HC Deb 12 July 1899 vol 74 cc586-660

Considered in Committee:—

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1:—

The first two Amendments on the Paper were the following— Clause 1, page 1, line 8, after 'rent-charge' insert provided the county council of any county determine by resolution that the provisions herein contained shall for the time being, and until the resolution is rescinded, apply.'"—(Mr. Labouchere.) Clause 1, page 1, line 8, after 'rent-charge' insert 'provided such tithe rent-charge does not exceed half the annual value of the land.'"—(Mr. Labouchere.)


The first two Amendments on the Paper are those which were passed over yesterday in the circumstances that arose. If they are to be considered at all, I think they ought to come in as provisoes at the end of the whole clause.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

May I say on that subject that I am in a very unfortunate position? I first put down my Amendment at the commencement of the clause, and you, Sir, ruled that it would be right to bring it in after the word "benefice." I bowed, of course, to your decision. But that was rendered impossible owing to the closure. I then put it down after "only," but I was precluded from doing that because the closure was carried again. I have, therefore, put it down after "rent-charge," in line 4 of the clause. As these closures take place it may be possible that I shall be unable to bring on this valuable Amendment as a proviso at the end of the clause. I had to lay my egg, so to speak, while the hen was still sitting. I have been moved on with my Amendment as if I were some disreputable person in the street, and I hope I shall be allowed to move it as it stands on the Paper.


If I may be allowed to do so, I would suggest to the hon. Member that his remedy is to persuade the hen not to sit too long, and then perhaps his egg will not be addled. Its proper place is at the end of the clause, as he knows.


From a literary point of view only.


I look at it from the point of order, which is not exactly the same point.

MR. LAMBERT (Devon, South Molton)

The second of the two Amendments is mine, although, unfortunately, my name is not put to it. Shall I be allowed, at any rate, to discuss this Amendment at the end of the clause?


I think I ought to be very chary of making any such promise. It might land me and the Committee in great difficulties.

* MR. L. R. HOLLAND (Tower Hamlets, Bow)

In rising to move the Amendment which stands in my name, let me say at the outset that I have no sympathy whatever with the attacks which have been made on the principle of this Bill. In face of the authority with which that principle is supported, I personally do not contest its justice. But what I quarrel with is not the general intention of the Bill but the financial provisions contained in the latter part of this clause, and I hope that the Government may see their way to alter those provisions so that the compensation for the loss with regard to exemptions on clerical tithe shall be made up in the locality which is affected to the extent to which it is affected, or if that is not acceptable it shall be made up in some other way than that provided in the Bill. I maintain that every substantial argument which has been urged from this side of the House in favour of the general principle of the Bill, and in favour of the justice of giving this relief, equally condemns the method by which that relief is to be obtained. If we accept, as I do, the justice and soundness of this argument, we are of necessity compelled to condemn the financial arrangements of this clause as unjust and unsound. Our contention on this side of the House is that this Bill has been produced not as a matter of charity or favour, but as a matter of bare justice. It is not brought forward on the plea of the poverty of the clergy, for poor and rich alike will share equally the benefits of the measure. My right hon. friend the President of the Board of Agriculture has declared that if it is not true that the clergy, in districts where their incomes are derived from tithes, pay an unjust share of the local burdens, then there is no case whatever fur this Bill. That is the ground, and the only ground, upon which the Government have, as I think rightly, supported this Bill. The clergy, in certain localities, are paying more than their fair share of the local rates, and have been doing it for many years—for the last sixty years at any rate; and if that is so, if it is true that certain individuals in a locality are paying more than their fair share, then it must be equally true that others in the same locality are paying less than their fair share, and have, during a long period of years, been benefited to the extent of several millions of pounds, taken out of the pockets of the clergy. In any district in which the clerical income is dependent on tithe, for every penny which the clergy have paid in excess of their fair contribution, the lay ratepayers in that district have paid an equal amount less than their fair contribution. The only just system of local rating is that every individual in the locality should pay his fair share; neither more nor less. But what does this Bill do? The grievance, as regards the clergy, is substantially remedied; but how? Not by throwing the cost upon the general body of the ratepayers of the district, and by saying that in future they shall pay their fair contribution, but by shifting the injustice from the backs of the clergy upon the innocent ratepayers in towns and districts where there are no clerical tithe ratepayers, who have not been benefited by this unfair incidence of rates, and who have all along, and are now, paying their fair and full proportion of the local rates of those districts. For instance I turn to the case of London. I do not take it because it is a very extreme case, for I have been told of instances where the inequality is still greater. I find the total amount of rateable tithe in London is £5,700, even assuming, which I am by no means certain is the case, that all that tithe is attached to benefices. The rate payable upon that tithe is £1,800, so that the total exemption that the clergy in the County of London will obtain under the Bill is £900. We are told that the whole amount required for England and Wales will be £87,000, and, of course, if the rates increase the sum required will increase proportionately. The money is to be taken out of the Estate Duty Grant. That grant is apportioned by Statute, and by Statute and in equity 22 per cent. of the grant goes to London to be applied to purposes for which it is allocated. Thus £19,000 out of the £87,000 belongs to London. The London ratepayers are to be asked to pay £19,000, which represents an increase in the rates of one-eighth of a penny in the pound, so that some thirty individuals shall receive in all £900. My right hon. friend the President of the Board of Agriculture rather indicated to the House that this £87,000 was to come out of some surplus in the local taxation account. But there is no such surplus. The estate duty, like any other revenue, fluctuates from year to year. Last year it rose by £280,000, but the year before it fell off by £76,000. It is no excuse to say that this fund has been raided before. I imagine it is the view of hon. Members on this side of the House that if a bad precedent is set by a Radical Government there should not be a burning desire on our part to follow it. But at any rate the circumstances are not the same. It can be fairly argued that protection against pleuro-pneumonia and swine fever was a matter of interest and importance to the whole country, urban as well as rural, and that expenditure upon it might be considered as adding another to those services for Which the Estate Duty Grant was already allocated. I do not think the contention can be advanced that the fund has swollen beyond all anticipation; but if it is the fact, then these balances should revert to the tax-payers to be applied for their benefit. The Estate Duty Grant is allocated to certain purposes, like the police, in lieu of the Exchequer Grants, which were made before the year 1888, and it is possible that, in this case, Lon- don is worse off under the present system than she would have been under the old one had the system of Exchequer Grants been continued. There is no doubt, at any rate, that the increase in this Estate Duty Grant has not kept pace with the necessarily increased expenditure on the services to which it has to be applied. Last year the amount received under this grant was £85,000 more than in 1889; whereas the cost of the services had increased by no less than £136,000. £65,000 of that increase was attributable to the Metropolitan Police, and, as the Committee are aware, the County Council have no control over the expenditure on that force. What will be the result of the operation of the Bill is clear. When the County Council makes up its budget or revises the rate for the ensuing half-year it fixes it subject to the estimate of the amount it will receive front the Estate Duty Grant, and obviously in districts where the clerical tithe does not exist, London ratepayers will be required to pay an increased rate of one-eighth of a penny in the £, although they are heavily enough rated already. It must be remembered that rates in London are not merely represented by 2s. 6d. in the £. In some districts they rise to 8s. in the £, and yet these unfortunate ratepayers are to be called upon to pay an extra sum, not for the benefit of the necessitous clergy, or of the poorer clergy in their own districts, but to enable other ratepayers who are not more heavily rated to continue to pay less than their fair and just share of their own local rates. That seems to me to be a pretty cool demand to make on the ground of justice. On what recommendation or on what reason it is based I confess I have not been able to discover. The ground is not to be found in any recommendation contained in the majority Report of the Royal Commission. Certainly that Report admits the justice of this claim for relief, but there is no suggestion as to from what source the relief should be obtained, and I think the natural inference to be drawn from that Report, and more especially from the addendum signed by the hon. Member for Stroud, by Sir John Hibbert and by Mr. Murray, was that they considered that this was a local question, and that any loss which was made in one direction should be recouped, like any other local deduction, out of the rates in the same locality. If there is a revaluation of property in a parish, and it is found that some of the property has been over-assessed, the ratepayers of a district do not go cadging round in adjoining districts in order to make up the deficiency caused by the reduction of the assessment. They make it up themselves. My hon. and learned friend the Member for Plymouth, in his speech on the Second Reading, quoted the decision of a court of law in 1880. But if that decision had been upheld, the relief granted, as proposed in this Bill, should fall automatically on the general body of ratepayers in the same district, and I believe the same principle was applied in Scotland. The only argument which gives colourable justice to the financial propositions of this Bill may be found in the memorandum of the hon. Member for East Donegal, who suggested that the relief should be thrown upon Imperial taxation. But the Government arc absolutely precluded front accepting that view, because the President of the Board of Agriculture has stated emphatically that it would not be fair to throw the burden on general taxation, and that the taxpayers of Scotland and Ireland should not be called upon to pay for relief given only in England. If that be true of taxpayers in Ireland and Scotland it is equally true of taxpayers or ratepayers in districts in England where there are no tithes, or only a small amount. It is not fair to call upon them to pay for the benefit of taxpayers in other districts. I voted for every stage of the Agricultural Rating Bill. I quite disagree with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Stockport that the only Bills deserving of support are Bills which confer a direct benefit on Stockport. But I voted for the Agricultural Rating Bill on the understanding that the whole question of rating was going to be overhauled, and that the inequitable system which now prevails was to be reviewed, and that every endeavour would be made to see whether personal property should not be drawn in and made to pay its fair share of the local rates. I confess it is unfortunate that this great question should be treated in this piecemeal fashion, but the appointment of the Royal Commission was a guarantee of good faith on the part of the Government. Personally, I bowed to the opinion of the Government that the necessities of the agricultural community were so great and acute that they could not afford to wait for the Report of the Royal Commission, and that the only way to get a certain contribution from personal property to the rates was to throw the cost on imperial taxation. But I cannot acquiesce in the quite different proposal in this Bill—viz., that money which legally and equitably belongs to ratepayers in a district where clerical tithe does not exist or is very small should be taken away from them not for the benefit of the poor clergy—you might appeal to the generosity of local taxpayers for that purpose—but to enable the ratepayers in other districts, perhaps less heavily burdened than themselves, to continue to pay less than their fair share of their own local burdens. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture rather indicated to a deputation the other day that, after all, this injustice—of course, the right hon. Gentleman did not admit it was an injustice—would only continue for about two years. Is injustice to be weighed by the length of time it is to exist? If it is unjust to take £87,000 for a long period from a certain body of individuals it cannot be said to be just to take £200,000 from the same body for only two years. Can the Government pledge themselves that this is only a temporary measure, or that when the Report of the Royal Commission is issued they will introduce legislation on the subject, or can they bind their successors? If there is not legislation, is this House to allow this Act to lapse, and allow the clergy once more to suffer from a grievance which I believe to be real? I ask the Government to reconsider the financial proposals of this clause with a view to seeing whether the deductions should not be allowed to be adjusted in the natural course out of the local rates, or to adopting some alternative arrangement, such as spreading the loss over the county area. For myself, while fully sympathising with the main principles of the Bill, I cannot possibly support the financial proposals in this clause. They are inequitable in themselves, and contradictory to every argument which has been used to support the justice of the Bill. I move, Sir. Amendment propsed— In page 1, line 8, to leave out from the word 'rent-charge,' to the end of the clause."—(Mr. L. R. Holland.) Question proposed:—"That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'out," in line 10, stand part of the clause."

MR. WARNER (Stafford, Lichfield)

Does that not cut out a number of Amendments?


If the Committee decides to accept the Amendment then all the other Amendments come on in succession. But if the Committee assents to the principle of the money being paid out of the Local Taxation Account and out of no other fund, then all the other Amendments go.

MR. LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)

On a point of order, Sir, is it not the usual practice in putting the question to save any subsequent substantial Amendments?


That is what I have done. That is why I have not put the whole of the words. I have put them down to the point where the next substantial Amendment arises.

* MR. ERNEST GRAY (West Ham, N.)

The right hon. Gentleman, the First Lord of the Treasury, has justified this Bill on the simple ground of justice. He contends that some ratepayers have for many years been contributing more than their fair equitable share to the cost of their districts. If that be so it is perfectly obvious that some persons have benefited by the existence of that injustice, and it is equally obvious that they must be the other ratepayers within the same rating area; and if these other ratepayers have benefited by the injustice which we now seek to remove is it not perfectly clear that it is they who should now bear the burden which they ought to have borne years ago? I do not think that even the argumentative skill of the First Lord of the Treasury would ever convince me that the taxpayers of London have benefited by the abnormal amount of rate paid by the clergy in, for instance, the Tunbridge Division. The other taxpayers in the division have benefited, but the working men in our great boroughs have not gained any benefit whatever from the excessive rate paid by the clergy in country districts. I, like my hon. friend who moved the Amendment, supported this Bill on the Second Reading. I have supported it in every stage so far, because I believe it to be a simple act of justice, too long delayed; but when we come to deal with the financial arrangements by which it is proposed to remove the injustice, surely one may then be entitled to exercise to some extent one's own judgment. I recognise the strength of the claim brought forward by the Government. The injustice is admitted by this Government, by this Party, and by both party organisations, in some districts at least. It has been argued at length by the Royal Commission, and even the hon. Member for Hoxton the other evening did not deny that an injustice had been inflicted on the clergy, for I understood him to say that the proper method of redress was by assessment. The Amendment would have that effect, because it would throw on the other ratepayers in a rating area the duty of making good the sum remitted off the tithe-rent charge, and to that extent would be an alteration in assessment—if not in theory, certainly in result. It seems to me to be a very narrow issue indeed. The Amendment cannot be regarded as frivolous, because it raises a very substantial point, so great, in fact, that the rating authority of London has felt justified in sending a deputation direct to the Minister in charge of the Bill. I cannot feel that the right hon. Gentleman in any way met the arguments of that deputation. The case of swine fever is not on the same footing as the alteration proposed in this Bill. London and the large boroughs have gained by the imposition of the charge in connection with swine fever, and therefore ought to bear part of the cost, but I do not think anyone will be able to convince the ordinary taxpayer in a borough where there is no tithe rent-charge whatever that he receives any benefit under this Bill. I quite agree that, if this were a national charge, it would be right that the country districts and the towns should stand or fall together, but this is a mere question of the alteration of a small portion of the rates in a narrow rating area, and it seems to me to be obviously just that the ratepayers who have benefited in the past should themselves bear the burden now. I cannot understand how anyone can withstand this Amendment. I am a strong supporter of the main intention of the Bill, but I join issue with the Government in the way they propose to carry it out. It is said that the Bill is only to last for two years, and that the whole question will have to be overhauled at the end of that time; but that is no argument in favour of removing injustice for that period from the shoulders of a certain class of rate-payers in order to put it on the shoulders of another. The issue is a narrow one, but I do not think any apology is needed for urging on the attention of the Committee our contention that those who have benefited in the past should now bear this financial burden. My own impression is that the National Taxation account ought not to be touched, for this is a pure rating question. Certain ratepayers are to be benefited, and certain ratepayers ought to bear the burden of the charge. That is a simple argument which I desire very urgently to press on the attention of the Government. I can understand the ordinary skilled artisan who reads these Debates, and tries to argue out the question for himself. You may easily convince him that certain ratepayers have paid more than they ought to have paid. All the arguments brought forward on the other side never met that one point. Any number of collateral issues have been discussed, but the one narrow question whether or not certain clergy have paid more than they ought to pay, having regard to their interest in the district, and having regard to the property possessed in that district, has never been met.


Oh, oh!


I do not say that there has not been an immense amount of discussion around it, but no one has taken the position of a clergyman paying his rates, and compared it with that of another ratepayer. It is ridiculous to say that because a man takes office knowing what burdens will fall upon him he shall not ask for relief from any of these burdens. There is hardly a man throughout the country who does not come forward with the cry "I have paid more than my share of the taxes." Civil servants take their appointment knowing what they were to receive, and yet claims are constantly made, and appeals made to the Treasury from that side of the House and from this, for an increase of their salaries. Departmental Committee after Departmental Committee have been appointed to inquire whether or not these people are being fairly treated, having regard to all the surrounding circumstances in which they live. Instead of a Departmental Committee a Royal Commission was appointed in this case to inquire into the condition of certain ratepayers as compared with other ratepayers. The Commission comes forward with a clear decision and definite recommendations, and Her Majesty's Government have taken the matter up to settle it. As to the method by which the redress of this grievance of the clergy is to be brought about, I hold that the ordinary artisan would clearly recognise that some relief may be given, but you will never convince him that it is right to take that relief out of his pocket. I appeal to the Government to give this financial arrangement their reconsideration. This is not a capricious or frivolous Amendment. It raises an important point in which the ratepayers of the country are taking a very keen and earnest interest. The Government have now an opportunity of so amending their Bill as to make it, in my opinion, generally acceptable, and I trust they will not reject the appeal made to them.

MR. STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

I will not follow the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken in opening up a Second Reading discussion of the Bill. The House and the country know and can judge whether the arguments which have been adduced on this side of the House are sound or not. It is a fact that the House, so far as it has gone, has clearly determined that relief is to be given to the clergy, and we must now direct our attention to the manner in which that relief is to be provided. There are two arguments on which this relief can be based, and by which it can be supported. The first is that it is a relief of clergy who are suffering from poverty, and the second is that it is a readjustment, or correction, of a rating injustice. Now, if it be the first of these, it could be reasonably argued that it was a national concern. That was how it was argued in the case of the Agricultural Rating Act. The Government and their supporters have, however, chosen to support this Bill on the ground that a rating injustice has long existed upon the tithe-owning clergy. When we come to look at it in that light we are thrown back to ask who has been profiting by that injustice. Clearly, it is the ratepayers in the district in which these clergy are who have suffered, whether you take it as a parish, a union, or a county. In all of three cases the ratepayers have obtained an advantage from the suffering of the clergy, and the relief of the clergy ought to be thrown upon the comity, union, or parish. As I understand it, if this Amendment were carried, the burden would be thrown on the parish. I have an Amendment myself, which may be cut out by the necessity of putting the question, that the burden should be thrown on the county. It is perfectly clear that the view of the Royal Commission so far as expressed definitely—it is a mere chance that it was not expressed much more definitely—is in favour of this being made an assessment question. Yet we are now told that we are not to deal with it as a matter of assessment, but as a remission of rates. If you remit half the rates of the clergy it is practically throwing on the parish the half of the assessment. I do not see how that argument can he logically replied to. I do not see how it can be argued that this is a national matter, or that the nation has profited by a mere incidence of rates upon the tithe-owning clergy, or how the nation can be called upon to pay. I wish to bring before the House some of the glaring, anomalies which will arise under the scheme of the Government. London, as the House well knows, is to be mulcted in £19,100 for the relief of the clergy, while the London tithe-owning clergy will after all only receive £900. Similar inequalities would exist in all the great boroughs in England; but I wish to direct attention to the anomalies which will arise in some of the counties. Let me take first the County of Norfolk, with which I am intimately acquainted. The figures are verified from two different sources. The contribution of Norfolk towards the purposes of the Hill will be £1,288, but no less than £7,308 is the amount to be given to the tithe-owning clergy of the county. In other words, Norfolk will profit by this £7,308 being distributed among the tithe-owning clergy, and will only pay £1,288. Now, if the argument of the Government is correct, Norfolk has been profiting for many years to the extent of £7,308 by the unjust rating of the clergy, and it is only going to redress that injustice, by which it itself has profited, by the payment of £1,288. Then let me take the County of Monmouth, and compare, it with the County of Norfolk. The contribution that the County of Monmouth will have to give towards this £87,000 will he £661, and the amount that it will receive will be £619. In other words, the County of Monmouth is being dealt with on a principle of fairness. Compare that with the County of Norfolk. The contribution of Norfolk towards the purposes of the Bill will be £1,288 per annum; but aid to the extent of £7,308 per annum is to be given to the tithe- owning clergy in that county—that is to say, Norfolk profits to the extent of £7,308 by the unjust rating of the clergy, and will only pay £1,288 towards the redress of the injustice. The County of Monmouth stands almost alone amongst the counties of England, except the County of London, in having to pay more than it will receive. But perhaps the most remarkable instance is the County of Suffolk. The Committee know that the figures I am bringing forward depend upon the amount of tithe attached to benefices, and the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Eastern Counties are very rich in tithe. Suffolk will lie mulcted under this Bill of only £791, and the amount which it will receive will be £5,583, or about seven times as much as it is called upon to pay. And where is the difference to come from It is to come from the boroughs of this country. All the boroughs hi this country fall into the same category of having to pay a much larger sum than they will receive in aid, and, above all, the County of London. The County of London will have to pay £19,105, though at no time in the history of the County of London, or even before it was a county, has it ever profited by this unfair rating of tithes attached to benefices to a greater extent than £900 a year. The case of London is, of course, the most striking case, but all the boroughs of England are more or affected in the same way. How can the Government defend the anomalies? If this was a grant in aid of poverty, if it had been conceded that the Church of England was so much in need of money that something must be done for it, it might then have been argued that the Church of England is a national institution—I do not admit the propriety of the claim—and that this was a claim that ought to come on the nation as a whole. But that is not the argument that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill and the Leader of the House have chosen to take. We tried to force them into this argument, but without avail; they stuck to their point. You are, therefore, adding to the vexed and miserable muddle of local taxation, and you are making the problems with which the Royal Commission will have to deal much more entangled than they were before. You are not doing what the Royal Commission asked. The Royal Commission suggested that this should have been treated as a local assessment question, but the Bill mixes it with one of Imperial finance. An hon. Gentleman asked if the Government meant to make this a temporary measure, and I was afraid he was going to say that if they were he would put up with the anomaly; but if he had sat, as I have done, on the Royal Commission he would have seen the fallacy and ridiculousness of saying that measures like this can be temporary measures. I have no intention to weary the House, hut I want to give a few more instances of the inequality of rating. Take, for instance, the County of Essex. Essex will profit to the amount of £5,724 out of tithes attached to benefices, but it has only to pay under this Bill £2,479. Again, Kent will receive £5,179, and will only pay £2,688, while Hertfordshire, which will receive £1,572, will only pay £757. I have already mentioned Norfolk and Suffolk. I bring forward the County of Norfolk with some hesitation, because I am a large ratepayer there, and I happen to be a very small ratepayer in the County of London. At the same time, I am deeply interested in the amendment of the whole law relating to local taxation, and I appeal to every Member on both sides of the House whether I have not always tried to treat the question apart from party considerations. I am, however, bound to say that you are entangling our hands extremely in dealing with this question by this Bill.

* MR. DAVID MACIVER (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

I regard this Amendment as a most mischievous Amendment. Representing as I do a large urban constituency, I cannot but think that the working men in my constituency are able to take a reasonable view of this question, and that they will not listen to the misrepresentations which have been so freely made on the other side with regard to this Bill. A great many working men in my constituency are perfectly well able to understand that this measure, as a whole, is nothing but an endeavour to remedy a very great injustice. It may be a partial and incomplete remedy, and one which does not go far enough; but that the Bill, as a whole, is one which ought to be passed I have no doubt whatever, and I am equally confident that large constituencies such as that I represent will approve of it. Could anything be more unjust than to disregard what is the cause of the depreciation and loss of revenue in respect of tithes? It is largely the result of the depreciation of the value of agricultural land, and that, in turn, is the result of the fiscal system which this country has followed—a system which is supposed to benefit the urban constituencies. Is it right that the loss should fall principally upon those counties which are already suffering from the depression of agriculture? I say that this question is a national one, and that the country, as a whole, ought to come forward to remedy this growing injustice of rating. This is but one of many questions, but I am quite sure that the experience of the Committee, from the endless discussion that there has been upon some of the Amendments, and the prospect of very large discussion upon others, must show everyone what difficulty there would have been in passing a large and comprehensive measure of local taxation reform. The necessity, however, remains for dealing with the question as a whole. This measure as it stands is a step in the right direction, and I hope that when the Report of the Commissioners is presented in a complete shape it will be found possible for hon. Members opposite to forget electioneering, and to consider how best to deal with the question of the reform of local taxation. Once more I say that I cannot help feeling that this is a great national question. It is absolutely true that the clergy in many parts of this country are most unreasonably suffering at the present time. It is perfectly true, as everybody who has listened to these Debates will be ready to admit, that this question cannot be dealt with effectively this session, but it must be dealt with generally at no very distant date. My impression is that this Bill does not go far enough, for it only partially remedies one real grievance. There are many other grievances, and I hope the time is not far distant when the whole question will be dealt with. I hope the Government will not give way on this Amendment.

MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down stated that working men would not listen to the misrepresentations as to the objects of this Bill which had been indulged in by hon. Members on this side of the House, for they recognised that the clergy were suffering from an injustice. I do not know upon what information he relies in making that statement in regard to the working men of England. Certainly the working men of Oldham do not appear to share that opinion, and we shall see to-day whether it is shared by the working men of East St. Pancras. The issue raised by this Amendment is not whether the clergy are unjustly rated or not; that has been decided, but I desire to return to the speeches delivered a few moments ago by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Ham and my hon. friend the Member for Bow and Bromley, which I thought was a singularly lucid and most convincing speech. I do not agree with the premisses with which the hon. Member started, namely, that the clergy are unjustly rated. It did seem to me that if the premisses with which the hon. Member started were sound his conclusions would be absolutely irresistible. He said that if the clergy had been paying too much, then it was dear that the fellow-ratepayers of the clergy in the same rating area had been paying too little, and, therefore, he arrived at the conclusion that if you are going to relieve the clergy, in order to find the funds for that relief you ought to impose a corresponding burden upon the ratepayers of the same area. That is a straightforward course, but it is not the course which the Government have adopted, and why? Because it would nut be tolerated by those ratepayers, and therefore what the Government propose is to lay the burden, not upon the neighbours of the clergy or their fellow- ratepayers, but to lay that burden upon a totally different set of ratepayers with whom the clergymen have nothing in common. Under this Bill the case of the ratepayers of London is a singularly hard one. It appears that there are £1,800 paid annually in rates upon the tithe rent-charge throughout the whole of London, and for that London is to be called upon to pay £19,000. It would be better to take the tithe rent-charge in London out of the rating altogether, for it would pay us very much better to adopt that course. It will be said that this would be another anomaly. Yes, I admit it would be, but the whole Bill itself is an anomaly, and why strain at a gnat when you are willing to swallow, the camel? Already a large proportion of the London tithe is not rated. Everybody knows the number of churches there are in London, and the bulk of London tithes is not rateable, and as this is so it is quite a practical expedient to alter the exception so as to coincide with the rule. Whereas the London clergy will only benefit to the extent of £900, London will have to pay £19,000 of money which might be spent upon technical education, or perhaps upon an attempt to solve the housing problem from which London suffers. Large sums of money will have to be diverted from sanitary purposes in order not to benefit the country, but to give a dole to the clergy. Some reference was made a moment ago to the deputation which waited upon the President of the Board of Agriculture the other day, and there was one argument used which was a very strange one. The right hon. Gentleman tried to turn the tables upon the London gentlemen who waited upon him by saying: I am surprised that you should come here objecting to this large sum which London has to pay, because when the Equalisation of Rates Bill was before Parliament you thought it was right that St. George's-in-the West ought to share the burdens of St. George's-in-the-East. I contend that this is no analogy, for St. George's-in-the-West was called upon to pay, not because it was rich, but because it was united with St. George's-in-the-East by a common tie. That surely is no argument at all why the ratepayers of my own district should be called upon to pay the rates of clergymen, for instance, in Wiltshire, with which the right hon. Gentleman is connected. Passing from the case of London, I desire to say a few words upon another aspect of the case. I strongly object to the proposal to pay half the rates out of the Local Taxation Account, for this reason, that this is an attempt to relieve the land of its hereditary burdens. If the Committee will allow me I should like to develop this point for one moment, amt I will take a specific case in order to make the matter perfectly clear. Take the case of two farms, each of £500 annual value. One of these farms we will suppose is tithe free, and the other has £100 tithe rent-charge upon it. In the case of the tithe free farm the farmer will have to pay rates on the whole of the £500, but in the other case the farmer will be entitled to deduct from the gross rental of £500 the amount of his tithe rent charge in order to ascertain the rateable value upon which he will be rated. In the first instance the farmer will pay on the whole of his £500, whilst in the second case the farmer will have to pay not on £500 but on £400. In other words he will pay £15 or £20 less in rates than is paid by a neighbouring farmer who occupies the tithe free farm. It is clear that the landlord of the tithable farm will have in hand funds to pay not half the rates on the tithe rent-charge, but the whole of the rates on that charge. Here I submit that we have a portion of the produce of the land ear-marked to pay the rates on the tithe. Let us follow that argument for a moment. Under the present law that portion of the produce of the land is properly dealt with. The farmer, as I have said, pays it to the landlord, then the landlord pays it over along with the rent-charge proper to the parson, arid the parson pays it into the hands of the rate collector. That is the way in which this ear-marked part of the produce is dealt with. But under this Bill the parson will keep the portion of the produce of the land, ear-marked as I have described, in his own pocket instead of paying it over to the rate collectors. In other words the hereditary burdens upon the land will not be discharged out of this particular portion of the produce of the land. Under this Bill our old system of preserving the hereditary burdens of the land will cease, for this money will not be paid out of the ear-marked portion of the produce of the land, and it seems to me that this burden should be paid out of the residue of the produce of the land. And who has the residue of the produce of the land? Why, the person who has that residue is the landlord and the owner, and therefore I submit that if you are going to relieve the parson a corresponding burden ought to be laid upon the landowner, who, as I have shown, has in his hands the residue of the produce of the land. From an economical and a national point of view it does not matter much who pays the rates, provided they are paid out of the produce of the land. Whether the landowner pays them out of his share of the profits or the parson pays them out of his tithe may be regarded practically from a national point of view as a kind of family arrangement with which the nation at large has nothing whatever to do. Under this Bill the Government say the parson has not to pay, but upon a principle which is thoroughly recognised in this country the landlord ought to pay. I have called this a family arrangement, because for centuries the Church and the landlords have been closely allied, and there has always been the closest possible relationship between the manor house and the vicarage. The landlords have often preyed upon the Church, and an eminent writer has stated that: The Church has been disendowed to the extent of one-third of its endowments for the benefit of the clergy. At the same time the Church has stuck to the landlord, and must make the best of its bargain. There is an additional reason why this relief should come out of the pocket of the landlords. The clerical witnesses before the Commission nearly all complained very strongly of the under-assessment of land as compared with tithe rent-charge. It is scarcely too much to say that it is mainly that under-assessment of land which has led to the present outbreak. If that is really the basis of the claim which is now made, the cost of this relief may fairly be laid upon the landowner. Further, the squire almost invariably belongs to the Church of England. If this burden were laid upon him he still would not he called upon to contribute to the support of his Church anything like as much as his Nonconformist neighbour in an equal position, with equal wealth, contributes towards the maintenance of his church. For these reasons, while I most strongly support the Amendment, I think the true source to which we ought to look for the money to meet the cost of this relief is the landlord.


Everybody w11 agree that this Amendment has been brought before the Committee clearly and concisely, and with a degree of moderation and fairness which must have impressed all. It is obvious that this is an important Amendment, requiring consideration and discussion, and it is not to be wondered at that those who represent London and other big towns should have found themselves compelled to put the case as looked at from the point of view of those areas. I cannot do better than begin by referring to the position in which we found ourselves when we came to the consideration of this particular question. It has been suggested that a change should be made m the Bill in order to cast the increased burden upon the tithes themselves. I will come to that presently. First of all, dealing with the general question, admitting, as the hon. Member for Huston did, the justice of the case—


The House has decided that.


Yes, precisely. Taking it, for the sake of argument, as settled that it is proper and right that this change should be made, we realise, as everybody must realise, when we come to this question of the reform of local taxation, that you obviously cannot lighten the burden of taxation upon one particular class of property without either filling up the gap which you create by bringing in revenue from some other source, or casting an increased burden upon the other rateable property within that area. We felt it would be unreasonable to come and ask Parliament to cast upon the rate-payers in other localities this increased burden. I am surprised that this suggestion has apparently received so much support on the other side of the House, because if there has been one line of op-position to this Bill insisted upon more vigorously than another it has been the increased burden that you are going to throw upon the local ratepayer. Vet under this suggestion that the burden should not be met out of the Local Taxation Account, but by some other local ratepayers, the burden upon the local ratepayers would obviously be enormously increased. If, therefore, it is unfair to cast a particular burden upon the local ratepayers, it would be still more unfair and harsh to cast upon them a much heavier burden. Doubtless some hon. Gentlemen will say that that will tend to make the measure unpopular, and as they have not been able to defeat the Bill in Parliament they will hope to defeat it outside Parliament by casting this extra burden upon the ratepayer who has to bear it.


I would rather have the Bill as it is.


The hon. Gentlemen who put the case for London and the other large towns have condemned us for going to the Local Taxation Account to fill this gap, and they have suggested that we should leave that fund alone, and that we have no right to cite as a precedent the action of our predecessors when they descended upon the fund for the purpose of providing money for the administration of certain Acts of Parliament. I think the parallel is a much more fair one than hon. Gentlemen opposite are prepared to admit. That Government found it necessary to transfer from local authorities to the Imperial Parliament the administration of certain Acts of Parliament. The entire charge was cast upon the taxpayers, and the Government urged that they were justified in so doing, because it was for the good of the general community. But previously to that action these local authorities had possessed powers to deal with the matters; they had considered whether it was advisable to exercise those powers, and some had deliberately refused, holding that the game was not worth the candle, and that it was not justifiable to call upon the ratepayers to pay for work which they thought was unnecessary. The result of the action of the then Government was to throw upon the ratepayers not only an obligation to pay for the administration of the Acts in their own neighbourhood, but to make them partners with the rest of the country for the administration of the Acts elsewhere. The contention now is that we ought to throw this increased cost upon the counties in which these cases occur. I am hound to say that that is a view I am unable to share. We are told that this is not a national question, but that the local ratepayers have benefited by the increased burden which the clerical owners of tithe rent-charge have borne, and, therefore, they ought now to be called upon to bear the cost of the relief. But we have to consider something else. If this change is to be made, and if thereby this taxation is taken off the shoulders of those who now bear it and put elsewhere, is it not our duty to see that to the best of our ability the burden is spread over the widest possible area, and in such a way as to create the minimum of inconvenience and disturbance, and impose the minimum burden upon the individual? It was from that point of view that we approached the consideration and decision of this question, and it is upon those grounds we commend our proposal to the House. I have here a very few figures showing the effect of the two different proposals upon different local authorities. The comparison made by the hon. Member for Hoxton is a strong one from his point of view, and a perfectly fair one. He gave a great many instances where large contributions were to be made by Essex, Norfolk, and certain other counties, and where the receipts under the head of diminished rates from tithe rent-charge would be very much less than they would have to pay.


In those counties it would be very much greater.


It would be much greater out of the Local Taxation Account than the amount of rates to he paid.


And there are counties in which the contrary is the case, other than London.


Undoubtedly under this system you will have inequalities, and I do not believe it would have been possible to have discovered a system under which you filled up this vacuum without producing inequalities far greater than those in the proposal we make.




Hon. Gentlemen say "No." Putting aside the amount that will be repaid from this present comparison, I find that under one proposal of distri- bution—that is, throwing it on the Local Taxation Account—the incidence in London is between 1/7d. and ⅛d. That varies over different counties from .13d. in Somerset up to, at the outside, .16d. or .17d. The variations are very slight.


I admitted entirely that the system, as proposed in the Bill, made a fairly uniform contribution upon the rateable value. I admit that, but I say it is a wrong principle.


We are at direct issue upon that point. The hon. Gentleman's argument is, that those in the county in which the relief is given should bear the cost of the burden. My answer is that if that plan were adopted you would very enormously vary the contribution in the different localities, and you would impose upon the local ratepayers a very much heavier burden, and that the Government think would be unjust. Moreover, that would not secure the object we have set ourselves to secure—viz., that the distribution of this money should be so effected that it should be spread over the widest possible area, and inflict the minimum burden upon the individual. if these counties were left to themselves to decide whether this new system should be adopted, I could understand the argument. But Parliament is asked to make up the deficit by an unfair treatment of these persons. The Government believe that the best method of treating this matter is to go to the Local Taxation Account, and they believe they can show that it is the best method, and one which will cause the least inconvenience. I quite admit that under this Bill there will be inequalities. I never denied that, but I do not believe it would be possible to discover a system under which the inequalities would be less. The case of London is, no doubt, very severe, and I have no doubt that if hon. Gentlemen opposite exercise sufficient industry they will find that hardships of the same kind exist in different parts of the country. But the question to be considered is how far the proposal of the Bill can be regarded as a real hardship on London. I should like to associate myself with what has been said by hon. Members for London as to the necessity for giving every possible aid to the local authorities of London in developing London, and especially in attending to the needs and improving the conditions of the working classes; and if the proposal of the Bill would throw any serious obstruction in the way of that work I should hesitate before I identified myself with it. It must be remembered that increased expenditure in London does not necessarily mean that money is taken out of the pockets of the London ratepayers. Take the increase of payments due to London out of the Local Taxation Account, and compare 1887–1888 with 1891, and you find it is about £88,000. The increased payments by the County Council include, for instance, £64,000 paid under a statutory obligation to the subordinate local authorities. That money necessarily finds its way into the pockets of the local ratepayers. In other words, if the rate of the County Council is higher in consequence of these payments, they also involve the lowering of the rate of the subordinate local authority. It is also said that the proposal of the Bill means an increase in the burdens of working-men. The rates of houses rated at £20 in London and other large towns are paid under the composition system, and therefore they are not directly paid, at all events, by the occupants of the houses. In the case of a house rated at £20 per annum the increase brought about by the operation of the Bill would be only 2½d. a year, and is it not preposterous to suggest that all the customs and agreements under which working men hold houses would be upset for the sake of 2½ a year? It may be that better methods might have been suggested, but I doubt the recommendations which come from hon. Gentlemen, who would regard the Bill with animosity no matter what scheme the Government proposed for dealing with the matter. I believe it would have met with the same opposition, only varied in its form, by hon. Gentlemen opposite. If the Government had suggested that this burden should fall directly upon the counties, with what fervour it would have been opposed by the hon. Members opposite who represented county constituencies! Why, everything they have said against the Bill so far is rosewater compared to what they would have said had the Government made any such proposal. I have never contended that the system proposed is a complete system, or that it is without flaws. I am not so foolish as to pretend anything of the kind. But I assert that the Govern- ment, in adopting the method of resorting to the Local Taxation Account for the money, secure in the first instance that the burden is spread over a very wide area, and, as some inequalities are inevitable under any system, we secure in the second place that in the incidence of the burden there is inequality of the slightest possible description. Having come to the conclusion that we would be acting rightly in effecting this reform, I believe the method the Government has adopted for finding the money to meet the deficiency is, on the whole, the fairest and wisest, and I hope it is one that the Committee will adhere to.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)

The right hon. Gentleman has allowed us, in a very frank and candid way, to have a little insight into the minds of the Government. Having made up their minds to make this grant to the clergy, they cast about to see what other class should be compelled to pay it. Anyone who has anything to do with financial administration knows that that is a difficult problem. The right hon. Gentleman also indicated the conclusion at which they arrived. They thought they had discovered a method of doing it which, if it was not for the malignity of gentlemen who sit on these benches, would never have been found out. But, unfortunately for the right hon. Gentleman, even if we had held our tongues, if we had been compelled to hold our tongues, the stones on his own side rise up, and his innocent scheme for endowing the clergy and charging the public taxpayer has been discovered in the course of two nights' debate. Let us see how he proposes to justify it. First of all, he said, "I have spread it widely." Yes, but when you spread a charge widely it does not justify it to the people who have to pay. It is the most extraordinary financial proposition I have ever heard of. I do not know whether intentionally or accidentally he fixed the figure at 2½d. I do not wish any discourtesy to the right hon. Gentleman, but I should say the value of that argument is very accurately represented by the figure he selected. He has said that the Government are dealing with this question as a rating question: that they are redressing inequality of rating. Well, you would suppose that when you are redressing inequality of rating you would deal with it upon sound rating principles, and sound rating principles are always connected with local taxation and not with general taxation. This "spreading" argument might be justified if it was for a national object, but at any time, and particularly at this moment, it would be inconvenient to put forward the endowment of the clergy as a national object, and so the Government have not propounded that idea on the contrary, they say they are redressing a rating grievance. What the Government say is, "While we are going to relieve the people who ought not to pay so much, we are not going to put the burden upon the people who consequently pay too little. That would be dreadfully unpopular. Therefore let us put it on everybody and make everybody pay." I think it will be discovered that that is not the universal opinion. Everybody does not agree with that view of the subject, and I have never heard the word "spreading" applied to finance without knowing that there was something extremely unsound at the bottom of the proposition. The right hon. Gentleman seems to imagine that he had put us in a great dilemma when he talked about the incidence of rating, and said that we had always contended in the case of agricultural rating that the rate falls upon the landlord. So it does. Therefore, says the right hon. Gentleman, you must make the same admission with respect to rating in towns. If he would take the pains to read a very instructive and scientific treatise upon rating by the First Lord of the Admiralty I think he would find it is many years since I read it—that an exact distinction is drawn between the incidence of rating in the two cases, that in the case of agricultural rating the incidence is upon the landlord, whereas in the case of rating in towns the incidence is upon the occupier. That is a really conclusive answer to the dilemma which was so loudly cheered by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and it is a point which seems to have escaped the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said we could not put the burden upon taxation generally, because it would be very unfair to Scotland and Ireland if we did so. That is a very ingenious argument to apply to the financial scheme of this Bill. But do you suppose that that argument will conceal from Scotland and Ireland that they are to contribute towards the relief given to the clergy in England? The money taken out of the Local Taxation account for this purpose has to come out of the pockets of the general taxpayers quite as much in Scotland and Ireland as in England, and the representation that this is not a tax on Scotland and Ireland is financially untrue. It is a charge upon Scotland and Ireland exactly as it is a charge upon England. Therefore it is a trumpery device for putting a charge upon the general taxpayers of this country for the endowment of a particular denomination in England. I say it is an endowment of a particular denomination because your pretence that it is a rate-paying reform cannot be defended for a moment. If it is a rate-paying reform it applies to all tithe-owners.




Does that mean the closure?


Question, question.


I will proceed to argue the question if you like. I say this is to be defended, if it is defended at all, upon a rate-paying principle. Now, a rate-paying principle must apply to all sorts of property equally, and therefore if you do not apply it to all sorts of property equally you must have some particular reasons for not adopting that course. I suppose there must be something that the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the House finds it difficult to answer, and therefore he is particularly averse from having this matter brought under the consideration of the country. Well, you may have it brought under the consideration of the House or yon may not, as you choose. You will not prevent, by cries of "Question," this matter from being brought before the consideration of the country, and you may depend upon it the country will cry "Question," and that they will know that the question is whether you are throwing the burden of this endowment upon the right people or upon the wrong people. Of course we are obliged at this stage of the discussion to admit that you have determined to make these grants. I was very much surprised, I must say, at that part of the speech of the hon. Member for West Ham when he said that we had not attempted to deny the justice of the claim. Of course we cannot do it now. We are arguing as far as we are permitted to do in the few hours that have been allowed to us in this Committee——


There was no closure on the Second Reading.


I am endeavouring to point out what our view is. We say there has been no injustice, and that the clergyman only paid what he knew beforehand he would have to pay. The hon. Member compared the case of the clergyman to that of a civil servant, but no rating question arises on the salary of a civil servant. The proposal of the Bill has been put upon the ground of it being a rating question, and the question of the rate, of course, is the question at issue, and the method in which we ought to meet the deficiency caused is a rating question. That is really what we have to consider. The argument used by the hon. Member was that we had to deal with the question of meeting the deficiency by the ratepayers of the locality as a rating question. I entirely agree with him. Do not let it be said that it is we who desire to increase the rates of the existing ratepayer. We deny the justice of the claim altogether, and we refuse to be trapped into any such dilemma as that. Our case is this—that there is not and never has been any injustice in this rate, that it has been always founded upon sound principles of rating, and that there is no more reason for throwing the burden upon the other ratepayers than there is for spreading it over the whole of the taxpayers of the United Kingdom. But take your position. You choose to found yourselves upon the injustice of the existing rating system, of which you have given no evidence whatever, and the method you have adopted is one which we say is unjust. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the injustice of a rate or tax is not to be measured by the amount, and therefore I say that all these twopenny-halfpenny conclusions are really beside the question altogether. The right hon. Gentleman said, "Oh! London, after all, will only pay £19,000. Well, what is that to London?" Very true. My hon. friend behind me was good enough to derive an illustration from the county I have the honour to represent, which will enjoy a species of equilibrium under the Bill. That is not an equilibrium which will be appreciated by my constituents. If he supposes that the ratepayers of Monmouthshire will be satisfied with an equilibrium which consists in their paying a certain number of hundreds of pounds in order to endow the clergymen of the Established Church in that county, he is very much mistaken in the opinion of that population, and if he knew as much of Wales as I do he would find that that is a very general sentiment. We are told by the right hon. Gentleman that if he had been going to reform the general system of local taxation—of local rating—he would never have adopted the proposals in this Bill. Yes; but what has my hon. friend the Member for Hoxton, who is a member of the Commission which is to consider this question, told you? He has told you that what you have done in the Agricultural Rates Act has raised an almost insuperable obstacle to anything like a wise and general and just reform of the system of local taxation, and that you were adding in this Bill another obstacle, although you are talking of it as a mere temporary measure. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite spoke of the Agricultural Rates Act as a mere temporary measure, but they do not intend it to be merely temporary. As long as they have the power they will take care to keep it, and the gentlemen who represent the clergy, who are getting this grant upon what I must call a vicious system of local rating, do not intend it to be a temporary measure. My hon. friend the Member for Hoxton says the Commission has found it impossible to deal with them on the basis of temporary measures. What, then, are you doing? You are absolutely destroying all hopes from that Commission of any outcome of a general reform of local taxation which shall do justice to the urban population of this country. The Prime Minister said the other day that there are a great many Commissions which will never have any result at all. He did not tell us which Commission he meant, but I venture to say that the Commission which is intended to give the same benefits to the towns which you have given to these two favoured classes of the community is one of those Commissions which I do not think the Prime Minister intends to give any effect to. It seems to me that what you are doing by what is called piecemeal legislation is to violate the whole principles on which rating finance ought to rest. Rating finance is not, and ought not ever to be, piecemeal; it ought to represent the whole of the community to which it is charged; and to pick out two classes, begin with them, and say, "Oh! we will consider the interests of the other classes afterwards," is a thoroughly vicious system of finance. We know what is going to happen. You have got money under the Agricultural Rates Act, and you have done nothing since. You are going to get this money for the Church, and what will then happen? Nothing at all. The Commission, practically speaking, will be paralysed by the steps you have taken in these two matters. The towns will never get the justice from the Commission which they ought to have received had the question been tackled properly. Anything more dangerous for the interests of this country than to introduce a number of unsound principles in dealing with local taxation and rating cannot be conceived. Your general public expenditure is growing at a very dangerous rate. And, what is equally dangerous, perhaps more dangerous—you are introducing false principles in a Rating Bill.

COMMANDER BETHELL (York E.R., Holderness)



It is the question. I am waiting for the Chairman to call me to order.


I have a right to call "Question."


Well, let the hon. and gallant Member continue to call "Question." I may remind the hon. Member also that he has got the right to move the closure, and I would suggest to him that that course is perhaps more courteous and more conclusive. It will save me trouble, because I shall no longer be interrupted. This is a financial Amendment dealing with the whole financial proposals of the Bill, and when I call attention to the danger of introducing false principles into the system of rating in the country, the hon. and gallant Member calls "Question." Pro- bably his feeling is that it is rather dangerous.


I rise to a point of order. Is the right hon. Gentleman addressing himself to the Amendment?


The last remarks of the right hon. Gentlemen were rather called forth by the interruption of the hon. and gallant Member.


There is no Member of this House for whom I have more respect than I have for the hon. and gallant Member, but on a financial Amendment financial remarks are in order. I say we ought to be more careful in dealing with the finance of local rating than even with the general finances of the country, and in my opinion these proposals are extremely injurious to the principles of local finance and of local rating. I need not labour the point, because it has been agreed to very fairly and frankly by the right hon. Gentleman. He also said that the proper method of dealing with this matter is by way of assessment, and I entirely agree. One of the greatest complaints against the financial operations of the Bill is that it does not proceed by assessment. I do not quite appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's distinction between the principle of deduction and the principle of assessment. Assessment depends very much on deduction. You assess one class of property more and another less according as there are greater or fewer deductions to be made. Therefore they are the same thing, and I say the Report of the Commission pointed directly to assessment and deduction. I agree with hon. Members who have spoken on both sides that the financial principle of this Bill is an unsound principle, and I give my hearty support to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, which he moved in such an able and lucid manner.


I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman took exception to a modest interruption I made during his speech, and which I assure him was not intended in any spirit of discourtesy. But the masterpiece he delivered on the Second Reading of this Bill ought not, I think, to be too often touched up. It was excellent in its original form, and it was an enjoyment to listen to it for the first time, but by constant repetition even the most excellent things lose some of their savour. The right hon. Gentleman has advanced outside the arguments brought forward very ably by my two hon. friends the astounding proposition that the fund on which we are drawing is a fund belonging not to the English ratepayers, but to the general taxpayers of the country. That is really a most extravagant proposition. If we do not pass this Bill in its present form, will the taxpayers of Ireland or Scotland have a penny more in their pocket than they have now? It is perfectly true that the London ratepayer will lose one-eighth of a penny in the £ if the Bill is passed in its present form. But, if the Amendment were carried and the Bill were not passed in its present form, while the London ratepayer would gain One-eighth of a penny in the £, the Irish and Scotch ratepayer and taxpayer would be neither better nor worse off than now. That is really indisputable, and therefore it is an extravagant paradox to say that this Bill throws any burden on Scotland or Ireland.


I said that either the money is wanted or it is not. If you make this charge it is necessary to raise the money from the general taxpayer.


We do not know much of the future programme of the Party opposite, but if part of that programme is a Bill interfering with the contribution of the general taxpayer to the Local Taxation Account there is some point in what the right hon. Gentleman says. But we on this side have no such intention, and we do not think the right hon. Gentleman has. Anything drawn from the Local Taxation Account falls on the English ratepayer, and upon him alone. The real question is not the extravagant proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, but the more modest proposition of the mover of the Amendment. That proposition can be put in the compass of a sentence: Is it, or is it not, in conformity with sound principle that the ratepayers throughout the country should be asked to contribute to the removal of rating injustices, even if, according to strict arithmetic, some will pay more in carrying out the object than they would gain by the object being carried out? That is the question in a nutshell. I have no hesitation in answering that in the affirmative. Hon. Gentlemen opposite talk as if the existing system of rating in this country were so nicely adjusted to the equities of the case that it should not be interfered with. I say that the existing system is not only unjust in a manner which may be remedied by some general scheme, but that from the very nature of the case you cannot devise a system by which every member of the community shall pay precisely according to his means towards general objects in which die community are interested. The present system makes no pretence to carry that out with arithmetical accuracy. The trifling inequity introduced by the Government is practically insignificant measured by the inequities under which we all sit down. Take, for example, the contribution of personalty to rating objects. I believe no one who has studied the history of rating or the equities of rating, but does not think that personalty ought to contribute more largely. Personalty does contribute now under an exchequer contribution, and so far as that contribution goes something is done towards meeting the equities of the case. But consider the anomaly of that contribution. Under the Act of Elizabeth the dwellers in each area were to contribute towards local objects in that area. That is not done by the Exchequer contribution of personalty. We all admit that that is anomalous, but we say it is better that personalty should contribute in an inequitable, slip-shod fashion than that it should escape altogether. No more per-feet system has ever yet been suggested. Take the existing system of rating in Lancashire. My hon. friend who moved the Amendment is very keenly alive to the anomaly that Lancashire, should have to pay £19,000 and only receive £1,000 or £900. But the whole system of equalisation of rates is the roughest approximation to justice. It is difficult to say why St. George's-in-the-West should contribute the exact amount it does to local purposes in St. George's-in-the-East, and if it contributes to St. George's-in-the-East why not to West Ham? You cannot lay down a rule which justifies an anomaly like that. All we can say is that it is impossible to adjust the exact burden in these rating questions so that no one pays more than he is justified towards general purposes. I believe that London at this moment gets in contributions for her parks alone from the national Exchequer twice as much and more than twice as much as the £19,000, the amount of her contributions under this Bill. I make no complaint of that. I believe the right hon. Gentleman opposite does not complain of it, because he was Chancellor of the Exchequer during many of the years in which it has been carried out. The justification is, I suppose, that persons in Northumberland and Durham can enjoy Hyde Park just as much as people living within a few yards of it. I do not quarrel with that, but it is very difficult to define in strict argument. Take again the ease of the payment of rates on Government buildings. London gets an immense amount of general taxation in that way. It may be said that that is national, and that therefore the nation ought to pay; but you cannot adjust these things with absolute arithmetical accuracy. The truth is, we are bound to approach these questions, not merely as arithmeticians, but as statesmen who have got to deal with practical problems. My right hon. friend near me was absolutely accurate in saying that in dealing with this question of rating the Government is amply justified in drawing upon this fund, and in using it in no sense of hardship, and in no sense whatever of personal inconvenience. It is the only way to deal with rating questions. In the future I believe we shall have other rating problems, and when the Government of the day draws on this fund it may involve a contribution favourable to London and against the rural districts. I will not object to that, nothwithstanding some inequity which is inevitable. But if you draw only the precise amount which the multiplication table says you should, you will never be able to solve these great practical problems which at present confront us. I frankly admit that if this were not a national question, or a question affecting the whole of England, we ought not to draw upon a fund which the whole of England enjoys in order to solve it. But I assert that rating questions are emphatically national. The right hon. gentleman very unfairly stated that this money is to be taken from London to be given to the clergy. It is not to be taken from London to be given to the clergy, but to be given to a certain class of rural ratepayers. May I respectfully remind the Committee what the Amendment before us is? It is to leave out all the machinery for paying the money, while it does remove an injustice from the clergy, so that if the first part stands and the second is abolished, as proposed by the Amendment, the result will be that an additional burden will be put on rural ratepayers, and to a less degree on London ratepayers. The Government think that in order to carry out a rating reform of this kind it is perfectly fair to come on this fund. The right hon. Gentleman has not suggested that we are doing anything worse than was done by himself in the case of swine fever. The right hon. Gentleman was justified in what he did in that matter. The House unanimously thought that though it could not be maintained that every part of the country was equally interested in swine fever, it was nevertheless fair that the whole of the country should pay for swine fever. Although the whole of the country is not equally interested in the removal of this rating grievance, the whole country is interested in it as it is a matter of general justice, and it is fair that a general fund should be called upon. Under the circumstances I contend that the course the Government have pursued is one in conformity with the general interest, and in conformity, therefore, with sound policy, and I do not believe it will be possible in the future to effect any great re-adjustment of local taxation without again having recourse to the growing produce of this great contribution to rating. I hope, if the Committee divides on this question, it will emphatically support the Government. It is natural and legitimate that hon. Gentlemen opposite who dislike the whole Bill should vote for an Amendment which would destroy the Bill, whether they think my argument good or bad; but I appeal to those on my own side who, as practical statesmen, have said they do not object to the Bill in its main principles, who have told us they regard the present rating of the clergy as grossly unjust, to emphatically support the Government in the course they now propose, inasmuch as the grievance, the reality of which they admit, can he remedied by the method suggested and by no other method. That is the plain alternative, and I am convinced my hon. friends will see that we are justified in the course we are pursuing, and that they will give us their support.


The Leader of the House made a very pathetic appeal to those who sat behind him. I only wish that he had been able to make a wider appeal. The First Lord was very merry over the Second Reading speech of the right hon. Member for West Monmouth; but I think his references to the Second Reading have become quite as numerous as those of the right hon. Member for West Monmouth. The First Lord of the Treasury, in the course of his speech, said from time to time that there were already a great many anomalies in the rating system of the country. On that we are all agreed; but I do not see that that is any reason for instituting another. The number of anomalies already existing is rather a reason for putting an end to them all, than for introducing a new one altogether. The right hon. Gentleman said the money was not taken front London and given to the clergy. I think that is an astounding statement. But he said it was given to the rural ratepayers. I have always felt that there was a good deal of difficulty to know where the money was to come from, but there is an equal difficulty in knowing who is going to get it. When the right hon. Gentleman says the money is not going to the clergy, but to the rural ratepayers, surely that is only a trifling with words. The money is going just where the Government intends it to go, namely, to the clerical incumbent. We admit on this side of the House the frankness and candour of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. He admits that in many cases inequalities will be created by the Bill. He also admits it will do very little to till the vacuum which he thinks ought to be filled in a particular manner in respect to the amount. The point we have to consider is very simple, namely, to decide where the money is to come from. The Committee has decided that half of these rates need not be paid by those who have hitherto paid them. The only question raised by the Amendment, especially in the form the Chairman has put it, is the best way of providing the money. In order to decide that, we have to consider various funds on which we might draw. I think the natural way to provide the money is to get it from those people who utilise the services of the clergy, namely, their congregations. They ought to have the first honour and privi- lege of making up the deficit. If they will not do it I should call on the communicants of the parish, who ought to he only too glad of the opportunity of supporting their clergy in times of distress. If they will not do it, there is the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, a wealthy body, with an income of hundreds of thousands a year. They might be called upon to pay half the rates of the clergy. It appears that the Committee has decided that there are only two alternatives—to pay this money from either a local fund or a central fund. The Minister of Agriculture has practically told us that the point he has in view is to minimise the effects of the Bill. He wants the country to know as little as possible as to who pays this money. He does not want it to be a constant source of recollection to those who pay the money. That is the reason why he goes to the Local Taxation Account fund, for he says, a man who occupies a £20 house will only pay 2½d. per year, and who cares for 2½d. per year? I am sure that if the Report of the Royal Commission is read, especially the subsidiary Report of the hon. Member for Stroud, he will arrive at the conclusion that, if deductions have anything to do with this matter, it is the local ratepayers that ought to be paid. Whatever way you look at it, I submit that a central fund ought not to be drawn upon to pay the deficit, hut that the community served by the clergyman should pay it. The mode provided for in the Bill is not a right or just mode, and I shall be happy to support the Amendment.

* MR. MENDL (Plymouth)

The Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley is one which goes to the root of this question so far as hon. Members representing borough constituencies are concerned, and it is in that capacity that I support it very warmly. The First Lord of the Treasury attempted to justify the opposition of the Government to this Amendment, as far as I understood upon the ground that personalty does nut contribute towards local rates, and that this was a rough-and-ready way of making personalty do so. It is a very rough and, it may be, a very ready way, but it does not seem to me to have that effect in the smallest degree. All that the Government have done is to take a sum of money and shovel it over to a class of people whom they say have been suffering injustice irrespective altogether of the condition of the recipients, for it is quite obvious that those who want the most will receive the least, and vice versa. So far as regards the source from which the Government are going to obtain the money, they are, under this Bill, going to make all the ratepayers pay. I suppose even the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture will no longer contend that nobody pays this money because it comes out of the Local Taxation Account. But the ratepayers who will feel the call most are the urban ratepayers, who are already more highly rated than any other class. That, I think, is the reason why every borough Member in this House ought to join in protesting against this policy. I very much regret that we have not heard protests from a larger number of borough Members from the other side of the House. I do not suggest that they should follow the example of my hon. friend the Member for Stockport, for it is not everybody who has the courage to speak out as my hon. friend did, but it would have been very useful indeed if some more borough Members, and especially London Members, had made their protests felt in regard to this matter. Because, after all, what is the whole principle of rating? Rating is a local charge for a local purpose. One hon. Member on the other side yesterday, or Monday, put the case extremely well. He said when you contend that a certain class of ratepayers have hitherto been overrated it naturally follows that a large number of ratepayers have been underrated; and therefore it is surely right and proper that those who have been paying too little should make up the deficiency which is caused by those who have been paying too much. I suppose it is not suggested that as between the urban ratepayer and the rural ratepayer the urban ratepayer pays too little and the rural ratepayer too much, for the opposite is the case. The proposal of the Government is, to my mind, one more instance, if instance were wanted, of the sacrifice of the towns to the country, and of the urban ratepayer to the rural ratepayer. It is an extension of the vicious principle which was carried out in the Agricultural Rating Act, and as a borough Member I heartily support the Amendment.

* MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)

I should like to say a word on this Amendment, not from the point of view of a borough Member, but from the point of view of a county Member. I should like to remind the Committee that there are several counties in England where the tithe was largely got rid of under various Enclosure Acts. The county that I have the honour to represent has got rid of five-sixths of the tithe under such Acts, and therefore the sum to be given under the provisions of this Bill will be comparatively trivial. It is, however, obvious that the ratepayers of Northamptonshire will be mulcted somewhat in the same way as the ratepayers represented by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley and the hon. Member for Plymouth, in order to pay for the relief of the rates in other districts. It seems to me that this Amendment, as well as the proposal contained in the Bill, is open to very serious objections. The hon. Member proposes to shift the burden from the general body of ratepayers to the local ratepayers. That, of course, may be a very great gain to certain districts, but in other districts it would certainly mean a considerable loss. I myself therefore feel some hesitation in supporting this Amendment, though I shall vote for it as being a less grievous form of injustice than the proposal in the Bill. The proposal now before us raises the whole question of taxation. It seems to me that we have had absolutely no case made out, either from the distress point of view or from the rating point of view, of the claim of the clergyman. We have a proposal put before us which is absolutely unique in ignoring the elementary facts which underlie the whole position of the clergy and the vast wealth of the Church. I have not heard in the course of these Debates one single reference to the fact that the whole of the vast ecclesiastical revenues were exempted from the estate and succession duties. There is, therefore, already a vast concession to the clerical ratepayers indirectly through the enormous relief from Imperial taxation. It is consequently obvious that, although you go either to the general taxpayer or to the general ratepayer in order to obtain relief for any of the alleged hardships to the incumbents who pay rates on their tithes, you should rather ask the Church to deal with this question.


Order, order! I would point out to the hon. Member that this question does not arise on the Amendment. Even if the Amendment were carried, the question cannot be considered by the Committee. Mr. Speaker has already ruled that that is altogether outside the Bill.


I am perfectly aware that Mr. Speaker has made that ruling, and I was only referring to the matter as an illustration of my contention that the claim to this relief was not justified, because of the vast revenues which the Church possesses and which can be drawn upon for this relief.


Order, order! That cannot be raised on this Amendment.


I bow most respectfully to your ruling, Mr. Lowther, but as one who has listened to most of this Debate, I venture to say that it has been largely composed of Second Reading considerations. The Amendment which we are asked to sanction, preferable as it is to the scheme of the Bill, will impose a very heavy fine upon those whom we represent, whether we represent large towns or rural districts, and I wish to enter my most emphatic protest against the whole policy of the Bill.


I have again and again appealed to hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider this matter purely and solely on the ground of justice. I now proceed to make the same appeal to Her Majesty's Government and their supporters on this side, for it is upon the ground of justice that this Amendment must be considered. I regret very much to hear the First Lord of the Treasury say that if this Amendment were passed it would spoil the Bill. That is a misapprehension. The essence of the Bill is contained in the words that have been already adopted, and if there were no other words in the Bill than those that are already in it the injustice, so far as the clergy are concerned, would have been redressed. The question that now arises is simply and solely the question of who is to pay the money. Her Majesty's Government propose, in effect, that the ratepayers at large should pay; in other words that they should cease to have this sum of £87,000 handed over to them for the alleviation of the rates. Now, whence is that money derived? It is derived from the duties levied on the personal property of deceased persons under the Finance Act of 1894. Her Majesty's Government propose, in other words, to alleviate the admitted wrong—admitted so far as we on this side of die House are concerned—on the clergy by repaying them an amount which is supposed to be taken out of the sum provided by personal property at death. What has that to do with the alleviation of rating? It seems to me that this at any rate is not the right fund to take it from. Moreover, I have another objection to taking it from this particular fume It is the creation of an interception, which is in itself a financial offence, and which will be aggravated by the Bill. What is the claim made on behalf of the clergy? The claim is as distinct as possible. It has never varied, it has never been added to or diminished. It is, that certain deductions are not made in consideration of the fact that the clergy render services to entitle them to their emoluments. It is a perfectly good and just claim. And what is the remedy proposed? The remedy is that a deduction should be made. That the Bill does in a rough and ready way, which I shall come to in a moment. Well, the remedy of deduction is, I venture to say, the right remedy, and not only the right remedy but the only remedy which can be defended on the ground of justice, which I advance. There is no other suggested by the Commission. The Commission suggested generally that some relief should be given. The only specific suggestion made was by the three members of the Commission who really understood the subject, and their remedy was the remedy of deduction. Then it is said, "Yes, but if you deduct it the amount will have to be made up by the other ratepayers." Certainly; and why not? Is that unjust? What is the allegation? The allegation is that for sixty years the clergyman has, in consequence of the absence of this necessary and just deduction, been paying more than his proper share of the rating and consequently the other ratepayers less. Take the remedy suggested by the three learned Members of the Commission, and what is the result? That for the first time since 1836 the other ratepayers would begin to pay their just share. A grievance on the part of the ratepayers? For sixty years they have been paying less than they ought to pay, and we are letting them off all those years. All we ask is that in future they shall pay their just share of the whole of the rating as it falls on the area in which they live. It is impossible to find any grievance upon the ratepayer in making him now, for the first time, pay his proper share of the rate. Has any Member of this House, has any Member of Her Majesty's Government, pretended that it is unjust that this proper charge should fall upon the ratepayers? Not one. It is time that the ratepayer now assumed his fair share of the rate, which up to this time he has not borne, and which the clergyman has borne instead. Not an argument has been addressed to the House to show that it would be unjust to place upon the ratepayer his proper share of the burden. There is no doubt that such a proposal will be unpopular with the ratepayers; but the proposal of the Government will be still more unpopular with a larger body of the taxpayers, and especially the taxpayers in towns. But I altogether reject the arguments that may be drawn from popularity. My belief is that Her Majesty's Government desire to do an act of justice in a just manner. The whole question is, on whose shoulders shall the extra burden be placed? I think we on this side of the House are well disposed towards the Bill, but surely Her Majesty's Government are not going to impose on us the iron rule of accepting the particular method put forward by the Government, without allowing us to suggest an alteration of any kind. Surely they are not going to deprive us of the right of private judgment, or ask us to vote at the crack of the party whip. The Government speak of this Bill as if it were something sacred, and as if perdition were pronounced on those who should "add one word to this prophecy or take one word from it." I feel constrained, in the interests of justice, to vote for the Amendment.

MR. M'KENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)

I have endeavoured, as far as I can, to get an insight into the views of justice which are accepted on the other side. The position of hon. Members opposite is this—they say that a just debt is due to the clergy at the present time, and it is our duty to pay that debt. I do not agree that any just debt is due to the clergy; but granting for the moment that the intention of the Government is to do justice, let me apply their own principles to this Amendment. If there is a just debt due there are two persons to be taken into account—there is the person to whom the debt is due, and there is the person by whom it is paid. It is as fully a matter of justice that the right person should pay the debt as that the person whose money is due should receive it. There has not been a single argument put forward in the course of the discussion to show that the right person will pay the money due to the clergy under the Bill as it stands. The contention of the First Lord of the Treasury has been this, and nothing more—that our present system of local taxation is full of anomalies, and that this Bill may be likewise an anomaly, but it is only adding one more to the numerous anomalies which exist in our law. Now, what would be said if the First Lord of the Treasury were to give a violent blow to any hon. Gentleman in this House, and on being remonstrated with, the First Lord of the Treasury were to say "You object to my giving you a violent blow on the head, but there is not a Christian or a civilised country in the world in which murders are not of daily occurrence"? Well, that is nothing more or less than the argument put forward by the First Lord of the Treasury in support of the Bill. Can it be said that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley is not more consistent with justice than the Bill as it now stands? It cannot be disputed that if this Bill is carried we shall be putting a charge on persons who ought not to be liable to pay that charge. If the clergy have been unfairly treated, and it is not desirable to leave them in that position, then they ought to be paid at the expense of those who have been wrongly enjoying this advantage for many years. I ask hon. Members opposite, representing large towns, if it is fair, bearing in mind the financial interests of their own constituencies, that they should, merely at the crack of the party whip, allow a wrong to be done to their constituents on behalf of the ratepayers of certain localities. This is a wrong done between one private individual and another, and unless some more cogent argument is forthcoming, if they vote against this Amendment, I am convinced that they will never be able to explain how it is that they are willing to relieve ratepayers of this burden who are now getting an advantage from the over assessment of the clergy.

* SIR J. STIRLING-MAXWELL (Glasgow, College)

Although I myself repre- sent a Scotch constituency, and have no interest financially, either direct or indirect, in the subject under discussion, perhaps I may be allowed to speak with all the more freedom, and altogether without prejudice, on this subject. It has been very much thrown in the teeth of those defending this Amendment that the defence comes mainly from the Opposition, and I admit that while they are opposed to this Bill on principle, their views must be taken as an expression of academic opinion, not altogether free from a sinister motive. I rise to support the Amendment of my hon. friend, and I do so because it seems to me, as the Bill now stands, to create an obvious injustice, although it is one which does not affect the portion of the country which I represent. Nevertheless, I cannot, as a Member of this House, allow such an injustice to be perpetrated without making a protest against it. It seems to me that if we are to have odious legislation of this kind—and I think hon. Members on both sides of the House will all admit that legislation of this kind, which tends to alter the incidence of rates on various classes, is an odious kind of legislation—there are two principles which ought to guide us. The first one is that in removing one injustice we should take good care that we do not create another injustice. The second principle is that if we remove the weight of local taxation from the shoulders of one class, and place it upon the shoulders of another class, we ought to take care that the change is felt not only by those who, are relieved, but also by those who will have to bear the burden. As regards the first of these principles, a case has been made out which has never been answered by any hon. Member defending the Bill, and which obviously cannot be answered. It has been shown that in the extreme case of London, the clergy will receive only £900 under this Bill, whilst London will be called upon to contribute £19,000. The right hon. Gentleman called this an anomaly, but I prefer, as it does not exist now, and we are making the change for the first time, to call it by a plainer name, and I call it an injustice. As regards the second point, namely, that if we remove taxation from the shoulders of one class we ought to take care that the change is felt by those who will have to bear the burden, I wish we could have some answer from someone who would be able to tell us why it is impossible for the clergymen in a particular area, who are paying too much in rates, to be relieved at the expense of those in that particular locality who have been paying too little? I fear that the only answer which can be given is the one which was given with considerable frankness by the right hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill, and that is that it would be very impolitic to those who are proposing this measure to allow it to be worked out in this way. I do not propose to go further into the details of this Bill, but as regards that particular question as to where the incidence of the money is to fall, I should like to say that the subject is not one of great difficulty. I should like to remind the Committee that, although the main principle involved does enter into the region of very abstruse, difficult, and debateable questions, the particular point before the House at this moment is one of almost transparent simplicity. The House has now decided that the clergy are to be relieved of half the rates which they pay on their tithe; in other words, they are to be assessed on half the amount at which they are at present assessed. That being so, hon. Members who wish to support the Government proposal will have to ask themselves if it is right that people who have been hitherto escaping this burden should now be relieved of the obligation of making up the deficiency. For these reasons I must plainly say that so far as I am personally concerned, I shall not be able to support the Third Heading of this Bill unless the Government are able to give way on this point.

MR. ABEL THOMAS (Carmarthen, E.)

The effect of this Amendment will be that the people of East Carmarthen will not get as much as they would do if this Bill was carried in its present form. Nevertheless, I am going to vote for the Amendment. Everyone knows that since the year 1836 the local area of taxation has varied to a certain extent, but wherever it has been altered in a particular district the clergyman's tithes have been rated to a certain amount. I am not going to accept the proposition which has been put before us by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. He says that the clergymen since 1836 have been unfairly rated, but my contention is if there is any injustice it has nothing whatever to do with anybody outside a particular area. It is a question of the rates in that particular area and nowhere else, and, when one remembers that the effect of the Amend- ment will be simply this—that relief to the clergy in a particular area must be met by the people in that area itself, it does seem to me to be utterly impossible to conceive of any other reasonable way of meeting the difficulties under which the clergyman has suffered up to the present time. It is no answer for the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to say that it will be a very difficult thing to make the area concerned pay the deficiency. I can understand that in Norfolk, where the farmer has to make up a loss of £7,000, the right hon. Gentleman at the next election may be met with a very disagreeable number of electors; and the same argument applies to places like Essex, where everyone knows that, at the present moment, there are many farms which are let where the farmer has positively only to pay the rates, and nothing more. I understand that if justice is going to be done by this Bill the farmer and the landowner will turn round against the Government and say "No, after this monstrous piece of injustice we won't vote for anybody who brings in Bills of this kind." That is the reason this injustice is being perpetrated, and I ask is it fair to the farming constituencies? Of course everyone knows perfectly well that the people who are to be relieved by this part of the Bill are those living in the rich agricultural counties. If they are poor agricultural counties with large industries and containing large manufacturing districts they will lose money by this proposal of the Government. If on the other hand they are rich agricultural districts, they will gain money by the Bill and will lose it by the Amendment, and it seems to me that this Bill—and the opposition to this Amendment—brings us back to the old argument, and that is, back up the landlord—it does not matter whether it is the landlord or the tenant farmer—the farmer and the clergyman against the rest of the taxpayers of the country. I cannot possibly imagine, when it is said on the other side of the House that this is simply an act of justice to make the rating equal, how any one can turn round and say that those who have gained by this inequality are not to bear the burden, but that the unfortunate labourer in the large towns shall be called upon to provide the deficiency. I was very much surprised to hear the hon. Member for the Kirk- dale Division opposing this Amendment, and I doubt very much whether his constituents will take that view of the matter. I cannot understand how it can be argued that towns which receive no benefit at all are to be called upon to pay the larger part of the amount which is necessary to meet the loss which will be suffered by certain areas by the reduction of these rates. This is an act of injustice, simply because the persons who ought to pay are not made to pay. My constituency agree with me that this is an iniquitous Bill, and they are satisfied with what I am doing, because they feel that if there is any injustice done they have been benefiting by it, and they ought to pay for it if this proposal becomes law at all. I do suggest to the Government that, after they have been preaching about justice, throughout all the stages of this Bill, they might now do a small act of justice at the end without any fear of the consequences at the next election. With the Government it seems to be the General Election and nothing else. I venture to think that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, if he were not really afraid of that result, and if he paid attention to the speeches delivered on his own side of the House as well as those delivered on this side, would admit that this Amendment would meet the justice, of the case.

MR. BROADHURST (Leicester)

I feel that the Government have some cause of complaint against the mover of this Amendment, for while I agree with every argument used in its favour, I do, feel that he did not conclude the whole of' the work which he took in hand. The Government has proposed to take certain money for the purpose of relieving the clergy, and now the Member for Bow proposes to cut that source off, but he does not provide any other machinery for supplying the money. Now, if he is inclined to accept a suggestion from so humble a person as myself, I would suggest that he should add to his Amendment words which provide that the money shall be found by voluntary contribution among the members of the Church in their various parishes. That is a very simple plan, and one which has been very effective among the Free Churches, and surely what the Free Churches can do the rich established Church of England can do equally well. In the country districts the richest people are usually members of the Church, whilst in the case of the Dissenters, their congregations are mostly composed of the poorer class of the community, such as mechanics, small shopkeepers, and agricultural labourers. These poor people find all the money necessary for the maintenance of their minister, and the up-keep of the manse and the church, as well as the money for foreign missions. If the Dissenters can do this, surely the rich members of the Church can do likewise. It is a perfectly simple thing to insert at the end of the Amendment of the hon Member for Bow a provision that the money shall be found by voluntary contributions among the members of the Church. If the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill does not understand this system, and is not fully acquainted with the machinery for the collection of funds for Free Churches, my hon. friend the Member for Louth will give him a little instruction, for he is engaged in raising a million guineas by free contributions for the religious community with which he is connected, namely, the Wesleyans. During the month of January, this year, I attended meetings for this purpose in all parts of——


Will the hon. Member reserve that part of his speech to such time as there is an Amendment concerning that body. The present proposal is that the ratepayers should be called upon to meet the deficiency.


I was humbly endeavouring to direct the attention of the Government to the fact that this money might be provided by voluntary contributions, and, so far, it seems to me that I am assisting the Government out of a difficult position. They are now being forsaken by their own friends, and I observe that row after row of the supporters of the Government are coming "Stockport way" to this side of the House. I suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman will accept an Amendment providing that this money shall come from a voluntary source, then I think he will save many votes on his own side, and he will place many of us on this side of the House in considerable difficulties. Although I am not a member of the Church of England, I am a contributor to its funds. I am not a voluntary sub- scriber, but I am compelled by law to subscribe, and in other respects I sometimes give a voluntary contribution—a small one, I admit—to go side by side with the compulsory contribution which I am compelled to make. I think many of the Church people themselves would much rather that they should makeup this deficiency by voluntary process than that Parliament should be called upon to rob the underpaid labourers of the country by general taxation. It appeared to me that this suggestion might have been of sufficient value to Her Majesty's Government in their present difficulty to have been accepted by them, otherwise I should not have occupied the five minutes which I have occupied on this important question.

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

I should like to say one or two words on this Amendment, first as a London Member, and secondly from the standpoint of the Church. This Amendment touches a very thorny question, and I think I must agree with my hon. friend who has moved this Amendment. The whole case for this Bill, as I understand it—and it is certainly the reason why I strongly support it—is that it is based upon the idea that the clergy pay too large a sum in local taxation. I have always taken that view. Indeed, I was not a very enthusiastic supporter of the Agricultural Rating Bill when it was before this House, because I felt that the clergy ought to have been included in it. I have always held that if there was one class of persons who were subjected to unjust rating it was the clergy of the Church of England. This Bill has been brought in from the standpoint that the clergy have been paying too much, and this measure is intended to set that injustice right. Therefore, I cannot see any logical reason against the Amendment of my hon. friend, because it is true that the clergy have been paying too much. As a matter of course, if the clergymen in any district have been paying too much, then it follows that the locality has been paying too little. If that is the case then the obvious cure for the injustice is to put it right by calling upon the locality to pay the difference out of its revenue. Personally I am not afraid of doing this, and I agree that—I will not say it is cowardly—it is rather a timid way of putting the injustice right by saying that you are taking this money from a fund which comes from nobody will know exactly where. I do strongly urge the Government to give way on this matter, for, although my opinion may be a little biassed by the unfair way in which the Bill affects London, I think it is only fair to the Church itself that what is proposed in this Amendment should be done, and, although it may be unpopular, I think it is the right step to take. Therefore, I shall support this Amendment, for I believe that in the long run the Government will gain rather than lose by adopting this Amendment.

* MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Mansfield, Nottinghamshire)

Early in these Debates I expressed the opinion that the opposition to this Bill was about to be met by a conspiracy of silence; but if that idea were entertained it has evidently failed. I do not, however, think that free speech has improved the position of either this Bill or the Government any more than silence, for we have had some very frank criticisms on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and to-day there appear on the Paper three notices by staunch supporters of the Government of an announcement which, if it were adopted, would, I have no doubt, be followed by an announcement that the measure would not be further proceeded with by the Government. The supporters of that Amendment evidently do not appreciate the clever device of the President of the Agricultural Board for finding the requisite money without the ratepayers feeling it. They are too straightforward for such a method, and prefer pursuing a strictly logical course. For what is the present state of the case? It is alleged that for sixty years past the other ratepayers have been saddling the clergy with a large amount which they ought to have paid themselves, and the Government propose that, to the extent of one half, the clergy shall be relieved. What is the necessary consequence? Is it that the ratepayers should look about for some other body on whom they may place the burden, instead of bearing it themselves? Obviously not; but then to make the ratepayers themselves find the required money would be to bring too close home to the ratepaying mind that they were being taxed for the benefit of the Established clergy. Reference has been made to other sources from which the needed funds might be legitimately obtained, and among them is a resort to the free-will offerings of the congregations. I am, however, afraid that that is at present a counsel of perfection only; though it is what the Church will have to come to presently. Then there are actually available the funds in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; but as there is an Amendment containing that proposal, I am afraid I shall not be in order in dealing with it now. I only hope I may have the chance of doing so where that Amendment is reached. I wish to advert to the extraordinary position in which the Committee is placed by the action of the Government yesterday. While it has been resolved that half the rates levied on the clergy shall be remitted, we have had no figures, or facts, to justify the choice of that rather than another amount. The arguments used in support of one-half would be equally good for a remission of the whole; for if Tithe be regarded as the clergyman's professional income, and it is unjust to tax that, then it is as unjust to tax to the extent of one-half as to tax it to the full amount. My belief is that that view will be taken by the clergy, who will find the proposed remission inadequate, and therefore, like Oliver Twist, will be asking for more. Yes! and if the present Government remains in office I believe they will get it. That, however, is a contingency with which, under existing circumstances, we need not, I think, afflict ourselves.

MR. LLOYD MORGAN (Carmarthen, W.)

The most crushing replies that the Government have had have come from Members sitting on their own side of the House, and after listening to the speeches of the Member for the College Division of Glasgow and the Member for King's Lynn, I asked myself the question whether it was really necessary for us who sit on this side, and who are opposed to the Bill root and branch, to get up and make speeches so as to shatter the Bill, which seems to have already been so dealt with as to convince anybody of its injustice. There is only one point upon which I do not agree with the Member for King's Lynn. He said that we who opposed the Bill generally opposed it because we were influenced by feelings of animosity towards the clergy. Nothing could be more unfair than that. It is perfectly true that we object to an Established Church, but it is very seldom there is any feeling of animosity entertained or shown towards the clergy of this country. We are opposed to this Bill, not on that ground, but because we consider that the provisions embodied in it are unfair and unjust to the people of the country, taken as a whole; and the attitude of the Liberal Party has always been an attitude of opposition towards proposals which are put forward with a view to helping one class at the expense of another. With regard to the Amendment, this clause, in my judgment, consists of two injustices. It makes this allowance to a limited and special class, and a class who are not entitled to it. There is no other profession in the country than the clerical profession where a member, from the very moment he enters it, is assured of a certain income for the rest of his life. How are you going to assist this class? You are going to commit one injustice, awl in order to support that you are going to commit another. You are making the people pay for it who ought not. There has been no serious attempt to prove that it is either fair or just that the people of London should pay £19,000 a year under this Bill and only get £900 back. So far as this Amendment is concerned, the case has only to be stated to show that the proposals of the Bill are unfair and unjust, and I hope the Division will show that that is the opinion entertained by a very large number of Members.


I believe it is not denied in tiny part of the

House that this grievance of the clergy is not a thing of to-day. It does not merely affect those who are living at the present time, but it affects those of past generations. Therefore, if you are going to have justice, there must be taken into consideration, not only those living in a Parliamentary rating area, but also those of whom they are the descendants. My argument could not be more strongly supported than by the instances of the constituencies represented by the hon. Members for West Ham and Bow and Bromley, because even at the beginning of this century what are now vast areas of houses were open agricultural fields. Where has the population come from? It has not grown up of itself. It has been drafted in from the country districts. We are told that the true Londoner, the cockney, only lasts about three generations, and that unless London was constantly recruited from the country London would dwindle away. If we are to have justice, we must trace back all these families. What would that mean? The present rating organisation would be absolutely useless. But unless you do that, how are you going to do justice? If that is true of the poor, it is equally true of the rich. It is for reasons of justice, and because this Bill is only a temporary one, not a permanent reconstruction of the rating system, that I shall record a most hearty vote against this Amendment.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 257; Noes, 157. (Division List, No. 244.)

Aird, John Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)
Allhussen, Augustus H. E. Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Bethell, Commander Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Bigwood, James Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Bill, Charles Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry
Bailey, James (Walworth) Blundell, Colonel Henry Chelsea, Viscount
Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness) Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth
Baird, J. G. Alexander Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Cochrane, Hon. Thos H. A. E.
Balcarres, Lord Boulnois, Edmund Coddington, Sir William
Baldwin, Alfred Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex Coghill, Douglas Harry
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch.) Brassey, Albert Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw. T. D.
Balfour, Rt. Hon Grld W.(Leeds Brookfield, A. Montagu Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge
Banbury, Frederick George Brown, Alexander H. Cranborne, Viscount
Barnes, Frederic Gorell Butcher, John George Cripps, Charles Alfred
Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor) Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glas. Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)
Barton, Dunbar Plunket Carlile, William Walter Cruddas, William Donaldson
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. Carson, Rt. Hn. Edward Cubitt, Hon. Henry
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H.(Bristol Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Curzon, Viscount
Beach, W. W. Bramston (Hants Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbshire Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh
Beckett, Ernest William Cayzer, Sir Charles William Dalkeith, Earl of
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Pryce-Jones, Lt-Col. Edward
Davies, Sir Hor'tio D (Chatham Jenkins, Sir John Jones Purvis, Robert
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Pym, C. Guy
Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- Jolliffe, Hon. H. George Rankin, Sir James
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Kemp, George Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. Rentoul, James Alexander
Doughty, George Kenyon, James Richards, Henry Charles
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William Richardson, Sir Thos.(Hartlep'l
Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S. Keswick, William Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.
Doxford, William Theodore Kimber, Henry Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Drage, Geoffrey King, Sir Henry Seymour Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Drucker, A. Knowles, Lees Robinson, Brook
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Lafone, Alfred Round, James
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Laurie, Lieutenant-General Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool) Ryder, John Herbert Dudley
Fardell, Sir T. George Lawson, John Grant (Yorks) Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles
Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H. Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J (Manc. Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Savory, Sir Joseph
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Leighton, Stanley Seely, Charles Hilton
Firbank, Joseph Thomas Llewelyn, Sir D. (Swansea) Seton-Karr, Henry
Fisher, William Hayes Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Sharpe, William Edward T.
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Long, Col. C. W (Evesham) Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Fitz Wygram, General Sir F. Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverp'l) Sidebottom, Wm.(Derbyshire)
Flower, Ernest Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Simeon, Sir Barrington
Forster, Colonel (Lancaster) Lowe, Francis William Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Galloway, William Johnson Lowles, John Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Gedge, Sydney Loyd, Archie Kirkman Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)
Gibbons, J. Lloyd Lucas-Shadwell, William Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Gibbs, Hn. A. G H.(City of Lond Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Spencer, Ernest
Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans) Macartney, W. G. Ellison Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)
Gilliat, John Saunders Macdona, John Cumming Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick MacIver, David (Liverpool) Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)
Goldsworthy, Major-General Maclean, James Mackenzie Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Gordon, Hon. John Edward M'Arthur, C. (Liverpool) Stephens, Henry Charles
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W) Stock, James Henry
Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J (St Ge'rg's) Malcolm, Ian Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Goschen, George J. (Sussex) Martin, Richard Biddulph Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Goulding, Edward Alfred Massey-Main waring, Hn. W.F. Sutherland, Sir Thomas
Graham, Henry Robert Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd U.)
Green, W. D. (Wednesbury) Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Thorburn, Walter
Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury) Millbank, Sir Powlett C. J. Thornton, Percy M.
Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) Mildmay, Francis Bingham Tollemache, Henry James
Gretton, John Milward, Colonel Victor Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray
Greville, Hon. Ronald Monk, Charles James Tritton, Charles Ernest
Gull, Sir Cameron Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Usborne, Thomas
Gunter, Colonel More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.) Valentia, Viscount
Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Morgan H. F. (Monmouthsh.) Ward, Hon. Robert A. (Crewe)
Halsey, Thomas Frederick Morrison, Walter Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George Morton. A. H. A. (Deptford) Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. Mount, William George Whitmore Charles Algernon
Hanson, Sir Reginald Muntz, Philip A. Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm
Hardy, Laurence Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) Willox, Sir John Archibald
Hare, Thomas Leigh Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Heaton, John Henniker Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Helder, Augustus Myers, William Henry Wylie, Alexander
Hill, Sir E. Stock (Bristol) Nicol, Donald Ninian Wyndham, George
Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead) Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S. Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Hoare, Samuel (Norwich) O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Hobhouse, Henry Pender, Sir James Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Hornby, Sir William Henry Percy, Earl Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Howell, William Tudor Pierpoint, Robert Younger, William
Hozier, Hon. J. Henry Cecil Pilkington, R. (Lanes, Newton)
Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn Platt-Higgins, Frederick TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Hudson, George Bickersteth Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Hughes, Colonel Edwin Price, Robert John
Hutchinson, Capt. C. W. Grice- Priestley, Sir W. Overend (Edin
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Barlow, John Emmott Broadhurst, Henry
Allen, Wm.(Newc-und.-Lyme Bartley, George C. T. Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson
Ashton, Thomas Gair Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Bryce, Rt. Hon. James
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H. Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) Billson, Alfred Burt, Thomas
Baker, Sir John Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn) Buxton, Sydney Charles
Caldwell, James Holland, Wm. H (York,W. R.) Oldroyd, Mark
Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow) Horniman, Frederick John Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)
Cameron, Robert (Durham) Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Palmer, Geo. Wm. (Reading)
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Paulton, James Mellor
Causton, Richard Knight Jacoby, James Alfred Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)
Cawley, Frederick Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Ed. Perks, Robert William
Channing, Francis Allston Joicey, Sir James Pickard, Benjamin
Clark, Dr. G.B. (Caithness-sh.) Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea) Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Colville, John Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Pilkington, Sir G. A.(Lancs SW)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Kay-Shuttleworth,Rt Hn Sir U Power, Patrick Joseph
Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H. Kearley, Hudson E. Provand, Andrew Dryburgh
Crilly, Daniel Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth Reckitt, Harold James
Crombie, John William Kitson, Sir James Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Labouchere, Henry Rickett, J. Compton
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) Lambert, George Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Dalziel, James Henry Langley, Batty Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Davies,M.Vaughan-(Cardigan Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'l'nd Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Davitt, Michael Lea, Sir Thos. (Londonderry) Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)
Denny, Colonel Leng, Sir John Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)
Dewar, Arthur Lewis, John Herbert Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Dillon, John Lloyd-George, David Souttar, Robinson
Donelan, Captain A. Logan, John William Spicer, Albert
Doogan, P. C. Lyell, Sir Leonard Steadman, William Charles
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Macaleese, Daniel Strachey, Edward
Duckworth, James M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Stuart, James (Shoreditch)
Dunn, Sir William M'Ewan, William Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) M'Ghee, Richard Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Fenwick, Charles M'Kenna, Reginald Thomas, Alf. (Glamorgan, E.)
Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith) M'Laren, Charles Benjamin Thomas, David A (Merthyr)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond M'Leod, John Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Flynn, James Christopher Maddison, Fred Wallace, Robert
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co. Maden, John Henry Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. H. John Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe Wedderburn, Sir William
Goddard, Daniel Ford Mellor, Rt. Hon. J. W.(Yorks,) Weir, James Galloway
Gold, Charles Melville Beresford Valentine Whiteley, Geo. (Stockport)
Gourley, Sir E. Temperley Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Molloy, Bernard Charles Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)
Griffith, Ellis J. Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)
Haldane, Richard Burdon Morgan, W. Lloyd (Carmarth'n Wilson, H. J. (York, W.R.)
Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William Morgan, W. Pritch'rd (Merthyr Wilson John (Durham, Mid.)
Harrington, Timothy Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Wilson, John (Govan)
Harwood, George Morris, Samuel Woods, Samuel
Hayne, Rt. Hn. Chas. Seale- Morton, Ed. J. C. (Devonport) Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Hazell, Walter Moulton, John Fletcher
Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H. Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Nussey, Thomas Willans TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Hogan, James Francis O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Mr. Lionel Holland and Sir John Stirling-Maxwell
Holden, Sir Angus O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

The next Amendment stood in the name of Mr. J. H. ROBERTS (Denbighshire, W.), and was as follows:— Clause 1, page 1, line 10, to leave out from "revenue" to end of clause.


I would ask, before the hon. Member moves his Amendment, out of what account he proposes that the money should be paid if not out of the Local Taxation Account, because if it is paid out of any other account it will require a Resolution to be moved.


Would it not be in order for me to move it as it stands, and leave the Government at a later stage to propose the method?


The proposal of Government is to amend the Bill by pay- ing the amount out of the Local Taxation Account; the hon. Member, by his Amendment, negatives that, and suggests something else.


Then I propose that it should be paid out of the Estate Duties.


That, would require a preliminary resolution.


Upon a point of order, is not the hon. Gentleman quite in order in saying that it should be paid out of that part of the Estate Duties not set aside for the purposes of the Local Taxation Account; that would not require a Resolution.


It would require a resolution.


The Amendment which I have down is to prevent an injustice which would be done in years when the contribution from the Exchequer falls below the present year, in which there is a surplus, and to guard against the fund which is now set aside for other purposes being encroached upon. The Minister for Agriculture tells us that no injury will be done to the ratepayers by this Bill, because the money will be taken from the surplus of the Local Taxation Account. But it is quite possible that that fund may fall, in bad times, below the amount at which it stands this year, and the object my Amendment is to guard against money now devoted to technical education and other purposes being taken for the relief of the clergy.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 11, after the wont 'account,' to insert the words,' in excess of such sum paid by them to Local Taxation Account in 1898.'"—(Mr. Courtenay Warner.)

Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."


The hon. Member has not attempted to address himself to the effect of his proposition if it were carried out. As a matter of fact, this money which is taken out of the Estate Duty would not affect the expenditure he refers to; but, if it did, he does not tell us how the money is to be provided if his Amendment was carried and there was no surplus. The Government have not justified their proposal on the ground that there is a surplus. What we say is that the existence of a surplus makes it far less risky and less burdensome, and while the fund shows a steady increase, taking the average of the years since it was created,

we may contemplate the possibility of the fund not continuing to grow, or even failing in certain circumstances. We cannot, therefore, accept the Amendment.

* MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN (Montgomery)

The Amendment seems to me to be a serious and important one, and it ought not to be lightly dismissed. The right hon. Gentleman harps upon the old fallacy that there is a surplus. There is no surplus at all. In the English counties the Exchequer contribution which is applied to technical instruction is only paid over from year to year, and it is quite possible that if the general county fund fell short there would be a strong temptation to make good the deficiency out of the technical education funds.


I do not think the Minister of Agriculture was quite just to my hon. friend behind me, because it appears to me that he stated his object with his usual lucidity. There is a great blot on this Bill, which must be removed, and the suggestion of my hon. friend is that if there is an amount of money remaining after the technical education charge has been paid, then, and only then, the charge for the remission of these rates should be met. That is a reasonable proposal. It is most undesirable, if the clergy is to be relieved of half their rates, that it should be done out of money now being expended by county councils for technical education.


rose 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, 270; Noes, 148. (Division List, No. 245.)

Aird, John Barton, Dunbar Plunket Boulnois, Edmund
Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M H.(Brist. Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Midd'sex
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Beach, W.W. Bramston(Hants Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Beckett, Ernest William Brassey, Albert
Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull Brodrick Rt. Hon. St. John
Bailey, James (Walworth) Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe Brookfield, A. Montagu
Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness) Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Butcher, John George
Baird, John George Alexander Beresford, Lord Charles Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Gl'sg'w
Balcarres, Lord Bethell, Commander Carlile William Walter
Baldwin, Alfred Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manchr Bigwood, James Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)
Balfour. Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds Bill, Charles Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh'e
Badbury, Frederick George Blundell, Colonel Henry Cayzer, Sir Charles William
Barnes, Frederic Gorell Bond, Edward Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)
Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor) Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)
Bartley, George C. T. Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm. Hanson, Sir Reginald O'Neill, Hn. Robert Torrens
Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) Hardy, Laurence Pender, Sir James
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Hare, Thomas Leigh Pierpoint, Robert
Chelsea, Viscount Helder, Augustus Pilkington, R. (Lanes Newton
Clare, Octavius Leigh Hill, E. E. S. (Bristol) Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Clark, Sir Edward (Plymouth Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Hoare, Samuel (Norwich) Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)
Coddington, Sir William Hobhouse, Henry Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward.
Coghill, Douglas Harry Holland, Hn. L. R. (Bow) Purvis, Robert
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Hornby, Sir Wm. Henry Pym, C. Guy
Colston, Chas. Ed. H. Athole Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Rankin, Sir James
Compton, Lord Alwyne Howard, Joseph Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D. Howell, William Tudor Rentoul, James Alexander
Cox, Irwin E. Bainbridge Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil Richardson, Sir T.(Hartlepool)
Cranborne, Viscount Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.
Cripps, Charles Alfred Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice- Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Cross Herbert S. (Bolton) Jebb, Richard Claverhouse Robinson, Brooke
Cruddas, William Donaldson Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Round. James
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Jenkins, Sir John Jones Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Curzon, Viscount Johnson, Heywood (Sussex) Ryder, John Herbert Dudley
Dalbiac, Col. Philiph Hugh Jolliffe, Hon. H. George Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse
Dalkeith, Earl of Kemp, George Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham) Kenyon, James Savory, Sir Joseph
Denny, Colonel Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P. Keswick, William Seeley, Charles Hilton
Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- Kimber, Henry Seton-Karr, Henry
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph King, Sir Henry Seymour Sharpe, William Edward T.
Dixon-Hartland, Sir E. Dixon Knowles, Lees Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Dorington, Sir John Edward Lafone Alfred Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbyshire)
Doughty, Geroge Laurie, Lieut.-General Simeon, Sir Barrington
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lawson, John Grant (Yorks) Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S. Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Doxford, William Theodore Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)
Drage, Geoffrey Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Drucker, A. Leighton, Stanley Spencer, Ernest
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swans. Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)
Fardell, Sir T. George Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverp'1) Stanley, Lord (Lancs)
Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J.(Manc'r Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Stephens, Henry Charles
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Lowe, Francis William Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.
Firbank, Joseph Thomas Lowles, John Stock, James Henry
Fisher, William Hayes Loyd, Archie Kirkman Strauss, Arthur
Fison, Frederick William Lucas-Shadwell, William Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Fitzgerald, Sir R. Penrose- Lyttleton, Hon. Alfred Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
FitzWygram, General Sir F. Macartney, W. G. Ellison Sutherland, Sir Thomas
Flower, Ernest Macdona, John Cumming Talbot, Rt Hn J. G.(Oxford, Uni.
Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) MacIver, David (Liverpool) Thorburn, Walter
Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk) Maclean, James Mackenzie Tollemache, Henry James
Galloway, W. Johnson M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Gedge, Sydney M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh W.) Tritton, Charles Ernest
Gibbons, J. Lloyd Malcolm, Ian Usborne, Thomas
Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H (City of Lond Martin, Richard Biddulph Valentia, Viscount
Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans) Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F. Ward, Hon. Robert A.(Crewe)
Gilliat, John Saunders Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) Welby. Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Godson, Sir A. Frederick Melville, Beresford Valentine Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd
Goldsworthy, Major-General Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Gordon, Hon. John Edward Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J. Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Gorst, Rt Hon. Sir J. Eldon Mildmay, Francis Bingham Williams, Jsph. Powell-(Birm.
Goschen, Rt Hn G J. (St George's Milward, Colonel Victor Willox, Sir John Archibald
Goschen, George J. (Sussex) Monk, Charles James Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath)
Goulding, Edward Alfred More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.) Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh. Wylie, Alexander
Green, W. D. (Wednesbury) Morrison, Walter Wyndham, George
Green, W. Raymond-(Cambs) Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptford Wyndham-Quin, Major W.H.
Gretton, John Mount, William George Wyvil, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Greville, Hon. Ronald Muntz, Philip A. Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Gull, Sir Cameron Murray, Rt. Hn. A.G. (Bute) Young, Commander(Berks, E.)
Gunter, Colonel Murray, Chas. J. Coventry Younger, William
Hall, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath
Halsey, Thomas Frederick Myers, William Henry TELLERS FOR THE AXES
Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George Nicol, Donald Ninian Sir William Walrond and Mr Anstruther
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W. Northcote, Hn. Sir H. Stafford
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Haldane, Richard Burdon Nussey, Thomas Willans
Ashton, Thomas Gair Harrington, Timothy O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)
Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. Henry Harwood, George O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)
Atherley-Jones, L. Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- Oldroyd, Mark
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) Hazell, Walter Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durham
Baker, Sir John Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H. Palmer, George Wm.(Reading)
Barlow, John Emmott Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H. Pease, Joseph A (Northumb.)
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Hogan, James Francis Pickard, Benjamin
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Holden, Sir Angus Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Billson, Alfred Holland, Wm. H. (York, W. R Pilkington, Sir G. A.(Lancs S.W
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Horniman, Frederick John Power, Patrick Joseph
Broadhurst, Henry Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Price, Robert John
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Provand, Andrew Dryburgh
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Jacoby, James Alfred Reckitt, Harold James
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Ed. Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.)
Burt, Thomas Joicey, Sir James Rickett, J. Compton
Buxton, Sydney Charles Jones, David Brynmor (S'nsea Roberts, John H. (Denbigh)
Caldwell, James Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Kay-Shuttlew'th. Rt. Hn. Sir U. Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Causton, Richard Knight Kearley, Hudson E. Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Cawley, Frederick Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire
Channing, Francis Allston Kitson, Sir James Smith Samuel (Flint)
Clark, Dr. G.B.(Caithness-sh.) Labouchere, Henry Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Colville, John Lambert, George Souttar, Robinson
Condon, Thomas Joseph Langley, Batty Spicer, Albert
Crilly, Daniel Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land Steadman, William Charles
Crombie, John William Leng, Sir John Stevenson, Francis S.
Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal) Leuty, Thomas Richmond Strachey, Edward
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) Lewis, John Herbert Stuart, James (Shoreditch)
Dalziel, James Henry Lloyd-George, David Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Logan, John William Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E
Davitt, Michael Lyell, Sir Leonard Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Dewar, Arthur Macaleese, Daniel Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)
Dillon, John M'Ewan, William Wallace, Robert
Donelan, Captain A. M'Ghee, Richard Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Doogan, P. C. M'Kenna, Reginald Wedderburn, Sir William
Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark) M'Laren, Charles Benjamin Weir, James Galloway
Duckworth, James M'Leod, John Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Dunn, Sir William Maddison, Fred. Whittaker, Thos. Palmer
Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan) Maden, John Henry Williams, John Carvell (Notts
Evans, Sir Francis H.(So'ton) Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)
Fenwick, Charles Mellor, Rt. Hon. J. W.(Yorks.) Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)
Ferguson, R. C. Monro (Leith Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Molloy, Bernard Charles Wilson, John (Govan)
Flynn, James Christopher Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel Woods, Samuel
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Goddard, Daniel Ford Morgan, W. Pritchard (Merthyr
Gold, Charles Morley, Charles (Breconshire) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. M'Arthur.
Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley Morton, Edw. J.C.(Devonport)
Griffith, Ellis J. Moulton, John Fletcher
Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 147; Noes, 271. (Division List, No, 246.)

Abraham, William (Rhondda) Cameron, Robert (Durham) Donelan, Captain A.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Doogan, P. C.
Asquith, Rt Hon. H. B. Causton, Richard Knight Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)
Atherley-Jones, L. Cawley, Frederick Duckworth, James
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) Channing, Francis Allston Dunn, Sir William
Baker, Sir John Clark, Dr. G.B.(Caithness-sh.) Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)
Barlow, John Emmott Colville, John Fenwick, Charles
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Condon, Thomas Joseph Ferguson, R.C. Munro (Leith)
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Crilly, Daniel Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond
Billson, Alfred Crombie, John William Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal) Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J.
Broadhurst, Henry Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) Goddard, Daniel Ford
Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson Dalziel, James Henry Gold, Charles
Bryce, Right Hon. James Davies,M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Gourley, Sir E. Temperley
Burt, Thomas Davitt, Michael Griffith, Ellis J.
Buxton, Sydney James Dewar, Arthur Gurdon,Sir William Brampton
Caldwell, James Dillon, John Haldane, Richard Burdon
Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William M'Ewan, William Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.)
Harrington, Timothy M'Ghee, Richard Rickett, J. Compton
Harwood, George M'Kenna, Reginald Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale- M'Laren, Charles Benjamin Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Hazell, Walter M'Leod, John Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Hedderwick,ThomasCharlesH Maddison, Fred. Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Maden, John Henry Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)
Hogan, James Francis Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Holden, Sir Angus Mellor, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Yorks.) Souttar, Robinson
Holland, Wm. H.(York, W. R.) Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand Spicer, Albert
Horniwan, Frederick John Molloy, Bernard Charles Steadman, William Charles
Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Montagu, Sir S.(Whitechapel) Stevenson, Francis S.
Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Morgan,J.Lloyd(Carmarthen) Strachey, Edward
Jacoby, James Alfred Morgan,W. Pritchard (Merth.) Stuart, James (Shoreditch)
Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Ed. Morley, C. (Breconshire) Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Joicey, Sir James Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)
Jones, David Brynmor (Swans. Moulton, John Fletcher Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire Norton, Capt. C. William Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)
Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn. Sir U Nussey, Thomas Willans Wallace, Robert
Kearley, Hudson E. O'Brien, J. F. X. (Cork) Wedderburn, Sir William
Kinloch, Sir. John G. Smyth O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.) Weir, James Galloway
Kitson, Sir James Oldroyd, Mark Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Labouchere, Henry Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Lambert, George Palmer, G. Wm. (Reading) Williams, John C. (Notts.)
Langley, Batty Paulton, James Mellor Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)
Lawson,Sir Wilfrid(Cumb'l'nd Pease, J. A. (Northumb.) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Leng, Sir John Pickard, Benjamin Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Leuty, Thomas Richmond Pickersgill, Edward Hare Wilson, John (Govan)
Lewis, John Herbert Pilkington, Sir G. A.(Lancs, SW Woods, Samuel
Logan, John William Power, Patrick Joseph Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Lyell, Sir Leonard Price, Robert John TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
MacAleese, Daniel Provand, Andrew Dryburgh Mr. Courtenay Warner and Mr. Samuel Evans.
M'Arthur,William (Cornwall) Reckitt, Harold James
Aird, John Butcher, John George Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon
Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Gl'sg'w Dorington, Sir John Edward
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Carlile, William Walter Doughty, George
Atkinson, Right Hon. John Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Bagot,Capt. Joscelnie FitzRoy Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.
Bailey, James (Walworth) Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh Doxford, William Theodore
Baillie,James E.B. (Inverness) Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East) Drage, Geoffrey
Baird, John George Alexander Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Drucker, A.
Balcarres, Lord Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.
Baldwin, Alfred Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm. Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Hart
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(Manch'r) Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r Fardell, Sir T. George
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G.W. (Leeds) Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.
Banbury, Frederick George Chelsea, Viscount Fergusson,Rt.Hn.SirJ.(Man.)
Barnes, Frederic Gorell Clare, Octavius Leigh Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Barry Sir Francis T.(Windsor) Clarke, Sir Edward (Plym'th) Firbank, Joseph Thomas
Bartley, George C. T. Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Fisher, William Hayes
Barton, Dunbar Plunket Coddington, Sir William Fison, Frederick William
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H.(Brist'l Coghill, Douglas Harry FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-
Beach, W.W.Bramston (Hants Cohen, Benjamin Louis FitzWygram, General Sir F.
Beckett, Ernest William Colston, Chas. Edw. H.Athole Flower, Ernest
Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull Compton, Lord Alwyne Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)
Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Ed. T. D. Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Gedge, Sydney
Beresford, Lord Charles Cranborne, Viscount Gibbons, J. Lloyd
Bethell, Commamder Cripps, Charles Alfred Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H.(City of Lon.)
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Gibbs,Hon. Vicary (St.Albans)
Bigwood, James Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton Gilliat, John Saunders
Bill, Charles Cruddas, William Donaldson Godson, Sir Augustus F.
Blundell, Colonel Henry Cubitt, Hon. Henry Goldsworthy, Major-General
Bond, Edward Curzon, Viscount Gordon, Hon. John Edward
Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Dalkeith, Earl of Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. St. Geo's)
Boulnois, Edmund Dalrymple, Sir Charles Goschen, George J. (Sussex)
Bowles, Capt.H. F.(Middles'x Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham) Goulding, Edward Alfred
Bowles. T. Gibs'n(King'sLynn Denny, Colonel 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, W. R. (Cambs.)
Brookfield, A. Montagu Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Gretton, John
Greville, Hon. Ronald Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Gull, Sir Cameron Macartney, W. G. Ellison Savory, Sir Joseph
Gunter, Colonel Macdona, John Cumming Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles MadIver, David (Liverpool) Seely, Charles Hilton
Halsey, Thomas Frederick Maclean, James Mackenzie Seton-Karr, Henry
Hamilton, Rt. Hn.Lord George M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Sharpe, William Edward T.
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. Wm. M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh,W.) Sidebotham, J. W.(Cheshire)
Hanson, Sir Reginald Malcolm, Ian Sidebottom, Wm.(Derbyshire)
Hardy, Laurence Martin, Richard Biddulph Simeon, Sir Barrington
Hare, Thomas Leigh Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Helder, Augustus Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Hill, Sir E. S. (Bristol) Melville, Beresford Valentine Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)
Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead) Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Hoare, Samuel (Norwich) Millbank, Sir Powlett Chas.Jn. Spencer, Ernest
Hobhouse, Henry Mildmay, Francis Bingham Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Holland, Hon. L. R. (Bow) Milward, Colonel Victor Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)
Hornby, Sir William Henry Monk, Charles James Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)
Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants. Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Howard, Joseph More,Robt.Jasper (Shropshire Stephens, Henry Charles
Howell, William Tudor Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Hozier, Hon. J. H. Cecil Morrison, Walter Stock, James Henry
Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn Morton, Arthr. H. A.(Deptford Strauss, Arthur
Hughes, Colonel Edwin Mount, William George Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Hutchinson, Capt. G.W. Grice- Muntz, Philip A. Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute Sutherland, Sir Thomas
Jebb, Richard Claverhouse Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Talbot, Rt. Hn J. G. (Ox'fd Univ
Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Thornburn, Walter
Jenkins, Sir John Jones Myers, William Henry Thornton, Percy M.
Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Nicol, Donald Ninian Tollemache, Henry James
Jolliffe, Hon. H. George Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Kemp, George O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Tritton, Charles Ernest
Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H. Pender, Sir James Usborne, Thomas
Kenyon, James Pierpoint, Robert Valentia, Viscount
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William Pilkington.R.(Lancs Newton) Ward, Hon. Robert A. (Crewe)
Keswick, William Platt-Higgins, Frederick Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Kimber, Henry Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
King, Sir Henry Seymour Priestley, Sir W. Overend (Edin Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Knowles, Lees Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Laurie, Lieut.-General Purvis, Robert Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm
Lawson, John Grant, (Yorks.) Pym, C. Guy Willox, Sir John Archibald
Lea, Sir Thos. (Londonderry) Rankin, Sir James Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath)
Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H. Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Rentoul, James Alexander Wylie, Alexander
Leighton, Stanley Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l Wyndham, George
Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns') Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W. Wyndham-Quinn, Major W. H.
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham) Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Long, Rt. Hn W. (Liverpool) Robinson, Brooke Young, Commander (Berks, E.
Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Round, James Younger, William
Lowe, Francis William Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Lowles, John Ryder, John Herbert Dudley TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Lloyd, Archie Kirkman Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Lucas-Shadwell, William Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

It being after half-past Five of the clock, the Chairman proceeded to interrupt the Business.

Whereupon Mr. BALFOUR rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question 'That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill' be now put."

Question put, "That the Question 'That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill' be now put.'

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 266; Noes, 151. (Division List, No. 247.)

Aird, John Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness) Banbury, Frederick George
Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden Baird, John George Alexander Barnes, Frederic Gorell
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Balcarres, Lord Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)
Atkinson, Right Hon. John Baldwin, Alfred Bartley, George C. T.
Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(Manch'r) Barton, Dunbar Plunket
Bailey, James (Walworth) Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds) Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H.(Bristol) Fison, Frederick William Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred
Beach, W.W. Bramston(Hants FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose- Macartney, W. G. Ellison
Beckett, Ernest William Fitz Wygram, General Sir F. Macdona, John Cumming
Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull Flower, Ernest MacIver, David (Liverpool)
Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) Maclean, James Mackenzie
Bentinck Lord Henry C. Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk) M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Beresford, Lord. Charles Galloway, William Johnson M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)
Bethell, Commander Gedge, Sydney Malcolm, Ian.
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Gibbons, J. Lloyd Martin, Richard Biddulph
Bigwood, James Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H.(City of Lon. Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.
Bill, Charles Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans) Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Gilliat, John Saunders Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.
Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Goldsworthy, Major-General Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Boulnois, Edmund Gordon, Hon. John Edward Milward, Colonel Victor
Bowles, Capt. H.F.(Middlesex Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon Monk, Charles James
Bowles, T. Gibson (king's Lynn Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J.(St.Ge'g's Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants.)
Brassey, Albert Goschen, George J. (Sussex) More, Robert J. (Shropshire)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Goulding, Edward Alfred Morgan, Hn. F.(Momn'thshire)
Brookfield, A. Montagu Gray, Ernest, (West Ham) Morrison, Walter
Butcher, John George Green, Walford D(Wednesb'ry Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)
Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Gl'sg'w Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) Mount, William George
Carlile, William Walter Gretton, John Muntz, Philip A.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward Greville, Hon. Ronald Murray, Rt. Hn. A.G. (Bute)
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Gull, Sir Cameron Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derby.) Gunter, Colonel Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Myers, William Henry
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertfort, E.) Halsey, Thomas Frederick Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford
Cecil, Lord Huge (Greenwich) Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm. Pender, Sir James
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm. Hanson, Sir Reginald Pierpoint, Robert
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc. Hardy, Laurence Pilkington, R. (Lancs., Newton)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Hare, Thomas Leigh Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Chelsea, Viscount Helder, Angustus Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Clare, Octavius Leigh Hill, Sir Edward Stock (Bristol) Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)
Clark, Sir Edw. (Plymouth) Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampst'd Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Coddington, Sir William Hoare, Samuel (Norwich) Purvis, Robert
Coghill, Douglas Harry Hobhouse, Henry Pym, C. Guy
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Holland, Hon. Lionel R.(Bow) Rankin, Sir James
Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole Hornby, Sir William Henry Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Compton, Lord Alwyne Houldsworth, Sir Wm Henry Rentoul, James Alexander
Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. F. D. Howard, Joseph Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlepool)
Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge Howell, William Tudor Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W
Cranborne, Viscount Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson
Cripps, Charles Alfred Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Hughes, Colonel Edwin Robinson, Brooke
Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton) Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice- Round, James
Cruddas, William Donaldson Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Jebb, Richard Claverhouse Ryder, John Herbert Dudley
Curzon, Viscount Jenkins, Sir John Jones Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)
Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. Myles
Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh Jolliffe, Hon. H. George Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Dalkeith, Earl of Kemp, George Savory, Sir Joseph
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H. Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham) Kenyon, James Seely, Charles Hilton
Dickson- Poynder, Sir John P. Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William Seton-Karr, Henry
Digby, John K. D. Wingfield Keswick, William Sharpe, William Edward T.
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Kimber, Henry Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Dixon-Hartland, Sir E. Dixon King, Sir Henry Seymour Sidebottmn, William (Derbysh
Dorington, Sir John Edward Knowles, Lees Simeon, Sir Barrington
Doughty, George Laurie, Lieut.-General Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Douglas, Right Hon. Akers- Lawson, John Grant (Yorks) Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S. Lea, Sir Thomas(Londonderry Smith, J. Parker (Lanarksh.)
Doxford, William Theodore Lecky, Rt. Hon. William E. H. Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)
Drage, Geoffrey Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Spencer, Ernest
Drucker, A. Leighton, Stanley Stanley, Hn. A. (Ormskirk)
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Llewelyn, Sir D. (Swansea) Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart Loder, Gerald W. Erskine Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)
Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham) Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Fardell, Sir T. George Long, Rt. H. W. (Liverpool) Stephens, Henry Charles
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw. Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Man'r Lowe, Francis William Stock, James Henry.
Finlay, Sir Hobert Bannatyne Lowles, John Straus, Arthur
Firbank, Joseph Thomas Loyd, Archie Kirkman Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Fisher, William Hayes Lucas-Shadwell, William Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Sutherland, Sir Thomas Ward, Hn. Robert A. (Crewe) Wyndham, George
Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf.Univ. Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E. Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Thorburn, Walter Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Agcy
Thornton, Percy M. Williams, Col. R. (Dorset) Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Tollemache, Henry James Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.) Young, Commander (Berks, E.
Tomlinson, W. E. Murray Willox, Sir John Archibald Younger, William
Tritton, Charles Ernest Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Usborne, Thomas Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Valentia, Viscount Wylie, Alexander
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Haldane, Richard Burdon Nussey, Thomas Willans
Ashton, Thomas Gair Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herb. Henry Harrington, Timothy O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)
Atherley-Jones, L. Harwood, George Oldroyd, Mark
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale- Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durham
Baker, Sir John Hazell, Walter Palmer, George Wm (Reading)
Barlow, John Emmott Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H. Paulton, James Mellor
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H. Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)
Billson, Alfred Hogan, James Francis Pickard, Benjamin
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Holden, Sir Angus Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Broadhurst, Henry Holland, Wm. H.(York, W.R.) Pilkington, Sir G. A(Lancs, S.W
Brunner, Sir Joint Tomlinson Horniman, Frederick John Power, Patrick Joseph
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Price, Robert John
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Provand, Andrew Dryburgh
Burt, Thomas Jacoby, James Alfred Reckitt, Harold James
Buxton, Sydney Charles Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Ed. Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.
Caldwell, James Joicey, Sir James Rickett, J. Compton
Cameron, Robert (Durham) Jones, D. Brynmor(Swansea) Roberts, John. H. (Denbighs.)
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire) Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Causton, Richard Knight Kay-Shuttleworth Rt Hn Sir U Samuel, J. (Stockon-on-Tees)
Cawley, Frederick Kearley, Hudson E. Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Channing, Francis Allston Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfars.)
Clark Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh) Kitson, Sir James Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Colville, John Lybouchere, Henry Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Condon, Thomas Joseph Lambert, George Souttar, Robinson
Courtney, Rt.Hon. Leonard H. Langley, Batty Spicer, Albert
Crilly, Daniel Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland) Steadman, William Charles
Crombie, John William Leng, Sir John Stevenson Francis S.
Curran, Thos. B. (Donegal) Leuty, Thomas Richmond Strachey, Edward
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) Lewis, John Herbert Stuart, James (Shoreditch)
Dalziel, James Henry Lloyd-George, David Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Davies,M.Vaughan-(Cardigan Logan, John William Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.
Davitt, Michael Lyell, Sir Leonard Thomas, Alf (Glamorgan, E.)
Dewar, Arthur MacAleese, Daniel Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)
Dillon, John M'Ewan, William Wallace, Robert
Donelan, Captain A. M'Ghee, Richard Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.
Doogan, P. C. McKenna, Reginald Wedderburn, Sir William
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) M'Laren, Charles Benjamin Weir, James Galloway
Duckworth, James M'Leod, John Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Dunn, Sir William Maddison, Fred. Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Evans, Samuel T.(Glamorgan) Maden, John Henry Williams, John Carvell (Notts
Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton) Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)
Fenwick, Charles Mellor, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Yorks) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Molloy, Bernard Charles Wilson, John (Govan)
Flynn, James Christopher Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel Woods, Samuel
Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.) Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Goddard, Daniel Ford Morgan, W. Pritchard (Merthyr
Godd, Charles Morley, Charles (Breconshire) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport) Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. M'Arthur.
Griffith, Ellis J. Moulton, John Fletcher
Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Question put accordingly, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 259; Noes, 151. (Division List, No. 248.)

Aird, John Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Baird, John George Alexander
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Bailey, James (Walworth) Balcarres, Lord
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness) Baldwin, Alfred
Balfour, Rt Hn A. J. (Manch'r) Fardell, Sir T. George Lowles, John
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Banbury, Frederick George Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r Lucas-Shadwell, William
Barnes, Frederic Gorell Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred
Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor) Fisher, William Hayes Macartney, W. G. Ellison
Bartley, George C. T. Fison, Frederick William Macdona, John Cumming
Barton, Dunbar Plunket FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose- MacIver, David (Liverpool
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj. FitzWygram, General Sir F. Maclean, James Mackenzie
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol Flower, Ernest M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Beach, W. W. Bramston (Hants Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edin. W.)
Beckett, Ernest William Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk) Martin, Richard Biddulph
Begg, Ferdinand Faithful Galloway, William Johnson Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.
Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe Gedge, Sydney Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Gibbons, J. Lloyd Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.
Beresford, Lord Charles Gibbs, Hn A.G. H.(City of Lond Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.
Bethel, Commander Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans) Milward, Colonel Victor
Bhownagree, Sir M. M. Gilliat, John Saunders Monk, Charles James
Bigwood, James Godston, Sir Augustus F. Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)
Bill, Charles Goldsworthy, Major-General More, Rbt. Jasper (Shropshire
Blundell, Colonel Henry Gordon, Hon. John Edward Morgan, Hn. Fd. (Monm'thsh.
Bonsor, Henry Cosmno Orme Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon Morrison. Walter
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J.(St.Geo'.) Morton, A. H. A.(Deptford)
Boulnois Edmund Goschen, George J. (Sussex) Mount, William George
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex) Goulding, Edward Alfred Muntz, Philip A.
Bowles, T. G.(King's Lynn) Green, W. D. (Wednesbury) Murray, Rt. H. A. Graham (Bute
Brassey, Albert Greene, W. R.- (Cambs.) Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Gretton, John Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath
Brookfield, A. Montagu Greville, Hon. Ronald Myers, William Henry
Butcher, John George Gull, Sir Cameron Northcote, Hn. Sir H. Stafford
Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasg. Gunter, Colonel O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Carlile, William Walter Hall, Right Hon. Sir Charles Pender, Sir James
Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward Halsey, Thomas Frederick Pierpoint, Robert
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G. Pilkington, R. (Lancs, Newton
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W. Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Hanson, Sir Reginald Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East) Hardy, Laurence Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Hare, Thomas Leigh Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Helder, Augustus Purvis, Robert
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm. Hill, Sir E. Stock (Bristol) Pym, C. Guy
Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead) Rankin, Sir James
Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry Hoare, Samuel (Norwich) Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Chelsea, Viscount Hobhouse, Henry Rentoul, James Alexander
Clare, Octavius Leigh Hornby, Sir William Henry Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)
Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth) Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir M. W.
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Howard, Joseph Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson
Coddington, Sir William Howard, William Tudor Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Coghill, Douglas Harry Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Robinson, Brooke
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn Round, James
Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole Hughes, Colonel Edwin Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Compton, Lord Alwyne Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice- Ryder, John Herbert Dudley
Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D. Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge Jebb, Richard Claverhouse Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles
Cranborne, Viscount Jenkins, Sir John Jones Savory, Sir Joseph
Cripps, Charles Alfred Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton) Jolliffe, Hon. H. George Seeley, Charles Hilton
Cruddas, William Donaldson Kemp, George Seton-Karr, Henry
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Sharpe, William Edward T.
Curzon, Viscount Kenyon, James Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William Sidebottotn, Wm. (Derbysh.)
Dalkeith, Earl of Keswick, William Simeon, Sir Barrington
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Kimber, Henry Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Davies, Sir H. D. (Chathm) King, Sir Henry Seymour Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Denny, Colonel Knowles, Lees Smith, J. Parker (Lanarksh.)
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Laurie, Lieut.-General Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Dighy, John K. D. Wingfield- Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) Spencer, Ernest
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Lea, Sir Thomas(Londonderry Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Osmskirk
Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. Edw. H. Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset
Dorington, Sir John Edward Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Stanley, Sir Henry M.(Lambeth
Doughty, George Leighton, Stanley Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Douglas, Rt, Hon. A. Akers- Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns Stephens, Henry Charles
Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S. Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Doxford, William Theodore Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham) Stock, James Henry
Drage, Geoffrey Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool) Strauss, Arthur
Drucker, A. Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Lowe, Francis William Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Sutherland, Sir Thomas Ward, Hon. Robert A. (Crewe) Wyndham, George
Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxrd Uni. Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E. Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Thorburn, Walter Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Thornton, Percy M. Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Tollemache, Henry James Williams, Jos'ph Powell-(Birm. Young, Commander (Berks, E.
Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray Willox, Sir John Archibald Younger, William
Tritton, Charles Ernest Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Usborne, Thomas Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Valentia, Viscount Wylie, Alexander
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Ashton, Thomas Gair Haldane, Richard Burdon Nussey, Thomas Willans
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herb. Henry Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William O'Brien, James. F. X. (Cork)
Atherley-Jones, L. Harrington, Timothy O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) Harwood, George Oldroyd, Mark
Baker, Sir John Hayne, Rt. Hn. Chas. Seale- Palmer, Sir Chas. M.(Durham)
Barlow, John Emmott Hazell, Walter Palmer, Geo. Wm. (Reading)
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H. Paulton, James Mellor
Billson, Alfred Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H. Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Hogan, James Francis Pickard, Benjamin
Broadhurst, Henry Holden, Sir Angus Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Holland, W. H. (York, W.R.) Pilkington, Sir G. A.(Lancs, SW
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Horniman, Frederick John Power, Patrick Joseph
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Price, Robert John
Burt, Thomas Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Provand, Andrew Dryburgh
Buxton, Sydney Charles Jacoby, James Alfred Reckitt, Harold James
Caldwell, James Johnson-Ferguson, J. E. Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.
Cameron, Robert (Durham) Joicey, Sir James Rickett, J. Compton
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea) Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Causton, Richard Knight Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire) Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Cawley, Frederick Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Channing, Francis Allston Kearley, Hudson E. Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Clark,Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh. Kinloch, Sir John G. S. Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)
Colville, John Kitson, Sir James Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Labouehere, Henry Souttar, Robinson
Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H. Lambert, George Spicer, Albert
Crilly, Daniel Langley, Batty Steadman, William Charles
Crombie, John William Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland) Stevenson, Francis S.
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Leng, Sir John Strachey, Edward
Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal) Leuty, Thomas Richmond Stuart, James (Shoreditch)
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) Lewis, John Herbert Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Dalziel, James Henry Lloyd-George, David Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Davies,M.Vaughan-(Cardigan Logan, John William Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Davitt, Michael Lyell, Sir Leonard Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)
Dewar, Arthur MacAleese, Daniel Wallace, Robert
Dillon, John M'Ewan, William Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Donelan, Captain A. M'Ghee, Richard Wedderburn, Sir William
Doogan, P. C. M'Kenna, Reginald Weir, James Galloway
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) M'Laren, Charles Benjamin Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Duckworth, James M'Leod, John Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Dunn, Sir William Maddison, Fred Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Maden, John Henry Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)
Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton) Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe Wilson, Henry J.(York, W.R.)
Fenwick, Charles Mellor, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Yorks) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand Wilson, John (Govan)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Molloy, Bernard Charles Woods, Samuel
Flynn, James Christopher Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.) Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarth'n
Goddard, Daniel Ford Morgan,W.Pritchard(Merth'r TELLERS FOE THE NOES
Gold, Charles Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. M`Arthur.
Gourley, Sir E. Temperley Morton, Edw. J.C.(Devonport)
Griffith, Ellis J. Moulton, John Fletcher

Whereupon the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

It being after Six of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.

Adjourned at five minutes after Six of the clock