Commons Sitting of 11 July 1899

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords].
Standing Orders not previously inquired into 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 following Bills originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are
462
applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—

LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  ROCHDALE CANAL BILL [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords].
  Standing Orders applicable thereto 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 following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—

  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [Lords].
  Ordered that the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION BILL.
  MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
ALL SAINTS' CHURCH (CARDIFF) BILL [Lords].
  GREAT GRIMSBY STREET TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
FYLDE WATER BOARD BILL [Lords] (by Order).
Read a second time, and committed.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Committee:
1. "That, in the case of the Portsmouth Corporation Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill.'"
2. "That, in case of the Workington Corporation Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
Resolutions agreed to.

SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they agreed to—
MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  IONIAN BANK BILL.
  Without Amendment.
AYR BURGH BILL.

  SOUTH-EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM AND DOVER RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
  With Amendments.
  Amendments to—

GREAT YARMOUTH PIER BILL [Lords].
Without Amendment.
PETITIONS.
  GROUND RENTS (TAXATION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Petition from Barnet, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MONEY-LENDING BILL.
  Petition from Liverpool, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS BILL.
  Petition from Dundee, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Lye, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
  NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY (CORRESPONDENCE).
  Return [presented 10th July] to be printed. (No. 273.)
  COUNTY OFFICERS AND COURTS (IRELAND), ACT 1877.
  Account presented of the Receipts and Payments under the Act during the year ended the 31st March, 1899 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 274.)
  CONCILIATION ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented of Second Report by the Board of Trade of Proceedings under the Conciliation Act, 1896 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 275.)
  SIERRA LEONE.
  Copy presented of Report by Her Majesty's Commissioner, and correspondence on the subject of the Insurrection in the Sierra Leone Protectorate, 1898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (VOLUNTEERS).
  Copy presented of proposed Amendment of the scheme relative to the efficiency of Volunteers under Her Majesty's Orders in Council, dated 31st July, 1880, 14th April, 1884, etc.; Draft Efficiency Certificate for the Volunteer Medical Staff Corps [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  WELLINGTON COLLEGE.
  Copy presented of Report of the Governors of Wellington College for the year ending 31st December, 1898, with accounts [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented of Agricultural Statistics of Ireland, with detailed Report on Agriculture, for the year 1898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series No. 507 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Mr. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection that they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, Mr. Gold; and had appointed in substitution Mr. Lambert.
Mr. HALSEYfurther reported from the Committee that they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, Mr. Kemp; and had appointed in substitution Mr. Goulding.
Mr. HALSEYfurther reported from the Committee that they had added to the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping awl Manufactures, the following Member, Mr. Galloway.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON ACT (1898) AMENDMENT.
Bill to amend the University of London Act, 1898, with respect to Holloway College, ordered to be brought in by Sir John Gorst, Mr. Balfour, and Mr. Attorney-General.
UNIVERSITY OF LONDON ACT (1898) AMENDMENT BILL.
"To amend the University of London Act, 1898, with respect to Holloway College," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. (Bill 267).
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  QUESTIONS.

    BOYS IN THE ROYAL MARINES.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the consent of the parents or guardians is necessary in the case of boys who enlist in the Royal Marines.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The only boys in the Royal Marines are buglers The parents' consent is obtained.

    DERELICTS IN THE ATLANTIC.
    MR. MACDONA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty sent out H.M.S. "Melampus" and "Gossamer" into the Atlantic about 300 miles to seek for the ocean derelict ship from Florida, named "Sidurtha," and found her in tempestuous weather, and safely brought her into Bantry Bay; and if this success will encourage the Admiralty to continue its efforts in this direction.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, Sir, but I can give no more definite answer.

    CONDEMNED NAVAL STORES.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the Fourth Report of the Committee on Public Accounts, in which attention is called to the fact that a large condemnation of salt pork and salt beef on the "Sans Pareil" and other ships, and furthermore that 36,000 lbs. of salt meat were condemned as unfit for consumption in the victualling yard at Deptford, will he state whether this meat was foreign or home fed; and, in view of this enormous loss of food, the Admiralty would consider the advisability of placing contracts for salt meat with Irish or other home curers, so as to ensure a periodical supply of wholesome salt meat.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,): No condemnation of meat was made in the "Sans Pareil" or any other of Her Majesty's ships, nor were any complaints received from them. The meat in question was condemned at Deptford. With the exception of 8001bs., which was Danish, the whole of the pork condemned was Irish.

    467
    All the beef condemned was American. The whole of the salt beef consumed in the Navy has until recently been obtained from America, which is the only available commercial source of supply, but 50,0001bs. is now cured annually at Deptford Victualling Yard. In the last annual contracts for pork three-fourths of the total requirements were alloted to Irish firms and one-fourth only to Danish firms.
    MR. FLYNN: Is it not the fact that the meat condemned was condemned owing to the manner in which it was treated in the Victualling Yard?
    MR. MACARTNEY: No fault was found as to it. It had been properly treated in the yard.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is it not a fact there is only ¼d. per lb. difference in the price of foreign and home bred pork?
    MR. MACARTNEY: I cannot answer that without notice.
    MR. MACALEESE: Does the hon. gentleman say sailors have no right to object to rotten pork?
    (No answer was given).

    ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS.
    MR. MORRIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if Her Majesty's Government have entered into a contract with the Volenite Company for a supply of their manufacture for steam joints, etc., or do they propose doing so.
    MR. MACARTNEY: No communications have passed between the Admiralty and the company in regard to their manufactures.

    TRANSVAAL AFFAIRS—MILITARY PREPARATIONS.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the paragraph in The Times of 5th July, with regard to military preparations for South Africa, and the despatch of special service officers, was communicated to that newspaper with the knowledge of the Secretary of State for War.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): Yes, Sir.

    THE EXPANDING BULLET.
    MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether he will consent to lay upon the Table of the House accounts of the surgical experiments as to the effects of the Mark IV. missile, on the basis of which experiments the bullet is now being served out to British soldiers sent on service to South Africa; and if he can state whether the reported condemnation of the Dum-Dum bullet by the Peace Conference at the Hague has been officially brought under the notice of the War Office authorities.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Mark IV. has been the service bullet for the British Army since February, 1898, and, as such, has been issued to our troops in South Africa. I cannot lay before the House reports either of the experiments which led to the adoption of that bullet or of more recent experiments, since they contain confidential information. These experiments were not merely, as the hon. Member suggests, of a surgical character. They were conducted to solve a number of physical problems, in considering which the humanitarian aspect of the question was not left out of sight. Our representatives at The Hague have reported the proceedings of the Conference from time to time; but these interim reports have necessarily been partial mid inconclusive.
    MR. DILLON: Is it not a fact that this bullet has been constructed with a view to expand on striking like the Dum-Dum bullets?
    MR. WYNDHAM: There are great objections to arguing this question by way of question and answer. The bullet has been constructed to achieve a number of objects, one of which is that its calibre should be greater later on than when it leaves the muzzle of the rifle.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the War Office Vote.

    STRAW SUPPLIES FOR ALDERSHOT.
    MR. PERKS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the straw now being supplied for the use of the Army at Woolwich and Aldershot is foreign straw grown in France; whether

    469
    it is the custom in contracts for public works to specify that British material should be used; and whether there is any sufficient reason why such a course should not be pursued when tenders are invited for straw for the British Army.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): I am not aware that French straw is supplied at Woolwich and Aldershot. The military authorities only take cognisance of the quality of the straw, and not of its place of origin.
    MR. PERKS: Do they not take cognisance of the price also?
    MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Certainly. But the hon. Member's question only raises the subject of origin, not of price.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that sufficient straw is grown in Ireland to litter all the horses of the British Army?
    (No answer was given.)

    BENGAL ADVOCATE-GENERAL.
    MR. PICKERSGILLhad given notice to ask the Secretary of State for India whether Sir Charles Paul, the Advocate-General of Bengal, is at present in Europe; what is the period of his leave of absence from India; whether anyone has been appointed to discharge the duties of the office, some of which are of a quasi-judicial character, during his absence; and, in particular, to whom can a person erroneously convicted apply for a certificate that there was error in the decision in point of law, as provided by Section 25 of the Letters Patent of 1865; and who is empowered, in a case tried by a High Court, to enter a nolle prosequi, in pursuance of Section 333 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On the Question being called the hon. Member said he understood that Mr. Woodroffe had been appointed to the office, but he would like to know what interval elapsed between Sir Charles Paul's departure and the appointment of fns successor.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): I cannot say exactly, probably a month or two. Sir Charles Paul is at
    470
    present in Europe on leave, which expires on the 31st December, 1899. Mr. J. T. Woodroffe, of the Calcutta Bar, has been appointed to discharge the duties of his office, including those mentioned in the third and fourth paragraphs of the Question, during his absence.

    INDIAN CURRENCY.
    MR. J. M. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether under the scheme of the Currency Commissioners sovereigns will be a legal tender in India at all places and for all sums down to the value of £1 or only at certain specified centres of trade and for considerable amounts; and whether in ordinary inland mercantile transactions sovereigns will be exchangeable against rupees in a fixed ratio, or, as they are now, at a frequently varying valuation in the open market.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: The proposal of the Indian Currency Committee is that the sovereign shall be made a legal tender and current coin in India; and they make no recommendation that this shall be restricted to certain specified centres of trade or to considerable amounts. If the sovereign is declared by law to be legal tender at a fixed ratio, it will be open to any debtor in any part of India to discharge his debt in sovereigns at that ratio.

    THE WAIMA DISASTER.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the claim of this country against France in respect of the Waima disaster has yet been referred to arbitration; and, if not, whether the reference is delayed until the claims of the Government of the French Republic against the Royal Niger Company and the counterclaim of the company against France are first adjusted.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,)(for The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): The question of the terms on which this question and other claims arising out of events in West Africa could be submitted to arbitration is still under the consideration of the two Governments.
    MR. HEDDERWICK: Will the Government reconsider the question of making an advance to the survivors of the slain officers?
    MR. HANBURY: I know nothing about the matter.

    CANCER—LABORATORY AT BUFFALO, U.S.A.—PROPOSED ROYAL COMMISSION.
    SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that the increase in the number of deaths from cancer in the State of New York has induced the Legislature of that State to endow a laboratory at Buffalo for the study of that disease; and if he will request the British Embassy at Washington to procure copies of any official reports on the subject of the institution of that State laboratory and its working.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,) (for Mr. BRODRICK): The attention of the Foreign Office has not previously been called to this fact, but I shall have much pleasure in procuring the desired information from Her Majesty's Embassy at Washington.
    SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that the number of deaths registered as from cancer per million of the population of the United Kingdom has within the past thirty years more than doubled; and whether, in view of the increase, he will consider the expediency of appointing a Commission to inquire into the subject, for the purpose, if possible, of devising some means whereby the frequency of the disease may be diminished.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): My right hon. friend wishes me to say that the attention of the Local Government Board has been called to the large increase in the number of deaths from cancer. They have, as opportunity has arisen, caused scientific research to be made into the natural history and causes of cancer; but I am advised that, in the present state of knowledge on the subject, no useful purpose
    472
    would be likely to be served by the appointment of a Royal Commission with regard to it.

    TRANSVAAL AFFAIRS.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state approximately what number of Uitlanders in the South African Republic have the right to exercise the franchise now, and what number would have it presuming the conditions were the same as in the Orange Free State; and if he could state what number would receive it within a reasonable time under Sir Alfred Milner's proposals, and how this would compare with the latest proposals of President Kruger.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I do not know the number of Uitlanders in the South African Republic now entitled to exercise the franchise. In reply to the other questions, I have received the following, telegram from Sir A. Milner:
    "8th July. No. 4.—Your telegrams of 28th June and 7th July, No. 2, reliable statistics. are unobtainable. Only roughest possible estimates can be given. British Agent in South African Republic has obtained through Vice-Consul at Johannesburg estimate on two of the points raised (?two), viz.: (1) What number would have franchise presuming conditions same as in Orange Free State? Answer; approximately 44,000, (2) What number would receive it in a reasonable time under my proposal? Answer; highest approximate estimate is 33,000. I do not know how these figures are arrived at. But I have myself gone somewhat elaborately into figures, using such scanty official material as exists, and taking account of proportion of persons under age to those of full age in different classes of population, average death rate, etc., using all the statistical data I can get, and bearing in mind extremely fluctuating nature of population, especially miners, think that male Uitlanders of full age domiciled in, country for five years do not much exceed 30,000. But, of course, many do not possess property or income qualification, and of those who do a certain number would not desire to become citizens of South African Republic. I believe, even if conditions of admission were as liberal as possible, not more than two-thirds of number become citizens immediately. Two independent estimates I have heard of from well-informed persons familiar with conditions in Transvaal put number at about 15,000, but I do not know basis of their calculation. As regards President's scheme, in its original form it would have admitted very few people indeed at once—I think about 1,000."
    In a further telegram received from Sir

    473
    A. Milner, he reports the following conversation with Mr. Hofmeyr:
    "I inquired of Hofmeyr whether Government of South African Republic had any idea how many Uitlanders would be admitted under this or any scheme. He replied, estimates varied greatly, but nobody really knew. This was one reason why proportion of Uitlanders to total seats could not be finally fixed at once. It would be necessary to wait and see how many obtain franchise. It would take six months at least to complete lists. Election could not be held till next year. He had advised four new seats for mining districts at once; this was what Executive Council intended to grant. General scheme of redistribution would be postponed till later."
    MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any communications have been made to the responsible Ministers of the self-governing Colonies of the Cape and Natal with respect to the despatch by the Government of special service officers to South Africa to organise the residents as well as the police and local forces; whether any replies have been received to such communications; and whether such communications and replies will be laid before the House.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; no such communications have been made.
    MR. DAVITT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he will present more Papers with regard to the Transvaal to the House?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Well, Sir, I am very much in the hands of the House with regard to the matter. I do not think that there is any reason against the presentation of the Papers now, but at the same time the matter is not concluded, and any Papers that could be presented would be incomplete, and would not add much to the information already in the possession of the House. But if it is desired, I could easily present Papers at once as to the suzerainty which have been published already in the Green Book of the Transvaal, and also the Papers with a full account of the Conference at Bloemfontein, which are now rather out of date in consequence of subsequent proposals.
    SIR HENRY CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information as to the position of affairs in South Africa.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: At the Conference at Bloemfontein proposals were made by Sir Alfred Milner and President Kruger respectively as to the enfranchisement of aliens in the South African Republic. Sir Alfred Milner regarded the President's proposals as altogether inadequate to meet the case, and the Conference broke up. Since the Conference there have been private and unofficial discussions between the Government of the South African Republic and Mr. Hofmeyr, Mr. Herholdt, one of the Cape Ministers, and Mr. Fischer, a Member of the Executive of the Orange Free State, which have resulted in new franchise proposals being submitted by President Kruger to the First Volksraad of the South African Republic. Sir Alfred Milner's proposals were, briefly, franchise after five years, retrospective. Under the President's original proposals not a single Uitlander would get the franchise immediately. Those who came in before 1890 would get it in two and a half years. Others already resident for two years would have to wait five years longer. Those coming in in future would have to wait seven and a half years. All would have to undergo the objectionable naturalisation period. Under the latest proposals the naturalisation period is removed. Those who came in before 1890 get the franchise at once and those who came in in 1890 and subsequent years get it as soon as they have completed nine years' residence. There will thus be a small immediate enfranchisement of aliens who are already resident in the country, and additions will be made each year until five years from the passing of the Act, when all aliens who have been seven years in the country at that time, and who possess the conditions, may be enfranchised. Newcomers will be entitled to the franchise seven years after they have given written notice of their desire to become burghers of the State. The number of members allotted to the Gold Fields is will be increased by four. In the absence of fuller information it is impossible to be absolutely certain of the practical effect of the whole scheme. So far as we arc able to judge from the information before us the new scheme will have no immediate effect on the representation in the First Volksraad of the alien population; it is not certain that they could carry any of the seats allotted to the Rand until a much later period.

    RAILWAY TIME TABLES.
    MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the railway companies usually make, on the 1st July and at other periods of the year, great and widespread changes in the running of their passenger trains; that on the 1st July last it was not possible to obtain in many cases any official notification of these changes on the part of the railway companies; and that, in some cases, the time tables were not obtainable before Monday 3rd and Tuesday 4th July; and whether he will represent to the railway companies the great public inconvenience caused by this belated publication of their time tables, and urge upon them the necessity of reasonably early official notification of changes in their passenger services.
    MR. RITCHIE: I am not myself aware of the circumstances referred to in the Question of the hon. Gentleman, but if they are correctly described they must lead to a large amount of inconvenience. I shall be glad to communicate with the railway companies on the subject, and will inform the hon. Gentleman of the result.

    INSPECTORS OF RAILWAYS.
    MR. MADDISON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has appointed Lieutenant-Colonel Von Donop, R.E., to be an inspector of railways; whether only military men are selected for such posts; and are all civilians excluded from the railway inspectorate.
    MR. RITCHIE: The answer to the first question is yes. The inspectors of railways have hitherto been selected from the corps of Royal Engineers. The sub-inspectors are civilians.

    TITHE RENT-CHARGE (RATES) BILL.
    SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can state the amount of the sum to be deducted in each case from the amount payable to the Counties of Warwick and Derby, and from the county boroughs of Birmingham and Derby out of the Local Taxation grant to provide the £87,000 to be taken from the grant under the Tithe Rent-Charge (Rates) Bill.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,): The share of the counties and county boroughs named in a sum of £87,000 distributed in the proportion of what are known as the "discontinued grants" would amount to £911, £1,070, £1,276, and £202 respectively.

    OPEN-AIR PREACHING AT CHIPPING CAMPDEN.
    MR. PERKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of a Wesleyan Methodist lay evangelist employed under the direction of the Wesleyan Conference, named R. M. Redward, who was summoned before the Chipping Campden magistrates on the 4th July for infringing a bye-law of the Gloucestershire County Council by preaching in the village of Campden, at a spot where preaching has been permitted for many generations; whether he is aware that the summons was granted by Canon Bourne, the resident clergyman of the Church of England, at the instance of one of his parishioners; that the Rev. Canon Bourne sat upon the bench to judge the case; and that, upon an adjournment being asked by the evangelist in order to secure legal assistance, and without hearing the evidence, Canon Bourne described the Wesleyan evangelist as a street brawler; and whether, under such circumstances, he will advise the reverend magistrate not to adjudicate upon a case in which he is interested and which he has so prejudged.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): I have no knowledge of these circumstances except what is conveyed in the question; but on the facts as there stated I should not consider it consistent with my duty to interfere by advice or otherwise.
    MR. BAYLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to whether the statement is correct?
    SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I have no means of enforcing advice, if I offer any.
    MR. PERKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly inquire whether in a neighbouring parish a clergyman, who is

    477
    accompanied by a large choir, preaches out of doors?

    PORTSLADE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.
    SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received a petition from some ratepayers of Portslade-by-the- Sea making serious charges against the Portslade Urban District Council; and whether he will order an inquiry to be made into the alleged irregularities.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The petition referred to, which was signed by only two ratepayers, has been received. The alleged irregularities do not relate to matters respecting which the Local Government Board are empowered to order an inquiry. Some of them might be brought under the notice of the district auditor at the audit, and I am pointing this out to the petitioners.

    STATIONERY OFFICE CONTRACTS— THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.
    MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state what is the usual custom of giving out contracts by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, whether it rests entirely with the Controller, or whether they are issued jointly by the Controller and the Treasury officials.
    MR. HANBURY: Ordinary contracts given by Her Majesty's Stationery Office are entered into by the Controller on his own responsibility, but contracts of an exceptional character are not granted without previous communication with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I take the whole responsibility, for instance, for the Hansard contract, which the hon. Member probably has in his mind.

    LIVERPOOL EXCHANGE POST OFFICE.
    MR. STOCK: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether at the post office at the Liverpool Exchange six telegraphists who are engaged upon counter duties each perform twenty-six weeks of split duties annually; and, whether, in view of the condemnation of these duties by the Tweedmouth
    478
    Committee, the practice will be discontinued at this office.
    MR. HANBURY: At the Liverpool Exchange office ten sorting clerks and telegraphists are employed upon a split duty in alternate weeks. In May last they were given the option of returning to the head office, but only four out of the ten availed themselves of the offer, and the vacancies they created were readily filled by other officers. The Tweedmouth Committee recommended that where split duties are found to be necessary in the interests of the service they should be so arranged that the officers performing them should enjoy during each twenty-four hours nine clear unbroken hours at home. In the present instance the split duties are necessary in the interest of the service, and the officers performing them enjoy during each twenty-four hours upwards of twelve hours' continuous rest, and have an unbroken eight hours' duty every alternate week. It has been found practicable to arrange that during the summer months the ten officers shall be employed on a split duty only once in four or five weeks instead of in alternate weeks.

    IRISH GLEBE LOANS.
    MR. M'GHEE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what are the exceptional expenses connected with the service of glebe loans; whether he can give the figures of special expenses in connection with these loans; amt what is the gross annual profit arising from glebe loans at present.
    MR. HANBURY: It is not possible to give within the limits of an answer to a question full particulars of the expenses connected with a loan from the Local Loans Fund; hut they include the surveying, legal, and clerical work prior to the issue of a loan, and the clerical and other expenses of obtaining repayment of instalments and keeping accounts of the loan. None of these items depend On the amount of the loan, and their cost is therefore proportionately least on loans for small amounts, such as glebe loans are when compared with the bulk of public loans. It is impossible to state the precise expenses connected with a particular small group of loans; but there is no reason to conclude that glebe loans are a source of profit to the loans fund.

    INSANITARY POST OFFICE BUILDINGS IN E.C. DISTRICT, LONDON.
    MR. MADDISON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether, on 19th August, 1897, the staff of the Eastern Central District, London, submitted a petition, part of which drew attention to the insanitary nature of the post office buildings in that district. Whether he is aware that the staff are now compelled to eat their food in underground cellars, and in some cases the conveniences are practically in the same compartment; and whether a searching inquiry will be made into the sanitary arrangements at Grace-church Street, Great Tower Street, and Lombard Street Post Offices.
    MR. HANBURY: The petition referred to was dated the 19th of August, 1898, not 1897. A branch post office in the City or Eastern Central District usually consists of a ground floor and basement, the cloak and dining rooms being on the basement. Necessarily these are sometimes nearer to the lavoratory than can be arranged in less crowded localities. The office in Gracechurch Street is being enlarged and the sanitary arrangements improved. There is no good ground for complaint against the office in Great Tower Street; and the sanitary arrangements at the Lombard Street office are about to be improved. The branch post offices in the City are under constant inspection, and any complaint affecting ventilation or sanitation would receive attention at once.

    TELEGRAPH OFFICES IN SCOTTISH CONGESTED DISTRICTS.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state the maximum annual liability incurred by the Congested Districts Board up to the present time in providing guarantees for telegraph offices in the congested area, and the total number of telegraph extensions thus secured through the assistance of the Board.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I am informed by the Congested Districts Board that out of eighteen applications for telegraphic extensions they have offered their published terms of help in twelve cases. The maximum liability for the twelve is £184 5s., but the Board are not yet in a position to say in how many of these approved cases the parish councils will accept their offer.

    PORTNAGURAN HARBOUR.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that a harbour is urgently needed at Portnaguran, Broad Bay, Island of Lewis, and that the estimated cost, about £130,000, is greatly in excess of any sum which the Congested Districts Board can give, will the Secretary for Scotland consider the expediency of making application to the Treasury for a special grant for the construction of this harbour in order that effect may be given to the recommendation of the Walpole Commission of 1891.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: Considering the requirements of Broad Bay in proportion to those of other parts of the Kingdom, and considering also the liberal grants which have recently been made for works in Lewis, the Secretary for Scotland does not feel at present that he can recommend the Treasury to embark on any such costly work as Portnaguran Harbour. The Treasury have refused to consider grants unless two-thirds of the estimate is provided locally.

    SCOTTISH FISHERY CRUISERS.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if the Scottish Fishery Board will ascertain from the commanders of the Board's cruisers the number of days' leave of absence granted to the crew of each cruiser during the year 1898.
    Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I have already informed the hon. Member that the amount of leave is a matter which rests entirely with the discretion of the commander. In these circumstances the Secretary for Scotland does not propose to ask for the information in question.

    BEE-KEEPING IN ROSS-SHIRE.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state at what places in Ross-shire efforts have been made to find properly qualified persons to take an interest in bee-keeping: and Will he state whether any fully-equipped hives, such as have been sent to the Island of Coll, have been offered to townships in the congested area of Ross-shire.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Congested Districts Board has to the best of its ability communicated with the various congested districts through the assistance of various persons. I am not in a position to state categorically what

    481
    exact places in Ross-shire have been approached as regards bee-keeping, which after all is only one of the many objects to which the efforts of the Congested Districts Board are directed. If the hon. Member is aware of any persons in Ross-shire qualified to keep bees he will do well to suggest to them to make application to the Congested Districts Board, when their request shall have most careful attention.

    PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the extensive alterations in the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Bill, it will be reprinted before the Third Reading.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: Bills are never reprinted for Third Reading. As soon as the Third Reading is taken of the Bill it will be reprinted at once for introduction in another place. As a matter of fact, the changes on the Report stage were not extensive.

    STRABANE TOWN COMMISSIONERS.
    MR. HEMPHILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the correspondence between the Town Commissioners of Strabane and the Local Government Board of Ireland, in which complaint is made that the town of Strabane is included in the area of charge for expenses incurred in the abortive scheme for supplying the districts of Sion and Ballyfalton with water; whether he is aware that the Secretary of the Board, in his letter to the Commissioners, stated that the subject would receive the attention of the Board, although, previous to writing the said letter and after receiving the said complaint of the Commissioners, a sealed Order had actually been issued to the District Council of Strabane including Strabane in the area of charge; and whether he will inquire into the matter with a view to revoking the sealed Order on being satisfied of its injustice.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): It is true that the Town Commissioners of Strabane have complained of the inclusion of the town in
    482
    the area of charge referred to. The facts are as stated in the second paragraph. This case, and others of the same kind, are at present under consideration by the Government.
    MR. DAVITT: Has not a competent legal authority in Ireland stated that this order is illegal?
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I have heard so.

    IRISH DISPENSARY DOCTORS HOLIDAYS.
    MR. YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant for Ireland whether it is the intention of the Local Government Board of Ireland to apply Section 58, Subsection (2), of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, in respect of the salaries of medical practitioners who act as locum tenens during the annual vacation of each dispensary officer, in order that a recoupment of one-half of those salaries may be received in same manner as half the salaries of the permanent medical officers is recouped.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The reply to this question is in the negative. It has never hitherto been the practice to allow recoupment in respect of the remuneration paid to a person employed as locum tenens for a medical officer when on leave of absence.

    WICKLOW SCHOOL ATTENDANCE COMMITTEE.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received from the School Attendance Committee of Wicklow a resolution, in which it is stated that the present method of fining the parents or guardians is ineffective, and in many cases unjust; and whether he is aware that some dispensary medical officers refuse to give certificates without fee of a child's inability to attend school on account of illness, and whether such demand for fees is legal; and, if so, whether he would propose sonic measure whereby the attendance of children at school would be secured without expense to the parents.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The reply to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. I understand certain dispensary doctors have, in some instances, refused to give certificates without

    483
    receiving fees. I am advised that their action in this respect is not illegal, but the parents are entitled to prove the fact of the illness of the child by any other evidence they can produce. I am not prepared to give an answer to the concluding portion of the second paragraph without further consideration.

    WICKLOW HARBOUR LOANS.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that when a loan of money was required to improve the harbour of Wicklow, the loan was granted on condition that the baronies of Arklow, North Ballinacor, South Ballinacor, and Newcastle should join in a guarantee to secure repayment of the loan; and that, in consideration of this guarantee, the aforenamed baronies were given a representation on the Wicklow Harbour Board of eight members; and will he explain on what grounds that representation has been reduced from eight to two members.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The baronies liable for repayment of the loan due in respect of the improvement of Wicklow Harbour are five in number, namely, the four mentioned in the question and the barony of Shillelagh, is not mentioned, and these five baronies had formerly ten representatives on the Harbour Board. By virtue of the Local Government Act of last year, the representation of the five baronies was transferred to the three rural districts of Rathdrum, Shillelagh, and Baltinglass No. 1, which comprise the guaranteeing baronies. Under the adaptations contained in Articles 3 and 44 of the Adaptation of Enactments Order of 30th January, 1899, made under Section 105 of the Act, the number of representatives from each district council became two. Hence the baronies will, in future, have six representatives on the Harbour Board instead of ten as previously.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—SCOTTISH SUPPLY.
MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will give an early place to the Fishery Board Vote amongst the Scotch Estimates to be considered on Friday.
MR. J. P. SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman
484
put the Vote for the Secretary for Scotland in a prominent place, as important questions of administrations will be raised?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): As at present advised I think it will be convenient to put the Vote for the Secretary for Scotland first on Friday, the remainder of the Education Vote second, and the Fisheries Vote third, but that arrangement may be regarded as subject to any possible alteration, if I have reason to believe that any large section of Scottish Members desire a different arrangement.
SIR C. CAMERON: Do not a great number of Scotch Members wish different Votes brought on first? In that case, would not the simpler plan be to take the Votes in their consecutive order?
(No answer was given.)

TITHE RENT-CHARGE (RATES) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1:—
THE CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Carnarvon turns on another Amendment on which it can be better discussed. The second is out of order; the subject matter of the third has already been settled; the fourth is beyond the scope of the Bill; and the fifth should come in the definition clause. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Flint Boroughs should be raised as a new clause at the end of the Bill, while with regard to the Amendments of the hon. Member for Mid-Glamorgan the first should come in the definition clause; the second has been settled, and I call on him to move the third.
MR. SAMUEL EVANS: On a point of order, the last words put from the Chair last night were "attached to." May I suggest that my Amendment to insert after the word "benefice" words "at the date of the passing of the Act," could be more conveniently taken now than the one you have called on me to move.
MR. LEWIS: There certainly was an understanding last night that my Amendment should be preserved.
THE CHAIRMAN: I know nothing of any such understanding. The question settled last night turned on the matter of time. I cannot take the hon. Member's Amendment out of its place. It is at the bottom of the next page, and I cannot jump it over the others. It will he taken in its proper order. I must ask the hon. Member for Mid Glamorgan to move the third of his Amendments.
MR. SAMUEL EVANS: Very well, Sir. I now propose to move to insert after "benefice" the words "to which such owner may be presented after the passing of the Act." The reason for this is pretty obvious, and the Amendment therefore requires no lengthened explanation. The present owners of tithe rent-charge attached to benefices took the benefices with full knowledge of what the case was. We have been told that since 1883 the income derivable from tithe rent-charge attached to 1enefices has been going steadily down ill common with other agricultural values. If that was so nobody who was presented to a living after 1883 and up to the present time was presented to that living with any of the facts left in darkness. He must have been well aware of the condition of things. It is said that tithe rent-charge has fallen from par value to £67. That is true, but any incumbent presented to a living last year knew at the time what income he was to expect, and what was the exact value of the tithe, as well as what deductions it would be subjected to. He knew, in fact, how much he would receive for the performance of divine service. If he were content to be inducted on those conditions and to undertake the obligations of the position, he has now no right whatever to complain. I propose by the insertion of these words that if it is a question of altering the rating law, as was suggested yesterday, the law should be altered as from the present time, and that those who accepted their benefices under the old law, having no reason to complain, should be excluded from the operation of the Bill. I am aware that one result of the carrying of the Amendment would be that those clergymen who have been complaining of reduced incomes during the last ten or fifteen years will not benefit at all, but that is no valid reason against the
486
Amendment if the Bill is put merely on the ground of justice.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 5, after the word 'benefice,' to insert the words 'to winch such owner may be presented after the passing of this Act.'"—(Mr. Samuel Evans.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,): This Amendment strikes me, I confess, as one of the most remarkable of many remarkable Amendments. Here is a suggestion that any alteration we may make in the incidence of tithe rent-charge shall apply only to owners inducted after the passing of the Act, and it is supported on the ground that the gentlemen now in occupation accepted their benefices with a full knowledge of the responsibilities and liabilities attached thereto. The hon. Member quoted the case of an incumbent presented last year. I am bound to say I think that of all incumbents entitled to expect that this burden would be removed one very recently presented would have the prior claim. And why? For a long time the only political party which gave any cordial support to the proposals for a reform of local taxation was the party sitting on these benches; but a great change has come over the scene within the last few months. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have recently declared that the injustice of the clergy's position is intolerable and ought to be removed. (Opposition cries of "No.") Hon. Gentlemen say "No," but the Committee will remember that in the earlier part of the session the leader of the Opposition, on a Debate dealing with old-age pensions, twitted the Government with non-fulfilment of their promises, and based the charges on a circular issued by a political association of Birmingham. The right hon. Gentleman held that this circular had been issued in the name of our Party—the Unionist Party.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to correct the right hon. Gentleman. It was the Liberal Unionist Party.
MR. LONG: It is unnecessary to distinguish between the two—the Liberal Unionist and the Conservative Party—where the responsibility for promises made by either section of the party is concerned. For my part I will not attempt to evade the responsibility undertaken by the circular because it was issued by a section of the Unionist party. But the right hon. Gentleman blamed the Government for not having redeemed their promise after this circular had been issued. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and, therefore, the Government are entitled to remind the right hon. Gentleman that when his party thought that political advantage was to be gained, and votes to be obtained, they were not ashamed to issue a circular
calling attention to the injustice of the position of the tithe-owning clergy, and stating categorically that they were unfairly assessed upon their house and tithe rent-charge, and that the grievance ought to be remedied. They not only made abstract references to the position of the tithe-owning clergy, but they invited the electors to vote against the supporter of the Government, because the Government had not carried out their promises on this subject. A recent presentee, therefore, would be rather more than less entitled to expect that this grievance would be redressed, because the grievance had been taken up by not one party but by both. How would it be if this argument of the hon. Member were made generally applicable? Suppose it had been applied at the time of the passing of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Surely such a limitation as that proposed by the hon. Member would be a bar to all reform. The change to be effected by the Bill ought to apply equally to incumbents presented before and after the passing of the Bill. Under these circumstances I maintain that no justification whatever has been shown by the hon. and learned Member for his Amendment, and I hope the Committee will reject it as one which, if carried, would inflict injustice and do injury to the measure we ask the House to pass.
SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has shown the way to get on with the Bill in Committee. It is a nice beginning of a quiet evening
488
to be devoted to discussing the intricate details of this short Bill. I do not know what gadfly has stung the right hon. Gentleman; but suddenly he seems to have lost his balance. The speech which the right hon. Gentleman has made was, I should have thought, "more suitable to the hustings." I sat in momentary expectation of the right hon. Gentleman being called to order, when the right hon. Gentleman introduced the well-known Liberal Unionist leaflet on the subject of old-age pensions. I do not know at all how the right hon. Gentleman got it in, but the more he reminds us of it the better we shall be pleased. What it has to do with tilt Amendment I have not the slightest idea; but it was at least a solemn declaration and promise made by a regularly constituted party organisation in the Midlands. And when we find that the action of the Government—in the framing of whose policy that section of the Ministerial party which issued the leaflet has evidently a predominant share—is not in accordance with the promise, it is only reasonable to call attention to the fact. Against that the right hon. Gentleman says that some declarations or promises have been made by Members of this party on this subject. If any promise has been made by any member of the Opposition on this subject it has been redeemed. My hon. friend who, in the excitement of a by-election in some remote village, gave that promise with all the simplicity of Parliamentary youth, has redeemed his promise like a man The eases will be more comparable when the Government have redeemed their promises. Last night, during a long and, as we thought on this side, patiently conducted discussion, the right hon. Gentleman displayed all the qualities which the Minister in charge of a Bill ought to display. The right hon. Gentleman was reasonable and good-humoured, and he showed a great mastery of his subject. Until ten minutes ago I was preparing the phrases with which I should, if this Bill ever passed through Committee, express my admiration of the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had conducted it. But the web which I have been weaving has been dispelled by the right hon. Gentleman's extraordinary ebullition. Having risen merely to express my amazement, I will now leave the subject, because this is only an interlude totally disconnected with the Bill

489
itself, or with the particular Amendment before the Committee.
MR. NUSSEY: Every one who has any knowledge of the subject knows how, before a clergyman accepts a living, he carefully weighs out every possible item of income and expenditure, and therefore I cannot understand the grounds of the right hon. Gentleman's objection to this Amendment. Last autumn, when hon. anal right hon. Gentlemen were speaking in the country we heard very little about this particular Bill, neither was it mentioned in the Queen's Speech; therefore, any clergyman who accepted a benefice six months ago could not have had an inkling of the intention of the Government to pass it before the end of this session. It seems to me that a clergyman who accepts a benefice with certain tithes and liabilities attached is in the same position as a man who purchases an estate liable to land tax. He knows the exact amount of the land tax, and makes allowance for it when fixing the price he is willing to give. As to the comparison which the right hon. Gentleman drew with the Workmen's Compensation Act, does he forget that the workmen are engaged on a weekly wage? I very much regret the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The Opposition appear to be moving Amendments in vain, the Government having apparently determined to pass the Bill as it stands, so as to avoid having to devote two or three days to the Report Stage.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I think we have a right to complain of the tone of the speeches opposite with regard to my right hon. friend. Nothing could be more mild or conciliatory than his speeches, and they could not be shorter. His first speech on the Bill only lasted ten minutes. The arguments of my right hon. friend are such as should be addressed to moderate and reasonable men, and if to-day he has departed from the judicial tone previously adopted the reason is to be found in the attitude of hon. Members opposite. Their Amendments are so dull and are so rarely in order that it is perfectly allowable for the right hon. Gentleman to introduce old-age pensions by way of enlivening the debate.
490
Moreover, it was not so irrelevant, as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition suggests, to deal with the Liberal Unionists. We have been Warned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin that we shall, as a result of the introduction of this Bill, have to dispense with the support of Liberal Unionists. I now come to the Amendment. I do beg hon. Gentlemen opposite to meet the Government on the ground they have chosen for the Bill. The ground on which the Bill is presented is neither charity nor mercy. We are not arguing, although we might do so with the greatest possible effect, that the clergyman is poor and has a salary inadequate to the work he is called upon to do. We claim nothing in charity, and no compassionate allowance for the clergy. The ground on which the Bill is defended is that of justice, and hon. Members should put aside the notion that the Government are anxious to make grants of money to their own friends. Just see how this Amendment will act. The Bill proposes to relieve clergymen of the payment of half of their rates. I do complain of the description given of this Bill. It is described as a Bill for altering the system of rating. It is nothing of the kind, for that leaves it where it was; it is only to provide that one-half of the rates shall be paid under certain circumstances. The Amendment proposes that the alleviation represented by this deduction of one half shall only be given to clergymen who are inducted after the passage of this Act. Where does the justice of that come in? Surely an injustice is not reduced by the fact that a man has borne it ten or fifteen years. Is it not rather the greater? Of course I can quite understand that if hon. Members hold the view that this Bill is brought forward on the grounds of charity they would desire to make the burden on the ratepayers as small as possible. But that is where we cannot follow them. We repudiate the idea that this Bill is based on charity or mercy. We stand solely on the ground of justice, and, if hon. Members will only view the Amendment from that standpoint, I think they will see that it is not defensible. Further, if, in their future treatment of the Bill, they will follow the same principle, I think we shall have fewer Amendments brought forward. On the ground of justice this Amendment is absurd. It would give least where most is required.
MR. BROADHURST: I am surprised that the hon. Member who last spoke fails to appreciate the grounds upon which this Amendment has been moved and is supported. We support it on the ground of the sanctity of contract. The Conservative party, in past times, were the defenders and upholders of sanctity of contract. Here we have a contract solemnly entered into by a large number of men who, from their very training and education, one would presume to understand what was the nature of the contract they were making with the institution they were preparing to serve. They freely entered into it; they were under no coercion, and they accepted their post with their eyes open, and with a full knowledge of all the conditions attaching to it. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill seems to have neglected all opportunities of informing himself of the arguments upon which he has been relying for similes in connection with this Bill. He referred to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897. But he does not seem to remember that a clergyman who accepts a living takes a life appointment, whereas the men who come under the Workmen's Compensation Act are engaged from week to week. Therefore there is no similarity between the two cases. Again, this Compensation Act did not make any new departure; it was only an elaboration and a further continuance of a law which was already in existence. Can he not give us a new lead in this matter, so that we can at any rate record a coherent vote? I entirely repudiate the argument of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, in which he states that we have not made out any case for supporting this Amendment. I say that our grounds are perfectly clear and intelligent. Our contention is that this contract was entered into by clergymen of the Church of England under well defined conditions. Now they are seeking, by the aid of a Conservative Government, to break the contract in order to obtain better terms for themselves. It is evident that my hon. friends who support this Amendment constitute the true Conservative party, because they wish to maintain the sancity of contract, a principle which Conservatives have always held themselves out to be the upholders of. Unfortunately since their association with certain gentlemen they have been surrendering many well-
492
known principles for others which will not last them so long as they imagine.
MR. MOSS: I cannot quite understand the attitude of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite on this Amendment. I remember some time ago how the Welsh farmers were treated when they were very much opposed, not so much, perhaps, to the payment of tithe as to its payment for the maintenance of religious principles and practices with which they did not agree. They were quite prepared to pay tithe for educational or other purposes, but they were told by the clergy in Wales that they took their farms, knowing exactly the objects for which the tithe was to be collected, that they entered into the contract well knowing what they were doing, and that it was most immoral for them, having undertaken the obligations, to wish anyone in the House of Commons to move the rescinding of them, so as to enable them to start de nevo. A clergyman who takes a living knows exactly the amount of money he is going to receive and the amount of the rates he will have to pay, and if it were immoral in times gone by for a Welsh farmer to decline to pay tithe because he had a conscientious objection to the object to which it was devoted, it is equally immoral now for clergymen of the Church of England to come to the House of Commons and say, "The payment of this rate is a great imposition on us. The whole rating system is very unfair and unequal, and we want it altered." If the measure is one of charity I can understand it, but if it is one of justice, I say it is anything but justice. Hon. Gentlemen say when they argue against any readjustment of a contract between landlord and tenant, "Oh, you have entered into obligations with your eyes open; why should you desire an Act of Parliament to create a land court?" The inviolability of contract which hon. Gentlemen urge so freely and with a certain amount of argument in the case of the Welsh farmers should also apply to a clergyman who, with his eyes open, takes a living well knowing what he will have to pay. I support the Amendment.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think the point put by my hon. friend the Member for East Denbighshire is one very well worthy of consideration. The

493
agitation to which he has referred was initiated not against the payment of tithe altogether, but for the purpose of obtaining a reduction in the amount because of agricultural depression. It was on all fours with the present case. The clergy ask for a reduction in the amount of their rates, the farmers asked for a reduction in the amount of their tithe. The farmers were told that they had entered into a contract to pay the whole amount, and that is exactly the answer that should be given to the clergy. They also entered into a contract, and they must abide by it. That is the measure they meted out to the Welsh farmers, and the same measure should be extended to themselves. This is the answer we get whenever we ask for any reform of local taxation, especially in towns. We had a witness before this identical Commission, and he was a witness who will probably give very important evidence against this Bill in the course of the next forty-eight hours. I refer to Mr. B. F. C. Costelloe. He was giving evidence before the Commission in favour of the taxation of ground rents, and what was the answer given by the Chairman of the Commission, who throughout showed, I will not say his bias, but that he was favourable to the case of the clergy? When Mr. Costelloe put the case of a shopkeeper who had to pay a heavy ground rent to a person who did not contribute a penny in local taxation, the Chairman asked this question: "With regard to the actual and not the apparent incidence of rates, would you say, speaking generally, that when the owner of a site leases it, the lessee takes into account the amount of the rates in fixing the rent he pays?" The point here is that the clergy knew perfectly well the amount of the rates they would have to pay. It is rather curious that the sanctity of contract is good enough for the Welsh farmer or the shopkeeper, but is not good enough for the clergy, who have to teach these men their duty to the state and to each other. There was another witness who gave evidence before the Commission. He was the only lay witness except the hon. Member for Tunbridge examined in support of the case of the clergy. He was a lawyer—Mr. Cassell, Q.C. But even he could not carry the case quite as far as was expected. He was questioned as to what he thought about the incidence of tithe, and he was also asked when a clergyman
494
entered a benefice did he not know perfectly well the amount of rates imposed on it, and Mr. Cassell answered that he did. Then the following question was put to him: "Is it equitable that, having got the living on these terms, he should try and shift the burden?" He asked, "Do you mean if he accepted the living on these terms?" The Chairman said "Yes," and then Mr. Cassell replied: "I cannot say that in that case he is in a better position than a man who has purchased tithe." That was the answer given to a specific question. On what ground then can it be argued that this Bill ought to have retrospective effect? The same question was put to Mr. MacPherson, who represented the tithe-owners. He said it was perfectly true that a clergyman knew the amount of the rates when he took a benefice, but that he had no option. That is an absurd answer. It is the only answer that can be made, but it is perfectly ridiculous. A clergyman has an option. He can refuse a benefice. Before Ire accepts it he scrutinises very carefully the amount of the tithe, the amount to be paid for a curate, and the amount of the voluntary contribution. The amount of the income is ascertained with the strictest accuracy, and if it does not suit his ideas of what he ought to receive he invariably refuses. He is in the same position as the member of any other profession, be it that of a civil servant, doctor, or schoolmaster. A schoolmaster who is offered a position carefully examines the amount of the salary, the standard of life in the locality, and what the rents are; and he looks into all these questions from his own personal point of view. Has a clergyman less worldly wisdom in this respect than a schoolmaster? I do not think that anyone who has had anything to do with the clergy will say that. The evidence before the Commission showed that they were perfectly alive to every point in their own favour. There is another point connected with this Amendment, and which is well worthy the attention of the Committee. These gentlemen accepted these livings knowing perfectly well the amount of the tithe, but since they entered them certain modifications have already been made. What has happened? Half the rates on glebe have been paid for the last three or four years, and the land tax has been reduced from 4s. to 1s. A still more

495
important modification was extended to the clergy by another Conservative Government, an indulgence which represents a considerable amount of money, and also the removal of a considerable amount of difficulty, annoyance, and irritation. The collection of the tithe has been transferred entirely from the clergy to the landlords, and instead of being collected from 200 or 300 ratepayers, sometimes in sums of sixpence and a shilling, and having to pay heavy commissions, the clergy have now only to send in their bill to a couple of squires, and they receive a cheque for the amount. Here are three important modifications in the position of the clergy, and they are now asking to be relieved of another 50 per cent. That is a position which this House ought not to sanction. No case has been made out for it. The hon. Member for King's Lynn opposed this Amendment, though I could not help thinking that he did it with his tongue in his cheek. He did it rather scornfully. He said that this is simply a grievance in the matter of rates, and has nothing whatever to do with contracts. But the hon. Member forgets that the Poor Rate on tithe is not in the same position as an ordinary rate on property. It is a traditional burden. The burden of maintaining the poor which has been imposed on tithe is as old as tithe itself. I am lot sure it is not the first burden. Tithe was imposed in the first instance for the purpose of maintaining the poor, and therefore the clergy are now attempting to repudiate a contract of very ancient and sacred origin, and are trying to revolutionise one of the finest traditions of their own Church. The Church took upon itself the burden of maintaining those who could not maintain themselves, though subsequently that tradition was not upheld. But still that is the position. They are endeavouring to rid themselves of the obligations they contracted to undertake, and to upset the traditions of their own Church in every respect. I observe that the privileged classes are the favourites of hon. Members opposite, and that they are very fond of professing Conservative principles when they come to be applied to the working classes and to shopkeepers. But any Conservative principle or institution, however old it may be, however respected, however sacred, which interferes in the slightest degree with their own incomes must go in spite of sanctity of
496
contract, traditions of the Church, maintenance of the poor, or any other magnificent purpose.
MR. HARWOOD: I wish to support the Amendment. I have had to do with a great many of my clergyman friends who have taken other livings, and I have always found that the rates were allowed for and the net results worked out. I am perfectly certain that a great many of the clergy of the Church of England would repudiate—and I, on their behalf, repudiate—the position taken up for them by those who profess to be the friends of the Church in this House. The right hon. Gentleman said that it is quite true that the clergymen accepted these contracts, but that you may push the severity of contract too far; that you must remember that these contracts were taken by clergymen in the expectation that the rates would be reduced, and that that expectation was part of the contract. Now I ask what is the evidence of that expectation? Of course this House is not responsible for what political parties may do or say, but the right hon. Gentleman has given its no proof of such expectation. The only responsible Minister who has hitherto spoken—the Chancellor of the Exchequer—distinctly discouraged that expectation. When the non. Member for King's Lynn asks us to discuss this question as a matter of business and justice, we say that we are ready to consider this particular of expectation on these lines, but we want evidence of it and the hon. Gentleman gives us no evidence whatever. From my own personal experience I have never heard of a single clergyman who said that he expected the rates to be reduced, or that he, for one moment, took that into consideration in accepting a living. I am quite certain that there is not a class of men who are more willing to stand by their contracts than the clergy of the Church of England, and I am sure they will repudiate the position which has been taken up for them by the right hon. Gentleman.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The hon. Member for King's Lynn has explained that the object of the right hon. Gentleman is to impart a little liveliness into our discussion. I have no objection to this, but surely justice illustrated with liveliness will not add to the

497
merits of this Bill. We expect great liveliness from the right hon. Gentleman, but in my opinion we ought to be more grateful for the arguments which he has addressed to this House, for these are arguments which ought to be remembered. If there is anything in public opinion, according to my observation, it is an interest in the principles upon which in future rating awl taxation should be conducted. There are some who hold that there are instances of people who are too heavily taxed; but there is a strong opinion in the country that there are a great many people too lightly taxed. The arguments we have heard from the Treasury Bench are very important in this respect. I have heard the opinion, which I share myself, that, for instance, ground landlords should he taxed or rated more heavily than they are at present. But what is the argument we are always met with by hon. Gentlemen opposite? It is this, that there is a contract between the ground landlord and the leaseholder; that it is a sacred contract which you cannot alter; that it has been made for ninety-nine years or some period. But it cannot be said that that contract was made by Statute, as this arrangement was made by Statute at the time of the Commutation, when it was settled between the ratepayers of the country and the tithe-owners. It was founded on Statute, and has been described so, accurately. Very well, you say we are at liberty to alter that arrangement altogether, but that does not apply only to this one thing, but to a great many other things. I rise for the special purpose of noting the importance of the principle which is objected to, as I understand it, by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, who belongs to one section of the Unionist Party, and does not seem to have a very high opinion of the other section. How the right hon. Gentleman who professes to represent both sections manages to reconcile his opinions on this subject with the opinions so frequently expressed on other and more important subjects of rating and taxation, he has not explained. I would be very glad to hear from his mouth what are his views generally in reference to the principles of taxation and rating which are to be applied to landlords and ground landlords in every matter, and whether he is prepared to accept the principles of this Bill when
498
applied to questions which are of a much wider scope, and, in my opinion, founded on sounder justice. Now, the extraordinary manner in which the Government are proceeding in this matter appears on the face of the Bill in this clause. It is said that the system of rating is an injustice to the clergy, and therefore we ought to alter it. The importance of that is that the owners of tithe rent-charge are to be liable only to half the amount of any rate to which this Act applies. But if your views are correct, what you ought to have done should have been only to assess them at half the rate. That, however, you shy from. Why not take the natural and logical consequence of those principles which you have adopted in assessing the clergy at only half rates? I will tell you why. You do not dare, in the face of the Commutation Act. That was a settlement that the clergy should be assessed on the whole of the rates like anybody else. And, therefore, this extraordinary proceeding is taken to continue to assess a man to the whole of the rates, which you say it is unjust that he should pay, but that he should only pay the half of them, while you make other people pay the other half. What is the meaning of this "circumbendibus" kind of legislation?
THE CHAIRMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman is anticipating an Amendment lower down on the Paper which will raise exactly the question he is now discussing.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: One never knows, Sir, what Amendments lower down an the Paper will be allowed to be put.
THE CHAIRMAN: Every Amendment which is in order I shall allow to be put. I do not understand what the right hon. Gentleman means.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I had not intended to imply, nor do I think I have said anything which does imply, any disrespect to your authority; but until you have pronounced an Amendment is in order, I have no means of knowing whether it will be in order or not. The reason why I think I was under a misconception on this subject was that the words to which I was alluding had already passed the Com-

499
mittee; and therefore that is the reason why I spoke of it. I did not anticipate that an Amendment afterwards would affect the words already passed by the Committee. I was in error apparently. I desire that we should have explained to us exactly the principle on which this question of the payments of rates is to be founded—not assessing upon the half, but assessing upon the whole, and then providing for repayment of the half. If that is not in order, I hope you will kindly inform me when that question should be raised. It seems to me a very important one. If the Chairman will kindly inform me what is the Amendment which, he rules, excludes me from referring to this subject at the present time——
THE CHAIRMAN: The whole of this discussion is really not relevant to the Amendment now before the Committee. The Amendment now before the Committee is that this Bill is not to be made applicable to those clergy who are at present the holders of benefices. The proposal is that it shall only apply to future holders of benefices. Therefore the argument of the right hon. Gentleman is really beside the mark of the Amendment now before the Committee.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I misunderstood your ruling. I thought your ruling was dependent upon a subsequent Amendment which raised the question. Of course I will not proceed with an argument you have ruled out of order, and therefore I cannot continue this discussion with advantage. At the same time I have only to say that the arguments used on this side of the House have not been answered.
MR. GILES: I should like to say a few words upon this question. I do not think we are at all likely on this side of the House to be accused of doing anything to violate the sanctity of the doctrine of contract. But there is another doctrine also to be considered in relation to this question, and that is what was in the contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was entered into. Now, there is an important Act of Parliament to which it is worth calling the attention of the Committee, and which has not been referred to up to the present moment. I was somewhat surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton say that
500
the law at the present time is exactly as it was at the time of the passing of the Tithe Commutation Act, because I think that is a great mis-statement. At the time of the passing of the Tithe Commutation Act, undoubtedly all personal property was liable to rate, and it was not until the Act of 3 and 4 Victoria c. 89 was passed that personal property was not exempted from rates. If personal property was still liable the amount in the pound of all rates would probably be less than half what it is, especially in towns. Since the passing of the Commutation Act, a very large number of rates which were certainly not in contemplation at that time have been enacted and exacted from the tithe rent-charge. From recollection I will refer to a few. Certainly in urban districts there would be the lighting and library rates, the scavenging rates, the pavement rates, and a large number of similar rates, and in many districts, both urban and rural, there would be a heavy school board rate, which, of course, was not in existence at the time of the Tithe Commutation Act. Then I may also refer to the large increase of the highway rate, because, of course, although undoubtedly at the time the Tithe Commutation Act was passed tithes were assessed to the highway rate, yet it was not until 1872 that a very large addition to highway rates was made in consequence of the abolition of turnpikes. In many respects, therefore, the sanctity of the contract has been affected. At the present time the tithe-owners have to pay a very large number of rates which they did not pay in 1836, and which I cannot conceive to have been in contemplation, because it would have been impossible for them to have known that these rates would have been passed. I have not heard one argument raised on the other side of the House that anything was added in the amount arranged between the tithe-payers and the tithe-owners which would enable tithe-owners to pay rates in the future.
MR. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has made a very interesting contribution to the Debate. The point, however, is that the contract, or quasi-contract, behind which the clergy wish to go is the contract made by the present owner of the benefice, when he took the living, to do certain work for certain remuneration

501
in tithe after the deduction of the rates. His argument has no particular reference to another contract, viz., the contract entered into at the time of the Commutation Act. As a matter of fact the contract with the tithe-owner has not been touched upon, and, I have not a shadow of doubt, will not be touched upon by anybody on the opposite side of the House. What is the pretence for the opposition to this Amendment? It is—to put it very shortly—that on grounds of reason and equity the tithe-owners are entitled to make certain deductions for the purpose of assessment. If that is so, why in Heaven's name do not the Government introduce a a Bill carrying out that principle? But what would be the effect?
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is now discussing an Amendment which he himself has put on the Paper, and which may be reached in due time.
MR. McKENNA: I am bound to say that your ruling is absolutely in accordance with the facts, but I regret that no other argument is ever raised in opposition to this Amendment except those which are opposed to the principle of the Bill. I was only going to point out, without arguing the merits of any particular Amendment, that the principle on which this Bill is alleged to be based is not carried out in the Bill itself. I will only say, with regard to this particular Amendment, that it has two advantages. First of all, it limits the amount of money that you take under this measure, and, so far, it would have my support. But there is another reason why this Amendment should be supported. If you give this special advantage to future incumbents, you offer more persons a pecuniary temptation to become clergymen than you can now. You will consequently get, as an hon. friend reminds me, better clergymen in the future if you are able to pay a higher price. We have seen, in the controversy which was raised between Board schools and Voluntary schools, how much has turned upon the question that the Board schools, having more money at their control, are able to get better masters than the Voluntary schools. Exactly the same argument applies in the case of the Church. If you can pay your clergyman in the future
502
more than in the past you will be able to get a better class of men to serve, and upon that ground there may be something said in support of the Bill. But you cannot defend the Bill as it stands now. It is entirely contrary to every principle put forward by hon. Members on the other side of the House.
MR. LAMBERT: The hon. Member for Wisbech has endeavoured to bring this discussion back to the conditions which existed in 1836. I should imagine that everyone would be very sorry indeed to bring back the conditions of 1836. In that year the rates were taken to average something like 5s. in the £—equal to an average on the commuted tithe rent-charge of £602,000 a year instead of only £175,000, which they now pay. Therefore the clergymen are getting a very considerable advantage through the great reduction of the rates. The hon. Member in his very interesting speech complained that new rates were constantly being put upon the clergy, and that therefore it was unfair for them to bear them. I quite admit that if new rates were imposed there might be some injustice to the existing tithe-owner, but there could be no injustice to the future one who took his benefice with his eyes open and knew what rates there were to pay. This Act does not refer to "new" rates. It only refers to "one half of the amount of any rate to which this Act applies," and on looking at the definition clause I find this provision:
"This Act shall apply to every rate as defined by Section 9 of the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896."
Well, the Agricultural Rates Act of 1896 was one of those measures which does not apply to the newest rates. There was the Parish Councils Bill. Of course, that placed some charge upon the parishes, but the Agricultural Pates Act did not affect that. If this Bill be based upon justice, why do you exclude the extra expenses placed on a parish, through the operations of the councils, from this Bill? We were told by my hon. friend behind me, the hon. Member for Bolton, who knows a good deal about the clergy, that the clergy entered into these transactions in a public and business-like spirit. It does seem that we have been experiencing in these matters too much business and

503
too little sense of the high office of the clergyman. We do not admit that they have any cause to complain in this matter. When the farmers complained of paying tithes the right hon. Gentleman passed the Tithe Rating Act of 1891, and placed the burden of the tithes on the shoulders of the landlords, and now he wishes to place a new rate on the shoulders of the general tax-payers of the country. One argument has not been mentioned in this Debate, and that is that it would lead, if this Amendment is accepted, to advantageous results. It would result in a change of clergymen in many parishes, and I think in many of the rural parishes they would welcome such a change. I commend that to the right hon. Gentleman, and I regret that he will not accept this Amendment.
Mr. GODDARD: As I understand the Amendment, it limits the operation of the Act to those who take benefices after it is passed, and, as I understand the right hon. Gentleman, it will be unjust to do that. I wish to know where that injustice lies. In a parish in I my own neighbourhood, in Suffolk, I find that in 1836 the tithes of this parish were £315, and the rates £66, the total being £381. Those tithes were commuted at £400, which was an increase of £18. Taking the figures down to the present day the value of the tithes which were commuted at £400 is now £272. Certain deductions have been made which bring the amount of tithe subject to rates down to £205. Where is the injustice? The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury said it was preposterous for any clergyman to think he was to have his tithe free of rates.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is really arguing the principle of the Bill, and his speech is really a Second Reading speech. He ought to bear in mind that we have passed the Second Reading and have got to the Committee stage.
MR. GODDARD: Perhaps, Sir, I did go a little too far, but I wanted to see where the injustice came in. I shall support the Amendment.
MR. CAWLEY: If I had one misgiving on coming to this House, it was that perhaps the Liberal party had not quite so much regard for
504
the sanctity of contract as I thought desirable. But after experience in the House any doubts I had were soon dispelled, for I have discovered that the Conservative Party—or the present Ministerial Party—seem to have even less regard for their contracts than the Members of my own Party in the House. I am not going into the question of commutation at all. As far as I understand things, ninety-nine per cent. of the present incumbents have got their benefices subject to their paying rates on tithes, and they have nothing to complain of. By the Agricultural Rating Act, landlords who had bought or inherited their estates subject to certain obligations to the poor have been relieved of those obligations; so now the clergy, because they have threatened to withdraw their support, are being relieved of a rate they had deliberately contracted to pay. Members on the Government side of the House are very much disturbed when private interests are touched for the benefit of the community; but when the interests of the community are being confiscated for particular classes of their supporters they give the measure their earnest support. It is not my intention to go into the question of what took place at the time of the Tithe Commutation in 1836, although it is admitted that the clergy paid much lower rates now than were allowed for at that time. What I contend is that the clergy took their livings well knowing that they had to pay rates on their tithes. Notwithstanding that these rates have decreased, the general community are now being asked to pay what the clergy have contracted to pay. It is my intention to support the Amendment of my hon. friend.
Mr. J. H. ROBERTS: On this occasion I shall confine myself within the limits of this Amendment. I wish to present one or two considerations in favour of it. I think it will be admitted that one of the reasons for this Amendment is that undoubtedly by the Agricultural Rating Act of 1896 a great difference was made to the clergy of this country. The main reason why I support the Amendment is this: I do not think, in dealing with this Bill, there has been sufficient consideration given to the fact that the value of the tithes of this country have been commuted largely in excess of their net value. What was the posi-

505
tion as regards the value of tithe during the ten years from 1874 to 1883? In 1874 it stood at 112; in 1883 it came down to par value, and from 1883 onwards it has steadily declined. It is obvious that during a series of years tithe-owners have lost considerably through the decline in the value of tithe, but it is equally obvious that, during a large number of years, they were the gainers through the tithe being very much above par value. I think, if an average is fairly struck, it will be seen that they should not participate in the advantages of this measure.
MR. BILLSON: There is no doubt that every clergyman who takes a living is perfectly well aware of what he is going to get as the net result of the provision made for him. When clergymen have bought advowsons and presented themselves to the livings, it has been a matter of close calculation as to what was the amount of rates and what price was to be paid, in order to obtain a fair return for the money. The effect of this Bill will be to increase the price of an advowson by £500 or £600, and whatever else the Bill does it will add about £3,000,000 to the capital value of the advowsons of the country. If this Bill was intended by the Government to remedy any injustice that actually prevails or is likely to prevail, it would be very much benefited by the Amendment before the Committee.
MR. WARNER: My reason for supporting the Amendment is that it curtails the mischief this Bill will do. But there is one rather strong argument which perhaps the Amendment ought to be altered to meet, and that is that the people existing now will have the same knowledge of this Act as the people existing in the future. A clergyman on the point of taking a living will know what its value will be with half the rates taken off; he knows what the additional value will be, and he is likely to take a thing which he would not otherwise take. Therefore, this Amendment should not only include benefices "to which such owner may be presented after the passing of this Act," but also benefices "to which such owner has been presented within six months before the passing of this Act," so as to include all these people who are now thinking about taking benefices which will benefit by this Act.
506
The man who takes a benefice is in the same position as the man who buys an annuity. If the rates arc raised and his portion of the tithe suffers, he is in exactly the same position as an annuitant who bought an annuity of say £1,000 a year when the income-tax was 5d., and who now has to pay 8d. The annuitant does not go to the assurance company and expect to be paid more in order to make up the difference caused by the increased tax, nor does the country expect to be called upon to pay the difference. The clergyman is in precisely the same position. It has been argued that all sorts of fresh burdens were put upon these wretched people—that fresh rates were put on. But they are treated in the same way as agricultural land is treated, and they only pay one quarter of those new rates. Moreover, in agricultural districts the rates have not increased, while in towns, where they are rather more heavily rated, there is the compensating advantage of large paying congregations. It Call no longer be pleaded that justice is the foundation of this Bill. From our point of view, injustice is the basis of the whole thing. It may be that the clergy should have an eleemosynary grant, but a general injustice cannot be called a principle of justice, and I shall support the Amendment.
MR. MCLAREN: Whatever the House may think of this Bill, there is no doubt that if passed as it stands it will go to the country as a very unpopular measure. It will be much more easy to persuade the inhabitants of the country districts that this is an unjust measure than to persuade them that it is a measure which justice demands. When you go and tell the farmer, the butcher, and the baker that you are going to relieve the parson of half his rates, you will certainly set up a feeling of irritation which must be injurious to the influence of the Church. There is nothing people are so sensitive about as any little alteration in rates. If you put up the rating of a factory, or reduce the rating of a public house, or do anything which they imagine alters the existing state of things, it gives rise to discontent, and representations are made in all quarters about the matter. You are really touching a very sore point. You have got the parson, who may be a very good, religious man, but he is not alto-

507
gether popular as a politician in the district. It seems to me there is nothing that would be more dangerous to the office of a clergyman than to let the inhabitants feel that he has scored a point at their expense. This Bill may be a just or an unjust measure, but I venture to submit that if the Government would accept this Amendment—for the Bill is to operate only as an experiment for two years in order to lay down the principle that half-rates are to be paid—the measure would then not be so objectionable.
MR. PERKS: There is one argument which I do not think has yet been placed before the House in favour of this Amendment, and it is this: I feel confident that, notwithstanding the silence of so many hon. Members opposite, there must be an enormous number of clergy connected with the Established, Church of this Country who must feel as then read the accounts of the discussions in this House, and the proposal made by the Government for their relief, a sense of deep humiliation. I do not, unlike my hon. friend who has just sat down, worship at the shrines of the Established Church, but I have never felt the slightest possible antagonism to the clergy of that Church as ministers of religion. It is perfectly manifest that this Amendment if passed will greatly reduce the number of recipients of the bounty of the Government. It is, I think, a degrading positron for the clergy of this great Establishment to come knocking like mendicants at the door of this House. If this Amendment be passed it will reduce the number of recipients of this bounty or Parliamentary grant, which is founded, we are told, upon justice, although nobody will explain why the spirit of justice is to entirely disappear in a couple of years' time. If this is a just grant, why do the Government mean to stop it in two years? It call only be upon one assumption, and that is that they do not anticipate being in office then. If this grant be a just one, and these men are right, their claim will be as just in ten years' as in two years' time. But there is another reason why this relief should not be given, and it is this, that the tithes are placed upon a basis of greater security by the collection of tithes through the
508
agency of the land-owner. Does any reasonable man in this House suppose that if the clergyman to day had to go and take one-tenth of the pails of milk, one-tenth of the lambs from the flock, one-tenth of the sheep from the fold, and one-tenth of the produce of the orchard, that such tithes would be leviable to-day? They would have been rejected absolutely and utterly all through the country, and it is only because the Legislature put this tax upon a sound Parliamentary footing in the interests of the clergy in 1836, that it was collectable at all, and later on they were relieved of the ignominious process of distraint. Therefore we have abundant reason for differentiating between the clergy in possession of the tithe at the present moment and those whom it is proposed to limit by the scope of this Amendment which I support.
MR. LABOUCHERE: My right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition very rightly called attention to the extraordinary speech made by the Minister for Agriculture. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I deplore the obstructive tactics and the opposition of the Minister for Agriculture.
MR. LONG: What! obstruction?
MR. LABORCHERE: Yes, opposition to what is right.
AN HON. MEMBEE: In what way?
MR. LABOUCHERE: Why, the opposition to us. Why did the right hon. Gentleman make that speech? Simply because at the time he had not got his men up and had not got his majority at hand to vote us down as upon ordinary occasions. Therefore, he threw bones of contention at this House which had absolutely nothing to do with the Bill. But we do not follow the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. We have stood solidly to arguments, and sound and potent arguments, in regard to the Amendment which is before the House. But of what use are our arguments? How many right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite will answer them? Why, there are very few hon. Gentlemen who will even condescend to listen to us. One hon. Gentleman after another has got up on this side of the House and submitted some new argument. I myself know fifty new arguments, every

509
one of which would utterly smash and destroy the position taken up by the Government, but I am not going to throw them away upon gentlemen who do not appreciate them, for it would be casting pearls before—hon. Gentlemen opposite. When a Minister brings in a Bill he generally allows a little margin for slight concessions to his opponents, and in that way a Bill is got through easily and quietly in this House. But the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture is sticking to the letter of the rules of the House, and he is violating the spirit of the rules of the House. There are surely some of these Amendments which are reasonable, and some concessions ought to be made. No Bill comes into this House perfect, and important changes are often made. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not accept in a friendly spirit one or two of our Amendments? Why, simply because there is a Report stage, and the right hon. Gentleman is afraid of the Report stage. The right hon. Gentleman would not change one letter or one iota of his Bill, because if he did we should have a Report stage. Then we should submit other valuable Amendments, and support them by valuable arguments. Really, the system pursued by right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite is one of obstruction, for there is obstruction by silence as well as obstruction by speaking. We do not like to be treated in this contemptible way. The only hon. Gentleman opposite who attempts to reply to our arguments is the hon. Member for king's Lynn, and he does it in a very dubious fashion; otherwise our arguments are treated with contemptuous silence. Has the Minister for Agriculture said One word against this Amendment? My hon. friend the Member for North Monmouthshire made a very excellent speech; but has anybody replied to it? The hon. Gentleman behind me made a capital speech, and the only answer was that some hon. Member opposite spoke of the sanctity of contract, but I could not make out whether his speech was in favour of the Amendment or not. Why does the First Lord of the Treasury not make a speech? I always listen to him with the greatest admiration, and I want to have an opportunity of hearing him upon this occasion, for it is a question on which he will shine. He has a philosophical and a theological mind, and if he would take the trouble he could very
510
likely convince us that we are in the wrong and he is in the right. All we want is justice, and we desire to do what is best for the good of the country. If there is anything in this Bill which the right hon. Gentleman can convince us is worth having, we will stand by him. We have passed the Second Reading, and now we are asking only for reasonable concessions, which the Government refuse, and they will not even tell us why they refuse They simply vote us down by the brutal force of numbers, and that is violating the spirit of the rules of this House.
MR. STUART: I think there is a much better reason than the importance of the Report stage why the Government cannot give way. It is not the future owner of the benefice who sits upon the neck of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it is the present holder of the benefice, and it is to him that the Government have to make a sacrifice in this Bill. During the sitting of the Royal Commission I endeavoured to elicit some argument in favour of letting off from his tithes the existing holder, but I was not able to find any more arguments in its favour than I have found during the present Debate. The real opposition is that the present holder has accepted his office subject to the tithes being paid; but this claim cannot be urged and argued in favour of the present holder, but only on behalf of the corporation of the Church of England as a whole. It is that corporation which is now seeking relief from the tithes, and not the present owner of the benefice. I made, about this time last year, an extract from The Times from a letter by Mr. H. Macpherson, who said:—
"What our federation did in South Norfolk. we mn repeat in 150 county elections."
That is a statement by a federation, not of future holders of benefices, but of present holders. Therefore it is perfectly obvious why the Government cannot accept this most reasonable Amendment.
MR. D. A. THOMAS: I desire to amend the Amendment by leaving out the word "after" in older to insert the word "before." It seems to me, on all grounds of justice and expediency, that those now holding the benefices should be relieved, and not those who are presented to livings after the passing of this Act. It is perfectly obvious

511
that the whole ground for the introduction of the Bill is to remove an existing injustice, and that no grievance can exist as far as a person not at present in a living is concerned. I am bound to say that I sympathise with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I think they have a very strong case against this Amendment as it stands, and I can only support it on the ground that any limitation of the Bill must have my support.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I beg to move that the question be now put down to the word "only" in the clause.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment now before the Committee must be disposed of before any motion to closure particular words can be made.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then I move that the question be now put.
THE CHAIRMAN: I will accept that motion.
MR. D. A. THOMAS: I desire to know, Sir, which question you intend to put.
THE CHAIRMAN: The original question under discussion.
MR. D. A. THOMAS: But I have moved an Amendment to the Amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: I did not put the hon. Member's Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman intervened before I put the Amendment.
Question put, "That the question be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 258; Noes, 160. (Division List, No. 235.)

AYES.

Aird, John

Carlile, William Walter

Drucker, A.

Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.)

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Arnold, Alfred

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Fardell, Sir T. George

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edwd.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

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

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzR.

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Finch, George H.

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Chamberlain, Rt Hn.J.(Birm.)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Baillie, James E. B.(Inverness)

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

Fisher, William Hayes

Baird, John George Alexander

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Fison, Frederick William

Baldwin, Alfred

Charringten, Spencer

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

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

Clarke,Sir Edward(Plymouth)

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

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

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

Galloway, William Johnson

Banbury, Frederick George

Coddington, Sir William

Garfit, William

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Gedge, Sydney

Barry,Sir Francis T.(Windsor)

Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Bartley, George C. T.

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Gibbs, Hon. A.G.H.(C. of Lond.

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans)

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

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

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

Gilliat, John Saunders

Beach, W. W. B. (Hants.)

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Godson, Sir A. Frederick

Beckett, Ernest William

Cranborne, Viscount

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

Bethell, Commander

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

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

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton)

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Bill, Charles

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Curzon, Viscount

Graham, Henry Robert

Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Gretton, John

Boulnois, Edmund

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Gull, Sir Cameron

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

Denny, Colonel

Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Bowles, T.Gibson(KingsLynn)

Digby, John, K.D. Wingfield-

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Brassey, Albert

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Hamilton, Rt.Hn. Lord George

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Brookfield, A. Montagu

Doughty, George

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Bullard, Sir Harry

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hardy, Laurence

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Butcher, John George

Doxford, William Theodore

Heaton, John Henniker

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J A (Glasgow

Drage, Geoffrey

Helder, Augustus

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Seely, Charles Hilton

Hill, Sir Edward Stock (Bristol

Middlemore, John T.

Seton-Karr, Henry

Hoare, Edw. Brodie(Hampstd.

Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Hobhouse, Henry

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Sidebottom, William(Derbysh.

Holland, Hon, Lionel R. (Bow)

Milton, Viscount

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Milward, Colonel Victor

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

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Monk, Charles James

Spencer, Ernest

Howard, Joseph

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants)

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Howell, William Tudor

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire

Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

Morgan, Hn. Fred(Monm'thsh.

Stanley, Lord (Lancashire)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Morrell, George Herbert

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Morrison, Walter

Stock, James Henry

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Morton, Arthur H.A.(Deptford

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Mount, William George

Sutherland, Sir Thomas

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Muntz, Philip A. [(Bute)

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

Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

Murray, Rt. Hon. A. Graham

Thorburn, Walter

Kemp, George

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Thornton, Percy M.

Kenyon, James

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Tollemache, Henry James

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Myers, William Henry

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Knowles, Lees

Newark, Viscount

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Lafone, Alfred

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Valentia, Viscount

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford

Wanklyn James Leslie

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Pender, Sir James

Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

Lea, Sir Thos. (Londonderry)

Penn, John

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

Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. Edw. H.

Percy, Earl

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Pierpoint, Robert

Wharton, Rt. Hon.John Lloyd

Leighton, Stanley

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Llewelyn Sir Diliwyn-(Swans.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.)

Loder,Gerald Walter Erskine

Pryce-Jones. Lt.-Col. Edward

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

Purvis, Robert

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

Long,Rt.Hn.Walter(Liverpool

Pym, C. Guy

Wodehouse,RtHon E R (Bath)

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Lowe, Francis William

Rankin, Sir James

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

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Wylie, Alexander

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Richardson, Sir Thos.(Hartlep'l

Wyndham, George

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Macdona, John Cumming

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Robinson, Brooke

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Maclean, James Mackenzie

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Young, Commander(Berks,E.)

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinboro'W.

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Younger, William

Malcolm, Ian

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Savory, Sir Joseph

NOES.

Allen, W. (Newc. under Lyme)

Clougn, Walter Owen

Griffith, Ellis J.

Allison, Robert Andrew

Colville, John

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

Ambrose, Robert

Crombie, John William

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Harwood, George

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Dalziel, James Henry

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Davies, M.Vaughan-(Cardigan

Hazell, Walter

Baker, Sir Johan

Davitt, Michael

Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

Barlow, John Emmott

Dillon, John

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Donelan, Captain A.

Hogan, James Francis

Billson, Alfred

Doogan, P. C.

Holden, Sir Angus

Birrell, Augustine

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Holland, W. H. (York, W. R.)

Broadhurst, Henry

Duckworth, James

Horniman, Frederick John

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Dunn, Sir William

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Emmott, Alfred

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

Caldwell, James

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Joicey, Sir James

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Flynn, James Christopher

Jones, David B. (Swansea)

Campbell-Bannerman Sir H.

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

Causton, Richard Knight

Fowler, Right Hon Sir Henry

Kearley, Hudson E.

Cawley, Frederick

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Kinloch, Sir J. George Smyth

Channing, Francis Allston

Gold, Charles

Kitson, Sir James

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

Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley

Labouchere, Henry

514

515

Lambert, George

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Stevenson, Francis S.

Langley, Batty

Nussey, Thomas Williams

Strachey, Edward

Lawson Sir Wilfred(Cumb'land

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

Leuty, Thomas Richmond

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Lewis John Herbert

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

Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

Lloyd-George, David

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan,E.

Logan, John William

Oldroyd, Mark

Thomas, David Alfd. (Merthyr

Lough, Thomas

Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durham

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Lyell, Sir Leonard

Palmer, George W. (Reading)

Ure, Alexander

Macaleese, Daniel

Paulton, James Mellor

Wallace, Robert

MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Q.C.)

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Walton, Jn. Lawson (Leeds, S.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Perks, Robert William

Warner, Thomas Courtney T.

M'Ewan, William

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Wedderburn, Sir William

M'Ghee, Richard

Pilkington, Sir. G.A (LancsSW

Weir, James Galloway

M'Kenna, Reginald

Power, Patrick Joseph

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

M' Laren, Charles Benjamin

Price, Robert John

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

M'Leod, John

Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

Maddison, Fred.

Randell, David

Wills, Sir William Henry

Maden, John Henry

Reckitt, Harold James

Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.)

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

Mellor, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Yorks)

Rickett, J. Compton

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Mendl, Sigismund Fendinand

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Wilson, John (Govan)

Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Woodhouse, Sir J.T. (Hid'rsf'd

Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

Robson, William Snowdon

Woods, Samuel

Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Schwann, Charles E.

Yoxall, James Henry

Morley, Rt. Hon. J. (Montrose)

Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

Morris, Samuel

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Morton, Ed. J. C. (Devonport)

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. M'Arthur.

Moss, Samuel

Spicer, Albert

Moulton, John Fletcher

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 165; Noes, 262. (Division List, No. 236.)

AYES.

Allen, Wm. (Newer-un.-Lyme)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Kitson, Sir James

Allison, Robert Andrew

Duckworth, James

Labouchere, Henry

Ambrose, Robert

Dunn, Sir William

Lambert George

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert H.

Ellis, John Edward

Langley, Batty

Atherley-Jones, L.

Emmott, Alfred

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

Leuty, Thomas Richmond

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Ferguson, R. c. Munro (Leith)

Lewis, John Herbert

Baker, Sir John

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Lloyd-George, David

Barlow, John Emmott

Flynn, James Christopher

Logan, John William

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Lough, Thomas

Billson, Alfred

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lyell, Sir Leonard

Birrell, Augustine

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Macaleese, Daniel

Broadhurst, Henry

Gold, Charles

MacDonnell, Dr. M.A,(Qu'ns C)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley

NacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Griffith, Ellis J.

M'Dermott, Patrick

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

M'Ewan, William

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Haldane, Richard Burdon

M'Ghee, Richard

Caldwell, James

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Harwood, George

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

M'Leod, John

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Hazell, Walter

Maddison, Fred.

Causton, Richard Knight

Hedderwick, Thos. Charles H.

Maden, John Henry

Cawley, Frederick

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Chinning, Francis Allston

Hogan, James Francis

Mellor, Rt. Hon. J. W(Yorks.)

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

Holden, Sir Angus

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Clough, Walter Owen

Holland, Wm. H.(York, W.R.)

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Colville, John

Horniman, Frederick John

Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

Crombie, John William

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr)

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Dalziel James Henry

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw.

Morley, Rt. Hon. J. (Montrose)

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

Joicey, Sir James

Morris, Samuel

Davitt, Michael

Jones, David Brynmor(Swans'a

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Dillon, John

Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

Moss, Samuel

Donelan, Captain A.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Moulton, John Fletcher

Doogan, P. C.

Kinloch, Sir John George S.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

Robson, William Snowdon

Wedderburn, Sir William

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Weir, James Calloway

Oldroyd, Mark

Schwann, Charles E.

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Palmer, George W. (Reading)

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

Paulton, James Mellor

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Wills, Sir William Henry

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.

Spicer, Albert

Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)

Perks, Robert William

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

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

Pickard, Benjamin

Stevenson, Francis S.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Strachey, Edward

Wilson, John (Govan)

Pilkington, Sir G.A.(Lancs SW

Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Hddersf'd

Price, Robert John

Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

Woods, Samuel

Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

Thomas, Alfred(Glamorgan, E.)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Randell, David

Thomas, David Alfr. (Merthyr

Yoxall, James Henry

Reckitt, Harold James

Trevelvan, Charles Philips

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Richardson,J. (Durham, S. E.)

Ure, Alexander

Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. W'Arthur.

Rickett, J. Compton

Wallace, Robert

NOES.

Aird, John

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

Gilliat, John Saunders

Allhusen, A. Henry Eden

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Charrington, Spencer

Gordon, Hon John Edward

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Arnold, Alfred

Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth)

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

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

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

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Coddington, Sir William

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Bagot, Capt. J. Fitzroy

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Graham, Henry Robert

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Colston, Chas. Edw. H.Athole

Green, Watford D. (Wed'bury

Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness)

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Gretton, John

Baird, John George Alexander

Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

Gull, Sir Cameron

Baldwin, Alfred

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

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

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

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

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

Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Banbury, Frederick George

Cranborne, Viscount

Hanbury, Rt. Hn Robert Wm.

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor)

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Hardy, Laurence

Bartley, George C. T.

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Heaton, John Henniker

Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

Curzon, Viscount

Helder, Augustus

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

Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Beach, W. W. B. (Hants.)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

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

Beckett, Ernest William

Davies,Sir Horatio D.(Chatham

Hill, Sir Edward Stock(Bristol

Begg, Ferdinand Faithful

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Hoare, Edw. Brodie(Hampste'd

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Bethell, Commander

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Hobhouse, Henry

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Doughty, George

Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)

Bill, Charles

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

Doxford, William Theodore

Howard, Joseph

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Drage, Geoffrey

Howell, William Tudor

Boulnois, Edmund

Drucker, A.

Hozier, Hon. J. Henry Cecil

Bousfield, William Robert

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Hubbard, Hon, Evelyn

Bowles,Capt. H.F. (Middlesex)

Dyke. Rt. Hn. sir William Hart

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Bowles, T.Gibson(King's Lynn

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Brassey, Albert

Fardell, Sir T. George

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Brookfield, A. Montagu

Fergusson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. (Man)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Finch, George H.

Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

Burdett-Coutcs, W.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Kemp, George

Butcher, John George

Fishier, William Hayes

Kenyon, James

Campbell,RtHn J. A.(Glasgow

Fison, Frederick William

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Carlile, William Walter

FitzWygram, General Sir F.

Knowles, Lees

Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Lafone, Alfred

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

Galloway, William Johnson

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.)

Garfit, William

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Gedge, Sydney

Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William E. H.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H.(C.ofLond.)

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

Leigh- Bennett, Henry Currie

Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J.(Birm.)

Giles, Charles Tyrell

Leighton, Stanley

518

519

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swans.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford

Stock, James Henry

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Sutherland, Sir Thomas

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverp'l)

Pender, Sir James

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

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Penn, John

Thorburn, Walter

Lowe, Francis William

Percy, Earl

Thornton, Percy M.

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Pierpoint, Robert

Tollemache, Henry James

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Macdona, John Cumming

Priestley, Sir W.O (Edinburgh

Usborne, Thomas

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Valentia, Viscount

Maclean, James Mackenzie

Purvis, Robert

Wanklyn, James Leslie

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb., W.)

Pym, C. Guy

Ward, Hon. Robert A. (Crewe)

Malcolm, Ian

Quitter, Sir Cuthbert

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Rankin, Sir James

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

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Richardson, Sir Thos.(Hartp'l)

Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matt. W.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Robinson, Brooke

Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm

Milton, Viscount

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Milward. Colonel Victor

Ryder, J. H. Dudley

Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh.N.

Monk, Charles James

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

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

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (H'nts)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Savory, Sir Joseph

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

More,Robt, Jasper (Shropshire)

Seely, Charles Hilton

Wylie, Alexander

Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

Seton-Karr, Henry

Wyndham, George

Morrell, George Herbert

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Morrison, Walter

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptford

Sidebottom, William (Derbys.)

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Mount, William George

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Young, Commander (Berks, E.

Muntz, Philip A.

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

Younger, William

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham(Bute

Spencer, Ernest

Murray, Charles.J. (Coventry)

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Myers, William Henry

Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)

Newark, Viscount

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move: "That the question, 'That the words of the clause "shall be liable to pay only" stand part of the clause,' be now put."
THE CHAIRMAN: There is an Amendment standing in the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for North-West Durham which, I think, the Committee should have an opportunity of discussing. If the Committee would be prepared to discuss that Amendment, I should decline to accept the motion of the First Lord of the Treasury; but if the Committee do not accept that view, I shall be compelled to accept the motion.
HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. DALZIEL: May I ask, Sir, on a point of order, in what way the resolution of the right hon. Gentleman would be put in the event of any arrangement being arrived at by the acceptance of the Amendment you have mentioned? I submit that the proposition should be accepted or refused.
THE CHAIRMAN: I said I could not accept the motion of the Leader of the House, because I thought there was an Amendment on the Paper which should be discussed. But, of course, if the Committee decline to discuss that Amendment, I shall be compelled to accept the motion of the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I rise, Sir, to, another point of order. I wonder where I come in.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. Member does not come before that of the hon. Member for North-West Durham.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Committee is a little at a loss to understated what the proceeding is. While fully recognising your desire to, secure for the Committee the consideration of a particular Amendment, I would ask how we can be allowed to consider that Amendment without having an opportunity of considering the others. Should we, for instance, have an oppor-

521
tunity of considering the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs, to which reference was made in the discussion of the Amendment which has just been negatived. The point is, by what process one Amendment can be selected and saved from the wreck without any mercy being shown to the others.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Earlier in the evening I made the observation that we could not very well tell what Amendments would be put, and I was then assured that every Amendment which was in order would be put from the Chair. And I was debarred from continuing the argument I was addressing to the Committee on the ground of Amendments that were to follow. I would venture to submit to you, Sir, that what the Committee is entitled to ask is that, before the Amendments are shut out, you should on each Amendment rule it out of order. To put to the Committee generally whether they are prepared to discuss a particular Amendment or not is to me an entirely new proceeding.
HON. MEMBERS: No.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Yes; I can understand that the Amendment may be accepted, but how can the Committee generally say whether they will or will not discuss an Amendment? I would ask your ruling upon the point. As to the motion made by the right hon. Gentleman, I claim that if that Amendment is in order it should be put from the Chair. The House of Commons has a right—the minority even have some rights—to see that the rules of the House are observed. Therefore, we ask your decision upon the motion of the right hon. Gentleman to strike out the words down to "only."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: To keep them in.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: That is the motion that is before the Committee; and, of course, if it is put and carried, the Amendment of the hon. Member for North-West Durham cannot be put. I understand you to say that, if the Committee proposes to discuss that Amendment, you will not put from the Chair the motion of the right hon. Gentleman. If
522
that is so, then, of course, the motion of the right hon. Gentleman falls to the ground. You have told us that you will not put that motion if the Committee is prepared to discuss the Amendment of the hon. Member for North-West Durham, and, as far as I am concerned, I am prepared to do that.
MR. ELLIS J. GRIFFITH: May I ask, Sir, whether, you having refused the closure, the right procedure is not to go on with the next Amendment on the Paper?
THE CHAIRMAN: I have followed a precedent which is in my mind—and in the mind of many other Members of the Committee, which was set by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin a good many years ago. In endeavouring to protect the rights of the minority it seemed to me that there was one substantial Amendment which would be shut out if I accepted the motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. I was endeavouring to protect the rights of the minority in that respect, and endeavouring to procure for them a discussion of that Amendment; but if the minority do not wish the course I suggested to be taken, of course, the only alternative for me is to accept the motion of the First Lord of the Treasury.
MR. COURTNEY: Perhaps I may be permitted to recall the circumstances to which you have referred, Sir, because it may have some bearing on the conduct of the Committee to-day. The Committee at that time was in a very excited condition, and it had had a protracted Debate over many Amendments to the Irish Crimes Prevention Bill, and a motion was made that certain words should stand part of the clause. I said that if that motion were accepted it would cut out one or two Amendments, to which I directed attention, which in my judgment were substantial Amendments, and I therefore hesitated to accept the motion. Thereupon the members of the Committee agreed, practically without any vote taken on the subject, to drop all the intermediate Amendments, except the one or two to which I called attention, and to proceed with the discussion. That, I presume, is what you have suggested on the present occasion.

523
I may say, looking back to that time, that if the Committee had not followed the suggestion made of saving the one or two substantial Amendments to which I have referred, I should, not perhaps immediately, but after a short interval, have accepted the motion that certain words should stand part, even though they did cut out those substantial Amendments, because it is impossible, as I conceive, for the Chairman to do otherwise, having regard to the conduct of business, as well as to the rights of private Members and of the minority. If business is so conducted as to render progress impossible, then, at whatever cost, it is inevitable that certain substantial Amendments may come to be overlooked.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am sure, Sir, there is no disposition in this quarter of the House to do otherwise than facilitate an arrangement—perhaps not entirely to the liking of hon. Members of this side of the House who think they have been treated with small amount of courtesy—but at the same time to facilitate such an arrangement. What we do not see is how, as a matter of form, it is to be brought about. The right hon. Gentleman has reminded us of an occasion to which reference has been made; but I would ask you, Sir, whether, in addition to the Amendment of the hon. Member for North-West Durham, to which you attach importance, you would not also include in your exception the particular Amendment to which reference has been previously made to-day, and as to which an assurance was undoubtedly given to my right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouth that it would be put from the Chair.
THE CHAIRMAN: I have a note opposite that particular Amendment that it ought to come up as a new clause, and if it had been reached in the ordinary course of business I should have ruled that it ought to have been raised as a new clause, in the same way as I ruled yesterday that an Amendment put down by the hon. Member for Monmouth should have been brought up as a new clause. Therefore the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs will not be injured if the arrangement I suggested is adopted.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That entirely saves the understanding with my right hon. friend.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: You have said, Sir, that your decision on this matter will be taken on whether the House is disposed or not disposed to discuss the Amendment of the hon. Member for Durham. How is that to be ascertained? I ask you to tell us, because that seems to me to be the turning point of the matter.
THE CHAIRMAN: I propose to ascertain that by calling upon the hon. Member for Durham. There is only one other hon. Member who has an Amendment before that in order, and if that hon. Member insists on his title to intervene, of course the arrangement would be destroyed, and I should be compelled to accept the motion of the First Lord of the Treasury.
AN HON. MEMBER: Whose Amendment is that?
THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil.
MR. D. A. THOMAS: My Amendment is quite as substantial as that of the hon. Member for North-West Durham. If I had not regarded it as a substantial Amendment I would not have put it on the Paper.
MR. DILLON: I ask, on a point of order, whether there is any precedent for the course which you, Mr. Lowther, are now taking; that is to say, in passing over a Member of the House whose Amendment is in order, and calling on an hon. Member whose name stands subsequent on the Paper. Referring for a moment to the only precedent alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin, I wish to direct attention to the fact on that occasion, after a very heated discussion, and on

525
the tenth or eleventh night of the discussion, the right hon. Member for Bodmin was dealing with only a small party in the House, of which I was a Member, and not with the whole body of the Opposition in this House. I venture to submit that in the present instance you, Mr. Lowther, are making a large advance on that precedent. This is only the second night of the Debate in Committee, and the Opposition is not a small minority, but the whole Opposition in the House. I conclude by asking you again whether there is any precedent for the Chairman passing over an hon. Member whose Amendment stands upon the Paper, and calling upon another hon. Member whose name stands subsequently on the Paper.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has misunderstood the situation. I did not pass over the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil; on the contrary, I stated quite clearly that, except with his consent, I could not call upon the hon. Member for North-West Durham. If he refuses his consent, we are left in the same position as at the close of the last Division.
MR. D. A. THOMAS: I will give my consent.
MR. ELLIS J. GRIFFITH: I also would be cut out if this course were taken. My Amendment to limit the operation of the Act to benefices given before the passing of the Act is in order, and stands next on the Paper.
THE CHAIRMAN: Of course, that Amendment would be passed over along with others. I do not say that it is not in order, but it is not, in my opinion, so substantial. There is a difference between these Amendments. Some are very important; others not so important. In my opinion the most important Amendment that would be passed over would be that of the hon. Member for North-West Durham.
MR. ELLIS J. GRIFFITH: Am I to understand that you are passing over my Amendment to go on to another?
THE CHAIRMAN: The only Amendment yet passed over with the consent of the hon. Member in whose name it stands is the Amendment of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. The other Amendments are subsequent to that of the hon. Member for North-West Durham.
MR. ELLIS J. GRIFFITH: Do I understand that by calling on the next Amendment you have passed over my Amendment, which is in order, and which stands next on the Paper?
THE CHAIRMAN: It is just the opposite. The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Anglesey comes after that of the hon. Member for North-West Durham.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: On a point of order. I have an Amendment page 16. If it be in order it is Undoubtedly an important and substantial Amendment. It would be ruled out by the closure suggested. May I ask if that Amendment of mine is in order?
THE CHAIRMAN: I have the same note opposite to the Amendment of the hon. Member for King's Lynn as I have opposite that of the bon. Member for Carnarvon. It ought to be raised as a new clause. I call upon the hon. Member for North-West Durham.
MR. R. ATHERLEY-JONES: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. The principle upon which the Bill is founded is to be discovered in the declaration in the Report of the Royal Commission, and the speeches of the Members of the Government, and of the Commission during the earlier stages of the discussion. I gather from these that the great object of the Bill is that, according to their view of the facts, certain deductions from the rateable value of the tithe rent-charge had not been made in the case of beneficed clergy which ought to have been made. With the single exception of the hon. and learned

527
Member for Plymouth, hon. Members were, on the Government side of the House, solicitous during the Debate to repudiate the idea that this concession, for concession it is, was made on the ground of sympathy with the distressful condition of the clergy. I am afraid that we have a very shrewd suspicion, a suspicion to which the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth lent his authority, that the raison d'etre was not any unjust principle of deductions applied to the tithe rent-charge, but rather the view that the clergy are, from the point of view of sympathy, entitled to some concession on the part of the general taxpayers. I would point out to the House that the claim made in behalf of the clergy is that there are a certain number of deductions which ought to be made and which have not been made. After a very careful and prolonged investigation a certain number of deductions were made, and these are set out in the Report. I am prepared to admit, and I think it is a very sound proposition, that if you can establish that the clergy for the purpose of discharging their office, or causing their office properly to be discharged, are put to expenses which fall or are likely to fall on the tithe rentcharge, then, I think, that is a deduction which may reasonably be made. There are two deductions in my mind to which that principle applies, and two only. One is in respect of the repair of the church; the other is in respect of the necessary employment of a curate for the purpose of discharging the duties of the benefice. Now, I believe that the law, as it at present stands, speaking generally, in spite of a recent decision, does recognise that deductions may be properly made from the rateable value of the benefice for the purpose of the repair of the church, or, at any rate, for the purpose of the repair of that particular part of the building for which the parson is responsible. As to the other charge in regard to the employment of a citrate, I am prepared to concede that as the law at present stands, the curate's salary cannot properly be allocated to tithe rent-charge, unless his employment is compulsory. Speaking for myself—and I do not know that any of my hon. or right hon. friends would controvert the proposition—I think it would be only fair and reasonable that these two deductions should be made.
528
This Bill is founded on the principle of deduction, and the hon. Member who is responsible for the Report has eternally hammered on that question. It is because the parson is not fairly treated in respect of rating that he is entitled to these grants, and because there would be difficulty in adjusting the rating in each particular case. One of the most experienced persons connected with the administration of ecclesiastical revenues, Mr. De Bock Porter (Secretary to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners), repudiated the justice of making deductions from the tithe rent-charge, with the exception of repairs of the chancel and the employment of a curate. What are these other deductions? One of them which the hon. and learned Member for Stroud put forward was the land tax. Now, why should the land tax be deducted? The same hon. Gentleman asked whether deduction should not be made in respect of wages for superintendence. Now, I shrink from arguing that point, because is there anything more repugnant to one's conception of the position of a clergyman Who has the cure of souls than that there should be a deduction made from the tithe rent-charge based upon the principle of wages? A very distinguished judge repudiated the idea with absolute horror as an indignity to the Church, and yet we are invited in the discussion which has taken place during this Debate to grant a deduction for the services of the pastor of a church in superintending the cure of souls as proper. I will not condescend to discuss that point, because every person who has given evidence upon that question, with the single exception of the hon. Member, has repudiated in the strongest possible manner the idea that you should value by wages the high and sacred duty which a clergyman of the Church of England has to perform. It is perfectly true that a considerable number of clergy do suffer from very grievous distress. We know the numerous appeals which have been made in this respect, and had this measure been applied to the relief of the necessitous clergy, I do not think we should have been prepared to deal otherwise than in a generous and liberal manner with such a measure, so far as is consistent with the principles which we are bound to promote. But it is conceded that it is not for the benefit of the distressed clergy, because it is not the distressed clergyman

529
with the small tithe who will derive any benefit from this Bill. The man who will derive most benefit is the hugest tithe-owner. One word only in conclusion. It is continually contended, and without the smallest pretence of justification, that the clergyman is badly treated. To a large extent that statement has been exploded over and over again by the illustrations which have been given by my hon. friends on this side of the House. But it must be borne in mind that when these commutations took place, not merely the landlord, but the clerical tithe-owner greatly benefited. In the first place, they had the certainty of their income, which they did not have before; and, in the second place, they were not exposed to the vicissitudes of agriculture, because they still had their income by the system of commutation. If there is an injustice at all to the clergy, it is a microscopic injustice, anal this Bill is entirely out of proportion to the injustice under which they suffer. That injustice can be dealt with under the present law, and deductions given to meet the exigencies of the situation. It is quite unnecessary that we should give a wholesale dole to the clergy, which, after all, will not very often be of assistance to the really necessitous cases.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 5, after the word 'benefice, to insert the words, who has incurred expenses in the employment of a curate for the purposes of such benefice, or has incurred expenses about repairing the church belonging to such benefice, he shall, where such expenditure is not less than one-half of the amount of any rate to which this Act applies.'"—(Mr. Atherley-Jones.)
Question proposed, "That those Words be there inserted."
MR. LONG: The hon. Gentleman's speech and Amendment are very helpful, demonstrating as they do the enormous difficulty of the task which he has set himself to accomplish. He desires to specify what form the relief of rating shall take, and for what services alone this relief shall be given. Well, the Government are abundantly justified in the line that they have adopted by the Report of the Royal Commission. The
530
Royal Commission had before them all the evidence to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred, and we know that they included in their inquiry this question of deductions from the rateable value. I admit at once that if we were dealing in a permanent way with the whole question of local taxation, unquestionably it is by some form of deduction that we should have to seek a permanent remedy. The statement that the Royal Commission recommended that form of relief is a complete mistake. The majority of the Royal Commission, on the contrary, made recommendations of the most general character, and it was only three Members of the Commission who recommended that relief should be given by a process of deductions. If the majority of the Commission had been satisfied that a case for deductions had been established, I have no doubt that, instead of making general recommendations, they would have made some recommendations which would have been a guide to the Government. They avoided doing so, and, considering the difficult and complicated nature of the subject, I am not surprised. I am not prepared to admit, on the pant of the Government, that it would be fair to lessen the incidence of the rates with regard only to those clergy covered by the Amendment, because we hold that, as tithe rent-charge owners, the position of the whole of the clergy as ratepayers, as compared with other ratepayers, is an unjust one, and ought to be remedied. The Government cannot, therefore, accept the Amendment.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentlemon say that the proposals of this Bill were in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and still more surprised that the Government did not follow the recommendations of three members of the Commission whose names have been specially mentioned—namely, Sir John Hibbert, the late Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, and the hon. and learned Member for Stroud, who recommended the self-same proposal as is contained in the Amendment. As a matter of fact, the Government have repudiated the authorities upon whom the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, whose speech on the Second Reading was

531
specially thrown at our heads, mainly relied. I will read the Report:
"We desire to add that, in our opinion, the inequality which exists to the detriment of owners of tithe rent-charge not severed from the benefice is due to the fact that, in ascertaining the rateable value of such tithe rent-charge, sufficient deductions from the gross value have not been allowed; and that it is necessary, in order to place the owners of such tithe rent-charge on a footing of equality with the owners or occupiers of other rateable property, to provide by legislation for the allowance of further deductions front the gross value, and in such deductions to recognise the liability which is imposed on the owners of such tithe rent-charge to render certain services as a condition of enjoying their emoluments."
That is the policy recommended by these three Members of the Commission, which has been quoted as the highest authority the matter. I should like to know how the first of these signatories is going to vote on this Amendment. He has not dissented from the majority Report without grave consideration. That is the situation with reference to the principle of deductions. But higher authority still, the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this says that no doubt, if we were to consider the question on its merits, the principle of deductions is the right principle; but then, why does he not adopt it? He says it is because of the interim Report, in which these three most important Members recommended the deductions. The majority Report made no recommendations at all, and the right hon. Gentleman says they had not had time, and therefore the Government cannot consider this matter on its proper footing. We believe the principle they have adopted is a wrong one. It is quite obvious that if you have a principle of deductions you reform the principle itself when you make these allowances on particular holdings. But what you do is to assess a property on the old rate, and then pay half of it out of a fund. If you consider any particular class is unjustly dealt with, the remedy is by deductions, and not by assessment, and it is in that way that you ought to proceed. The right hon. Gentleman to admits that; but either through being unable to make up its mind, or having no mind on the subject, the Commission lay an interim Report upon the Table of this House, to change the whole system of rating instead of reforming it. The whole difficulty lies in the deductions themselves, when you
532
come to consider them. Now, what light does that throw on this pretence of doing justice? If there were any injustice at all, you would not have the slightest difficulty in making up your mind as to the addition to be made. There is one other point which commends itself to an ordinary mind, and that is that a man who keeps a curate at £150 a year you admit ought to have a deduction, but you would be unable to give that deduction to a man who ought to keep a curate and does not, and having made it on the ground that you give it to a man for something he has paid, you give it also to another who has not paid it. Then, again, you give it to one man for repairing his chancel, and you give something else to another who does not. That is the principle of this Bill, founded on the principle of blind justice. I suppose the gift, like rain, will descend on the just and unjust alike. If you are going to make allowances at all, you should make them to men who want them. But this system squanders the money of the taxpayers on the pretence that it is wanted by a class of people, whereas that pretence does not apply to a very large section of them. If you made up your minds as to these deductions, you know perfectly well you would not get half the sum which you now ask for, and that is the reason you fly in the face of the recommendation of the three most important Members of the Commission.
MR. HALDANE: The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has told us that he did not accept the Report of the minority of the Commissioners, but he went on to say that the Bill was really founded on the general recommendations of the other Commissioners. I have read that Report very carefully, but I have been unable to find that the recommendations of the majority of the Commissioners are based on any other ground than the theory of deductions. This Bill not only does not give effect to that principle, but goes directly in the teeth of the recommendations based upon it. So inconsistent is the Bill with the theory of deductions, that it proposes to give this grant to rich and poor alike; to those who employ a curate and to those who do not; to those who suffer from these deductions, and to those who do not suffer from them at all. The Amendment of my hon. and learned friend raises a most

533
important question—namely, What is the justification of the Government for their proposition? I trust that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and especially the hon. and learned Member for Stroud and the Solicitor-General—who has been singularly and suspiciously silent during this Debate—will make something like a defence of the provisions involved in the Bill.
MR. CRIPPS: I merely wish to prevent any misunderstanding. I believe the Royal Commission were unanimous that something must be done of a temporary nature. Those who thought of what the ultimate Report as regards the rating of tithe rent-charge was likely to be, desired to emphasise their view as to what that Report should be. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would not suggest that in a temporary measure of this kind, and without waiting for the final Report of the Royal Commission, we ought to touch the valuation list. The Government are acting on the recommendations of the Royal Commission that they should do something of a temporary nature, and the result will be practically the same as if they had applied the principle of deductions. I am not going into the question of what deductions are proper. That is a matter of controversy. But I wish to protest against the notion that three Members of the Royal Commission dissented upon this point from their colleagues. I believe they were all agreed that something should be done at once.
MR. ABEL THOMAS: I shall vote in favour of my hon. and learned friend's Amendment, though I feel it requires explanation, because it is one of the most astonishing proposals I have ever heard of. For instance, my hon. and learned friend's first suggestion is that, because a clergyman employs a curate, therefore he is to be relieved from part of his rates. In principle there is absolutely no distinction between the clergyman who employs a curate to help him to do his work and the clergyman who uses a pony and trap, or the man who works all day long and most of the night, and does without both the curate and the pony and trap. To that extent I do not appreciate the Amendment. But I think the Amendment will lessen the evils of this Bill and will save the country
534
a certain amount of taxes or rates, as the case may be. I do not see the justice of this Bill, and I shall certainly vote in favour of preventing a certain number of clergymen, however hard working, from getting, not what belongs to them, but what I cannot conceive to be their right.
MR. DALZIEL: I think there is a very good case for the Amendment. The representatives of the clergy who gave the evidence before the Commission upon which this Bill is based, advocated exactly what is embodied in the Amendment. The Report says that Mr. Griffith-Boscawen, M.P., Mr. Petersen, and the Rev. E. F. Gepp urged that, in addition to the existing deductions, allowances should be made for the professional services to clerical titheowners, for the stipends of necessary curates, and other deductions are also mentioned. My hon. friend says that the rich man who undertakes the duties, knowing the liabilities, ought not to benefit by this Bill. But there may be cases where a large amount of the stipend goes in the payment of curates, and in that way the operation of the Bill would be limited. On this ground I shall support the Amendment.
MR. McKENNA: I should be glad if we could agree upon certain matters under discussion. We shall all agree that tithe rent-charge is properly rateable. That is accepted by the Bill itself, inasmuch as it leaves tithe rent-charge rateable exactly as now. It is also recognised that tithe rent-charge in the hands of lay impropriators is likewise left rate-able. The Bill distinguishes between tithe rent-charge in the hands of two particular kinds of owners, so that the liability to pay rates is reduced to whether the owner of particular tithe property is a clerical or a lay person. The issue of principle between us is whether the cleric should be relieved of half his rates, or whether he should continue to pay rates upon the tithe rent-charge as the lay im-propriator does. I have honestly endeavoured to follow the arguments of the Royal Commissioners as set out in the Report, and to a certain extent I have been able to persuade myself that there is a great deal to be said from their point of view. But I cannot find a single word in that Report which supports the proposition of the Government as it now stands in the Bill

535
before us, although I find on page after page recommendations strictly in the spirit of the Amendment before the Committee. The first part of the Report gives the history of rates as they affect tithe rent-charge. In the 13th subdivision of the Report will be found this heading: "Claims put forward on behalf of the incumbents for alterations in the system of valuing tithe rent-charge." It is upon alterations in the system of valuing tithe rent-charge that the Commission proceeds, and upon nothing else. The liability to pay rates remains as a permanent idea throughout the Report. Paragraph 84 gives a summary of the claim put forward on behalf of the incumbents for a re-valuation of tithe rent-charge. Is not this a fair and concise summary of the whole case as put forward on their behalf—that their tithe rent-charge is given to them solely on conditions which are not imposed upon lay impropriators, and that inasmuch as clerics are under that duty they ought to be allowed some deduction in their assessment in consequence of their obligation to perform that duty? The principle of justice which is put forward is that proper deductions are not made. There is no other claim put forward in this Report from beginning to end. Mr. Cassell, in his evidence, simply reiterates the opinion of the Commission as to the justification of their doing—what?—not remitting half the rates, but reducing the assessment. This Amendment does in principle carry out the recommendation of the Commission—the only recommendation upon which the alleged principle of justice can be based. We are trustees of the public in the control of the public finances. Surely, then, it is very desirable in a question of this sort, in which money is at issue, that we should go very strictly upon principles of equity. We cannot always go upon principles of justice as laid down by the Courts of Law; it is our duty frequently to overrule those decisions; but we ought to follow the principles of equity which have been laid down for our guidance, and which are not the principles underlying this Bill as it now stands. If this Amendment were accepted, I readily admit you would gain two results; but those results are beneficial both to the principle which ought to underly this Bill, and to those who most strenuously support this measure. The first result is that the rich tithe-owner
536
will not get an advantage proportionate to his riches; he will get only the same advantage as is obtained by the poorer tithe-owners. Surely that is very desirable. The second result will be that we shall cast the burden of the cost of the measure, not upon the general taxpayer, but upon the persons who ought to be made liable for it—that is, the persons who have been reaping the advantage of the parson's over-assessments in the past. I challenge hon. Members opposite to declare that, provided the same total amount of relief is given to the clergy, it would not be far more in accordance with their ideas of the distribution of the money that it should go in equality of payment to all clergy alike, and that it should not go in a larger proportion to the richer, and a less proportion to the poorer. That principle is better carried out by the Amendment than by the Bill, and therefore I shall support the former.
MR. LAMBERT: This Amendment raises a principle which is well deserving of the attention of the Committee, and one the importance of which no one can deny. It really carries out the principle which we were told just now would be the ultimate recommendation of the Royal Commission. The hon. Member for Stroud defends the Bill on the ground that it is a rough-and-ready method of getting justice. That may be, but for my own part, what I object to is tins rough-and-ready method of throwing about the taxpayers' money to persons who do not want it at all. The taxpayers and ratepayers do not get their money so easily as to want it thrown about in that rough-and-ready way. They want it distributed in the most equitable manner, so that it will do most good to those classes for whose benefit it is spent. It is because the Amendment carries out that principle that I shall support it. It also carries out the principle enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture, when he said that the permanent remedy undoubtedly would be, as regards rating, some kind of deduction from the gross annual value. Why do we want, in this measure, which professes to be a reform of rating, to proceed upon wrong principles? Surely it ought to be a principle in this country that those who do their duty should get relief, and those who do not should not get relief. If this Amendment were carried the poor curates

537
who at present are in receipt of such miserable stipends might have a chance of being a little better paid. Surely if any persons receive relief under this Bill it should be these poor curates, rather than the rich incumbents who have incomes of from £1,000 to £1,500 a year. Another point is that rich tithe-payers have been receiving an addition out of the commutation for a large number of years, and have therefore received a very considerable sum over and above the amount they have paid. The Amendment would limit this relief to the smaller tithe-owners, and thereby indirectly carry out the principle of not paying over and over again the rates of these gentlemen, who have had such large sums added to their already very high interest. It cannot be denied that the Report of, and the evidence given before, the Royal Commission go in favour of such a system as is suggested in the Amendment—a system of deductions—and surely the Government ought to give some credence and weight to the views of those upon whose evidence this Bill professes to be based. Mr. Petersen suggests that where a curate was unnecessarily employed the amount proposed to be deducted should not be allowed, but that where the Bishop was of opinion a curate was necessary the deduction should be made. While I do not agree with this gentleman's arguments, I do think the Government, as they have brought in the Bill on this evidence, should carry out his suggestions, and also the recommendations of the hon. Gentleman who had the courage to suggest a definite plan for the consideration of the Government. They should, at any rate, give credence to the Report of the Commission and to the weight of the evidence, which I am sure, from the tithe-owners' point of view, is incontestably in favour of the proposition embodied in this Amendment.
MR. LOGAN: I regret to find myself unable, without some further explanation, to support my hon. friend's Amendment. By it he seeks to limit the operation of the Bill to those clergymen who have incurred expense in the employment of a curate for the purposes of a benefice, or for the repair of the Church belonging to a benefice. To the extent that the Amendment limits the operation of the Bill I am, of course, with my hon. friend, because I
538
hold very strongly that of the many iniquitous measures introduced by the present Government this is not the least iniquitous. My contention is that it is a Bill to take out of the poor man's pocket money he can ill afford to spare, in order to give it to men, many of whom have £1,000 a year. I cannot, however, follow the argument whereby my hon. friend attempts to support his Amendment——
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members being found present—
MR. LOGAN: My hon. friend's argument really amounts to this. He says "Exceptional consideration shall be allowed to clergymen who have employed a portion of the money they receive as tithe rent-charge for the purpose of employing a curate or repairing a church." I can quite understand that argument as far as it goes, but I think my hon. friend has forgotten the source from which this money comes. A great many people are apt to forget that the only portion of the tithe rent-charge which either a necessitous or a rich parson can claim as income is that portion which remains after the liabilities which attach to it have been met. One of the liabilities is the payment of the rates, and I cannot, myself, see that we are justified in recognising for a single moment the right of the clerical tithe-owner to use any portion of the money that should go for the payment of rates for the purpose of paying a curate or beautifying his church. The tithe rent-charge is a charge upon the land, and I hold that if I support this Amendment I shall be recognising the right to take from its present purpose and object a portion of the charge in order to use it for other purposes. I take that strong line because I recognise that the nation has an interest in this tithe rent-charge. It is the nation's reserve interest in the land, and that is the reason why I protest against money set apart for a particular purpose being handed over to gentlemen in possession of benefices to be employed for other purposes. I would ask hon. Gentlemen who support this Amendment whether it would not be a very great temptation, indeed, to some of these clerical holders of tithe rent-charge to use the money in beautifying their churches, and so deprive

539
the rates of it. It necessarily follows that if this money, which should go to the relief of the rates, is used for the purposes of beautifying a church or paying an overworked curate, the other ratepayers in the immediate neighbour-hood will be called upon to pay an additional rate. That is, I think, a very real danger, and I would remind the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that in most parishes in the rural districts, with which he and I are very familiar, the parson is usually the second richest man in the place, and if by this Amendment he is aide to throw a greater burden of rates on his neighbours he will be doing it to men, 999 out of every 1,000 of whom are poorer than himself. Although I cannot vote against the Amendment, because it limits the mischief of the Bill, I will not pledge myself to vote for it, unless my hon. friend can give further reasons in support of it.
MR. MENDL: This Amendment is a very good illustration of the confusion which exists as to the two possible bases on which this Bill is founded. As I understand the Amendment of my hon. friend the Member for North-West Durham, it is based on the Report of the Royal Commission, which relies upon the fact that deductions are claimed by the owners of tithe, inasmuch as landowners are allowed deductions in respect of their rates. My hon. friend suggests that instead of taking a lump sum and banding it over to the clergy, irrespective as to whether they are or are not fulfilling certain functions, you should apply this money to those clergymen who are fulfilling certain functions in respect of their office. To oppose this, to my mind, gives away the whole basis of the Bill. It is true that in the country and the Press the whole contention has been that the clergy have suffered in consequence of the fall in agricultural produce and the expenses of their benefices. That is nothing more nor less than an appeal in forma pauperis—an appeal by the clergy to the charity of the taxpayers of this country to assist them. But this Amendment is a test of the contention put forward time after time by the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen opposite, in the course of the debates on this Bill, that this Bill is not based on mercy or charity, but on justice. My hon. friend proposes that its operation should be confined to
540
those beneficed clergy who have incurred expense in the employment of a curate or in repairing the Church belonging to the benefice. There is one aspect of the Amendment which commends itself to me, and that is that one of the first results of its operation would be that a very large number of additional curates would be employed. The Amendment employs the method recommended by the Royal Commission, and it is the method nearest to that applied to ratepayers who are not clerical tithe-owners. There is a further recommendation, and that is that it would limit the amount of money to be spent, and spent to the great disadvantage and detriment of urban ratepayers. I think the Amendment is a very fair test, because any hon. Member who votes against it cannot pretend that he regards this Bill as being based on justice, because if it is based on justice, surely justice is amply done when you provide a quid pro quo for those clergymen who have claims in regard to expenses connected with the church. As the Bill now stands, the clergyman who does not employ a curate, or repair his church, is in the same or even in a better position than a clergyman who does. For many reasons, although I admit there is danger in allowing deductions of any kind from what, after all, has been historically proved to be the gross and not the net income, I shall support the Amendment.
MR. BRYNMOR JONES: Although I admit there is a great deal of force in the arguments of my hon. and learned friend who moved this Amendment, I cannot agree with it as it stands. Let us consider for a moment what the position of the Bill now is. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has stated again and again that this Bill is based on the theory that the existing rating law involves an injustice to one class of tithe-owner. We on this side contend that the law as it stands is equitable and fair, and that the clergy should be assessed for rates like other tithe-owners. We have, therefore, a conflict of first principles, and I need hardly remind the Committee of the maxim that with those who deny first principles it is impossible to argue. Now, my hon. friend's Amendment appears to me to give away the very ease' we have been endeavouring to build up against the

541
arguments of the other side. There appears, I will not say confusion, but sonic difference of opinion, on the other side as to the real principle on which this Bill is based. The right hon. Gentleman has been clear and consistent throughout, but there have been one or two other Members who have been very far from taking the same broad and general view suggested by him, and I can quite see how that arises. I find in the Report of the Royal Commission, on which, in part at least, this proposed legislation is based, there are two recommendations in which there is considerable divergence of principle, or, if not principle, of practical argument. The first recommendation states that the representations made to the Committee on behalf of the owners of tithe rent-charge not severed from a benefice, have shown that the burden of local taxation is unduly onerous, and that sufficient allowance is not made for the fact that the persons entitled to tithe rent-charge are, under legislation, obliged to render service and to
perform duties in return therefor. That recommendation is a correct logical and legal way of stating the peculiarity that exists in the case of clergymen, whether that peculiarity entitles them to relief or not. The second recommendation is larger. It states that the case of the owners of tithe rent-charge not severed from a benefice is based on the ground which the Commissioners consider to have been fully established—that the present law, as interpreted by the courts, works unjustly, and places those owners in a much less favourable position than other owners of rateable property. It is on this latter recommendation that this Bill has been based. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to this Bill as a measure of justice, and, taking a broad survey of the whole law and incidence of local taxation, he thinks it is a fair and a proper Bill for the relief of a deserving class of ratepayers. That is not the way in which the Bill is regarded throughout the country. The danger I want to point out is, that if this Amendment is introduced into the Bill, it will give a colour to this Bill other than that which the Government desire to give to it, and it may be used as a valid argument in favour of the Bill, the very first principle of which I regard as unjust and improper. The Amendment too puts the obligation with regard to the repair of churches much
542
wider than it is in law. The only legal obligation on a vicar is to repair the chancel, whereas the Amendment refers to the whole structure. I am sorry to have to differ from my hon. friend, whose good intentions I recognise; but while I cannot disguise my feeling of hostility to this measure, I cannot support the Amendment.
MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I also disapprove of the Amendment, because it appears to me to run counter to the first principles of rating. The first principles of rating as I understand it is that there shall be deducted from the gross receipts everything necessary to keep the property in condition, and that the balance shall be rated. In point of fact, the present law works equal justice to all ratepayers. Every ratepayer is allowed deductions on the same principle, namely, the cost of securing the net return. The deductions vary in proportion to that cost. The employment, or the non-employment of a curate, makes no difference whatever as to the way in which the tithe rentcharge is collected. In the case of a landowner nobody dreams of asking what he does with his rents. What is looked to is the amount of outgoings necessarily required to keep the property in such a condition as that it will command a rent. So in the case of a curate, his employment or non-employment has nothing whatever to do with the growth of the tithe rent-charge. Then the rector is the person who is to repair the chancel, but that duty is incumbent upon him as owner of the tithe, and not as having cure of souls, for the duty is incumbent also on the lay impropriator. Of course it may be said that the Bill sins against all the principles of rating, but I cannot think that is a sufficient defence for the endowment we are now making. There is a further reason against deductions such as this, and that is that the clergy already have largely benefited in the course of the last sixty years. They have greatly benefited by the commutation of the tithe into a tithe rent-charge as a first charge on the land. In the next place they have been relieved by recent legislation of the irksome duty of collecting the tithe. Then they have been relieved of the up-keep of the elementary schools, and that is all endowment which will make it extremely difficult to bring about reforms in the

543
future. In fact the general position of the clergy has been greatly altered for the better, and therefore any claim they may have is entirely misplaced as a matter of justice. The real injustice is on the side of the ratepayers, for these will now have the fund for the relief of their rates considerably diminished in order to aid the clergy. We know that the doctrine of verbal inspiration is going to be applied to this Bill, as it was applied to another Bill. So far from the clergy being in a position which requires justice to be done to them, if they would do justice themselves they would give up a considerable portion of the emoluments which they now receive.
MR. MOSS: The right hon. Gentleman opposite says that the principle of this Bill is that of justice. To my mind I can only see one principle in it, that is the principle of robbing the poor to pay the parson. I cannot logically support the Amendment which the hon. Member for North-West Durham has moved. I do not quite see on what principle it is based, or why, because a clergyman pays so much for his curate, or for the repair of his church, he should be relieved of the payment of half his rates. We are all aware that one object of the tithe was the repair of the church edifice, and, if that be so, I do not see why we should go to the extent of relieving the incumbent of that obligation. As to the case of the payment of the curate, it seems to me that the argument of the hon. Member for Carnarvon is perfectly justifiable. Why should we take money out of the rates in order to allow a clergyman to keep two housemaids instead of one? Besides, you are granting relief to the very clergymen who are in least need of it. However, of the choice of two evils offered me, I prefer the Amendment to the Bill.
MR. CHANNING: I concur to some extent in what has fallen from the hon. Member for Denbighshire. I can see no logical basis nor satisfactory legal argument for the Amendment, but unlike the hon. Member I intend to vote against it. It seems to me that the argument urged before the Royal Commissioners in favour of the policy of authorising these deductions in order to arrive at the true
544
rateable value of the tithe are thoroughly defective. The whole of the arguments rest on a transparent fallacy, which was exposed by the right hon. Member for Bodmin in the earlier stages of this Debate. The tithe rent-charge is a land value assigned to clergy; it is not in any sense an income, it is a land value, therefore assessable for local taxation in the same way as all other land values are. In this respect the argument of the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill is absolutely fallacious; and I do not think any speech since the beginning of these Debates has so illustrated the absolute futility to make out a case for this Bill as the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in reply to my hon. friend. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman why it does not occur to Her Majesty's Government to follow the course proposed by Mr. Sclater Booth, when President of the Local Government Board. He attempted in a clause of a Bill in 1879 to deal with this question on the lines of the hon. and learned Member for Stroud, as quoted in the Report. I maintain that the Government have abandoned the principles of their own Party in dealing with this question. They have hopelessly condemned the policy which claims to be one of justice, but is really a policy of doles to those who have served them politically. They have absolutely demonstrated that no principle underlies this Bill and that it cannot be justified.
MR. SAMUEL EVANS: I have come to the conclusion, somewhat painfully, that this Amendment is purely theoretical. My hon. friend's Amendment has, however, this value at least, that it puts to the test the question whether the Government are proceeding with this Bill on some principle applicable to rating, or on the principle of helping their political friends. This theoretical Amendment is very valuable, also, because it cannot be doubted that the whole of the evidence was directed to the deductions which were to be made from the tithe rent-charge. At page twenty-five of the Report, a list of these deductions is given by the Commission—land tax, liability to repair the chancel of the parish church, personal services of the vicar, payment to curates, payments to daughter churches, pensions to retired incumbents, payments to the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty,

545
for the redemption of loans. It is on such lines as these that the Government should have proceeded if they really wanted to amend the rating law. If their desire was to proceed by any kind of rule or principle applicable to rating it should have been done on the lines of the hon. and learned Member for Stroud. They say, however, that that cannot be done, as this is a big question, until the Report of the Royal Commission as a whole comes up. According to the hon. Member for Stroud this is only a rough-and-ready method of dealing with the question temporarily. It is because it is a rough-and-ready method that I object to it; it is ready for the parsons and rough on the other ratepayers of the country. My hon. friend in his Amendment says that the deductions to be made in future are the expenses for the employment of a curate and for the repair of the chancel; but the relief is to be given without regard at all to the value of the benefice or to the services of the incumbent. Now, I maintain that in practice that will not be workable at all. As a matter of fact the relief would be in favour of the rich men with large livings, and there would be no relief to the men who have small livings. There might be some show of reason in favour of the Amendment, if my hon. friend had provided that relief is to be granted where the curate is "necessarily employed," but my hon. friend says, "where the curate is, in fact, employed." I think that is entirely wrong—I was going to say, wrong in principle; but I cannot get at the principle of the Bill. As a practical man I am bound to say that this Amendmet it is not workable in practice. I am not drawing on my imagination.
Cases have been put before the Royal Commission of people who need not have employed curates, but who did. Lord Balfour of Burleigh, the Chairman of the Commission, asked a witness, Mr. Petersen—the only layman who appeared as a witness on that side of the question—except the hon. Member for Stroud—whether, assuming that the rector was a very elderly or rich man and employed a curate, he would allow his salary to be deducted. "No," said Mr. Petersen, "I would not in that case. I should only allow the deduction where the bishop of the diocese certified that the curate was necessarily employed." There is nothing of that kind in the Bill at all, and nothing to indicate that the curate must be "necessarily employed." The result will therefore be that the rich man and the idle man will be relieved, and the poor struggling vicar will not be relieved. As a practical man I think the Amendment is not workable. This matter has perplexed me very greatly, and I am 10th to part from my friends in the lobby. But I think I am on safe ground in deciding how to vote on this Amendment. Ought we, in this piecemeal fashion, in this rough-and-ready method, to give any relief at all to these people out of the poor taxpayers' pockets?
Mr. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 208; Noes, 121. (Division List No. 237.)

AYES.

Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

Bigwood, James

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bill, Charles

Charrington, Spencer

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth)

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Bousfield, William Robert

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

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

Brassey, Albert

Coghill, Douglas Harry

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

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Colston, Chas. Ed. H. Athole

Banbury, Frederick George

Brookfield, A. Montagu

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Barnes, Frederic Goren

Bullard, Sir Harry

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Bartley, George C. T.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

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

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Butcher, John George

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

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

Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

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

Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.)

Cranborne, Viscount

Beach, W. W. B. (Hants.)

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Beckett, Ernest William

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon J.(Birm.

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Bethell, Commander

Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r)

Curzon, Viscount

Dalkeith, Earl of

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Davies, Sir Horatio D(Chatham

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Denny, Colonel

Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

Rentoul, James Alexander

Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

Kemp, George

Richardson, Sir Thos.(Hartlep'l

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Doughty, George

Kenyon, James

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Keswick, William

Robinson, Brooke

Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

Kimber, Henry

Round, James

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Knowles, Lees

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lafone, Alfred

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Savory, Sir Joseph

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Mncr.

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Fisher, William Hayes

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Sidebottom, William(Derbysh.

FitzWygram, General Sir F.

Leighton, Stanley

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Llewelyn, Sir D.- (Swansea)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Spencer, Ernest

Galloway, William Johnson

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Garfit, William

Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Gedge, Sydney

Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

Stephens, Henry Charles

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Stock, James Henry

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St.Albans)

Lowe, Francis William

Strauss, Arthur

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Lowles, John

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Gilliat, John Saunders

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Lucas-Shadwell, William

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

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Thorburn, Walter

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Thornton, Percy M.

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

M'Iver, Sir L.(Edinburgh, W.)

Tollemache, Henry James

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Malcolm, Ian

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Graham, Henry Robert

Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.

Valentia, Viscount

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

Milward, Colonel Victor

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C.E.(Kent)

Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

Greene,W.Raymond- (Cambs.)

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)

Wentworth, B. C. Vernon-

Gretton, John

Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'thsh.)

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Gull, Sir Cameron

Morrell, George Herbert

Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Morrison, Walter

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

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

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

Mount, William George

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

Hare, Thomas Leigh

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

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Heaton, John Henniker

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

Helder, Augustus

Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

Wylie, Alexander

Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

Myers, William Henry

Wyndham, George

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

Newark, Viscount

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

Nicholson, William Graham

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Young, Commander (Berks,E.)

Hobhouse, Henry

Percy, Earl

Younger, William

Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)

Pierpoint, Robert

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Howard, Joseph

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther

Howell, William Tudor

Pryce-Jones,Lt.-Col. Edward

Hutchinson, Capt.G.W.Grice-

Pym, C. Guy

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Davitt, Michael

Hazell, Walter

Allen, W.(Newe.-under-Lyme)

Dillon, John

Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Donelan, Captain A.

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Doogan, P. C.

Holden, Sir Angus

Barlow, John Emmott

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Hornimnan, Frederick John

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Duckworth, James

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Billson, Alfred

Dunn, Sir William

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Broadhurst, Henry

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Fenwick, Charles

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Joicey, Sir James

Burt, Thomas

Flynn, James Christopher

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Caldwell, James

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Kearley, Hudson E.

Channing, Francis Allston

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

Kinloch, Sir J. George S.

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

Gurdon, Sir William B.

Labouchere, Henry

Colville, John

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Lambert, George

Crilly, Daniel

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

Langley, Batty

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Hayne,Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

548

549

Leng, Sir John

Palmer,Sir Charles M (Durham)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Leuty, Thomas Richmond

Palmer, G. Wm. (Reading)

Spicer, Albert

Lewis, John Herbert

Paulton, James Mellor

Steadman, William Charles

Lloyd-George, David

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

Logan, John William

Perks, Robert William

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Macaleese, Daniel

Pickard, Benjamin

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

M'Dermott, Patrick

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan,E.)

M'Ghee, Richard

Pilkington, Sir G A (Lancs SW)

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Power, Patrick Joseph

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

M'Leod, John

Price, Robert John

Ure, Alexander

Maden, John Henry

Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds S.)

Mellor, Rt. Hon. J.W. (Yorks.)

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Randell, David

Weir, James Galloway

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Reckitt, Harold James

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Morgan, W Pritchard (Merthyr

Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Rickett, J. Compton

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

Morton, Edw. J.C.(Devonport)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

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

Moss, Samuel

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Moulton, John Fletcher

Robson, William Snowdon

Wilson, John (Govan)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Woodhouse, Sir J.T. (Hudders.)

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Schwann, Charles E.

Yoxall, James Henry

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. M'Arthur and Mr. Causton.

Oldroyd, Mark

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 98 Noes, 218. (Division List, No. 238.)

AYES.

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Pickard, Benjamin

Barlow, John Emmott

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Pilkington, Sir G.A.(Lancs SW)

Billson, Alfred

Jacoby, James Alfred

Power, Patrick Joseph

Broadhurst, Henry

Joicey, Sir James

Price, Robert John

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Kearley, Hudson E.

Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

Burt, Thomas

Kinloch, Sir John George S.

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Caldwell, James

Lambert, George

Randall, David

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Langley, Batty

Reckitt, Harold James

Causton, Richard Knight

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Richardson. J. (Durham, S.E.)

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

Leng, Sir John

Rickett, J. Compton

Colville, John

Leuty, Thomas Richmond

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Lewis, John Herbert

Robertson, Edm. (Dundee)

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Lough, Thomas

Robson, William Snowdon

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Macaleese, Daniel

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Davitt, Michael

M'Dermott, Patrick

Schwann, Charles E.

Denny, Colonel

M'Ewan, William

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Dillon, John

M'Kenna, Reginald

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Leod, John

Steadman, William Charles

Doogan, P. C.

Maden, John Henry

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Doughty, George

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Douglas, Charles M.(Lanark)

Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr)

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Duckworth, James

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Ure, Alexander

Dunn, Sir William

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

Walton, J. Lawson, (Leeds, S.)

Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

Moss, Samuel

Weir, James Galloway

Fenwick, Charles

Moulton, John Fletcher

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Flynn, James Christopher

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Williams, John C. (Notts.)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Connor,James(Wicklow, W.

Wilson, John (Durham Mid.)

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Wilson, John (Govan)

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Oldroyd, Mark

Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Hudd'sf'd)

Hazell, Walter

Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durham

Yoxall, James Henry

Hedderwick, Thos. Charles H.

Palmer, George W. (Reading)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

Paulton, James Mellor

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Holden, Sir Angus

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Mr. Atherley-Jones and Mr. Mendl.

Horniman, Frederick John

Perks, Robert William

NOES.

Aird, John

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

Beach, W.W. Bramston(Hants.

Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden

Banbury, Frederick George

Beckett, Ernest William

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Bartley, George C. T.

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Bethell, Commander

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

Bigwood, James

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

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

Bill, Charles

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Bond, Edward

Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

Myers, William Henry

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

Newark, Viscount

Bousfield, William Robert

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Nicholson, William Graham

Brassey, Albert

Gretton, John

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Gull, Sir Cameron

Penn, John

Brookfield, A. Montagu

Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Percy, Earl

Bullard, Sir Harry

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

Pierpoint, Robert

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Butcher, John George

Hardy, Laurence

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbysh.)

Heaton, John Henniker

Pym, C. Guy

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Helder, Augustus

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Rasch, Major F. Carne

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Hill, Rt. Hon. A. S. (Staffs.)

Rentoul, James Alexander

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Bir.

Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

Chamberlain, J.Austen (Worc.

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

Channing, Francis Allston

Hobhouse, Henry

Robertson, Herbert(Hackney)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)

Robinson, Brooke

Charrington, Spencer

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Round, James

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Howard, Joseph

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth)

Howell, William Tudor

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

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

Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Savory, Sir Joseph

Colston, Charles E. H. Athole

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Kemp, George

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Cooke, C.W. Radcliffe (Heref'd

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Kenyon, James

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

Keswick, William

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Cranborne, Viscount

Kimber, Henry

Spencer, Ernest

Cripps, Charles Alfred

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Spicer, Albert

Cross, Herb Shepherd (Bolton)

Knowles, Lees

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Labouchere, Henry

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Curzon, Viscount

Lafone, Alfred

Stephens, Henry Charles

Dalkeith, Earl of

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Stock, James Henry

Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Strauss, Arthur

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. Edw. H.

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Leighton, Stanley

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxfd Uni.)

Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swan.)

Thorburn, Walter

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Thornton, Percy M.

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Tollemache, Henry James

Fardell, Sir T. George

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Liverpool

Valentia, Viscount

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

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Finch, George H.

Lowe, Francis William

Warde, Lieut.-Col.C.E.(Kent)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lowles, John

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Fisher, William Hayes

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

Fison, Frederick William

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

FitzWygram, General Sir F.

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

Foster, Col. W. H. (Lancaster)

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

M'Iver, SirLewis (Edinburgh W

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Galloway, William Johnson

Malcolm, Ian

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh,N.

Garfit, William

Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.

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

Gedge, Sydney

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Milner, Sir Frederick George

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

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St.Albans)

Milward, Colonel Victor

Wylie, Alexander

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Wyndham, George

Gilliat, John Saunders

More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

Morgan, Hn. F.(Monmouthsh.)

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Morrell, George Herbert

Young, Commander(Berks, E.)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Morrison, Walter

Younger, William

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Mount, William George

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

Graham, Henry Robert

Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

Mr. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question 'That the words of the Clause "shall be liable to pay only" stand part of the Clause,' be now put."
552
Question put, "That the words of the Clause 'shall be liable to pay only' stand part of the Clause, be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 222; Noes, 135. (Division List, No. 239.)

AYES.

Aird, John

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Milward, Colonel Victor

Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Galloway, William Johnson

More, Robt. Jasper Shropshire)

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Garfit, William

Morgan, Hn.Fred.(Monm'ths.)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Gedge, Sydney

Morrell, George Herbert

Bagot, Capt Josceline FitzRoy

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Morrison, Walter

Baird, John George Alexander

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St Albans)

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

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

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Mount, William George

Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W.(Leeds)

Gilliat, John Saunders

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

Banbury, Frederick George

Godson, Sir A. Frederick

Murray, Charles J.(Coventry)

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Bartley, George C. T.

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Myers, William Henry

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Newark, Viscount

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

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

Nicholson, William Graham

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

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Beach, W W Bramston(Hants.)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Penn, John

Beckett, Ernest William

Graham, Henry Robert

Percy, Earl

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Pierpoint, Robert

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Bethell, Commander

Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Bigwood, James

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Bill, Charles

Gretton, John

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gull, Sir Cameron

Pym, C. Guy

Bond, Edward

Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Bonsor, H. Cosmo Orme

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Rentoul, James Alexander

Bousfield, William Robert

Hardy, Laurence

Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlepool)

Brassey, Albert

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Heaton, John Henniker

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Brookfield, A. Montagu

Helder, Augustus

Round, James

Bullard, Sir Harry

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

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

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Butcher, John George

Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampst'd)

Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

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

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Savory, Sir Joseph

Cavendish, V.C W. (Derbysh.)

Hobhouse, Henry

Seton-Karr, Henry

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Howard, Joseph

Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.)

Howell, William Tudor

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

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

Charrington, Spencer

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Spencer, Ernest

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth)

Kemp, George

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

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

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H

Stephens, Henry Charles

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Kenyon, James

Stock, James Henry

Colston, Charles E. H. Athole

Keswick, William

Strauss, Arthur

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Kimber, Henry

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Strut, Hon. Humphry Napier

Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

Knowles, Lees

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'd Un.)

Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

Lafone, Alfred

Thornburn, Walter

Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Thornton, Percy M.

Cranborne, Viscount

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Tollemache, Henry James

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. Edw. H.

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Valentia, Viscount

Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton)

Leighton, Stanley

Warde, Lieut.-Col.C.E.(Kent)

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a

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

Curzon, Viscount

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Dalkeith, Earl of

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

Williams, J. Powell- (Birm)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Long, Rt. Hn Walter(Liverpool

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Wilson, J. W. (Worcester, N.

Doughty, George

Lowe, Francis William

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lowles, John

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Wylie, Alexander

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Wyndham, George

Fardell, Sir T. George

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J(Manc'r)

Malcolm, Ian

Young, Commander(Berks, E.)

Finch, George H.

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Younger, William

Finlay, Sir Robert B.

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Fisher, William Hayes

Milbank, Sir Powlett Charles J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Fison, Frederick W.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

FitzWygram, General Sir F.

Milner, Sir Frederick George

554

555

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Horniman, Frederick John

Pickard, Benjamin

Allen, Wm.(Newc. Under Lyme

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Atherley-Jones, L.

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Pilkington, Sir G.A.(Lanes SW

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Power, Patrick Joseph

Barlow, John Emmott

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

Price, Robert John

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Joicey, Sir James

Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Jones, David B. (Swansea)

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Billson, Alfred

Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

Randell, David

Broadhurst, Henry

Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

Reckitt, Harold James

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Kearley, Hudson, E.

Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Kinlock, Sir John George S.

Rickett, J. Compton

Burt, Thomas

Labouchere, Henry

Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs.)

Caldwell, James

Lambert, George

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Cameron, Robert Durham

Langley, Batty

Robson, William Snowdon

Causton, Richard Knight

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on Tees)

Channing, Francis Allston

Leng, Sir John

Schwann, Charles E.

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

Leuty, Thomas Richmond

Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

Clough, Walter Owen

Lewis, John Herbert

Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarsh.)

Colville, John

Lloyd-George, David

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Crilly, Daniel

Logan, John William

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Lough, Thomas

Spicer, Albert

Davies, M.Vaughan-(Cardigan

Macaleese, Daniel

Stanhope, Hon. P. J.

Davitt, Michael

M'Dermott, Patrick

Steadman, William Charles

Dillon, John

M'Ewan, William

Strachey, Edward

Donelan, Captain A.

McGhee, Richard

Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

Doogan, P. C.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

M'Leod, John

Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Duckworth, James

Maddison, Fred.

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Dunn, Sir William

Maden, John Henry

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthy)

Evans, Samuel T.(Glamorgan)

Mellor, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Yorks.)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Fenwick, Charles

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Ure, Alexander

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Morgan, J.Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Morgan, W Pritchard (Merthyr

Warner Thos. Courtenay T.

Flynn, James Christopher

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Weir, James Galloway

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Morton, Edw. J.C.(Devonport)

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Moss, Samuel

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

Moulton, John Fletcher

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Wills, Sir William Henry

Gurdon, Sir William B.

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

Wilson, HenryJ. (York, W. R.

Haldane, Richard Burdon

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Harwood, George

Oldroyd, Mark

Wilson, John (Govan)

Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

Palmer, Sir Chas.M.(Durham)

Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Hudd'sf'd

Hazell, Walter

Palmer, Geo. Wm. (Reading)

Yoxall, James Henry

Hedderwick, Thomas C H.

Paulton, James Mellor

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Pease, Joseph A (Northumb.)

Mr. Gladstone and Mr. M'Arthur

Holden, Sir Angus

Perks, Robert William

Question put accordingly, "That the words of the Clause 'shall be liable to pay only' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 234; Noes, 145. (Division List No. 240.)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hutchinson, Capt. G.W. Grice-

Pym, C. Guy

Denny, Colonel

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Rankin, Sir James

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Doughty, George

Kemp, George

Rentoul, James Alexander

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Kennaway, Rt.Hon. Sir Jno.H.

Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

Kenyon, James

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Keswick, William

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Dyke, Rt Hon Sir William Hart

Kimber, Henry

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Robinson, Brooke

Fardell, Sir T. George

Knowles, Lees

Round, James

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw;

Lafone, Alfred

Russell, T.W.(Tyrone)

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

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Finch, George H.

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Samuel, Harry S.(Limehouse)

Finlay Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lecky, Rn. Hon. W. E. H.

Savory, Sir Joseph

Fisher, William Hayes

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Seely, Charles Hilton

Fison, Frederick William

Leighton, Stanley

Seton Karr. Henry

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swansea

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

Galloway, William Johnson

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Garfit, William

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Gedge, Sydney

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

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

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Lowe, Francis William

Spencer, Ernest

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans)

Lowles, John

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Gilliat, John Saunders

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Stephens, Henry Charles

Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Stock, James Henry

Goldsworthy, Major-General

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Strauss, Arthur

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

M'Iver Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Malcolm, Ian

Sturtt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Goschen,Rt Hn. G J (StGeorge's

Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Massey- Mainwaring, Hon WF

Thorburn, Walter

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Thornton, Percy M.

Graham, Henry Robert

Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J.

Tollemache, Henry James

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Green, W. D.(Wednesbury)

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

Milward, Colonel Victor

Valentia, Viscount

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Gretton, John

More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C.E.(Kent)

Gull, Sir Cameror.

Morgan, Hn. Fred.(Monm'thsh.

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

Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Morrell, George Herbert

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Morrison, Walter

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Hanbury,Rt.Hon. Robt. Wm.

Morton, A. H. A (Deptford)

Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.)

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Mount, William George

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Hardy, Laurence

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

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

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Heaton, John Henniker

Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

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

Helder, Augustus

Myers, William Henry

Wylie, Alexander

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Newark, Viscount

Wyndham, George

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

Nicholson, William Graham

Wyndham-Quin, Major W.H.

Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Penn, John

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Hobhouse, Henry

Percy, Earl

Young, Commander(Berks,E.)

Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)

Pierpoint, Robert

Younger, William

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Howard, Joseph

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Howell, William Tudor

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Crilly, Daniel

Allen, W.(Newc. under Lyme)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Burt, Thomas

Dalziel, James Henry

Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. Henry

Caldwell, James

Davies,M.Vaughan-(Cardig'n

Atherley-Jones, L.

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Davitt, Michael

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Dillon, John

Barlow, John Emmott

Causton, Richard Knight

Donelan, Captain A.

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Cawley, Frederick

Doogan, P. C.

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Channing, Francis Allston

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Billson, Alfred

Clark, Dr G. B. (Caithness-sh

Duckworth, James

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Clough, Walter Owen

Dunn, Sir William

Broadhurst, Henry

Colville, John

Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

558

559

Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)

Lough, Thomas

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Fenwick, Charles

Macaleese, Daniel

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Ferguson, R.C.Munro (Leith)

MacDonnell, Dr. M.A.(Qu'n'sC

Robson, William Snowdon

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

M'Dermott, Patrick

Samuel, J. (tockton-on-Tees)

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Ewan, William

Schwann, Charles E.

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

M'Ghee, Richard

Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Kenna, Reginald

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

M'Leod, John

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Maddison, Fred.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Gurdon, Sir WilliamBrampton

Maden, John Henry

Spicer, Albert

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Mellor, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Yorks.

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Steadman, William Charles

Harwood, George

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Strachey, Edward

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr)

Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

Hazen, Walter

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

Thomas, Abel(Carmarthen,E.)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Moss, Samuel

Thomas,Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

Holden, Sir Angus

Moulton, John Fletcher

Thomas, David Alfd. (Merthyr)

Horniman, Frederick John

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

O'Connor J. (Wicklow, W.)

Ure, Alexander

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Oldroyd, Mark

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Johnson-Furguson,JabezEdw.

Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

Weir, James Galloway

Joicey, Sir James

Palmer, George W. (Reading)

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Paulton, James Meller

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Williams, JohnCarvell(Notts.)

Kay-Shuttleworth,RtHn SirU

Perks, Robert William

Wills, Sir William Henry

Kearley, Hudson E.

Pickard, Benjamin

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

Kinloch, Sir John Gec. Symth

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Labouchere, Henry

Pilkington, Sir G.A.(Lancs SW

Wilson, John (Govan)

Lambert, George

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh.N.

Langley, Batty

Price, Robert John

Woodhouse, Sir JT(Hudd'rsfd)

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

Yoxall, James Henry

Leng, Sir John

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Leuty, Thomas Richmond

Randell, David

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Lewis, John Herbert

Reckitt, Harold James

Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. M'Arthur.

Lloyd-George, David

Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.)

Logan, John William

Rickett, J. Compton

MR. D. A. THOMAS: The Amendment I have to move is on page 16, and it is to provide that the owner of tithe rent-charge attached to a benefice should be liable to pay only "the proportion set forth in the schedule to this Act," and if hon. Members look at the Amendment to the schedule which it is my intention to move subsequently they will see it reads:
"When the amount of rent-charge attached to a benefice does not exceed £150, the proportion of the rate which the owner shall be liable to pay shall be one-half; exceeds £150, but does not exceed £200, two-thirds; exceeds £200, but does not exceed £300, three-fourths; exceeds £300, four-fifths."
This Amendment is one of considerable substance, but at the same time, when I see the First Lord of the Treasury on the Front Bench, I confess I move it with a considerable degree of trepidation. And I would here like to protest against the action taken by the First Lord of the Treasury against me.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled on this Amendment to comment on the action of the First Lord.
MR. D. A. THOMAS: Only with the indulgence of the Committee. Every Amendment I have upon the Paper has been ruled by you, Mr. Lowther, to be in order. The first was accepted with so much expedition that I hardly knew whether it was accepted or not, but on the other two the closure has been moved. The present Amendment would form a sliding scale, and the intention is to provide that those who are in most need shall receive at any rate the largest proportion of relief. If the right hon. Gentleman will accept the principle of the Amendment, I shall be ready to accept modifications of its terms.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 6, to leave out the words 'one-half,' in order to insert the words 'the proportion set forth in the schedule to this Act.'"—(Mr. David Thomas.)
instead thereof:—
Question proposed, "That the words 'one-half' stand part of the clause."
MR. LONG: I regret that it will be impossible for me to accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment in the form in which it stands, or in any other form. The hon. Gentleman tells us that one of his objects is to take care that the relief should go to the most deserving and not in some cases to the wealthy. I must repeat that the hon. Gentleman's object, which is no doubt a desirable one, would not be attained by this Amendment. It is really ludicrous to imagine that the amount of tithe rent-charge attached to a benefice is in. any way an indication of the emoluments of that benefice, and the position of the incumbent. It is impossible to arrive at the precise position of the incumbent without examination into the peculiar conditions attaching to his own incumbency and parish, a form of inquiry which it would be obviously impossible to make. I said on the Second Reading of the Bill that the course we have adopted was one for which we have precedents in the present Lighting and Sanitary Acts. Whether or not they are new rates is not the question at all. The suggestion of the hon. Member is that the relief should be given more in accordance with the requirements of the recipients. But if you take the tithe rent-charge as an indication of the recipient's position you will be misled, because while tithe rent-charge stands at varying sums, in one case it stands by itself, and in another case it is added to other sources of revenue. Then, when you have arrived at the full amount of the value of the benefice, you must find out what are the demands made upon the incumbent, upon which depends the net value of the benefice. It would not be possible to draw a hard and fast rule such as that suggested by the hon. Member, which would not involve much greater hardship and injustice than anything which can possibly follow from the scheme proposed by the Government. It can easily be shown that even when the rates paid by the owners of tithe rent-charge have been reduced by one half, they will still pay in a much heavier
562
degree than other ratepayers in a similar position. The suggestion that by adopting this Amendment the relief would be averaged in a fairer way cannot be entertained, because the tithe rent-charge by itself cannot be taken as an indication of a serious necessity.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: We are dealing here with old rates, and old rates are not in any respect a burden upon the present owners of property. The present owner takes the property subject to the burden of the old rates. If you make a remission of these old rates it follows that the larger owner gets the larger remission, and you are making a present not merely of the sum in hand, but of the capital value of the rates so long as the remission lasts, to every person who benefits by it. If you give a remission in proportion to the value of the tithe rent-charge, you are giving a larger bonus to the wealthier man, so far as this property is concerned, and a smaller bonus to the poorer man, and that is an injustice against which my hon. friend wishes to guard by this Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman could have pointed in the matter of lighting and watching and sanitary legislation to a case in which Parliament interfered with an old rate being a burden on the land and not on the owner of the land, and give remission therefrom in proportion to the amount of the rate, he would have had a precedent for the course he has now taken. He has in no degree met the principle or the spirit of the Amendment, which is one of the most important that has been or will be moved, and I hope it will be adequately discussed on both sides of the House.
MR. PERKS: One reason for reducing the amount which incumbents may receive in mitigation of their rates is that which I pointed out last evening, namely, in a very important feature this fund which has been provided by the Government may not be sufficient—for we then

563
showed, and it was admitted by the Government, that the contingency had not been provided for that in the event of a lay impropriator giving back tithes to a benefice, those tithes will be able to claim the benefits of the Act. The basis upon which tithes are now assessed is not the par value, but the varying value of grain, and consequently tithes are now assessed at about 68 per cent. of the par value of the tithe as commuted in 1836. It is perfectly evident that contingencies might arise when the assessed value of these tithes would approximate to the par value again. What would be the immediate effect of the outbreak of an European war? The value would at once rise. There would be no such distinction between the par value and the present assessed value, and consequently the amount at which tithes would be assessed would be enormously in excess of that at which they are now rated. If such a contingency were to occur, it is perfectly clear that the clergy would be rated, not upon a very largely reduced value, but upon a largely increased value, and being assessed upon the increased value the relief which they would be entitled to claim under this Bill would rise in exactly the same ratio. In such a contingency the very raison d'êre of the Bill would disappear, because the tithes payable would be largely increased simultaneously with the reduction of the rates being increased at the same time.
MR. LEWIS: This Amendment seeks to introduce into this Bill that system of graduation which has been adopted in other directions, and which is now universally recognised as a just principle. It has been adopted in the case of the income-tax by means of exemptions. The right hon. Gentleman said it would be necessary to make a number of inquiries into the actual value of the tithe and so on in the particular livings, but he might just as well say that it would be necessary to make an inquiry into the extent of a
564
man's income and the burdens upon that income. There would be absolutely no difficulty in adopting the principle, whether or not the particular form recommended was adopted by the Government. But I am afraid the Amendment will not be accepted by the Government, not because it is not a reasonable one, but because the Government have made up their minds that no Amendment of any kind whatever is to be inserted in the Bill, so as to avoid the Report stage, and that the country may have as little opportunity as possible of judging and pronouncing their opinion upon this Bill.
MR. MOULTON: It seems to me the Government are very happy in the choice of the Minister to whom they have committed the charge of this Bill. He has two advantages. He has the advantage obviously of never having inquired into the elementary principles of taxation which have relation to the question, and he also has the advantage of not seeing when the arguments of 10 o'clock destroy the arguments he advanced at 7 o'clock. In his mind absolutely contradictory principles never interfere with one another. Let us see the defence he has made for the action of the Government in regard to this Amendment. He says, "Oh, you are quite wrong in thinking that we can distinguish between one clergyman and another by the amount of tithe he possesses. Tithe is only a portion of his income." What then becomes of the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman to the Opposition to find anybody but a clergyman who was rated on his income? Was not the Bill brought in on the pretext that the tithe was his whole income, and that the rating on the tithe meant not a rate on a part of a man's property, but on the whole? But now the defence is that clergymen have much property besides tithe. How then do they differ in ally possible way from lay impropriators who have other property? If the income attached to a benefice is not only tithes,

565
but consists of other property in addition, what is the meaning of the attempt to connect the income for tithe with services rendered? There is no connection whatever between them. Why should we take a particular bit of property of a particular class of people—for that is what it is reduced to now—and proceed to increase that piece of property by paying half the rates? It is exactly the same as saying that where a part of the income of a benefice is derived from Consols we will pay the income tax on those Consols or raise the interest to 3 per cent. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman has destroyed all connection between tithes and services, and has taken away every pretext for this Bill. It is a frank attempt to increase the value of property which in a certain number of cases is held by clergymen. I was astounded to hear cited as a precedent for this that in certain Acts tithes were exempted from special taxes. Yes, as a kind of property, but those exemptions did not apply only to clergymen. Whoever held the property got the benefit of the exemption, and therefore those Acts were not precedents for clerical endowment Acts.
MR. CRIPPS: The argument of my hon. friend is absolutely inconsistent with every argument he has heretofore urged upon this Bill. The Amendment proposes that the proportion of rate which the owner of tithe rent-charge should be liable to pay should vary according to the amount of that rent-charge. If there is one principle more certain than another it is that when you decide upon the proper way in which certain property should be rated, you must rate it quite irrespective of the amount of the property.
MR. MOULTON: And irrespective of the person who holds it.
MR. CRIPPS: Quite true. Supposing you want to apply the true principle of rating so far as tithe rent-charge is concerned. Can you suggest that that prin-
566
ciple should be differently applied according to the income derived from a particular tithe rent-charge? Where is there any case of such a principle being applied? Whether the property is rated, at £1 or £100 you must rate it on the same principle. It is inconceivable that any member who has any knowledge of, the subject can support such an Amendment as the one now before the Committee.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Limited as we have been in our power of discussing this Bill, the Debate has, at all events, been long enough to enable us entirely to convert the hon. and learned Member for Stroud. In the earlier part of the Debate we attempted to convince him that the rate was upon the property, and not upon the owner. Now he is objecting to this Amendment because that principle is not observed. I have taken my stand upon the ground that it being a tax upon the property you have no right to make any distinction what ever in regard to the persons who benefit from the property. That is the fundamental principle upon which we have argued this matter. The situation in regard to this Amendment is that we are obliged to make the best of this Bill. If you choose to lay down the principle—which we maintain is a false principle—that you have a right to take into consideration, with regard to this tax upon property, the condition of a particular class of persons who enjoy that property, we desire by this Amendment to apply that principle more fairly. If you choose to say that you give this money to the clergy because they stand in a different position from that of all other owners of tithe property, it is quite plain that you ought in dealing with the personal situation of the individuals, to adjust your scheme with due regard to the different position of those individuals. I have said all along that the principle is a rotten one, and that you ought to deal with all tithe property upon the same footing. You have chosen to deny that;

567
you have selected a particular class to deal with in a different manner from other owners of the same class of property. Having done that, the Amendment proposes that you should make the amount of this bonus correspond to the different positions of the persons who are to receive the money.
MR. SAMUEL EVANS: I accept the challenge of the hon. and learned Member for Stroud, and associate myself with the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Launceston. The only point upon which I dissociate myself from him is in his attack on the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. I think the right hon. Gentleman is the very Member of the Government who really shows that he is the person who ought to be entrusted with the Bill. He knows all about it; he knows that the Bill simply means that half the rates should be given back to every clergyman. He has been equally pleasant to everybody on this side of the House, and he has so excelled in his management of the Bill that he has been able to keep the Solicitor-General, who is bursting with a desire to give information, sitting quietly by his side. If he could only have kept the hon. and learned Member for Stroud as quiet he would have been all right. That hon. Gentleman says, "Can you show me any case in the whole of the law of rating where any difference is made according to the amount of the property?" I would ask him whether he can show me any case in the rating law where two persons in the enjoyment of precisely the same kind of property are treated differently—not only treated by a sliding-scale, but by a sliding-scale which is so favourable to one and so unfavourable to the other that one is put right at the top and the other pushed right to the bottom? Can the hon. and learned Gentleman justify on what he calls the "principle of rating" the omission of a tithe rent-charge owner because he happens not to be a clergyman? The Amendment is a reasonable one in this
568
regard. You say you are going to assist what you call a deserving class of persons. That is perfectly true, but we do not want alms for those who have their pockets well lined. I desire to come to the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman in the matter of drafting. It is the mere changing of a word, and what I desire is to change the words "tithe rent-charge" to "emoluments." I do not know whether the word has gone forth that no Amendment is to be accepted, but that ought not to deter us on this side from doing the best we can for these poor clergymen. I have answered as well as I can the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, who was silent under the argument I put forth—that he cannot justify this proposal by the sacred principle of rating, and I hope we shall not hear much about this principle hereafter. The real question is whether these doles ought to be so given as to meet the real necessities of the case, and that is the principle of the Amendment.
MR. ABEL THOMAS: Now we have got back again to the principle of rating, which is the whole groundwork of the opposition by the hon. and learned Member for Stroud to this Amendment. The rating principle, I understood, was to be brought forward at a later stage upon the whole matter of rating, for it has nothing whatever to do with this Bill. You are now trying to put a stop-gap to help the clergy in the country in order to enable them to pay their rates. I do think that this is one of the most important Amendments which have been put down on the Paper, and I am rather pleased to find that the Government are going to refuse to accept it. I object to the Bill from beginning to end, and the people of the country outside are not talking about the justice or injustice of the rating of tithes, but they are talking about the great difficulty in which the poor clergyman finds himself, because he can scarcely provide food and clothing for himself and his family; and the country want you to relieve these poor

569
clergymen, and they do not care one scrap about the injustice or the justice of the rating principle itself. It seems to me that the Amendment of my hon. friend is one which every individual constituent of every Member on the other side of the House would like to see carried, and therefore I am only too pleased to think that the Government will not accept this Amendment. This proposal would have been very acceptable to their own constituents, and therefore its non-acceptance will show their supporters the real nature of this Bill. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that you cannot measure a clergyman's wealth by the amount of his tithe rent-charge, but the same thing could be said about anybody. Take a man with £2,000 and another with 10s. It is possible that the latter is richer than the former, but you certainly would not rate them in the same way. It seems to me that the really deserving clergyman is only given a very small dole, whilst the rich clergyman, who ought not to have any dole at all, takes ten times as much as the poor clergyman. The effect of the rejection of this Amendment by hon. Members opposite will be noted by the constituencies, and if the Government can see their way to accept this Amendment the better it will be for them when they go to meet their constituents.
MR. STUART: I think it is useless to urge any further objections to the principle of rating. There is only one principle of rating, and that is the one which is applied to the hypothetical tenant. We all know that certain deductions are made from the tithes for the cost of collecting, but that has nothing to do with what a hypothetical tenant might choose to do with it or for it, and the only principle of rating is distinctly in favour of there being no deduction further than that which is necessary for the tithes. That is perfectly clear, therefore, that this argument cannot be urged against the Amendment of my hon. friend. But this
570
Bill plunges head foremost through this principle, and it says that we have to consider what the person who is in possession of the property does with it or for it. Let us compare the case of two houses, one of which is bought or rented by a person who pays rent, and the other is held in return for services given to someone else. Those two houses are not rated differently, but under this Bill we are considering a totally different principle. We are considering what the person does who is in possession of the property, and we are breaking through the existing principle of rating. If we are going to relieve impecunious clergymen, it is better to adopt this Amendment than to adopt the hard and fast line in the Bill. The Bill gives relief mostly to the larger property, and the intention of this Amendment is to provide that there should be a larger proportion of relief given to the persons with smaller incomes. That is the same principle which is adopted in the income tax and the death duties. When we come to look closely at the Amendment itself as a means of relieving the clergy, I think it is a very great deal better than the proposal which is contained in the Bill, and I do not think that the principle of rating can be urged against this Amendment.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I would point out to the Committee that this proposal is based upon a suggestion made before the Royal Commission by one of the shrewdest members of that Commission. It is true that he signed afterwards the majority Report, but he probably did that with a view of arriving at some kind of common agreement. The suggestion was made by Mr. Elliott that the scale in the Pluralities Act should be applied with a view of ascertaining the amount of relief to be extended to each case. Before the Commission a question was put to a tithe-owner whether he approved of that scale or not, and he said that he did not disapprove of it, and he gave an exceedingly interesting reason why. He said he had received letters from persons saying that

571
they had heard from Members of Parliament, who had stated that they desired and hoped that this proposal was not going to be a relief entirely for the small livings. The real reason is that hon. Members on the opposite side of the House have written to these people urging that they should not accept the scale which confines the relief to the smaller clergymen, but that they should demand relief all round for the general body of clergy. Therefore it is not the clergy themselves who object to this relief going to their most distressed brethren, but it is gentlemen like the hon. Member for Tunbridge and others, who have written to these clergymen, encouraging them not to accept the scale.
MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I have never written any such letter.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I know that the letters referred to, at any rate, have not emanated from this side of the House, and therefore they must have come from the other Side. I will read the words again. They state:
"They have written saying that they have heard from Members of Parliament, that they hoped that the relief which is to be given is not going to be entirely a relief for the smaller livings."
In the Appendix to the Report of the Commissioners there is one case given which will show how this Bill will work if the Amendment is not accepted. The case I allude to is one where the gross tithe is £1,300. After making every deduction for rates, curates, and every possible deduction for the repair of the church there is a net income of £700 a year. Now the relief which that clergyman will get under this Bill will be £74, whilst in the case of a clergyman whose income is only £116, he will only get relief to the amount of £2 16s.—that is to
572
say, the man with £700 a year gets £74, but the man with £116 a year only gets £2 16s. out of the Bill. Can there possibly be a stronger argument in favour of this Amendment? One of the witnesses gave an answer which bears very strongly upon this Amendment, for he said that: "It very often happens that the man who does the most work has the least salary." In spite of that, the man who does the most work gets £2 16s. under this Bill, and the man who does the least work gets £74. I am glad my hon. friend has proposed this Amendment, because it shows the utter hollowness of the case for this Bill, which has no basis in justice or fair play, for the men with the big salaries get the most relief.
MR. SPICER: I beg to move, Sir, that you report Progress. This measure, after all, is not one which has been called for by any strong expression of opinion from the country. When it is being introduced to this House one prominent Member of the Unionist Party leaves that Party, and even his constitutency do not venture to fight the seat again. In the same county a political contest is fought for two seats, and the two Unionist candidates are——
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member. must confine his remarks to the Amendment.
MR. SPICER: I am addressing myself to my motion to report Progress.
THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that I cannot accept a motion to report Progress at this stage, for we are now within ten minutes of the ordinary time for adjournment.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: I have listened with a great deal of attention to the speeches which have been delivered by the hon. Member for the Stroud Division, and there appears to

573
be one chord which runs through the whole of his speeches. The hon. and learned Member is a great apostle of the doctrine of equality in rating.
MR. CRIPPS: Hear, hear.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: The hon. and learned Member accepts that proposition, and I hope he will be able to justify it. I venture to say that this Bill is an entirely revolutionary measure, for it destroys once and for ever all uniformity and all equality in rating. It helps one particular kind of property, and out of that kind one particular section of it. The measure lays down that all the possible benefits which we are able to shower and all the money we can expend—not out of the taxpayers' pockets, but out of the ratepayers' pockets, some of whom are already paying rates to the extent of 6s., 8s., and 10s. ill the £—shall be showered upon this one particular section of this one particular class of property. And upon what principle? Why, simply upon the great principle of services rendered. I have had some connection with rating authorities, for I have been a

AYES.

Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Drucker, A.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

Arnold, Alfred

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.)

Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Chamberlain, J. Aust'n (Worc'r

Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Charrington, Spencer

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

Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Finch, George H.

Baillie, Jas. E. B. (Inverness)

Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymonth)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Baird, John Geo. Alexander

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

Fisher, William Hayes

Balcarres, Lord

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Fison, Frederick William

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

Colston, Charles E. H. Athole

FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W.(Leeds)

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Banbury, Frederick George

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

Galloway, William Johnson

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Garfit, William

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

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

Gedge, Sydney

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Cranborne, Viscount

Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

Bethell, Commander

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Bigwood, James

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Gilliat, John Saunders

Bill, Charles

Cross, Herbert S.(Bolton)

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Bond, Edward

Curzon, Viscount

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

Dalkeith, Earl of

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. Geo's)

Brassey, Albert

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Denny, Colonel

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Brookfield, A. Montagu

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Graham, Henry Robert

Bullard, Sir Harry

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Gray, Ernest(West Ham)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Green, W. D.(Wednesbury)

Butcher, John George

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Greene,Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

Carlile, William Walter

Doughty, George

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Gretton, John

Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.)

Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

Gull, Sir Cameron

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Doxford, William Theodore

Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

member of a very large rating authority, and I have been connected with the Association of Municipal Corporations for the last fifteen years. I want to ask the hon. and learned Member opposite, or any Member connected with a rating authority, if ever they heard anything whatever of the question of services rendered when they came to consider questions of rating. Let the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite go to the Town Clerk of Liverpool—or of Leeds or Nottingham—and ask him what he thinks of the doctrine of services rendered where a rating question is concerned. The proposal is a monstrous and absolutely ridiculous doctrine, and, to use the Words of Mr. W. S. Gilbert, it is dragged in "merely to lend an air of artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative." That narrative is the Bill which we now have before this House.
Question put, "That the words 'one-half' stand part of the clause."
The Committee proceeded to a Division:—Ayes, 228; Noes, 125. (Division List, No. 241.)

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Ed'nb'gh, W.

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

Malcolm, Ian

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Savory, Sir Joseph

Hardy, Laurence

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

Seely, Charles Hilton

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Seton-Karr, Henry

Heaton, John Henniker

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Helder, Augustus

Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J.

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Sidebottom, William(Derbys.)

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Milton, Viscount

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Hobhouse, Henry

Milward, Colonel Victor

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Holland, Hon. Lionel R.(Bow)

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott(Hants.)

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

Hornby, Sir William Henry

More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Howell, William Tudor

Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'thsh.)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

Morrell, George Herbert

Stephens, Henry Charles

Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

Morrison, Walter

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Stock, James Henry

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Mount, William George

Strauss, Arthur

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Muntz, Philip A.

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.

Kemp, George

Murray, Charles J.(Coventry)

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

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Thornton, Percy M.

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Myers, William Henry

Tollemache, Henry James

Keswick, William

Nicholson, William Graham

Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Valentia, Viscount

Lafone, Alfred

Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Percy, Earl

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

Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.

Pierpoint, Robert

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.

Leighton, Stanley

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Llewellyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swans.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Purvis, Robert

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

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

Pym, C. Guy

Wylie, Alexander

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

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Wyndham, George

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Rankin, Sir James

Wyndham-Quin, Major W.H.

Lowe, Francis William

Rasch, Major Frederick Carne

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Lowles, John

Rentoul, James Alexander

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

Young, Commander(Berks,E.)

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Macdona, John Cumming

Robinson, Brooke

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Round, James

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Lambert, George

Allen, Wm.(Newc. Under Lyme

Duckworth, James

Langley, Batty

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Emmott, Alfred

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hen.

Evans, Samuel T.(Glamorgan)

Leng, Sir John

Baldwin, Alfred

Evans, Sir Francis H.(South'ton

Leuty, Thomas Richmond

Barlow, John Emmott

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Lewis, John Herbert

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Logan, John William

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Flyn, James Christopher

Lough, Thomas

Billson, Alfred

Foster, Sir Walter(Derby Co.)

Macaleese, Daniel

Broadhurst, Henry

Goddard, Daniel Ford

MacDonnell, Dr. M. A (Q.C.)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

M'Ewan, William

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Griffith, Ellis J.

M'Ghee, Richard

Burns, John

Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton

M'Kenna, Reginald

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Haldane, Richard Burden

M'Leod, John

Caldwell, James

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

Maddison, Fred.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Harwood, George

Maden, John Henry

Causton, Richard Knight

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Mellor, Rt.Hon.J. W.(Yorks.)

Cawley, Frederick

Hazell, Walter

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Channing, Francis Allston

Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.

Montagu, Sir S.(Whitechapel)

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

Holland, W. H. (York, W.R.)

Morgan, W Pritchard (Merthyr)

Clough, Walter Owen

Horniman, Frederick John

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Colville, John

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Morton, Edw. J.C.(Devonport)

Crilly, Daniel

Johnson-Ferguson,Jabez Edw.

Moss, Samuel

Dalziel, James Henry

Joicey, Sir James

Moulton, John Fletcher

Davies,M.Vaughan-(Cardigan

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Davitt, Michael

Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Dillon, John

Kearley, Hudson E.

Oldroyd, Mark

Donelan, Captain A.

Kitson, Sir James

Palmer, George Wm.(Reading)

Doogan, P. C.

Labouchere, Henry

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.

576

577

Perks, Robert William

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Weir, James Galloway

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Spicer, Albert

Whiteley, George (Stockport).

Power, Patrick Joseph

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

Price, Robert John

Steadman, William Charles

Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)

Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

Stevenson, Francis S.

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

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Strachey, Edward

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Randell, David

Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

Wilson, John (Govan)

Richardson, J. (Durham,S.E.)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

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

Rickett, J. Compton

Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Hudd'sf'd

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Woods, Samuel

Robson, William Snowdon

Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

Samuel, J (Stockton-on-Tees)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. M'Arthur.

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Wedderburn, Sir William

It being after Midnight, the Chairman proceeded to interrupt the business; whereupon Mr. A. J. Balfour rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question 'That the words of the clause to the word "and" in line 8 stand part of the clause' be now put."
MR. D. A. THOMAS: On a point of order, I should like to ask if there is any precedent for moving the closure in this way after midnight. This motion is not consequential in any way on the question before the Committee when the last Division was taken, and as the closure was not moved before Twelve o'clock, I desire to

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Chamberiain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.)

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

Arnold, Alfred

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Finch, George H.

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Charrington, Spencer

Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Fisher, William Hayes

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth)

Fison, Frederick William

Baillie, James E.B.(Inverness)

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

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Baird, John George Alexander

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Balcarres, Lord

Colston, Chas. Edw. H.Athole

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

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

Compton, Lord Alwyn

Galloway, William Johnson

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W(Leeds

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Garfit, William

Banbury, Frederick George

Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

Gedge, Sydney

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

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

Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. H.(Bris.)

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Bemrose, Sir Henry Lowe

Cranborne, Viscount

Gilliat, John Saunders

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Godson, Sir A. Frederick

Bethell, Commander

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Bigwood, James

Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Bill, Charles

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Curzon, Vicount

Goschen, Rt. Hn. G.J.(St Greo.'s)

Bond, Edward

Dalkeith, Earl of

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Brassey, Albert

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Digby, John K.D. Wingfield-

Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

Brookfield, A. Montagu

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Greene, W. R.- (Cambs.)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Gretton, John

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Doughty, George

Gull, Sir Cameron

Butcher, John George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Carlile, William Walter

Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

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

Doxford, William Theodore

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.)

Drucker, A.

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

Helder, Augustus

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.

Hill, Sir Edward Stock (Bristol)

ask if there is any precedent for moving it after Twelve o'clock.
THE CHAIRMAN: This is not a consequential Amendment, but it is quite in order to move the closure on the interruption of business even after Midnight.
Question put, "That the question 'That the words of the clause to the word "and" in line 8 stand part of the clause' be now put.'"
The Committee divided:—Ayes 224, Noes 104. (Division List, No. 242.)

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Milbank, Sir Powl'tt Chas. John

Seely, Charles Hilton

Hobhouse, Henry

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Seton-Karr, Henry

Holland, Hon. L. R. (Bow)

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Sharpe, William Ed'ard T.

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Milton, Viscount

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Howell, William Tudor

Milward, Colonel Victor

Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants)

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Hutchinson, capt. G. W. Grice-

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh.

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

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Morrell, George Herbert

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Morrison, Walter

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

Morton, Arthur H.A.(Deptford

Stephens, Henry Charles

Kemp, George

Mount, William George

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Muntz, Philip A.

Stock, James Henry

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute

Strauss, Arthur

Keswick, William

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Lafone, Alfred

Myers, William Henry

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Ox'd.Unv.

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Nicholson, William Graham

Thornton, Percy M.

Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. Edw. H.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Tollemache, Henry James

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford

Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

Leighton, Stanley

Percy, Earl

Valentia, Viscount

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

Pierpoint, Robert

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C.E. (Kent)

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Long. Col. C. W. (Evesham)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Purvis, Robert

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Lowe, Francis William

Pym, C. Guy

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Lowles, John

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert,

Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh. N)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Rankin, Sir James

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

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Wylie, Alexander

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Rentoul, James Alexander

Wyndham, George

Macdona, John Cumming

Richardson, Sir Thos.(Hartlep'l

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh,W

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Malcolm, Ian

Robinson, Brooke

Young, Commander (Berks,E.)

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Round, James

Massey-Mainwaring,Hn.W.F.

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Savory, Sir Joseph

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Allen, W. (Newc.under Lyme)

Flynn, James Christopher

Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. Henry

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

Barlow, John Emmott

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

Moss, Samuel

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Moulton, John Fletcher

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Gurdon, Sir William B.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Billson, Alfred

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Broadhurst, Henry

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hazen, Walter

Power, Patrick Joseph

Burns, John

Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Holland, W. H. (York, W. R.)

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Caldwell, James

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Randell, David

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Joicey, Sir James

Richardson, J.(Durham, S. E.)

Causton, Richard Knight

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Rickett, J. Compton

Cawley, Frederick

Kearley, Hudson E.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Channing, Francis Allston

Labouchere, Henry

Robson, William Snowdon

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

Lambert, George

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Clough, Walter Owen

Langley, Batty

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Crilly, Daniel

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)

Dalziel, James Henry

Leuty, Thomas Richmond

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Davies, M. Vaughan(Cardigan)

Lewis, John Herbert

Spicer, Albert

Davitt, Michael

Logan, John William

Stanhope, Hon. Phillip J.

Dillon, John

Macaleese, Daniel

Steadman, William Charles

Donelan, Captain A.

MacDonnell, Dr M A (Queen's C)

Stevenson, Francis S.

Doogan, P. C.

M'Ewan, William

Stratchey, Edward

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

M'Ghee, Richard

Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

Emmott, Alfred

M'Kenna, Reginald

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Evans, Sam. T. (Glamorgan)

Maddison, Fred.

Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)

Maden, John Henry

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

580

581

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

Woods, Samuel

Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)

Wedderburn, Sir William

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Weir, James Galloway

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. M'Arthur.

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Woodhouse, Sir J. T.(Hudd'sf'd

Question put accordingly, "That the words of the clause to the word 'and' in line 8 stand part of the clause."

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Digby, John K D. Wingfield-

Keswick, William

Arnold, Alfred

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Lafone, Alfred

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Doughty, George

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. Edw. H.

Baillie, James E. B.(Inverness)

Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Baird, John George Alexander

Doxford, William Theodore

Leighton, Stanley

Balcarres, Lord

Drucker, A.

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Sw'ns'a)

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

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W(Leeds

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William H.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Banbury, Frederick George

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

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

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

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

Finch, George H.

Lowe, Francis William

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lowles, John

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Fisher, William Hayes

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Bethell, Commander

Fison, Frederick William

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Bigwood, James

FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Bill, Charles

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Macdona, John Cumming

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Bond, Edward

Galloway, William Johnson

M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh,W.)

Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

Garfit, William

Malcolm, Ian

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Gedge, Sydney

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Brassey, Albert

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Massey-Main waring, Hn. W.F.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Brookfield, A. Montagu

Gilliat, John Saunders

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Bullard, Sir Harry

Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

Milbank, Sir Powl'tt Chas. John

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Butcher, John George

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Carlile, William Walter

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Milton, Viscount

Cavendish, R F. (N. Lancs.)

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

Milward, Colonel Victor

Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbysh.)

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott(Hants.)

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Goulding, Edward Alfred

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

Morrell, George Herbert

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

Morrison, Walter

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.)

Greene, W. R.- (Cambs.)

Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptford

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Gretton, John

Mount, William George

Charrington, Spencer

Gull, Sir Cameron

Muntz, Philip A.

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth)

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Ld. George

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Myers, William Henry

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Nicholson, William Graham

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Helder, Augustus

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)

Northcote, Hon.Sir H. Stafford

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

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stauley W.

Hobhouse, Henry

Percy, Earl

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

Holland, Hon. L. R. (Bow)

Pierpoint, Robert

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Cranborne, Viscount

Howell, William Tudor

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Hutchinson, Capt.G. W.Grice-

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col Edward

Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton)

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Purvis, Robert

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Pym, C. Guy

Curzon, Viscount

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Dalkeith, Earl of

Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

Rankin, Sir James

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Kemp, George

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

Rentoul, James Alexander

The Committee divided:—Ayes 224, Noes 100. (Division List, No. 243.)

Richardson, Sir Thos (Hartlep']

Stanley, Hn Arthur (Ormskirk)

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Stephens, Henry Charles

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Robinson, Brooke

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Round, James

Stock, James Henry

Wilson, J.W. (Worcestershr.N

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Strauss, Arthur

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

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Wylie, Alexander

Savory, Sir Joseph

Strut, Hon. Humphry Napier

Wyndham, George

Seely, Charles Hilton

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'dUnv.)

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Seton-Karr, Henry

Thornton, Percy M.

Wyvill, Marmaduke D Arcy

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Tollemache, Henry James

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

Young, Commander(Berks, E.)

Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

Valentia, Viscount

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Warde, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Kent)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

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

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

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

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhonnda)

Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton

Provand, Andrew Drybrough

Allen, W. (Newc.-under-Lyme

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Handell, David

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Chas. Seale-

Rickett, J. Compton

Barlow, John Emmott

Haze11, Walter

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Bayley, Thomas Derbyshire

Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.

Robson, William Snowdon

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Holland, Wm. H. (York, W.R.)

Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees)

Billson, Alfred

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Broadhurst, Henry

Joicey, Sir James

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Burns, John

Kearley, Hudson E.

Spicer, Albert

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Labouchere, Henry

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Caldwell, James

Lambert, George

Steadman, William Charles

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Langley, Batty

Stevenson, Francis S.

Causton, Richard Knight

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Strachey, Edward

Cawley, Frederick

Leuty, Thomas Richmond

Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

Channing, Francis Allston

Lewis, John Herbert

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

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

Logan, John William

Clough, Walter Owen

Macaleese, Daniel

Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Crilly, Daniel

MacDonnell, Dr M A (Queen's C)

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Ewan, William

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

M'Ghee, Richard

Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

Davitt, Michael

M'Kenna, Reginald

Wedderburn, Sir William

Donelan, Captain A.

Maddison, Fred.

Weir, James Galloway

Doogan, P. C.

Maden, John Henry

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

Emmott, Alfred

Morgan, W Pritchard (Merthyr

Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

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

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Morton, Edw. J. C.(Devonport)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Moss, Samuel

Woodhouse, Sir J. T.(H'dd'rsf'd

Flynn, James Christopher

Moulton, John Fletcher

Woods, Samuel

Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Nussey, Thomss Willans

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. M'Arthur.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

Whereupon the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL IN STRUCTION (IRELAND) [SALARIES, &c.].
Resolution reported:—
"That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament of a salary not exceeding £1,200, together with a residential allowance not exceeding £150, to the
584
Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, and of the salaries and remuneration to the secretary, assistant secretaries, inspectors, officers, and servants of the Department, and of all expenses incurred by the Department in pursuance of any Act of the present Session for establishing a Department of Agriculture and other Industries and Technical Instruction in Ireland."
Resolution agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before One of the clock.