt that millowners or cotton spinners would do the same; but I do not think it is fair. The House of Lords wants a Conservative Government. If a Conservative Government is in power, then they do their utmost to keep it in power; but when a Liberal Government is in power, then they endeavour by every means in their power to turn it out. I think the House of Lords has as much intelligence in their body as 500 educated men picked from any other class, and no more. Sir, I object to the House of Lords principally because they compel us to "plough the sands of the seashore." I do not consider that it is any good whatever for a Liberal Party to try and get a majority in this House unless they also try to make some alteration in the veto of the House of Lords; and I for one am not prepared to go on advocating Measures to my constituents when I know perfectly well they will only be thrown out or mutilated when they go from here to the Upper Chamber.
MR. A. K. LOYD: I listened with great attention to the speech of the honourable Member for Northampton when bringing his Amendment before the House, and I think that no one can complain of the general tone which he adopted in doing-so. But I could not help thinking that those portions of the speech which reflected on the good faith of the Upper House were singularly unfortunate, when one considers how large a share of the responsibility, for the appointment of the members of that distinguished

757
body rests upon the Party represented on the other side of the House. The honourable Member was good enough to recognise that that Chamber was sometimes recruited from the distinguished members of all the various professions, in which this country so greatly excels. Distinguished generals, distinguished lawyers, and men distinguished in other professions and various branches of occupation are added from time to time, not merely by one Party, but both parties in this House. That fact alone, in my opinion, militates against the proposal to reduce that great and distinguished Chamber to absolute nullity and impotence. But, apart from the question that the House of Lords has been recruited largely from the Party which is now attacking it; apart from the question of how many are recruited from the great bodies of distinguished people of this nation, there is also the fact that the reconstitution of this Chamber is a work of enormous difficulty. I should like to have seen here to-night the honourable Gentleman whose words met with so much sympathy from Members on the opposite side of the House a few nights ago. That honourable Gentleman, the Member for the Launceston Division, certainly made a very stirring speech against landlords, and showed that he had the confidence of honourable Members opposite on that occasion. If he had been here to-night I feel sure that he would not have been found on the side of the honourable Gentleman who brings forward this Amendment, because I perfectly well remember an article which he wrote at the time that this question was being mooted, some few years ago, in which he showed, in the most conclusive way, that, if you have no Second Chamber at all, your Constitution may suffer from a temporary rush of enthusiasm in regard to a question for which the country is not yet ripe. If you have a Second Chamber, he pointed out that it must either be an Elective Chamber or appointed by nomination. I presume that the honourable Member on the opposite side would be the very last person to tolerate a nominated Chamber. The only alternative, then, as shown by the honourable and learned Gentleman the Member for Launceston, is an Elective Chamber. Now what is the situation that
758
will arise if you have a second Elective Chamber. You will have a Chamber which owes its origin to the express desire of the people. If it agrees with the First Chamber, there is no necessity for its institution at all; if it differs from the First Chamber there will be a conflict and a division far worse than there can be with a Second Chamber, which, having no constituents at its back, can give way without further complications. Of the two Elective Chambers, which is to give way? They are both elected on popular suffrage, and are both entitled to take their stand on the mandate they have received, and, therefore, you get, what is most to be avoided in the constitution of this or any other country, a conflict between Chambers which have each equal rights. Now the existing Constitution does not present a Second Elective Chamber, and by the Constitution, as now laid down by the highest authorities, the House of Lords claims no more than this, that, where it has honestly considered a matter, and it is not prepared to agree with the Lower Chamber, and that same subject matter is referred to the electorate, and a new House is returned on that issue alone, holding the same opinions, the Upper House, as at present constituted, does not insist upon or claim any right to thwart the clearly expressed wish of the people. I say there is no doubt about that being the present doctrine of the Constitution. To make any attack upon the House of Lords for rejecting the Home Rule Bill is wholly unwarranted. That Bill left this House undebated as to two-thirds of its provisions; it was forced through this House by methods to which, happily, it is rarely necessary to resort. The difficulties of getting that Bill through this Chamber may afford matter for recrimination between the two sides of this House, but not for any attack upon the Upper Chamber. And that Bill going up to the other House, to which it was sent in that condition, imperfectly debated, and with many contradictions upon the face of it, and leaving this House at the end of the Session in that plight, could no more have been allowed to pass the House of Lords than any other Measure of a crude and faulty character. Therefore, so far as the conduct of the House of Lords on the subject of the Home

759
Rule Bill is concerned, I fail to find an atom of right in this House to speak in a disrespectful manner of the Upper Chamber. The House of Lords could not possibly have agreed to that Measure without stultifying themselves before the country, and, if their competence and good faith were to be thus impugned, the proper course would have been upon the rejection of that Measure for that distinct issue to have been placed before the country. Had a new House of the same view been elected the House of Lords would not have resisted that clearly expressed view of the people. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this Amendment, which is drawn with much skill, not to say subtlety, while it avoids all mention of the Lords and their veto is, with all its seeming moderation, a proposal to abolish the House of Lords to all intents and purposes. Although the notion of abolishing the Second Chamber is not put forward in this Amendment in terms, can it escape any of the criticisms which might be properly made upon such a proposal'? I think it cannot. This Amendment proposes that if a Bill passed by this House goes to the other Chamber, and is rejected there (although by euphemism no mention of the other House is made), and if it is brought in and passed by this House in the following Session, whatever happens to it in the House of Lords, it is to go on and receive the Royal Assent. What is that but a proposal to abolish the House of Lords as an effective branch of the Legislature? I think honourable Members opposite who chafe under the restraint of a Second Chamber would do well to consider this. There are two reasons why their proposals may have been rejected. One may be because the House of Lords is, as has been suggested to-night, hopelessly incompetent and biased, I can only say, upon that alternative, that the Party opposite have created peerages in the last 60 years in a proportion at least equal to that of the creations by their opponents. I cannot understand how honourable Members opposite can accuse that large phalanx of their own most distinguished former colleagues of losing all fitness for the position to which they were for their former merits promoted. I pass, therefore, from that alternative to consider what can be the only other explanation of the rejection
760
of Measures complained of. I say the legislation rejected may have been considered defective, and I go on to ask whether Members of the Second Chamber, not acting under the restraint of an electorate, may not have some honest motives in being unable to see their way to adopt that legislation which, after a heated conflict of a protracted character, had passed this House. Mr. Speaker, if any honourable Gentleman objects to the existing Second Chamber because of the restraint which it is upon this House, I would invite him to consider that, short of abolition, the only alternative to nomination must be election, and that if you have an Elective Chamber it will be far stronger in its power and in its inclination to oppose those Measures which may be passed by this House, but which it does not find to its liking. The House of Lords does not resist the clearly expressed will of the people. If they reject a Measure, and the distinct issue is placed before the electorate, and the fresh House elected again send up the Bill to them, they do not stand between the people and the fulfilment of what is their clearly and distinctly expressed desire.
Question proposed, "That those words be there added:"—
MR. LAWSON WALTON: I beg to move an Amendment to the Amendment now under the consideration of the House—
"After the word 'that' to omit all the following words and substitute the following: 'The power at present possessed by the House of Lords to overrule the decisions of this House urgently demand the attention of Parliament.'"
The whole Amendment will then be in this form—
"And we humbly represent to your Majesty that the power at present possessed by the House of Lords to overrule the decisions of this House urgently demand the attention of Parliament."
Now, Sir, I have framed this Amendment, which I submit to the sense of the House, not because I differ in any essential principle from the argument of the honourable Gentleman the Member for Northampton, who moved the main

761
Amendment, but because it is obvious that a scheme indicating legislation in outline at this period is a somewhat premature conception. It is easy to defeat a principle in which many of us believe by suggesting objections to the machinery by which it is intended to give to that principle legislative effect. I feel sure that so old a Parliamentary hand as my honourable Friend the Member for North ampton must have felt the force of this objection—
MR. LABOUCHERE: Not in the least.
MR. LAWSON WALTON: As he listened to the argument of the honourable Gentleman the Member for Abingdon. A good deal of the ingenuity and effect of that speech was due to objections, having a well-founded legal origin and great political force, addressed to details of the scheme which the honourable Member for Northampton has proposed. Now, there is one common platform upon which we can all unite. We, at all events on this side of the House, are pledged to some Measure for diminishing the finality and conclusiveness of the legislative veto hitherto exercised by the House of Lords; and this Amendment, in the generality of the language I venture respectfully to employ, seeks to give emphasis to the main object which all honourable Members who sit on this side of the House, or nearly all, entertain. It does not appear to us a vague, speculative, and remote issue, but an urgent, practical question, because if there should be a change in the constitution of the government of this country, the obstruction which would be offered to Liberal Measures of reform 'by the stereotyped Conservative opinion of the other House might create a conflict of no small moment. It is important that we should announce our principle, and that it should be definitely understood on what condition alone the government of the country would be carried on. Now, I should like to point out to the House the very limited scope that is occupied by this Amendment. It is not proposed to abolish the House of Lords, it is not proposed to destroy the position which it occupies as a Second Chamber of the High Court of
762
Parliament. It is proposed only to define the condition under which alone it can exercise the theoretical, but unpractical, right to veto the legislative Measures carried by the popular House. Now, this proposal upon which the sense of the House is invited is a proposal of compromise. The honourable Gentleman the Member for Northampton rather prided himself in being a root and branch man, but on this particular Motion he has been content to forego the honour of being in that position, and the spirit of compromise animates the whole suggestion which he has submitted to the consideration of this House. He has left the lines of a drawn battle between the champions of one Chamber and the champions of two Chambers. He has left the House of Lords in a position which, in many of its essential features, is entirely unaffected, and in a position to retain its immense social influence, to exercise all the powers which belong to it as an historic and dignified Chamber of the Court of Parliament, and its voice in legislation is not proposed to be entirely silenced. But it is suggested that it should have an operative principle, but somewhat modified veto. My right honourable Friend the Attorney-General smiles, but I think in a moment he will recognise that the object of this Motion is not to do more than declare that the dominant power of Parliament shall rest where the changes of democracy have placed it. There has been, Sir, a divorce between Constitutional authority and political practice. This Amendment proposes to bridge the chasm thus created, and to modify the authority of the Constitution so as to bring it into line with a practice of politics of the system under which we live. Now, Sir, it may be said that this is a revolutionary Measure. I entirely contest that proposition. The revolution, in the position of the House of Lords is not proposed by the Amendment now under discussion in the House; the revolution has already taken place. We are seeking simply to define its operation and give legitimate and legal effect to the scope which that revolution has defined. We are dealing with one of the States of the Realm; can it be said that one State of the Realm has escaped from the very serious change in the developments of the civilisation in

763
which we live. Take, if you like, the first Estate of the realm. Take the initiative and power and influence of the Crown in Parliament in the reign of George III, and compare it with that of Her Most Gracious Majesty at the present time. Take also the veto of the House of Lords, you will find, I think, the one was equally vague and equally wide as the other. Just as the Royal veto is as powerful in theory now as it was in the reign of George III., so, theoretically, the House of Lords' veto is the same. But I ask the House has there not been in both of those cases changes of a most material and sensible character during the history of the more recent periods of our Constitution. It may be said with regard to the exercise of the veto of the Crown that nobody proposes to put into abstract language the conditions under which it shall be allowed to operate upon legislation. Now what is the reason why we are content to leave undefined the exercise of the powers of the Royal veto while we seek to define it in the case of the Peers? With regard to the exercise of the Royal veto, we have the guarantee that it is only exercised on the advice of responsible Ministers; but with regard to the House of Lords, no Ministers are responsible, and the veto is exercised by a body which owes no duty except to its own conscience. In dealing with the obligations of the House of Lords to the tribunal of its own conscience you are dealing with a tribunal which, unlike others which have operation under the Constitution and under the law, gives no guarantee for good behaviour; it is a tribunal which can err without the power of correction; it is a tribunal which, if it does wrong, does wrong without remedy; it is a tribunal which in its operations partakes of some of those happy immunities which are associated with corporations. There is no base upon which punishment can be inflicted in this life, and there is no evidence of the survival after this life of any entity which may be subject to torture in the next. I say that, notwithstanding what may be regarded as a strong expression of strong views, this proposal is characterised by moderation and by a spirit of conciliatory reform. I entertain a feeling of strong sympathy with those who honour an ancient and historic institution which has co-
764
operated with ourselves for many centuries in the work of legislation, which has in its time fought the battle of the people against the monarch, and which by the individual character of its Members has won through a wide circle the greatest affection and esteem. But the time has come when we must review the privileges which, according to the theory of the Constitution, are possessed by the House of Lords. I propose to undertake that task without disturbing the rampart of sentiment which enshrines the House of Lords at this moment, and which is its main difference. Now what are these privileges? In the first place let us deal with the theoretic right of the House of Lords to veto in the exercise of their individual judgment the collective wisdom of the whole nation. The theoretic right is gone. That right was assailed, challenged, and demolished in the popular movement which caused the Reform Bill of the year 1832, and from that moment to the present the House of Lords has never ventured to expose itself to any serious conflict with public opinion. I am seeking to put into such a form as will escape all controversy on both sides of the House that which I conceive to be the relative modern aspects of the case. The House of Commons, representing the English people, claims to give actual and effective expression to its opinion in regard to the legislative needs of the nation. The modern claim of the House of Lords is to determine the moment at which the volume and intensity of public opinion shall have reached a point beyond which the legislative block of the Upper House can no longer be safely applied. It is said that the House of Lords has never resisted the clearly expressed will of the people. What is the significance of that argument? It is that the legislative functions of the House of Lords is abandoned in favour of other functions. Can we distrust the House of Lords with legislative functions, and yet leave with them the right of decision when a Measure of legislative reform shall be impeded, or the moment when the legislative block is to be withdrawn, and the Measure allowed to pass through? That is almost a judicial function, and I can understand it being left to a Committee to say when public opinion has reached a point at which

765
the House of Lords ought to yield. With regard to the exercise of the new function, are you to trust them in its exercise? The answer to that question is involved in another question. Do you trust them in their purely legislative prerogative? If you can trust them with the work of legislation in passing or rejecting reforms upon their own individual opinion, then you can also trust them with this new function. But if they fail in regard to the first, then they fail in regard to the second. Those who sit upon this side of the House have no trust in the House of Lords. We cannot entrust them with any confidence with these new functions. Why do we not trust them? They represent only one social element of the body politic. They act under the bias, conscious or unconscious, of a privileged and opulent class, and, thirdly, we find that they are not, as the honourable Gentleman the Member for Northampton pointed out, free from Party leanings, and have even on occasions been known to yield to Party passions. For these reasons we do not feel that we can entrust this or any other function to the purely discretionary administration of the constituent Members of the House of Lords. It is a great discretion. It is a discretion which is invariably exercised with weary monotony in favour of a particular class of legislation. It is said that one of Her Majesty's judges, who is now an ornament to the Bench, was urged by the late Lord Chief Justice to disallow every objection which a particular counsel took before him. It appears to me that the House of Lords have received similar advice from the present Prime Minister, and any objection, well or ill founded, which may be urged, every motion well or ill promoted, is to be dismissed because it emanates from the Liberal Party. The legislation of the political friends of the House of Lords is always found to be marked with an imperative imprimatur in its favour, but the legislative proposals of the Liberal Party are said to be crude, premature, ill-considered, and demanding further consideration. This, of course, gives to one political Party an enormous advantage. The right honourable Gentleman the Colonial Secretary is not slow, upon public platforms, to take full credit for the advantageous state of
766
things which this system accords to him. He has recently claimed for the Unionist Government the rights of the South African Rainmaker. He can call down showers of benison upon the social legislation of his own Party, while to the petitions of Liberal statesmen the "Heavens are as brass." It is idle to ask this House, composed of two distinct schools of politics, to continue to repose confidence in the exercise of a faculty, however limited, which is exercised on the bias of a strong political predilection, and which has shown in past experience to have always been expressed in favour of one political party. Now, Sir, I am most desirous that we should grapple with this question, because I am satisfied that it is not a question of principle, but a question of method. Will any honourable Member rise and defend the prerogative right of the House of Lords to veto in this manner in their own individual judgment legislation which has the whole weight of popular approval and demand? If you do not do it then the difference between us is method and not principle. You have to determine the particular point at which the individual opinion of the House of Lords is to yield to the collective opinion of the nation. But how are you to decide that point? The existing theory leaves the jurisdiction as to that decision to the House of Lords itself. I submit that the decision of that issue ought to be left to the people, and that it should be for the people to decide, by some well-adjusted mechanism, the particular point at which their views in regard to our Legislation should have effect in the deliberations of the Upper Chamber. It is acknowledged that the people have supreme power, and yet it is contested that the people are to decide the moment at which their supremacy shall be exercised. It is admitted that they are to decide the Legislation of the country, and yet you do not leave to them the function of deciding the particular moment at which their decision is to be recorded. That leaves, as I have said, a check undefined and unconstitutional, which depends, not upon the opinion of the Lords in reference to the Legislation subject to their discussion, but upon their opinion in reference to the volume and intensity of public feeling. It leaves them to decide, not only what re-

767
forms shall take place, but the moment they shall come into operation. My honourable Friend the Member for Northampton has dealt with the various checks which will still prevail, and which are of great weight. In the first place, you have the check of deliberation, and then you have the check of postponement. Further, you would have the check of the responsibility of Ministers in re-introducing re-ejeted Legislation, and then you would have the check arising from the power of Parliament to review the actions of its predecessors. With these practical checks, and the interval which must accompany them, the House would be enabled to pause in any Legislation while public opinion might manifest itself. We know that public opinion is capable of manifesting itself. We had some experience of this fact in connection with a certain Education Bill. We also had some experience of it in connection with the Vaccination question. And we know that when the wires of communication which connect honourable Members with their constituents were put into operation there was a curious change of opinion with regard to those two Measures of the present Government. They ascertained that the volume and intensity of public opinion would not support those reforms, and in the one case the proposed reform was abandoned, while in the other it was entirely altered in its character. I think the whole object of this Motion is to allow an interval during which, in similar fashion, public opinion may be tested with regard to any proposed reform, and if that test is applied, and has satisfied honourable Members that public opinion is decidedly in favour of a reform, then I say that an obsolete veto by some other body which is not in contact with the sources of public opinion ought not any longer to obstruct Legislation. I move my Amendment with great regret, because it takes the form of an Amendment to the Amendment of the honourable Member for Northampton. The difference between us is purely one of form, but I ask the House to adopt the Amendment in the language I have framed it, because by it we are not committed to any particular scheme. I emphatically repudiate, as a proposition of political opinion, the right of veto now sought to be exercised by the Upper
768
Chamber. I say, too, that this motion is not premature. I am quite aware that honourable Members opposite are apt to hug themselves in the satisfaction which naturally attaches to the possession of a great majority. But let them remember that that great majority is, to some extent, due to the swing of the pendulum, and the swing of the pendulum is apt to recoil in an equal degree in the opposite direction. It may, therefore, be that in a short time those Benches, will be occupied by honourable Members who now sit on this side of the House. It is a practical question to ascertain upon what conditions alone the Liberal Party can accept office. Are they, or are they not, to be subjected to the control of a militant partisan body, which seeks to frustrate their policy in order to defend the interests of their political opponents, a body which exercises its political prerogative without reference to the considerations which are germane to the questions before it, a body which uses its political prerogative in order to assist its political friends to regain the advantages of office. I do not know that the question will have any personal application in my own case, but approaching the problem from a general political standpoint, I submit that for any Government to accept office subject to degrading conditions such as these would make tenure of a position involving service to the Queen, and service to the country, intolerable to all independent politicians. It is in regard to considerations of this character that I have ventured to insert in the last lines of the Amendment words expressive of the opinion that this matter urgently demands attention. I ask the House to say that we are not approaching this question in any abstract spirit, such as may animate the forums of debating societies, but as practical politicians, who feel that in the immediate future these problems will be of pressing importance. I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Amendment, the insertion of the words—
"The power at present possessed by the House of Lords to over-rule the decisions of this House urgently demands the attention of Parliament."
MR. CROMBIE: I wish in the first place to thank the honourable Member for Northampton for

769
having brought before the House a matter of such vital importance to Liberal ism. It is not the first time that the honourable Gentleman has brought this question before us. I think he referred to-night to a former occasion, in 1894, when we were discussing Amendments to the Address of the Liberal Government under Lord Rosebery's leadership. On that occasion my honourable Friend moved an Amendment in much more general terms than the one we have be fore us to-night, condemning the Government for not including this measure in their Speech. I supported him on that occasion, and the result was that we de feated our own Government by a majority of two. We were reprimanded to some extent by our Whips, and I was led to believe that I would live to repent of my conduct. I have lived, but I do not think I am penitent. I believe that the vote we gave that night, whatever else it may have done, at least showed the country how earnestly Liberals feel upon this question. And when I say this I think I have proved that I would be very willing to support the honour able Gentleman the Member for North ampton in the Lobby if I could do so on the Amendment he has moved. But I feel that that is utterly impossible. For reasons which my honourable and learned Friend has just explained, we consider that the Amendment goes too far into detail, and that its adoption would hamper our Party in the future. My honourable Friend himself has evidently some qualms of conscience on this point, for he tried to explain that, after all, what he wanted was a general Motion on the veto of the House of Lords, and he even went so far as to say that in voting for this Resolution we were only voting for the general principle, exactly as we voted for the general principle of a Bill on the second reading. I am not an old Parliamentary hand like my honourable friend, but I would point out that a Resolution is not a Bill. You can vote for the principle of a Bill on the second reading with the knowledge that you can amend its details, but you vote for a Resolution either wholly or not at all, and I am certain that if we voted for the Resolution of my honour-able Friend to-night we should commit ourselves to the definite plan embodied in it. We have recently elected a Leader of our Party, and the right hon-
770
ourable Gentleman whom we have appointed as our Leader, on the occasion on which we appointed him, said, among many wise things, "I will be willing to hear my followers upon points of politics, but how I am to carry out those identical politics must be left to myself." I suppose that that is a commonplace for leaders, and I fancy that if the honourable Member for Northampton ever comes to lead the Liberal Party, he will be as particular in this respect as my right honourable Friend. I do not know who may be the leader of the Liberal Party when it has to deal in the future with this question, but I think, seeing that this is a great and difficult question, it behoves us not to handicap ourselves or enter upon it with any conditions, and that we should at least leave our Leader in the future a free hand to deal with the subject in the manner he finds most expedient at the moment. Well, Sir, when I say this I hope that honourable Gentlemen opposite will not think that we lay ourselves open to the criticism of having no plan. We have a plan, although we do not commit ourselves at present definitely to details. [Ministerial Cheers.] Honourable Gentlemen opposite cheer, but I do think that there are few questions on which political opinion on this side of the House, at any rate, has crystallised itself more in recent years than on this question of the House of Lords. Even within my own recollection, if you asked a man on this side of the House if he disapproved of the position of the House of Lords, he would be sure to say "Yes." It you asked how he would deal with the House of Lords, you would find three schools of opinion. You would find one school in favour of abolishing them entirely, but I think most of us would admit that this is impracticable. Even the honourable Gentleman the Member for Northampton, who described himself as a wild man—even he has abandoned that plan. But there was also a second plan of dealing with the House of Lords, and that was to reform it. It was to try and cover over the nakedness of the anomaly of the hereditary principle by adding to the House of Lords a judicious selection of elected Members. That scheme dwelt, I know, for a long time in the bosoms of honourable Gentlemen on this side, but since then I find it has crossed the floor of the House, and it

771
now finds a nest in the very bosom of the Tory Party, in the Tory caucus itself. Some little time ago now, at a meeting of the Tory caucus, some gentleman got up and tried to ease his conscience by proposing that there should be a reform of the House of Lords, but I note that this was quelled at once by a douche of cold water from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Well, Sir, I think we may fairly say that we have at least reduced our opinion to this one point, and that is to modify the veto of the House of Lords. I do not want to occupy the House by going over any arguments that have been gone over before; our criticism to-night has been limited within a very narrow compass. We do not complain of them revising the legislation of the House of Commons, and there should be fair criticism. What we do say is this, that at present the whole situation is biased; we say that when the Liberal Party is in office the House of Lords is willing to pass nothing, and when the Conservative Party is in office it is willing to pass everything. Now, Sir, such a state of affairs must necessarily be most unfair in its influence upon one Party in the State. Quite recently we heard statements from honourable Gentlemen opposite, and especially from the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House. He has told us that there is nothing that he wishes for more earnestly than that there should be a strong Liberal Opposition. I would test the earnestness of his prayer by asking him to do something to remove this Tory anomaly. How is it possible that the Liberal Party can ever have its influence in the country so long as we have an unfair Party bias like this? Then, again, the final opinion of the country is thwarted, and I say that the franchise itself is, in a more subtle manner, set aside by the very existence of such a state of things. Now, Sir, I suppose that our constituencies have had, upon the whole, very distinct object lessons in this respect. They know that whenever we come into office everything that we wish to pass is thwarted in another place. Take such a Measure as the Workmen's Compensation Bill. Now, Sir, that Bill was mortally wounded in the House of Lords for one reason alone, and that was that it was maintained that if the Bill was passed the great railway benefit societies would cease
772
to exist. A new Parliament comes in, and a new Conservative Government is in power. You have another Bill introduced, which not only threatens these great railway benefit societies, but has actually made many of them to cease to exist, and yet the House of Lords offers no resistance to this Measure. Do the honourable Gentlemen suppose for one moment that, if we had passed such a Measure as the Workmen's Compensation Bill, it would have passed the House of Lords? Would the Irish Land Bill have passed the House of Lords if we had passed it? Would the Irish Local Government Bill have passed the House if we had passed it? The people of this country cannot fail to be impressed by object lessons like these. What is the result? They feel that if they want progressive legislation they can get a small modicum by putting the Tories in power—not that they get all they want, but they find that that is better than getting nothing. [Ministerial cheers.] Well, honourable Gentlemen cheer that, but let them remember what they are endorsing. They are endorsing the view that the Parties in the State should not have fair and even chances; they are endorsing the view that one Party, and that their own, should have an unfair advantage. That is what they are endorsing by their cheers. That may be mischievous to the Liberal Party, but it is mischievous for a great deal more; it is mischievous to the Constitution of this country. It is because it is so mischievous that we have introduced the resolution which we have done to-night, and it is because I think this Amendment will be accepted by all Liberals that I have great pleasure in seconding it.
MR. H. C. RICHARDS: I must confess that I think the speech of the honourable Member for Kincardineshire would incline and induce us to vote for the Amendment of the honourable Member for Northampton, for whatever may be said of the merits of his Amendment, it is, at all events, straightforward. The honourable Member for Northampton is one of the few men in England who can always command an audience, and can always receive an uproarious welcome. He is also the only proprietor of a sixpenny paper on that side of the House which receives and enjoys a large and intelli-

773
gent circulation. There are other papers I know, but they are supported by the capitalists of the Party.
AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: What about England?
MR. H. C. RICHARDS: I know nothing of the Dutchman which the honourable Member is speaking about. I have not that variety of know ledge which some Irish Members possess, but I must say that the speech of the honourable Member for Leeds is one which deserves the serious consideration of the House, and to that speech I propose to address my remarks. When the honourable Gentleman who seconded the Amendment suggested that the Liberal Party should define their principles, I am sure that we on this side of the House thoroughly agreed with those sentiments. Mr. Speaker, I am no scion of the aristocracy, and I am only here to defend the House of Lords on Constitutional principles, and on the advantages to this country which for centuries they have represented. And, Mr. Speaker, let me say this, that my honourable and leaned Friend, who has displayed that conspicuous ability which he always shows in the conduct of any case, has certainly upon this occasion done a great service to the House of Lords when he concluded his remarks by that apposite speech of his which he said had no personal application. I can only tell the honourable and learned Member what most of his fellow-members of the profession which he adorns believe, that at some time or other it will be our privilege to argue before him at the Bar of the House; but when the honourable and learned Member comes to deal with questions of principle and questions of practice to which he has asked the consideration of the House, I must confess that the arguments of my honourable Friend the Member for Northampton are superior. I thought there was very little force in the argument of the honourable Member when he spoke of the condition of affairs in 1711, because I know full well, as an old Parliamentary campaigner, that when honourable Gentlemen opposite are on this side of the House, and are reminded of their promise to repeal the Septennial Act because it was passed simply in the interests of the Party in power, they do
774
not do so. But when the Conservative Party are in office the repeal of that Act is suggested, and it is said that sextennial and quinquennial Parliaments are long enough. The argument of the honourable Member for Northampton was destroyed in another place in a speech which Lord Rosebery made at Bradford. The very argument which the honourable Member for Northampton addressed to the House to night was addressed to Lord Rosebery from the gallery at Bradford, when he was complaining of the sparse occupation of the seats in the House of Lords by Liberal Peers. He was asked, "Why don't you fill them up? "Why, the very argument that my honourable Friend has used is that it was within the power of the Crown—or, rather, the responsible Ministers of the Crown—to exercise that power, and that by threatening to exercise that power in 1832 they had secured the adoption of the Reform Bill. Why, Sir, what are the facts of the case? The honourable and learned Member opposite, like all the members of his Party, has declined to come to details and that is where the advantage of my honourable Friend the Member for Northampton's Amendment comes in, because he, I know, has the courage of his convictions, and he has the will to show how the Amendment should be carried out. The Amendment of my honourable and learned Friend is like the miracle of the draught of fishes, and is intended to bring in all those moderate members of the Party of which the honourable Member for Northampton spoke with great respect, although he does not speak of those moderate Members outside this House with the same amount of respect as he has shown towards them here to-night. Mr. Speaker, the suggestion has been made that the House of Lords is simply the taskmaster of the Conservative Party. [Hear, hear.] Well, I do not agree with my honourable Friends who make that statement. I have seen, on more than one occasion, the House of Lords even refuse to accept the dictation of the Prime Minister. The very distinguished nobleman who occupies the distinguished position of Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords was not the selected candidate of the Conservative Party or of the Prime Minister. The House of Lords, like the House of Commons—and more readily—is at times ready to exercise its own

775
independence, when it behoves it should be exercised, even in the interests of the House or in the interests of the nation. I hope I am not going to be considered egotistical, but let me give some reply to my honourable and learned Friend as to the feeling of the people with regard to the House of Lords. I have never forgotten that during my own campaign it was one of the questions constantly brought before me by Radicals in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, and my reply was that I was perfectly prepared to discuss whatever proposals might be put forward when I knew what the reform of the House of Lords was going to be. What we have heard to-night is a suggestion that a Measure once carried by a passing majority, and a Party majority, in this House is in the next Session of Parliament to be taken up and to be carried immediately from this House to Her Majesty for the exercise, of the Royal Prerogative. Well, I venture to say, Sir, that this is an extraordinary proposal to make at the end of the nineteenth century. I look round Europe to all the Constitutional Governments, and, with the exception of Norway, I see everywhere a Second Chamber which has the power of control and rejection. I look across the great Atlantic, and see in the United States of America a Senate far less subservient to the public opinion than the House of Lords, which has behind it not only the support of the written Constitution, but, if necessary, the decision of the law courts to uphold the veto which from time to time it thinks fit to exercise. And, Mr. Speaker, we were asked to-night by my honourable and learned Friend the Member for one of the Divisions of Leeds, what was the suggestion which the Conservative Party made as to obtaining the final opinion of the country. I do not know what the right honourable Gentlemen on the Front Bench will say, but I will tell you what Lord Salisbury has said. He said that the only way to ascertain the opinion of the people upon any given subject was the referendum, such as that which exists in the Republic of Switzerland. I have never yet heard any responsible Member of the Liberal Party suggest that referendum. And why? Because they know as well as we know that the House of Lords has never, and will never, refuse their assent to a
776
Measure on which the will of the people has been unalterably and unanswerably expressed. My honourable and learned Friend says that that is not the exercise of legislative functions, but I want to know what is the use of a Second Chamber if it is not to bow to the will of the people when that will is clearly expressed, and, on the other hand, to reject hasty or ill-considered legislation when the voice of the nation has not been heard on the subject matter at issue? Mr. Speaker, I suppose I shall not be out of order in referring to the Home Rule Bill, which has been dealt with so often this evening, I want to ask honourable Members from Ireland and honourable Members from England, what would have been the position of Ireland under the Home Rule Bill when it was the idea of the Prime Minister to select a Second Chamber? That, I say unhesitatingly, and every honourable Member from Ireland knows it as well as I do, would have resulted in a House of Lords for Ireland absolutely Conservative, and there would not have been a Liberal Member there. In one sense of the word, that was the position of affairs to which honourable Members were brought, and to which honourable Members were bound by the voice of the Cabinet and by the gifted Leader of their Party. It is said that the House of Lords is an anomaly, but it is also said that the great success of our nation in the past, and, I believe, the great success of our nation in the future, will be that we are always ready to accept a sensible and a workable compromise. Of course, it is not for me to say that, if we had to begin our con- stitutional life over again, we should entirely accept the hereditary principle, but I say unhesitatingly that the present House of Lords represents what to me is the Democratic Conservative. [Laughter.] Well, I am not ashamed of the adjective, and as a Democratic Con servative I say that it represents the glories of our Constitution. The House of Lords represents the aristocracy of birth and the aristocracy of intellect, and I venture to say, in spite of what I may call the somewhat questionable compliment bestowed by the honourable Member for Northampton, on this side, that, at all events, the Conservative Party are not frightened of an appeal to the intellect of the nation. How is it, Mr.

777
Speaker, that the intellect is all on this side and none on that; that every University and every body of graduates in the United Kingdom, every man who has what the honourable and learned Member has described as "the hall-mark of a University"—how is it that every one of these Universities have cast in their lot with the Conservative Party? Unquestionably it is because at present the (Government of the country is in the hands of those who possess the confidence of the majority of educated people in this country. We know what was the result of the universal suffrage given to Belgium—given, as it ought to be given, with an educational suffrage. The consequence is that the Liberal Party has been "wiped" out, and I venture to say that if the educational suffrage existed in this country, the Liberal Party would be even smaller than it is to-day. But with regard to the two Motions which are before us, I hope the House will reject both of them. I venture to say, with the greatest deference to those who have spoken, that if ever there was a debating society Debate in this august Assembly this was one of them. Every one knows, and no one knows better than the honourable and learned Member for Leeds, that the mind of the nation, and the mind of the country has been made up on this question. What question was more before the country at the last General Election than the abolition of the veto or the reform or the destruction of the House of Lords? Let me tell my honourable and learned Friend the experience of one of those whom, I believe, he will yet follow to the Upper House, who gave his experience of one of the reasons of the Liberal catastrophe. The Peer, who sat in this House for many years, said he could not understand at the moment how the Liberal Party came to grief, because he had always found when everything else failed that a cheer could be raised at the expense of the House of Lords. But they have learned what most of us have learned, that it is not the cheers at a public meeting that demonstrate the feeling of the electors. The opinion of the electors is demonstrated in the ballot-box, and the bulk of the people who make up their minds, the majority of them, never attend a Meeting at all.
AN HONOURABLE MEMBER PROM THE IRISH BENCHES: They go to the public-house.
MR. H. C. RICHARDS: Well, I won't discuss that point raised by my honourable Friend opposite, because, of course, I know that in Ireland he has had more experience of that matter than myself; but, whether you like it or not, the private opinion of the majority of the electors of this country* is to be obtained by private conversation, in the public-house if you like, rather than in the public meetings held in Dissenting Chapels or in- the National Schools. I am confident that no question is Jess likely to secure for the Liberal Party a return to these Benches, which they have so long coveted, as ah attempt to return upon the question of the abolition of the House of Lords. They have a far better chance of getting back on the "No Popery" cry of the honourable Member for Flint Boroughs. It might be only an effervescent popularity, but the Liberal Party would have a far better chance of returning to office upon it than upon that of the House of Lords. I do say that if I could be converted and convinced upon this question it would be by the able arguments and by the clear determination and by the magnificent hope of the future of my honourable Friend the Member for Northampton. He, at all events, has the courage of his convictions, but I think he would agree with me that, great as his personal popularity is, there are Members in the House of Lords who are more popular in Northampton than my honourable Friend. I think he will agree with me that Lord Spencer is a greater "draw" than himself. I believe my Friend the Marquess of Exeter was far more popular in Northampton, and he received more obeisance from the people, than the honourable Member for Northampton. I do hope, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that the common sense of this House, by an overwhelming majority, will decline even to accept the Amendment of my honourable and learned Friend the Member for Leeds, because it is merely an attempt to rake in those who could not accept the Amendment of my honourable Friend the Member for Northampton, for the very reason that the Member for Northampton has the courage to say what he is going to do afterwards. That is what

779
the people of England want to know. If you are going to curtail the power of the House of Lords, if you are going to abolish the House of Lords, where is the power to be transferred? My honourable and learned Friend suggested a Committee of Judges as a place where the whole matter could be argued. I read only this morning that one of Her Majesty's Judges has suggested that the very last place he would send any amendment of the law or the Constitution is to the legal Members of the House of Lords. It is not for me to say whether I agree or dissent, because I now and then have the honour of practising before that Judge, and I should not like to incur his reprobation. But this I can say, Mr. Speaker, that the suggestion of my honourable and learned Friend that we are to argue this matter and remedy it by the passing of the Bill in the same manner as the legality of the income-tax was argued before the Supreme Court at Washington, is not, to my mind, an amendment which will commend itself to the judgment of the English people.
MR. LAWSON WALTON: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable Gentleman, but I cannot let it be supposed that I advocate that any department of the functions of the House of Lords should be delegated to a committee of judges. I never made any such suggestion. What I did say was that the issue whether or not public opinion was sufficiently pronounced to demand a surrender by the House of Lords of their individual view might be a matter which they might very well refer to a Committee of their own body, because it depended largely on a question of evidence, with reference to which enlightenment might be derived from the experience of witnesses.
MR. H. C. RICHARDS: I apologise to the honourable and learned Gentleman if I have misinterpreted what he said, but I venture to suggest that if the House of Lords is to decide on questions of argument, there can be no better Committee of that House than those who have had trained legal experience. Mr. Speaker, I pass from that part of my honourable and learned Friend's argument, because I am convinced that the opinion of
780
the country would never permit this matter of argument to be decided by evidence unless we know how that evidence is to be obtained. And I say unhesitatingly, with some knowledge of political wire-pulling—I am not ashamed of it—with some knowledge of how public opinion is manufactured, it is quite easy, at a price, to get up a demonstration in Hyde Park on one side or the other. It is only a question of providing for banner bearers, and paying so much for the band—again I am speaking from knowledge; and I have in my possession extracts from the charges made for the attendance of those august people, the leaders of public opinion, and I know, and honourable Members opposite know, that if for your demonstration you require these adventitious aids they must be paid for, as the Labour Party will not work for nothing. I apologise if I have in any way cast ridicule upon the argument brought forward in all seriousness by my honourable Friends opposite; but I suppose we all know that whilst on the one hand the honourable Member for Northampton is speaking from his conscience, the honourable and learned Member for Leeds is speaking for his Party. My honourable and learned Friend has seen that the policy initiated by the honourable Member for Northampton would immediately alienate a large number of moderate Liberals, and using those gifts which he has so long shown in his profession, he has taken that course for securing a verdict which we know is often used—that is, when the evidence is all one way make a general speech upon abstract principles. And the evidence here is all one way. With a majority on this side obtained upon this specific question—yes, I say, unhesitatingly, upon this specific question—as to whether the House of Lords should be crippled or abolished— when the Question was whether the Liberal Party was to be relieved from its ignominious position of ploughing the sands, the voice of the nation was, "You shall plough the sands no longer. The Party which has crippled your power, which has spoilt your Bills, which has secured the opportunity of displacing you from office—we will give power to that Party which stands by the House of Lords, which believes in legislative con-

781
trol and a legislative veto." That was the reason why the verdict was given, and this House, elected upon those principles, has no right to endeavour to reverse it.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I desire very briefly to explain to the House the view which I take on the subject now before us, and to give some of the reasons why I find myself unable to support my honourable Friend the Member for Northampton, and why also I can cordially support the Amendment to this Amendment moved by my honourable and learned Friend behind me. Now, Sir, the question under discussion is one of the very gravest importance, involving a great constitutional change, and not likely to be settled without acute controversy. I know, and we all have known for some time past, the strong views taken by my honourable Friend the Member for Northampton. I do not agree with all that he said tonight, but I entirely share the general drift of his views. In broad terms, that is my opinion upon this subject; but I am bound to say that my honourable Friend has not chosen a very "convenient manner of discussing a large and complicated issue such as this by bringing it on in the Debate upon the Address. It cannot be adequately or thoroughly discussed in such a Debate as this, and therefore we are all speaking under a certain difficulty on that account; but I do not blame my honourable Friend, because I know that he feels very strongly upon the question. I admit the force of what he said, that this was the first occasion during this Parliament that this House has been able to consider and pronounce an opinion upon the question, and I think with him that it is time that this Parliament had the question brought before it But that does not make it the less to be regretted that it is brought forward in circumstances which make the Debate, as I say, inadequate. Now, Sir, what is our position on this question? When I say our position I mean the position taken by the great mass of Liberals throughout the country. It is simply this, that the present relations and the relative proportion of the powers of the Houses of the Legislature constitute an unfair and a dangerous anomaly. Now I say a dangerous anomaly. Shall I explain
782
why I think it dangerous? But let me in the first place, if I can, get out of the way a suggestion that my honourable Friend and those who have followed him—I mean those on this side of the House—raise this question for party purposes, merely and solely for the purpose of securing, if we can, a predominance of that view of public affairs which we particularly entertain. I cannot too strongly repudiate any such suggestion. It is quite true that we have been mainly the victims of the present; anomaly. There are two parties in the State—there are not only two parties, that is to say, two organised and concrete associations of men combining for political purposes, but there are and there must be—there always will be in every country as well as here—two attitudes, two dispositions, in politics. There are those who are content, and those who are not content; there are those who wish to advance quickly forward, and those who wish either to remain as they are or to advance with more deliberation; there are those who look hopefully forward and those who look wistfully behind—there always have been, I say, and always will be, in every country, those two parties. That is what I mean when I speak of the two parties in the State; and the line of demarcation between them shifts according as events move. They always remain in contra-distinction with each other, and in this country they may be said broadly to be about equally divided. At one time the balance leans one way, at another time another. At the last General Election there was returned a very large, let me say a rather appalling, majority on the other side of the House but was that majority supported by anything like a corresponding number of votes? No; we all know that it was not so, and that the turning of a very small percentage of votes would have had the precisely opposite effect to that which we know. At the election before, perhaps the accident of electoral machinery might have worked the other way. We cannot account for these freaks of our electoral system, but in the main I think I shall not be contradicted when I say that, bearing a little from one side to the other, opinion in this country remains pretty evenly divided, with, perhaps, a

783
tendency towards the side of progress. I think I may assuredly claim that, seeing the whole course of progressive legislation for the last couple of generations. But, Sir, while that is the condition of political opinion in the country, what have we in the House of Lords, in the Upper Chamber of the Legislature? We have an overwhelming opinion in the other direction; not only a majority greater than exists in the country, but a majority out of all proportion to any thing that can possibly be claimed in the country. Why, we who are in a minority in this House, and to a large degree at least in a minority in the country, are now entirely at the mercy of the House of Lords; and at least it is more distressing for us on occasions when the balance has gone a little the other way, and we happen to have a majority here. Then also we are confronted by this continuous stereotyped majority in the House of Lords. Now, Sir, I have said that we are, therefore, the victims of the present anomaly, but it is not on that ground that I am ready to denounce it to-night. If anyone thinks that that is a good weapon to use against us, I would point out how very easy a response may be made to it, because if it is said that it is in order to gain greater advantage for the propagation of our own opinion and the enforcement of our doctrines we wish the change, I might quickly reply that it is because you find in the House of Lords a convenient instrument for the maintenance of your doctrines that you oppose the change. In either case it would be an ignoble motive to attribute, and I do not wish to attribute it to anyone, just as I repudiate it most cordially for myself. Now, Sir, I stand upon other ground altogether. It is not on Party ground, but upon patriotic ground, upon constitutional ground, that I say the present condition of things is full of danger. I do not think that any dispassionate man can deny the anomaly and the absurdity of the present state of things. Surely, it is an absurdity in the face of a representative system of government. The ingenuity of statesmen and public men, and the labours of Parliaments, generation after generation, have succeeded in contriving a complete machinery for calculating in this House the real opinion of the country. If not successful for
784
that purpose, then let it be amended and altered, because if this House does not, as is sometimes alleged, and as it really is this that is at the bottom of much of the argument on the other side of the House—if this House does not represent the real opinion of the country, and if the House of Lords does, then your occupation is gone; the raison d'être of this House to typify what the will and purpose and intention of the electors of the country are is gone. And yet, after all the pains that have been taken, all the money that has been spent in an election, all the time that has been occupied, all the labours that have been brought to play, are we to be told that another House, with no such means of ascertaining the feeling and desires of the people, is to have it in its power to over-ride us? That is a simple question. There is no use developing it or extending it further. It is an indefensible arrangement, and it is only owing to the extreme good nature of our kindly countrymen that it has been tolerated so long. Now, I said I would show how this state of things appears to me to be a danger. It sins in this respect. I believe I am using a proper statical term when I say it is a condition of unstable equilibrium. Men's minds are quiet just now, and not excited; they are almost, in fact, sluggish. But that is not always so, and should anything occur to arouse excitement, and should a strong demand be made for some Measure entirely opposed to the known principles and ideas of the House of Lords, what would follow I Necessarily one of two things—either a resistance which might provoke passionate protest and kindle a flame leading to a conflagration, the extent of which no man can imagine; or, on the other hand, to precipitate an ignominious capitulation on the part of the House of Lords. Why, Sir, neither result could occur without the most serious danger to the State and in the interest of society that is the question that my honourable Friend raises. It is not a question of this Bill being rejected or that one having been maltreated in another place, and that we have a grievance on that account; it is this standing, constant want of balance between the two Houses, which creates a position, to my mind, dangerous to the State. My honourable

785
Friend proposes a remedy, but here I come into conflict with him. I do not think that he has been well advised in the choice made of the words of his Amendment. I have two objections to them. In the first place, this is a great constitutional question, and there may be, and no doubt are, several modes of dealing with it. At this distance—we do not suppose it is going to be dealt with this year or next—at this distance it is altogether undesirable to particularise the details of the method by which what we seek should be carried out. I notice that honourable Members, who are opposed to the change being made, are pleased to think that the details should be specified, but, us my honourable and learned Friend in his eloquent speech pointed out, to specify the details may be of the greatest inconvenience, and might furnish a weapon to the opponents of this reform when we come to deal practically with it. There is another aspect on which I have to express a little astonishment, because while I am sure my honourable Friend does not wish by his action to-night to hinder, but rather to further the reform we have in view, I am also sure there is another thing that he is the last person in the world to desire—that is, that by any action or proposal of his he should put any embarrassment in the way of his own political friends. In plain terms, my honourable Friend's object is not to interfere with either the existence or constitution of the House of Lords, but to greatly restrict the power of that Chamber to veto any Measure which embodies the constitutionally expressed desire or will of the people. We are all with him. My honourable and learned Friend's Amendment would do this, and be more effective and more useful than any more explicit terms. But I have yet another objection to my honourable Friend's proposal. By these words of his he invites, as it seems to me, Her Majesty to take a certain course regarding Bills that have passed this House. He does not mention the House of Lords in the Amendment, but he invites the Queen with the advice of Her Ministers to take a course of the legality of which I have the greatest possible doubt. In fact, I am wrong—of the illegality of which I have no doubt. He calls upon the
786
Queen and her Ministers to perform a coup d'état, not by introducing any legislation, not by getting any constitutional assent to the proposal or action, but to proceed at once and pass Bills that have been rejected by the other House, and the Queen may give her Royal assent to them without the interposition of the Houses of Parliament. That is a thing which would require statutory authority.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I said so in my speech. I said that it cannot be done without a change in the law, and naturally my Amendment involved that it should be carried out by the law.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think it is a pity, if my honourablo Friend meant that, he did not say it.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I did.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I could detect throughout his description of the Amendment that he was conscious himself of the difficulties he had got into by entering into the details of the procedure, because he had to explain he did not mean this, and he did not mean that, but he left me under the impression that he was not very sure what the actual operation of his proposals would be. But certainly I would not be a party to the words, as they stand on this ground as well as on others. I do not think we ought to mix ourselves up with any illegality. We should seek to correct and adjust this inconvenient and, as I think, dangerous anomaly. We are true constitutionalists. We wish to defend the rights of this representative Chamber, and at the same time to leave to the other Chamber reasonable powers of advice and criticism such as it is desirable they should possess. Let us, therefore, do everything peacefully and in order. Let us confine ourselves just now to the general declaration of the view we take of the question, and the principle we wish to apply; then let us deal with the details and methods when the time comes for that. We shall gain and not lose force by adhering to proper methods. For these reasons I greatly prefer the words of the Amendment, and by voting for it I feel certain we shall be giving adequate and reason-

787
able expression to the strong feeling of the great body of the people.
THE FIRST LORD OF THF TREASURY: Mr. Speaker, it is always with diffidence, and with a diffidence approaching to reluctance, that I mix myself up in the controversies which divide honourable Members opposite. I feel that these are not our affairs, and I would gladly leave them out of our Debates and speeches; but it does appear that there is a difference between honourable Members opposite in this matter, which, as it has been publicly avowed and discussed, it is impossible for me altogether to pass by. An Amendment has been moved by the honourable Member for Northampton which clearly indicates the evil which he thinks attaches to our present constitutional system, and the remedy he wishes to see applied to it. The evil is that it is in the power of the House of Lords on important occasions to require this House again to get the sanction of the people from whom we derive our authority before passing any great constitutional revolution; and as that is the evil of which he complains, so his remedy is plain, and is in my judgment appropriate. That being the evil, he says the way to remedy it is to provide such machinery that if this House in two successive Sessions or years chooses to pass the same Measure, then the House of Lords shall be powerless, and the House of Commons shall be for the time being-all-powerful against every other force in the Constitution—against the Crown, against the House of Lords in consequence of the arrangement which he proposes, and against the people, because no appeal to the people is permitted. The honourable Gentleman, therefore, clearly understands the evil of which he complains, and he boldly puts forward the remedy which he desires to see adopted. The only difference I can see between the Amendment which he proposes, and which the Leader of the Opposition says it is impossible for him to vote for, and the Amendment to the Amendment, which the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to support, is this, that the Mover of the original Amendment says what he means and what he wants, and the Mover of the second Amendment hints at the objection that he has to our existing system, but entirely declines to suggest what it is he
788
wants. The honourable Member for Northampton complained very bitterly of his personal experience as a Member of the Radical Party. He says that it was constantly his painful duty to drag along; the path of progress a coachful of Moderates. (Laughter.)
MR. LABOUCHERE: A'busful.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The honourable Member mentions a more democratic, and therefore a more appropriate vehicle. I am afraid that among the "'busful" on the present occasion is his newly-elected leader, for I gather that, while the honourable Member knows what he wants and how he wants to get it, the right honourable Gentleman who has just sat down is ready to hint a dislike—and indeed, more than a dislike—but is reluctant—and, indeed, more than reluctant—to suggest his own method of getting over the difficulty. And yet, after all, I am unable to understand why he should kick against the remedy proposed by the honourable Member for Northampton, because it is the only remedy that will really meet the case. If you allow to the House of Lords the power of throwing out a Measure of this House, leaving this House, if it objects to the proceeding, the remedy of dissolution, you do not touch the power of the House of Lords at all. It is vain to suppose that there is any important or serious middle course between the proposition of the honourable Member for Northampton and the existing Constitution under which we live. As long as the House of Lords is left the power of saying "We reject this Bill, and until the country has been again consulted on this Bill we refuse to pass it," you leave the House of Lords with the great constitutional responsibility, and with the means of carrying it out, which it at present possesses. If you remove that power, you can only remove it by some procedure such as that suggested by the Amendment, for which the orthodox Opposition now say it is contrary to their principles to vote. The honourable Member for Northampton wishes to reduce the House of Lords to the position of giving respectful advice to the House of Commons. That is a policy which I can understand. It is a policy from which

789
I profoundly dissent, but a policy which is, at all events, intelligible to plain men. But if you once leave the House of Lords a substantial power to reject a Measure, and to go on rejecting it until the constituencies have been consulted, then you practically leave it the great legislative authority which it has been throughout our history, and which I trust for many generations it will remain. The right honourable Gentleman mentioned one fact, which I do not deny, but which, it seems to me, from his own point of view, is the fact that he should most carefully have concealed in the course of this most particular Debate. The right honourable Gentleman went back to the last election, and he pointed out that the result of the last election was to return to this House not only a great, but I think he called it an appalling majority. He went on to repeat what I remember Mr. Gladstone used to insist upon whenever he was in a minority—namely, that the number of votes in the constituencies which produced this appalling majority in the House of Commons was, after all, a very small percentage of the total amount polled. I have never investigated the figures, but I should not be surprised if that were true. And can there be a stronger argument for the existence of another Chamber? Let us suppose that our destinies at the last election had been reversed, and that the right honourable Gentleman had been returned with what he called an appalling majority—or, rather, what we in that case should have called an appalling majority; and let us suppose that the appalling majority in this case, as he tells us it is in ours, had been returned, not by an appalling majority of the nation but by a small percentage of the nation. Suppose, then, that the right honourable Gentleman had been able to pass a Home Rule Bill through this House, not by a majority of 43 as1 was the fact, but by a majority of 143, and that then he had sent it to the House of Lords, his view then, I am sure, would have been that for a Bill which had passed this House by a majority of 143 to be rejected by the other and non-elective Chamber was an outrage which required nothing less than revolution to put right. And yet, after all, by his own admission that appalling majority would have been
790
the result of no great feeling in the constituencies—of no vast sweep of the political tide, but only the movement of some small percentage of the electorate from one side to the other in politics. If Ave are to have revolutions proposed by responsible Governments and carried through this House by enormous majorities—those enormous majorities representing nothing but a small percentage of the population—then I say that the existence of some constitutional machinery by which the constituencies shall be again asked to reconsider their position, is not only expedient but is an absolute vital necessity of any healthy community. The right honourable Gentleman said how terrible it was that after the elections were carried out—after the elections in which all these speeches had been made, and, he added, all this money had been expended—after the constituencies had been wooed and won—that you should allow the decision of the constituencies' so wooed and won to be revised by another chamber. I have the greatest belief in representative government. I believe that representative government is the only solid and safe method of conducting the public business of a great and a free country. When the right honourable Gentleman, tells us that the year to year action of a democratic constituency cannot be in any way checked by a Second Chamber without a grave anomaly I must remind him, what is familiar to all, that there is not a country in the world—there is not a great country in the world—which has ever ventured to entrust its whole position, its whole Constitution, to the changes and chances of one General Election, however excellent might be the speeches made at that General Election, and however much money they may have spent upon it. There is one other point which has come out clearly in the speech of every single Gentleman who has addressed us to-night. It is made clear that they are not aiming at a constitutional reform in the interests of the whole country, but at one in the interest of a particular Party. I ought to say that the right, honourable Gentleman repudiated that, and I accept his repudiation of it, although I think there was a trace of it which arose unbidden at

791
intervals even in his speech, which was delivered, I readily grant, in a high key of statesmanship. But we are told that the House of Lords is an intolerable embarrassment to the Radical Party. I admit that the Radical Party have a perfect right to object to anything which they regard as an intolerable embarrassment. I do not quarrel with them on that ground. But let it be distinctly understood what is, as it were, the rival statesmanship to which they address the issue. They are not addressing us, and do not pretend to be addressing us, as statesmen who, reviewing the whole history of their country, and forecasting its future as well as they can, deliberately lay down the proposition that in this country among all other countries, at this period among all other periods, the circumstances justify us in being a single Chamber, with no check upon it at all. They do not take that point. What they say is, "Here we are competitors with you for the joys of office," which I presume are more appreciated by those who do not enjoy them than by those who do; "we ought to compete on equal terms." That is exactly it. The equality of opportunity, as the honourable Member for Northampton said, should be the basis of your policy in China, and it should also be the basis of your policy in Great Britain. I am sure I do not wish to deprive the honourable Gentlemen of any chance of any equality which they can demand consistently with the maintenance of any reasonable constitution whatever. But let me point, out what I think is the fundamental fallacy of their argument, and, like all fallacies, it is better illustrated by an extreme case which has no actual existence than by a case which we have all presented to us in our experience, which is of a mixed character. Let us suppose that the other side, instead of being for the most part qualified to fill the omnibus of the honourable Member for Northampton, men of moderation and sobriety, let us suppose that we had opposite to us at this moment a revolutionary and socialistic Party, in the sense in which revolutionary and socialistic Parties have been experienced in the history of the world by countries, less fortunate than ourselves. I am not sure I ought to go that length. I think we had some such
792
experience in this country in the time of that beneficent Assembly which the honourable Member described as the "Long Parliament," but which is usually known by a, more or less complimentary name. It passed a certain resolution. I do not know whether the honourable Gentleman thinks that the policy of the "Rump" Parliament should form the policy of the nineteenth century. Supposing that the Opposition, instead of being the moderate and constitutional Opposition they are now, were the revolutionists I have attempted to depict. It is evident that any Second Chamber which was worthy of the name, any Second Chamber which was capable of carrying out even the most elementary duty of a Second Chamber, must necessarily be against them. The mere fact that they were the advocates of rapid and revolutionary change would necessarily and in the nature of things put the Assembly which was intended to be a check on rapid and revolutionary changes on the opposite side to themselves. That is not a defect in the House of Lords as it is now, or in any Second Chamber that may be constructed. It is the defect, or the quality, of any Second Chamber, of any controlling body, which you could even imagine, be it the Senate formed on the model of the American Assembly, the Senate formed on the model of France, the Upper Chamber formed on the model of Germany. Any Second Chamber you like which did not under such circumstances throw in its lot with the Party which did not desire revolutionary change and too rapid progress, and was in favour of smooth and more moderate methods, would evidently not be a Second Chamber worth having at all. And therefore it is really a misconception, a, fundamental misconception, to regard the fact that the House of Lords compels us to consider and reconsider any constitutional change before we adopt it as any criticism of the House of Lords. It is, in my opinion, the highest praise which can be given to the House of Lords. There is a corresponding fallacy which was visible in almost every sentence that fell from the honourable Member for Plymouth, who seconded this Amendment. He gave us a long catalogue, drawn, I suppose, from Radical leaflets, of the enormities which

793
the House of Lords had committed in past times. "In such and such a year," that was the argument of the honourable Gentleman, "the House of Lords rejected such and such a Measure and such and such a clause; ten years afterwards, fifteen years afterwards, twenty years afterwards, it was passed with universal consent. Therefore the House of Lords was wrong originally"—that was his inference—"and if you had had no House of Lords these beneficent changes would have come into being at the very moment that they were first proposed."
MR. MACNEILL: Hear, hear.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Really, I am sorry to hear the argument which I have briefly recapitulated cheered by a great constitutional authority like the honourable Member for Donegal, because he must know, in his inmost heart, the fallacy which underlies it. There is no such thing as a Measure which is absolutely good in the abstract for all places, all countries, and all times. A Measure which is ultimately passed amid universal acclamation is constantly advocated by a small minority of gentlemen) who very often are, and invariably think themselves, specially enlightened. It does not in the least follow that, though the Measure was ultimately adopted, it ought to have been adopted when it was first, proposed. There is no presumption whatever for thinking that the delay which has occurred, gradually bringing round public opinion to their view, has not been eminently beneficial both to the reform itself and to the generally smooth working of our institution, and it leaves me absolutely unmoved to be told that, say in the year 1840, the House of Lords had rejected something which in substance and in its broad outlines they accepted twenty years later. I find it difficult to express, I will not say my contempt, for that is an offensive word, but my wonder at the frame of mind of those politicians who regard all reforms, all changes, the whole framework of the Constitution, as something to be settled by mathematical
794
proposition, in which certain premises are laid down and certain conclusions are deduced, and in which there can be no doubt, if the premises are accepted, the conclusions must be accepted also. In politics everything turns upon time and opportuneness, upon choosing the right time to do the right thing; and, whereas the House of Lords have done, and will do, great service in rejecting Measures which never reappear, they have done not less service, believe me, in delaying for five, ten, or, fifteen years a Measure for which the country was not ripe, for which the country had made no emphatic demand, and the delay in carrying out which has prevented those violent reactions, the absence of which is the most distinguishing mark of English history. I think it was the honourable and learned Gentleman the Member for Leeds, who moved the Amendment to the Amendment, who told us that, "after all, you do not want the House of Lords, because one elected Parliament, one elected House of Commons, could remedy the defects of a, previous House of Commons." That is exactly what we want to avoid—that this country should be given up to a series of violent floods and ebbs of public opinion, that we should be carried on the full tide of revolution, and should be changing our Constitution in one decade, and in the reflex and inevitable reaction should be reconstituting the Constitution in the next decade. That is absolutely destructive of all wholesome political life, of all smooth working of our Constitution, of our English political system, the envy of every political country in the world. And that that Constitution has worked so smoothly, that we have so seldom been able to point to any case in which one House of Commons has had to reverse some great decision given by another House of Commons—that great result is due probably to no more potent cause than the existence of a Second Chamber like the House of Lords—a. Second Chamber, not indeed elective, but most amenable to public opinion; a Second Chamber which has now laid it down as the guide of its action that any great principle twice enunciated by the constituencies is

795
no longer to be resisted by them. A Second Chamber constituted by the natural devolution of our political instincts on these lines is a Second Chamber on the existence of which we may well congratulate ourselves, and which, in my opinion, we should be absolutely insane if we tried to alter1 in any of its more essential or fundamental particulars. I am not sure that I have not been carried away into arguing this question almost too seriously to-night. We are a little apt, perhaps, on these Amendments to the Address, to lapse into debating society discussions, and it does seem, rather absurd that we should seriously ask the House of Commons at} a time when, by universal consent, the country is thoroughly content—and, let me add, I think it has particular reason to be content—with the action of the House of Lords, to discuss its virtual abolition. I am reminded by that phrase of an argument I have recently used in the country, which I directed, I remember, against the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, and which I see no reason to withdraw or modify, and the argument is this, that the right honourable Member for Wolverhampton and, I think, the honourable Baronet the Member for the Berwick Division of Northumberland, and possibly other Gentlemen on that bench, have now declared either that they are no longer Home Rulers—["No, No!"]—or, at all events, that the Local Government Bill is a final substitute for Home Rule. [Opposition Cries of "No."] At all events, that the experiment of local government should be carefully watched before you make up your mind about it. Perhaps that will meet the views of the honourable Baronet. I think that is right.
SIR E. GREY: I never said that. I said, on the contrary, that local government undoubtedly should be carefuly watched, that it was not a substitute for Home Rule, but that it would demonstrate that Home Rule was inevitable, which, I think, was only carrying out what Lord Salisbury had said a few years previously.
THE FIRST LORD or THE TREASURY: I admit I am quite unable to pin the honourable Baronet, whose speech, as he has just given an abstract of it, I confess myself wholly unable to understand. I suppose I might have better success if I devoted myself to the task with the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton. But I had not intended to enter into this branch of the question, of which, perhaps, we may hear more on the Home Rule Debate which is promised us to-morrow or the next day. At all events, I have said enough, I think, to show that it is not honourable or right honourable Gentlemen sitting on that Bench who have any right, at this moment., of all others, to complain of the House of Lords, who have given them all this time for inspection, reconsideration, careful reflection, pauses of thought, and statesmanlike caution, of which even by their own admission they stand so much in need. I think I have said quite enough now upon the main question of policy. It only remains for me ten say one word upon the very much less interesting and important question of the method of emphasising the opinion which we hold in the Divisions which are to ensue. The way the matter stands is this. An Amendment to the Address has been moved by the honourable Member for Northampton, and to that an Amendment has been moved by the honourable Member for Leeds. I understand from precedent that the manner in which the questions will be put from the Chair is that the original words of the Amendment of the honourable Member for Northampton stand part of the question. To that I individually shall vote "Aye." I see no reason why we should be driven to the half-expressed issues embodied in the Amendment of the honourable Member for Leeds. I prefer to vote "Aye" or "No" to the plain and definite issue suggested by the honourable Member for Northampton, and the only way to arrive at that result is to see that the Amendment of the honourable Member for Northampton is not modified, and when that Amendment unmodified is put to the House, then, of course, I shall vote "No." So that I shall vote first against

797
the Amendment of the Member for Leeds—I shall go into the Aye Lobby, which is the way to vote against the proposal of the honourable Member for Leeds—and then I shall vote directly against the unmodified Amendment of the honourable Member for Northampton. I hope I have made the issue plain, and I hope the House will reject by a large majority the unqualified Amendment placed upon the Paper by the honourable Member for Northampton.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: I am sure that honourable Members who cry "Divide!" will feel it is only right that, after two and a quarter hours' Debate, in which not one single Gentleman has spoken, who is in favour of the original Amendment, they should give those of us who approve it a chance of defending it. The Leader of the House1, at the beginning of his admirable High Tory speech, put the question to the House in the following terms. He said he would state the evil at which we proposed to strike, and them he would state what was our remedy. He said that the evil that we complained of is that it is in the power of the Lords to force an appeal to the people before any great Measure of revolution is carried into effect. But that way of stating the question entirely ignores the point of view which most rankles in the minds of the great masses of the people of this country. It is not the thwarting by the Lords of great Measures of revoution which causes the trouble, for it is admitted that on great revolutions the country ought to be consulted at a General Election, but it is the constant action of the House of Lords in thwarting and mangling smaller Measures presented to them, Measures which are of the highest social importance to the people — that constitutes the evil we complain of. I would ask the Members for London whom I see here, what they have to say with regard to the recent rejection by the House of Lords of Measures concerning London which have been directly approved both at London elections and
798
here. I will ask honourable Members who come from Wales what they think of the rejection by the House of Lords of school schemes affecting their country. It is matters like these which rankle in our minds, and not the resistance for a year or two to great revolutionary Measures, as to which no doubt there is much to be said. The right honourable Gentleman asks what is the remedy. Now, as far as I am concerned, I am a most uncompromising Radical on this question. We discussed this matter years ago, and I adopted a remedy which was put forward by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, who is a Member of the present Government. To use his words, I would "reform it altogether." I am an uncompromising single Chamber man, and always have been. My honourable Friend the Member for Northampton, with whom I have not always been in agreement on this question, for he was once for an Upper House, has put forward a definite scheme to remedy this evil, and I confess there are reasons1 which make me feel that the time has come when such a scheme ought, to be placed before the people of this country. The right honourable Gentleman has referred! to other countries, but he knows perfectly well that in the Australian Constitution provision is made by which the opinion of the people shall prevail even if there be a difference between, the two Houses. Yet in Australia the Upper House is the more democratic by reason of the manner by which it is elected. The practical question before us is as to which of the two courses suggested to us we ought to adopt. If the Leader of the Opposition had come to-night and had said, "You must not tie my hands when as Leader of this House I come to deal with this subject," we should have felt that there were strong grounds for not tying his hands by embodying details in this Amendment. But the honourable Member for Leeds and the honourable Member who has seconded the Amendment to the Amendment have practically spoken in favour of the proposal we have

799
placed before the House, and I appeal to honourable Gentlemen on this side whether, the question having been carried so far, it would be wise on our part to take a step backwards instead of forwards. We are told that the words of the motion of the honourable Member for Northampton are too definite, but I would ask, is not the Amendment of the honourable Member for Leeds far too vague? Would it not be felt, after having had a more detailed Resolution before us, that the acceptance of the Amendment would be a weakening of the proposition of the honourable Member for Northampton? Would it not be going back to accept the wholly vague Amendment of the honourable Member for Leeds, and would not the people say, as they did before when a similar step
was contemplated, "You do not mean business; your hearts are not in it"? Now that the matter has been brought before the House by the honourable Member for Northampton, I say that we Lave no option—that we who desire really strong definite action on this question have no option but to follow him in the practical remedy which he has proposed. Therefore I shall vote with my honourable Friend the Member for Northampton.
(Question put—"That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question.")
The House divided:—Ayes, 257; Noes, 107.—(Division List No. 5.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt Sir A. F.

Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth)

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Allen, W. (Nwc. under Lyme)

Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Allison, Robert Andrew

Coddington, Sir William

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Anstruther, H. T.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Goschen, Rt Hn G. J. (St. George's

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Graham, Henry Robert

Atherley-Jones, L

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Gretton, John

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Cripps, Charles Arfred

Gull, Sir Cameron

Balcarres, Lord

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manh'r

Curzon, Viscount

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds

Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

Banbury, Frederick George

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Dalziel, James Henry

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Bartley, George C. T.

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Hayden, John Patrick

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Denny, Colonel

Heath, James

Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Heaton, John Henniker

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

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Helder, Augustus

Beckett, Ernest William

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Henderson, Alexander

Bethell, Commander

Dorrington, Sir John Edward

Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

Biddulph, Michael

Doughty, George

Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

Bigwood, James

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Bill, Charles

Drage, Geoffrey

Hobhouse, Henry

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh

Bond, Edward

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Howard, Joseph

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Howell, William Tudor

Boulnois, Edmund

Fardell, Sir T. George

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Bousfield, William Robert

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r

Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Hutton, John (Yorks. N R.)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Field, William (Dublin)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Brown, Alexander H.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Burns, John

Fisher, William Hayes

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Butcher, John George

Fison, Frederick William

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Carlile, William Walter

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)

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

Folkestone, Viscount

Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Kenyon, James

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Keswick, William

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Garfit, William

King, Sir H. Seymour

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry-

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (C. of London

Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth

Chelsea, Viscount

Gibney, James

Knowles, Lees

Clancy, John Joseph

Gilliat, John Saunders

Lafone, Alfred

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Godson, Sir Augustus Freder'k

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning (Corn)

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk)

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid Cumb'land

Nicholson, William Graham

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Lecky, Rt. Hon. William E. H.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Steadman, William Charles

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart

Leighton, Stanley

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Llewelyn, Sir Dilwyn-(Swansea

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Stock, James Henry

Lloyd-George, David

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Strauss, Arthur

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Parkes, Ebenezer

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Logan, John William

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liv'pool

Pender, Sir James

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Lorne, Marquess of

Penn, John

Sutherland, Sir Thomas

Lowe, Francis William

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Lowles, John

Pilkington, Richard

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ.

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Plunkett, Rt. Hn. Horace Curzon

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E-

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Priestley, Sir W. Overend(Edin.)

Thorburn, Walter

Macaleese, Daniel

Purvis, Robert

Thornton, Percy M.

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Pym, C. Guy

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Macdona, John Cumming

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Valentia, Viscount

Maclure, Sir John William

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

M' Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Rentoul, James Alexander

Wanklyn, James Leslie

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

Richards, Henry Charles

Ward, Hon. Robert A. (Crewe)

M' Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of Wight

M'Kenna, Reginald

Wedderburn, Sir William

Round, James

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Maddison, Fred.

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Maden, John Henry

Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.

Malcolm, Ian

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. E. J.

Williams, Joseph Powell- (Bir.)

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)

Milbank, Sir Powlett C. John

Seely, Charles Hilton

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Seton-Karr, Henry

Wyndham, George

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Monckton, Edward Philip

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Monk, Charles James

Simeon, Sir Barrington

More, Robert Jasper

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Morrell, George Herbert

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Mr. Labouchere and Mr. Mendl.

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

Mount, William George

Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

NOES.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Leng, Sir John

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Ffrench, Peter

Lewis, John Herbert

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

Lough, Thomas

Baker, Sir John

Flynn, James Christopher

Lyell, Sir Leonard

Billson, Alfred

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

M' Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Birrell, Augustine

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

M' Laren, Charles Benjamin

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J.

Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Morgan, J.Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

Morgan, W. Pritchard(Merthyr)

Burt, Thomas

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Hammond, John (Carlow)

Morris, Samuel

Caldwell, James

Harwood, George

Morton, Ed. J. C. (Devonport)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Moss, Samuel

Causton, Richard Knight

Hazell, Walter

Moulton, John Fletcher

Cawley, Frederick

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Murnaghan, George

Channing, Francis Allston

Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Clough, Walter Owen

Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.

O' Keeffe, Francis Arthur

Colville, John

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

Paulton, James Mellor

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Daly, James

Perks, Robert William

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Duckworth, James

Joicey, Sir James

Philipps, John Wynford

Dunn, Sir William

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh)

Pinkerton, John

Ellis, Thos. Edw. (Merionethsh)

Jordan, Jeremiah

Pirie, Duncan V.

Engledew, Charles John

Kearley, Hudson E.

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Lambert, George

Reckitt, Harold James

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Langley, Batty

Richardson, J. (Durham)

Fenwick, Charles

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

Rickett, J. Compton

802

803

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Souttar, Robinson

Weir, James Galloway

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Spicer, Albert

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Robson, William Snowdon

Stevenson, Francis S.

Wilson, John (Govan)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbrough)

Schwann, Charles E.

Tennant, Harold John

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Thomas, Dd. Alfred (Merthyr)

Shee, James John

Tully, Jasper

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Wallace, Robert (Perth)

Mr. Lawson Walton and Mr.

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Crombie.

Question put—
"That the words 'And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that, in our opinion, it is expedient that any Bill which shall have been passed by this House, and not have been submitted to Your Majesty for Your Royal Assent in the Session in which it was passed by this House, shall, if
passed by this House in the next ensuing Sesson, be submitted to Your Majesty, and, upon Your Royal Assent being signified, forthwith become Law,' be added to the Main Question."
The House divided: —Ayes 105; Noes 223.—(Division List No. 6.)

AYES.

Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth.)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Allen, Wm. (Newc. under Lyme)

Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.

Pinkerton, John

Allison, Robert Andrew

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Jacoby, James Alfred

Power, Patrick Joseph

Baker, Sir John

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Jordan, Jeremiah

Reckitt, Harold James

Billson, Alfred

Kearley, Hudson, E.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Burns, John

Kilbride, Denis

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Caldwell, James

Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

Robson, William Snowdon

Cawley, Frederick

Langley, Batty

Roche, Hon. James (East Kerry)

Channing, Francis Allston

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land)

Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees)

Clancy, John Joseph

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Clough, Walter Owen

Leng, Sir John

Shee, James John

Colville, John

Lloyd-George, David

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Logan, John William

Spicer, Albert

Crombie, John William

Lough, Thomas

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Daly, James

Macaleese, Daniel

Steadman, William Charles

Dalziel, James Henry

Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift

Stevenson, Francis S.

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

M' Dermott, Patrick

Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

Davitt, Michael

M' Kenna, Reginald

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M' Laren, Charles Benjamin

Thomas, Alf. (Glamorgan, E.)

Dillon, John

Maddison, Fred.

Thomas, Dd. Alfred (Merthyr)

Donelan, Captain A.

Maden, John Henry

Tully, Jasper

Doogan, P. C.

Mandeville, J. Francis

Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

Dunn, Sir William

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

Wedderburn, Sir William

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Morgan, W. Pritchard (Merthyr)

Weir, James Galloway

Fenwick, Charles

Morris, Samuel

Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

Ffrench, Peter

Morton, Ed. J. C. (Devonport)

Wilson, John Govan

Field, William (Dublin)

Moss, Samuel

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Flynn, James Christopher

Murnaghan, George

Woods, Samuel

Gilhooly, James

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O' Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Hammond, John (Carlow)

O' Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Hayden, John Patrick

O' Keeffe, Francis Arthur

Mr. Labouchere and Mr. Mendl.

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Bartley, George C. T.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Barton, Dunbar Plunkett

Boulnois, Edmund

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

Bousfield, William Robert

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Beach, Rt. Hn. SirM. H.(Bristol)

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Beckett, Ernest William

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

Bethell, Commander

Brown, Alexander H.

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Biddulph, Michael

Butcher, John George

Balcarres, Lord

Bigwood, James

Carlile, William Walter

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

Bill, Charles

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

Balfour, Rt. Hn. Ger. W.(Leeds)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Banbury, Frederick George

Bond, Edward

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

Chelsea, Viscount

Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead)

Pender, Sir James

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Penn, John

Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth)

Hobhouse, Henry

Pilkington, Richard

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

Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Coddington, Sir William

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Plunkett, Rt Hn Horace Curzon

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Howard, Joseph

Priestly, Sir. W. Overend(Edin.)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Howell, William Tudor

Purvis, Robert

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Pym, C. Guy

Colston, Chas. Ed. H. Athole

Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

Rentoul, James Alexander

Cook, Fred Lucas (Lambeth)

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Richards, Henry Charles

Cornwallis, Fiennes StanleyW.

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas.Tompson

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)

Round, James

Curzon, Viscount

Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

Kenyon, James

Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Keswick, William

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham)

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Denny, Colonel

Knowles, Lees

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Ed. J.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lafone, Alfred

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn)

Seely, Charles Hilton

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Seton-Karr, Henry

Doughty, George

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Ed. H.

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Drage, Geoffrey

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Leighton, Stanley

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Dyke, Rt Hn Sir William Hart

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'sea)

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Long, Rt. Hn.Walter(Liverpool)

Stanley, Hn.Arthur (Ormskirk)

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Mancr)

Lorne, Marquess of

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Lowe, Francis William

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lowles, John

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart

Fisher, William Hayes

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Fison, Frederick William

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Stock, James Henry

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Folkestone, Viscount

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Strauss, Arthur

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Macdona, John Cumming

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Maclure, Sir John William

Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier

Garfit, William

M' Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Sutherland, Sir Thomas

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lon.)

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

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Gilliat, John Saunders

M' Calmont, Col.J.(Antrim,E.)

Talbot, Rt Hn J. G.(Ox. Univ.)

Godson, Sir Agustus Frederick

Malcolm, Ian

Thorburn, Walter

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Thornton, Percy M.

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Valentia, Viscount

Goschen, Rt Hn G. J. (St. George's

Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Ward, Hon. Robert A. (Crewe)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Monckton, Edward Philip

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Graham, Henry Robert

Monk, Charles James

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

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

More, Robert Jasper

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury)

Morrell, George Herbert

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Gretton, John

Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptford)

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

Gull, Sir Cameron

Mount, William George

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Murray, Rt Hn A.Graharn(Bute)

Williams, Jos. Powell (Birm.)

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Wyndham, George

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Nicholson, William Graham

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Heath, James

Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Heaton, John Henniker

O' Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Helder, Augustus

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Henderson, Alexander

Parkes, Ebenezer

Main Question again proposed.
And it being after Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate, to be resumed this day.

NEW BILLS.
  LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till this day.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUA TION ACT (1896) AMENDMENT.
  Bill for the amendment of the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act, 1896, ordered to be brought in by Sir John William Maclure, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Bailey, Lord Balcarres, Sir John Brunner, Mr. Cawley, Mr. Clare, Mr. Bromley Davenport, General Sir F. FitzWygram, Mr. Harwood, Mr. Hutch, and Sir Alfred Hickman.
  STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE).
  Bill to grant Certificates to Persons in Charge of Steam Engines and Boilers, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jonathan Samuel, Mr. Joseph A. Pease, Mr. Haldane, Mr. Helder, Colonel Denny, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. John Wilson (Durham), Mr. Paulton, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Joseph Walton.
  STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL.
  "To grant certificates to Persons in Charge of Steam Engines and Boilers," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 19th April, and to be printed. (Bill 61.)
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUA TION ACT (1896) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "For the amendment of the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act, 1896," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 8th March, and to be printed. (Bill 60.)
  TOWN TENANTS (IRELAND).
  Bill to provide for Tenants in Towns in Ireland security in their holdings and improvements, and to enable fair judicial rents to be determined; ordered to be brought in by Mr. Field, Mr. Carew, Mr. William Redmond, and Mr. Tully.

  SUPERANNUATION (MEMORIAL OF CIVIL SERVANTS ADDRESSED TO THE TREASURY).
  Copy ordered, "of Memorial with respect to Superannuation addressed to the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury by Civil Servants of the Crown, and Copy of Reply thereto, dated the 16th day of January, 1899."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 48.)

  TOWN TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To provide for Tenants in Towns in Ireland security in their holdings and improvements, and to enable fair judicial rents to be determined," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday 9th March, and to be printed. (Bill 62.)
  House adjourned at Fifteen minutes past Twelve of the Clock.

ERRATUM.—(p. 621–2.)
Queen's Speech (Motion for an Address).
In the Ayes, Insert Scott, Charles Prestwich (Leigh).