Commons Sitting of 4 July 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  TAUNTON CORPORATION BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  MR. STRACHEY: I desire to move a new clause, the object of which is to give a right of appeal to any person aggrieved. I may say that the clause which appears on the Paper is taken verbatim from the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, except as far as it is necessary to alter it in regard to the different procedure and jurisdiction in Scotland and England. It will be noticed that while the clause gives the right of appeal to any person aggrieved by an order made by the corporation, yet, pending the decision of that appeal, it is provided that the order shall remain in force. I think I have guarded in every possible way, therefore, against any injustice to the corporation in this matter. I am asking the House to remedy a decided injustice, because under this Bill power is given to the corporation to act as judge, jury, and prosecutor, without any right of appeal, except under Clause 90, to the court of quarter sessions. But it might happen that the quarter sessions had just sat, and frequently it would be three months before the appeal could be heard. I cannot see why this clause should be so much opposed, considering that it realty carries out the views of the County Councils Association, and I therefore venture to appeal for the help of all those gentlemen who are interested in county councils and know their worth. The question has been discussed before, and I do not think it necessary to labour the point any further. All I ask is that before a man is judged by the corporation and finally condemned, he should have a right of appeal to an independent body. I beg to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 18, after line 25, to insert the words, 'It shall be open to any local authority, dairyman, or person aggrieved by any such order or withdrawal of such order to appeal in a summary manner to a court of petty sessions
  494
  having jurisdiction in the district in which the dairy is situated, and the court may either make an order requiring the dairyman to cease from supplying milk, or may vary or rescind any order which has been made by the local authority, and they may at any time withdraw any order made under this section. Pending the disposal of any such appeal the order shall remain in force.'"—(Mr. Strachey.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I might say I am in hearty sympathy with the wishes of the hon. Member who moved this clause, and I am also a member of the County Councils Association, to whose views he says he is giving effect, but I am bound to say that I have never been able to convince myself that there was any real danger to county authorities, or even to the dignity and reputation of the rural districts, by the clauses which have been asked for by the boroughs. The whole question has been discussed on previous occasions, and I understand that now the opposition to what are known as the model clauses is abandoned, and in its place we are met with what I admit is a far more moderate and defensible proposal, namely, that there should be an appeal against the orders of the corporations in these cases. In principle I entirely agree with that, and so, I believe, does the House as a whole, because there is no Bill before the House, and least of all this Bill, in which there is no appeal clause. My hon. friend has himself pointed out that there is an appeal clause in this Bill, and it stands to reason that in all these Bills which deal not only generally with cases relating to tuberculosis and the general question of the milk supply, but also with a very great number of other questions, following the policy laid down by Parliament in the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, there should be an appeal to the court of quarter sessions. My hon. friend has said, and to a certain extent truly, that the time which no doubt elapses between the meetings of the quarter sessions will in these cases render the appeal to the quarter sessions of no substantial value to the appellant. That also applies to his own clause, because the appeal he proposes is, not to any justices sitting daily, who could deal with the question rapidly and at once, but to justices sitting in petty sessions, and such a court meets only fortnightly, or some-

  495
  times even monthly. Therefore, the remedy proposed by my hon. friend is not of very great value. But no great harm would be done if the words were added to the Bill, because I think in practice they would not be made use of. That being so I ask whether there would be any objection in adding them. Even putting aside the unwillingness of a dairyman to drag all his doings and alleged misdoings into a court of quarter sessions or petty sessions, which I think is the strongest argument of all, I have very grave doubts as to whether this clause is really worth the paper on which it is printed. There are many minor objections I might urge. I cannot see why a local authority outside the borough, or why another person aggrieved, who might be a rival dairyman, are to be brought in as possible appellants. I am bound to say I cannot see that any good would be obtained by adding the words to the Bill. I was in very great hopes that the Committee up- stairs when they added the appeal clause to the Bill had, to say the least, gone a very long way towards meeting the opposition on this question, but I fail to see that the position would be improved by the adoption of this proposed clause.
  COLONEL WELBY: I am very sorry I cannot support the now clause proposed by the hon. Member for South Somersetshire, as I have very gladly acted with him in former attempts to alter this particular clause in Corporation Bills. I am obliged to oppose the proposal for two reasons, one sentimental, and the other practical. The sentimental reason is that an elected corporation, like that of Taunton, consisting of twenty members, naturally would not like an appeal from their jurisdiction to perhaps two county magistrates sitting in petty sessions. Such an appeal as that I am certain would lead to friction between the county and the borough. The practical objection is that the petty sessions would have no jurisdiction in the borough, and therefore you would be appealing from a court which had jurisdiction in the borough to another and smaller one which had no jurisdiction there. There is an appeal to quarter sessions contained in the Bill. The quarter sessions have jurisdiction over the borough, but petty sessions have not. It therefore seems to me that you would
  496
  be introducing a new authority into the borough, and one which would be anything but welcome. After all, it is only a question of whether the milk should be sold in the borough of Taunton. It is not a question of drawing a line around a particular dairy and preventing any dealing with that dairy. It is simply that the milk should not be sold in the borough over which the corporation has jurisdiction, and there is nothing whatever to prevent the whole county outside buying the milk if they care to take the risk.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): So far as I understand the position taken up by the hon. Member for South Somersetshire, he appears to me to have abandoned his opposition to the model clauses as they were framed, and the point seems to be narrowed down to the provision of a proper court of appeal. I will say at once that, so far as that question is con corned, I am willing to confer with all the parties concerned with a view to arriving at a satisfactory solution of the matter. But when I come to examine the proposal before the House, I do not think it is one which can command any support whatever. Let me put briefly how the matter stands as regards these clauses and the milk question. Under the thirty-fifth section of this Bill, if the medical officer of the borough, after having inspected the dairy, and, accompanied by a veterinary surgeon, examined the cows, and obtained a sample of the-milk, is of opinion that tuberculosis is, or is likely to be, caused to a person residing in the borough by the consumption of milk supplied from such dairy or any cow kept therein, the following procedure is to be adopted. Let the House listen to what this procedure is: The medical officer must, first of all, report to the corporation, sending in the report furnished to him by the veterinary surgeon; the corporation must then give notice to the dairyman to appear before them to show cause why an order should not be made requiring him not to supply milk within the borough. If in their opinion the dairyman fails to show such cause the corporation may make an order on the dairyman not to supply milk within the borough, and they are bound by the Bill to serve notice of the fact on the county

  497
  council in whose area the borough is situated, on the Local Government Board, and, in the case of a dairy outside the borough, on the council of the borough or county district in which the borough is situated. The order must be withdrawn by the corporation on their medical officer being satisfied that the milk supply has been changed or is not likely to cause tuberculosis. If any person supplies milk or sells it for consumption in the borough in contravention of such order he becomes liable to a penalty. The House will see, first of all, that there is no prohibition of the supply of milk from an infected area in the county; but the borough authorities merely act for the protection of their own citizens within their own district from a danger of this kind. Surely, that is a power which cannot be denied by the House to any borough authority. But what is proposed to be done? Any person aggrieved by such an order is not denied by this Bill the right of appeal; he has an appeal to quarter sessions under the ninetieth section of this very Bill, and the quarter sessions is an authority which has jurisdiction in the borough, and has power to act within the borough. But what is the proposal made by the hon. Member for Somerset? It is that the corporation, having made this order for the protection of their own citizens, an appeal shall lie—to whom? To the petty sessions of the district in which the dairy is situated. In the first place, that is an authority which has no power to act within the borough at all and whose order would not run even if they issued it. Surely the House is not going to stultify itself by accepting a proposal of that kind. I say it is not fair to the borough to have a court of appeal in which the borough has no voice at all. The borough is the authority aggrieved by the sale of the milk, but under this proposal they would have no voice whatever in the matter. I think when the Bill provides for an appeal to the quarter sessions it is absurd to propose to set up a court of appeal of this kind. That is the main issue upon which the House has to decide. The only question now is the matter of the court of appeal. I agree that there ought to be an appeal, but it ought to be a perfectly independent authority that can decide the matter legitimately as between the borough and the county. I am willing to co-operate with hon. Gentlemen representing both parties in this
  498
  House, and the Department is willing to co-operate with them in endeavouring to secure unanimity, but a proposal of this kind cannot possibly be accepted; it could not possibly be of any use if it were accepted; it would make confusion worse confounded; it would not benefit the county, and it would give the boroughs a fresh grievance. I must therefore resist the proposal.
  SIR JOHN DORINGTON: I think the arguments put forward by the Secretary to the Local Government Board rather under-estimate the power and effect of sentiment in this matter. There is a curious conflict of opinion between country and town on this question, and if that conflict could be settled the whole matter could be arranged. I was therefore very glad to hear the remarks of the hon. Gentleman with reference to a conference, at which all parties will be represented, to settle this court of appeal. It might very well happen that the city of Bristol now might want to exercise jurisdiction in this matter inside the city of Gloucester—in fact, any municipality might claim to exercise authority within the precincts of another municipality. But the latter municipality would imme-say, "No, that will not do. It is quite right that you should be able to prohibit our milk coming into your town; but you must do it by taking action through us." That is the right line to be taken, and that is where the model clauses have gone wrong. What is wanted is general legislation by which it will be right for one authority to call upon another to see that the law is properly carried out. At present friction arises, as is admitted, under the model clauses, because municipal authorities have rights extending possibly to the ruin of individuals residing in another area under another jurisdiction, and I do not see how that is to be removed until some agreement is come to between the parties concerned. The error in the commencement with regard to the model clauses was that the county authorities were not called into conference at all. The Association of Municipal Corporations was one of the conferring parties, but the County Councils Association, an equally important body, was left entirely out of the consideration of the matter. With regard to the question of quarter sessions or petty sessions, one of

  499
  the faults of the proposal is that the corporation have a decision in the matter— that the corporation, which is not a judicial authority, has to exercise an authority which may ruin an individual in the county. It is all very well to say that the individual has his rights to supply milk everywhere except in that particular borough. It may be that the supply within that borough is the man's whole livelihood. If the Secretary to the Local Government Board will have this conference as to the best court of appeal, it is quite possible the matter can be settled, but unless that conference is agreed to I shall support the Amendment.
  *MR. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I hope the House will reject this proposed new clause, because, if passed, it would be a very serious matter for the boroughs of this country. I totally disagree with the remarks of the hon. Member who has just spoken, because I contend that if milk is sold within the borough from dairies affected with tuberculosis outside the borough area the local authority should have power to step in and prevent that milk being sold. The hon. Gentleman stated there was an infringement of the rights of the county council. I do not see where the county council comes in; the county council has no jurisdiction whatever, except in a supervising sense, because the authority is in the hands of the rural or district council for the time being. This clause simply gives the same power as is given under the Public Health Act with regard to diseased meat. When the sanitary inspector or the medical officer of health of a borough finds a diseased carcase in the market he at once obtains an order from the magistrate to destroy it, although that carcase might come from outside the borough area. To place that inspector in a position that he would have to seek the authority of the medical officer outside the borough or the sanitary inspector or the magistrate would certainly place the borough in such a position that it would be unable to protect its inhabitants. Therefore in regard to selling diseased milk inside the borough the local authority ought to have the right to intervene, and if the dairyman feels aggrieved let him go to the quarter sessions. The proposal of the hon. Member is most absurd. Who would
  500
  ever think of proposing that in ordinary cases the jurisdiction of the judges of a bench inside a borough should be overruled or supervised by a court of petty sessions which may be sitting outside altogether? The only result would be that prejudice would be brought to bear in these cases, and the public would not be protected. I believe the clause as it stands in the Taunton Corporation Bill is a proper one; it is a proper protection to the consumers of milk in our boroughs and urban districts, who ought to be protected, because, after all, it is paramount that the public health should be preserved; and upon these grounds I hope the House will reject the Amendment.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I feel sure a large section of the House are somewhat tired of these constant discussions on the question of dairy inspection, and I want to point out why these discussions have been repeated. There are two causes. The first is the reluctance of the Government, and especially of my hon. friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board, to indicate any prospect of general legislation on this important subject. It is absolutely necessary for us to bring these questions up on private Bills, because my hon. friend has set his face against any general legislation on this subject.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLwas understood to say that all he had done during the session was to adhere to certain clauses which had been agreed to at a conference between the parties interested. Those clauses were now called "model clauses," and had been incorporated in a series of similar Bills. The Local Government Board were one of the parties to the agreement, and they had stood by it.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: However, the result has been practically to substitute for any attempt at general legislation individual clauses in individual Bills. That is what necessitates these constant discussions. My hon. friend has made an offer of a conference with all parties concerned, so I imagine he now recognises the fact, which he absolutely did not recognise last year—that among the parties concerned are the county councils, who have important duties to per form towards the dwellers in their counties I hope the House will not imagine that a

  501
  far as the county councils are concerned this question is one of jealousy of the local authorities. Far from it. If my hon. friend had been present when a resolution was passed unanimously the other day by a large meeting representing the different county councils of the kingdom, he would have seen that the ruling feeling among us was simply that those farmers in our districts should not suffer the severe injury they are now exposed to, without having an opportunity of putting their case in due time before a proper judicial authority. I must point out that this question arises directly out of the form in which these model clauses were passed. The mistake to my mind is that of giving the corporation—or not the corporation as a whole, but a committee of the corporation—judicial authority to exclude a farmer from trading in their borough. It is not a question of the borough magistrates. The hon. Member for Stockton referred us to the case of diseased moat, but, as he said himself, that is destroyed by an order of the justices—a judicial authority. There would not be the same objection in that case as if the order was made by a sanitary committee who had no authority to hear persons on oath, and so on. These model clauses, if they had come before the House instead of being settled by a conference upstairs, would have been properly amended. It does not bear argument that a corporation which is not a judicial body should have power to make a judicial order—an order which would injure a dairyman very seriously. It is said that the dairyman has a protection by having the right of appeal to the quarter sessions. In my own county the quarter sessions assemble at intervals of three months, sometimes longer. What you are really saying is that the order of this non-judicial authority is to stand for three months or more, during which time this dairyman may be ruined in his trade, without having the opportunity of appealing to any judicial body whatever. That is why the proposal has been made to appeal to the petty sessions; that Court sits oftener, and I believe in some cases my hon. friend would even go to the borough justices and not to the county justices. The substantial thing is to give a man who is resting under the imputation of a non-judicial body a proper opportunity of appealing within a reasonable time. If the Government would
  502
  undertake to give us the matter of substance, the matter of form would be a matter of comparative indifference. I do not think, after the speech of the hon. Member representing the borough, that the Corporation of Taunton would be unreasonable, and if an arrangement could be come to, I do not think the Government should stand in the way. After the very important statement of the Secretary to the Local Government Board, I think we should have further time, and therefore I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
  CAPTAIN PRETYMANformally seconded the motion.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."— (Mr. Hobhouse.)
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Upon this question I should like to say that the matter is now narrowed down to one of a proper court of appeal. I stated I was ready to confer with the parties, but not on this question as a whole; I never contemplated that. I am willing to confer with all parties interested with a view to getting a suitable court of appeal. As regards this Bill, it has passed the Committee, and I think it ought to go through. I am quite certain the court of appeal proposed in this Amendment would be of no use to anybody, and I hope my hon. friend, after my offer of a conference on this point, will withdraw his motion and allow the Bill to go through.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I ask leave to withdraw my motion, in order that the debate may go on.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. JEFFREYS: I am sure none of us would wish to force tuberculosis milk upon any of the boroughs, and as long as they can protect the milk supply of their boroughs without harassing the farmers we should all be satisfied. We do not wish to prevent boroughs taking all reasonable precautions, but it has been considered that if it was left in the power of one county justice to make an order of inspection and then of the corporation to make an order prohibiting the introduction of the milk into the borough, an injustice might

  503
  be done to the farmer, who has not been called. The Secretary to the Local Government Board has promised to consider this matter, and to draw up rules appointing a proper court of appeal. I cannot help thinking that that is exactly what we want. At the County Councils Association, the other day, the hon. Member for East Somersetshire brought up a motion, which was passed, but the motion was merely that there should be a court of appeal to which the farmer could appeal. My hon. friend's Amendment reads—
  "It shall be open to any local authority, dairyman, or person aggrieved by any such order——"
  What does he mean by "any such order"? Does he mean the order which the county magistrate first of all gives for the inspection, or the order which the corporation make prohibiting the supply?
  MR. STRACHEY: The order of the corporation.
  *MR. JEFFREYS: Then I think it is wrong in the order in which it is placed, because it is proposed to place this at the end of line 25.
  MR. STRACHEYexplained that there was a difference in the printing of the Bill.
  *MR. JEFFREYS: At any rate, it is the order of the corporation. Is the appeal to the borough sessions or to the county sessions? There would be a great difficulty in appealing from the borough magistrates to the county quarter sessions, and vice versâ. All this my hon. friend below me has promised to consider, and to appoint a proper court of appeal.
  MR. STRACHEY: But not on this Bill.
  *MR. JEFFREYS: No; but it must be remembered that this Bill has to go through another stage in another House, and if a conference were called and an appeal clause agreed to it might be inserted in another place just as well as in this House. Other Bills have already passed through all their stages in this House, and it is too late to discuss them; but if this appeal clause were agreed to it could be inserted in all
  504
  the other Bills as well. It seems to me that my hon. friend has promised the most reasonable course. I should like to remind the House that this order is in force in London under the Public Health (London) Act, 1883, exactly the same order runs, but it has not been felt to operate harshly. At the meeting of the County Councils Association the other day a farmer said he supplied London with a large quantity of milk, and it would be a very great hardship if this order were made upon him prohibiting the supply. I reminded him that the order could be made at any time now, and, although he had been supplying milk to London for years, he had no idea that this power existed. That shows that it cannot operate very harshly, and so long as it is safeguarded by the appeal which the secretary to the Local Government Board promises to give, I think the hon. Member for South Somersetshire and his supporters ought to be satisfied; they will get what they want, they will get what the County Councils Association wants, and they will get protection from any injustice which might be done to the farmers. I therefore think my hon. friend would be wise if he withdrew his Amendment.
  *COLONEL PILKINGTON: It has been suggested that it is infra dig for a corporation to appear before the petty sessions outside the borough, but as far as that goes I think there is nothing in it at all, because corporations are the same as individuals in that they are amenable to the law of the country, and they have to appear before courts to justify their action. I cannot see that there would be any great difficulty in the Corporation of Taunton having to plead its case before a court of petty sessions outside the borough. It is not a question of one authority against another; it is a question of the whole of the proceedure before the courts, and the humblest individual in the land has just as much right before a court of law as the most powerful corporation. In regard to this question of appeal, is it not an injustice that a farmer supplying milk should have to wait for three months before he had a chance of bringing on his appeal? I think it is quite clear that a court of appeal ought certainly to be instituted before any Bill of this nature is passed. The cart is before the horse in this case.

  505
  The Government have had plenty of time to put this most important question right before passing private Bills where individuals are affected. With regard to this question of boroughs appealing before county magistrates and so on, all over the country, the decision of the borough magistrates is subject in many cases to the decision of the county magistrates sitting at quarter sessions. Therefore, it appears to me that we are greatly indebted to my hon. friend the Member for South Somersetshire for having made the first proposal in the direction of establishing a reasonable court of appeal which shall sit at a reasonable time. It appears to have been forgotten that the corporations in any number can proceed against a milk seller and get a conviction against him. A corporation in Lancashire, for instance, may proceed against a farmer outside their area in regard to the sale of milk. They may prove their case and get a conviction against that man, but surely that is ample treatment. If the corporation are going to ask for these strong orders to stop the sale of milk, we ought to have on the other side proper machinery for an appeal, and a quick appeal in a case like the one I have mentioned. Supposing a man is convicted of selling such milk, and he has to wait for three months for the court of appeal to hoar his case, he would be ruined in the meantime. I think some hon. Members who have spoken upon this question appear to think that this provision only applies in the borough, but the moment that order takes effect the man is subject to it, not only in the borough, but also in the county, and the farmer has to sit down under a very unpleasant order. Naturally and rightly with the members of a corporation their patriotism is local, and it is only right that a court of appeal should be set up where justice can be done, and done speedily if the order is to be carried out. I think the proposal of my hon. friend the Member for Somerset is a most sensible one in this direction.
  MR. WARNER: What has been clearly brought forward in this debate is that the authority will be the sanitary committee of the town council. There ought to be an appeal of some sort to a body who can deal with it at once. The proposal of the hon. Member for South Somersetshire is not
  506
  perhaps exactly what we all wish for, but he has stated that he is prepared to accept any suggestion to improve the clause or any reasonable proposal to establish a court of appeal to deal with the matter at once. Of course, an appeal to the court of quarter sessions is absurd, because a delay of three months would ruin anybody. I will suggest that the House pass this clause, and that the representative of the Local Government Board shall afterwards put in such an Amendment as he thinks proper for the protection of town councils, instead of giving a point blank "no" to the protection of the former by his own authority.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: It is perfectly impossible to amend the clause.
  MR. WARNER: I must differ from the hon. Member upon that point, for I never knew a clause yet which it was not possible to amend. It may be amended in many ways, even if it has to be done at a further stage of the Bill. What is wanted is some pledge that something will be done in this Bill for the protection of the farmer and to give a right of appeal in his own district, instead of being under the control of somebody he has nothing to do with, and being at the mercy of the sanitary authority of some small town council.
  MR. DILLON: This is an immensely important question. When the hon. Member opposite drew attention to the fact that the City of London had powers similar to those proposed to be given in this Bill, I think he and other hon. Members were not aware of the fact that the whole of this question of milk inspections is in process of revolution. i Under the old system of sanitary laws those powers of milk inspection were con-fined to cases of evident disease in cows, and to the inspection of dairies where there was some disease that could be immediately detected by any person who had a fair amount of knowledge. But, as hon. Members are well aware, within the last two or three years a complete revolution has taken place in this matter, and doctrines and theories have been started, no doubt with excellent foundation, by medical experts as to the widespread existence of tuberculosis amongst cattle and cows resulting in danger to the public health which were quite unknown some

  507
  years ago. The existence of tuberculosis in cattle is not at all an evident matter; in fact, in many stages, it is extremely difficult to determine. The first point I would draw attention to is that when you come to deal with the examination of dairies with a view of preventing the sale of milk containing the germs of tuberculosis, you have to deal with a case requiring a great deal of medical skill, and a peculiar form of scientific training. That being the case, it is perfectly manifest that, in the case of a great many municipal authorities in this country, it cannot be expected that they will have in their employment men of sufficient skill and training whose decision would be infallible in a matter of this kind. For many years to come, it will be unreasonable to expect that men of really expert training will be at the disposal of every town which requires them. Whilst those of us representing country districts recognise the justice of the demand on the part of all municipalities to have full and most stringent powers to protect themselves against the sale of milk infected with tuberculosis in their district, we are entitled to ask for some machinery which will afford the unfortunate farmer protection against orders such as those which are contemplated in this Bill. What would be the position of a farmer proceeded against under this clause? Take the case of a man whose whole living depends upon the sale of milk. He will be forbidden to sell his milk in the only market he has got. Not only this, but the order which is to be made under this section is to be served on the district council or county council, and the man is to be boycotted, and the alleged character of his dairy is to be published all over the country, and his premises will be avoided as a sanitary plague. If the order happens to be based upon a mistake, the position of the unfortunate farmer will be that for three months his entire business will be brought to a standstill, and the man would be entirely ruined before he could make an appeal. The hon. Member who represents the Government on this occasion, recognises that it would be an intolerable grievance for a farmer to have to wait for such a long period for an appeal. I must confess that I shall be disposed to vote for this Amendment, because I think the case against the clause is unanswerable. I think it would be an unwise thing to
  508
  give power to one or two local magistrates to force such milk on the town against the desire of the town council or municipal authority. On the other hand, I think it is a great hardship, amounting almost to cruelty, to a farmer if he is to be left at the mercy of an order of this kind —which may turn out to have been improperly made—for a period of three months, during which the man may be utterly and absolutely ruined without any just cause. The Secretary to the Local Government Board says he recognises that such a case cannot be defended, and that some proper court of appeal ought to be instituted. I followed his speech very closely, and I noticed that he did not constitute any court of appeal in this Bill, nor did he mention any period by which he would have his proposals ready to do this; neither did he say how they would be submitted to the House. I do think we ought to have some definite statement, before we allow this Bill to pass, that before the session closes some general scheme will be submitted by the Government establishing a satisfactory court of appeal in this matter. I desire to say a word or two upon what I think the only satisfactory court of appeal should be. I do not think you will be able to get a satisfactory court of appeal all at once. What you require is a court of appeal which will be rapid in its action and also inexpensive. There would be a natural tendency to set up an antagonism between town and country upon this question, and my notion of a court of appeal would be that if the farmer does not think he is really in the wrong in the matter a perfectly simple process would be that he should have the right to get down an expert from the Local Government Board, who should be a thoroughly trained and skilled scientific man, who can really determine whether there is tuberculosis matter in the milk. The farmer should have the right to get this expert down from headquarters, who. should proceed to hold an inquiry and bring to bear on the subject not only evidence, but his own skill and knowledge in dealing with the subject matter of investigation. I believe it is in this direction, and this direction alone, that you can look for a satisfactory court of appeal. I do think the Government ought to give some assurance that before the end of the session they will bring before the House of Commons their proposal for

  509
  a court of appeal, and not leave for an indefinite period this most serious matter in a state of uncertainty. I ground that appeal strongly upon my conviction that most properly and most necessarily a revolution has taken place in the whole question of milk inspection, and we have got to deal not with a matter of which we can judge by precedent, but with an entirely new state of things. I hope the inspection will be conducted in a much more rigorous and effectual manner than was ever dreamt of two or three years ago.
  MR. RENSHAWsaid that under the Scotch procedure the provision made for an appeal to the sheriff worked exceedingly well. He did not know what was the nearest approach to a Scotch sheriff in England, but his own opinion was that it would be a county court judge. In view of the course which the discussion had taken he suggested that the Secretary to the Local Government Board should give some undertaking to those who had moved this Amendment in this House to insert a clause to meet the difficulty between the time when the Bill left this House and its passage through the House of Lords. The conference which the Secretary to the Local Government Board had suggested could take place, so that any decision arrived at by that conference could be dealt with in the House of Lords. He very much sympathised with the general principle expressed by his hon. friend the Member for South Somersetshire.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: An appeal has now been made to me to endeavour to arrange a conference, so that any compromise that may be arrived at can be inserted in the Bill before it passes through the House of Lords. In the first place, conferences are not things that can be summoned at a moment's notice, and it may not be very easy to come to an agreement when that conference takes place. I think it will be recognised that there are some difficulties in the way of the conference suggested. I admit that the court of appeal is an absolute necessity. In the second place, I wish to point out that under no circumstances can we accept this Amendment or this court of appeal, because it is unworkable and mischievous in every sense of the word. I shall use my best endeavours to have a
  510
  conference with all the parties interested in this question at once. I can go no further than that, and if it is possible to arrange matters at that conference I shall throw no difficulty in the way of a clause being introduced into this Bill in the House of Lords in order to carry out any satisfactory compromise which may be arrived at.
  *MR. SEELYsaid he thought that the hon. Member opposite might accept the solution of the difficulty suggested by the Secretary to the Local Government Board. He considered that while it was most essential to deal with the sale of such milk, it was not reasonable that a committee of the corporation should, without any appeal whatever, have the right to practically ruin a particular farmer, because that is what it would amount to. At the same time he did not think that county magistrates should be given authority within the borough either directly or indirectly under this clause. He thought the only solution was something in the nature of an appeal either to the county court judge, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, or to the borough magistrates. He was not sure that the borough magistrates would not make a perfectly satisfactory court of appeal. The Secretary to the Local Government Board had stated that the clause could not be amended; but, as a matter of fact, the introduction of a few words would alter it and make it quite a practical one. He thought the best course to adopt under the circumstances was to have this clause withdrawn, and accept the pledge given by the Local Government Board in the hope that after the conference a satisfactory clause to meet the difficulty would be inserted in another place. Of course they could not bind the House of Lords, but he did not think they would find them particularly hostile.
  MR. MALCOLM: I should like some further explanation as to what the real difficulty is of providing for a court of appeal in this Bill. The Secretary to the Local Government Board has told us that it is important to have such a court of appeal, but at the same time he says that in the present Bill nothing will induce him to put anything of the kind in it. If such a proposal is good for future legislation I

  511
  should have thought that it was good for present legislation also. I think the conference suggested is hardly good enough for country Members. If that conference decides in a certain way, I should like to know if the hon. Gentleman will do all he can to get a clause to that effect inserted in another place. The hon. Gentleman must know now whether he is going to put this in or not, and if he has any doubt about it I think that the wisest and best thing we could do would be to adjourn the question until he has had this conference.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have no desire to trouble the House a second time with a speech, but I simply want to point out that if hon. Members desire that this matter should be gone into I believe it would not be out of order to move that the Bill be recommitted in order to insert such a clause as has been suggested. That course would allow a Conference to take place, and by allowing this stage of the Bill to pass the House does not necessarily deprive itself of a further opportunity of dealing with the matter.
  MR. STRACHEY: I should be quite ready, if the House accepted the Second Reading of this clause, to agree to the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire and the hon. Member for Lincoln.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension; this is not moved as a new clause, but simply as an Amendment.
  MR. STRACHEY: My hon. friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board practically says that he will accept no
  compromise whatever, and I do not think there is anything for us to do but to proceed to a division.
  MR. PHILIPPS: My hon. friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board says that he will not accept this Amendment, but at the same time he says that the Bill will not be satisfactory as it stands. What he offers to do is that if the Bill is allowed to leave this House in its present shape he will get a conference together, and if that conference agrees upon something which he says it will be very difficult to get them to agree upon—if these difficult things come to pass—he will endeavour to get a clause inserted to meet the case in another place. What I wish to ask is whether the hon. Gentleman will not go a step further. He admits that this Bill in its existing shape requires amendment, but he is not satisfied with this Amendment. Will he definitely promise that whatever the conference does, or whether it comes to any decision or not, the Government will put in an Amendment in another place to meet this difficulty? Surely it is a reasonable thing to give a pledge of this kind when the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board admits that the Bill may create a great injustice to farmers.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I have already gone as far as it is possible for a Department to go in this matter. If the House accepts this Amendment it will put an impossible provision in the Bill, and I think I have made a perfectly fair offer.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 98; Noes, 99. (Division List No. 174.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Colville, John

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

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

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Crombie, John William

  Gold, Charles

  Billson, Alfred

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Birrell, Augustine

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Daly James

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Dillon, John

  Gunter, Colonel

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hardy, Laurence

  Caldwell, James

  Dunn, Sir William

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Carew, James Laurence

  Engledew, Charles John

  Hermon-Hodge, Rbt. Trotter

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Evershed, Sydney

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Field, William (Dublin)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Morrison, Walter

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

  Kenyon, James

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth

  Murnaghan, George

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Sidebottom, William (Derbys.)

  Langley, Batty

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

  Stock, James Henry

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Macaleese, Daniel

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

  Tollemache, Henry James

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

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

  O'Malley, William

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  M'Ghee, Richard

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

  Pender, Sir James

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

  Percy, Earl

  Wills, Sir William Henry

  M'Killop, James

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Wylie, Alexander

  Malcolm, Ian

  Pilkington, R. (Lanes., Newt'n)

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Pym, C. Guy

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

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

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

  Mr. Strachey and Mr. Hobhouse.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Robinson, Brooke

  NOES.

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Flower, Ernest

  Myers, William Henry

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Palmer, George Win. (Heading)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Baker, Sir John

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Plunkett, Rt. Hn Horace Curzon

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

  Helder, Augustus

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bill, Charles

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Holland, William Henry

  Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

  Brassey, Albert

  Howard, Joseph

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Brown, Alexander H.

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Butcher, John George

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow)

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

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

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Knowles, Lees

  Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lafone, Alfred

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Souttar, Robinson

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swansea)

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. M.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

  Wason, Eugene

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

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

  Curzon, Viscount

  Lowther, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Cumb'd)

  Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  M'Crae, George

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

  Duckworth, James

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Wrightson, Thomas

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Wyndham, George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Yoxall, James Henry

  FitzGerald, Sir Rbt. Penrose-

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Mount, William George

  Colonel Welby and Mr. Purvis.

  FitzWygram, General Sir F.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Bill to be read the third time.

  NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Queen's consent signified. Bill read the third time, and passed.

  SCARBOROUGH CORPORATION BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell)
  Queen's consent signified. Bill read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]

  TAUNTON CORPORATION BILL. (BY ORDER.)
  As amended, considered.
  WALSALL CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.
  DUBLIN, WICKLOW, AND WEXFORD RAILWAY BILL [Lords]. (BY ORDER.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  GREAT INDIAN PENINSULA RAILWAY COMPANY BILL.
  Ordered, That, in the case of the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company Bill, Standing Order 236 be suspended, and that the Committee have leave to proceed with the Bill To-morrow.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
  TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
ALEXANDRA PARK BILL.
  BARNSLEY CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
    DONEGAL RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    FISHGUARD AND ROSSLARE RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS BILL [Lords].
    Reported, without amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    LONDON SEA WATER SUPPLY BILL [Lords].
    Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
GLYNCORRWG URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL GAS BILL [Lords].
  GWYRFAI RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL [Lords].
    SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
    Reported, with Amendments; Reports to He upon the Table, and to be printed.
    SHANNON WATER AND ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

    PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP K).
    Sir FREDERICK GODSON reported from the Committee on Group K of Private Bills, That, for lack of business, the Committee had adjourned till Friday, at Eleven of the clock.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  CYCLES AND MOTOR CARS AND MOTOR CYCLES.
  Petition from Depwade, for taxation; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION OF THE BLIND (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Newcastle-on-Tyne (two); Bothal; and Tynemouth (four); to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Belfast; Hartshead; Margam; Westminster; Sheffield; Varteg; Aberavon; Deeping St. James; Peterborough; Helpston; Leicester (two); Warminster Common; Ampthill; Luton; Wheatley Hill; Thornley; Trimdon Grange; Wingate; Wellington; Bothal; Newcastle-on-Tyne (two); and Tynemouth (four); to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Largs, against; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour, from Glasgow; Old Monkland; Montrose; and Lerwick; to lie upon the Table.

  SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Wingate; Trimdon Grange; Thornley; Wheatley Hill; Margam; Leeds (two); Salter-forth; Leicester; Clifton; Newcastle-on-Tyne (two); and Tynemouth (four); to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (WALES) ACT (1881) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Margam, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  KILRUSH HARBOUR (PROPOSED PROVISIONAL ORDER).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 3rd July; Major Jameson]; to

  517
  lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 249.]

  PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES ACTS, 1879 AND 1884.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 29th June; Mr. Jesse Collings]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 251.]
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Charitable Endowments (London).— Further Return relative thereto [ordered 2nd August, 1894; Mr. Francis Stevenson]; to be printed. [No. 252.]
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill.—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  COAL MINES (PROHIBITION OF CHILD LABOUR UNDERGROUND) BILL
  CHANGED TO
  "MINES (PROHIBITION OF CHILD LABOUR UNDERGROUND) BILL."
  Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 282.]
  LAND REGISTRY (NEW BUILDINGS) BILL.
  Ordered, That the Report (with Minutes of Proceedings) from the Select Committee on the Land Registry (New Buildings) Bill, laid upon the Table upon the 25th day of May last, be printed. — (Mr. Alters Douglas.)

TITHE RENT-CHARGE (IRELAND) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 2:—
MR. CLANCYsaid there was an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for North Louth, and in place of it he should move another. The Bill consisted
518
practically of two parts, and the discussion on the previous night was mainly devoted to the first portion. The second half chiefly related to the method in which the tithes were variable. It was impossible to discuss this clause without referring to the general provisions contained in the Bill with reference to the variation of the tithe in the future. The Amendment he had to move in lieu of that standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Louth was to be effect that the tithe rent-charge should be varied in accordance, not with the variation in judicial rents, but with the difference in prices and the cost of cultivation. If the proposal were carried, the first subsection of the clause would read as follows—
"As soon as possible after the passing of this Act, the Land Commissioner, having regard to the difference in prices affecting agriculture and the cost of cultivation in the counties, poor law unions, or other areas, between the fifteen years expiring on the 1st day of November next alter the passing of this Act and the previous fifteen years, shall on any application to vary the tithe rent-charge in such area, and on proof that the applicant is entitled to have the same varied under the laws existing before the passing of this Act determine with reference to such area what variation, if any, ought in equity to be made in tithe rent-charge payable in respect of any hereditament situate in such area other thin the tithe rent-charges payable to the Land Commission."
The clause of the Bill under consideration, like the first clause, constituted a most revolutionary proposal. He was referring, of course, also to the clauses which followed, and particularly to the third clause, for which this second clause was laying the foundation. The existing system of tithe variation, as they knew, was a most complicated one, and the right hon. Gentleman by his Bill proposed to sweep it away and to substitute for it an automatic variation of tithe rent-charge. This proposal might possibly be defended if the original tithe-owners or their descendants had never sold or leased the tithe rent-charges to other people. But in regard to the particular cases in which they had been sold and with which some attempt was made by the clause to deal, and especially in regard to those tithe rent-charges which were determined by the Act of 1872 to be invariable for the future, he maintained that the clause was absolutely revolutionary. Take, for instance, the case of tithe rent-charges

519
payable to the Land Commission. They were declared by the Act of 1872 to be no longer variable. There was a good reason for that declaration. The question was fully debated at the time, and the settlement arrived at was supposed to be final. On the supposition that it was final, the Laud Commission in their treatment of the Church fund had made their calculations on that basis. To now undo that settlement after a lapse of twenty-eight years, and without anybody having asked that the tithes should be varied, was as bad as anything that was done or contemplated by the Parliament of James II. which the English Unionists had so vehemently protested against, especially during the Home Rule agitation. If that settlement were to be undone, especially after the funds had already been allocated to public purposes in Ireland, he could not imagine any answer to any demand which might be made in the future for the undoing of any settlement whatever. He would really like to hear some defence of the proposal. Take again the case of the lay tithes. In many cases they had been sold; they had been treated as articles of commerce; they had passed out of the landlords' hands and were now in the hands of all sorts of people. They had in many cases been acquired as investments for trustees, and this particular property had gone on changing hands for valuable consideration, the sale always being made on the supposition that the tithe was not variable. Yet now a Unionist Government, a Government of great conservators of property, and of great upholders of contract, proposed to abolish the system under which property had passed from hand to hand and family to family for the last fifty years, and to substitute a totally different principle for it!
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now discussing the whole Bill. As far as I can gather from the Amendment he read out, the only point now to be discussed by the Committee is whether it will accept the proposal contained in the Bill, viz., that the variation in judicial rent is to be taken as the standard of variation, or whether it will agree with the hon. Member that any alteration in prices is to be the standard.
MR. CLANCY: But I propose a very important addition—namely, "That on
520
any application to vary tithe rent-charge in such area and on proof that the applicant is entitled to have the same varied under the laws existing before the passing of this Act," etc.
*THE CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will bring his Amendment to the Table.
MR. CLANCYdid so, and on returning to his seat said he wished to explain the meaning of the words he had quoted. They had reference to the old system under which tithes were varied. He could not discuss this clause without referring to that particular subject, because its object was to lay a foundation for Clause 3. The system on which tithes had been varied in the past was a, very complicated one and very difficult to work. It had not been very successful. He was glad to have the assent of the Chief Secretary to that.
*THE CHAIRMAN: As I understand it, the part of the hon. Member's Amendment dealing with the variation of tithe rent-charge is not in order on this clause at all. It should come on the next clause. I shall therefore have to strike those words out of the Amendment.
MR. CLANCY: I bow to your ruling, of course. I thought the same point was raised in the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Louth. It seems to me to be most convenient for the Government and for the Committee to discuss the whole question on the present Amendment. I should think the right hon. Gentleman will not object to that.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): The hon. Member must not take me as not objecting. This is purely a question of order. My experience is that when questions have been discussed on one Amendment they have been raised over and over again on other Amendments.
MR. CLANCY: My appeal was not to the right hon. Gentleman, but to the Chairman. I submit it is more convenient to take the debate now. I do not wish to detain the House unnecessarily.—The hon. Member then went on to point out the difficulties which attended the

521
present system of variation. Questions arose frequently as to who were really the owners of the tithe; it was not always possible to find in one parish three persons to sign the necessary notice; and the notices had to be given at a certain fixed period, and were directed to be posted on the principal outer door of the parish church, whereas sometimes there was no principal outer door, and even no parish church; and, finally, if the difference in price between one standard of comparison and another did not exceed 10 per cent., then the application for the variation of the tithe could not be granted at all. The result of these manifold requirements, as every lawyer knew, was that the variation of tithe was rendered almost impossible. People had bought on the supposition that this difficulty existed. They had taken leases——
*THE CHAIRMAN: The only part of the Amendment in order on this clause is that which suggests that the prices of agricultural produce shall be taken as the standard, instead of the change in judicial rents. The remainder is a matter for future discussion.
MR. DILLON: Is it not a fact that this clause proposes to substitute for the old method of varying tithe a new basis of variation; and is it not perfectly competent for us to compare the old method with the new?
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member was not comparing the two methods. I do not gather that he has attempted to do that.
MR. CLANCY: Technically, perhaps, I may not be in order; but I put it to the Committee whether it would not be convenient to discuss this matter once and for all.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I think it is very inconvenient. The best thing is to take each Amendment as it comes up.
MR. CLANCYsaid he was afraid that that would greatly lengthen the discussion. He failed to see that the right hon. Gentleman had given any special reasons for his proposal. One great objection on the part of those who represented the public interest in Ireland, as distinct from the
522
landlord class, was that these judicial rents wore rents in regard to which—and for the greater part of the last fourteen or fifteen years—no proper distinction had been drawn between reductions effected in respect of changing circumstances and those made in respect of improvements made by the tenants. If it were possible to draw such a distinction—and he feared it was not—then there might be something to be said for substituting the new principle for the old. This was, however,, a fatal objection, as it gave the landlords; advantages to which they were not entitled, and for their benefit an inroad was being made for no reason whatever on a public fund devoted to public purposes. The idea was to get the largest possible reduction for the landlord class. The modified form he suggested had the sanction of convenience, custom, and tradition; and as one representing public interests, which were deeply concerned in inroads upon the Church Fund, he could not consent to the Government proposal. After the ruling of the Chairman he thought he had better put aside his own Amendment and adopt that of the hon. Member for North Louth, which he begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 23, to leave out from the word 'Commission,' to the word 'shall,' in page 2, line 4, and insert the words 'having regard to the difference in prices affecting agriculture in counties, poor law unions, or other areas, between the fifteen years expiring on the first day of November next after the passing of this Act and the previous fifteen years.'"—(Mr. Clancy.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'and,' in page 2, line 4, stand part of the clause."
MR. DALYsaid he considered the course proposed in the clause to be a very dangerous one. The matter should be settled as heretofore, and the tithes should not be varied at all. The Irish Land Commission was a body not favourable to the Irish tenants, and if it had power it would exercise it in favour of the landlords and against the tenants. He therefore felt that his hon. friends were perfectly right in opposing the clause. The manner in which the Irish Land Commission collected statistics was to send representatives to fairs, and

523
he had known himself that excessive prices had often been collected. Oftentimes the representative of the Land Commission met the person who had obtained the highest or the lowest price at the fair, and he did not consider that a fair criterion on which to fix prices throughout the whole of Ireland. He hoped his hon. friends would oppose the clause.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The speech just delivered by the hon. Gentleman leaves me in doubt whether he has either read the clause or the Amendment, and it also leaves me in doubt whether he intends to support the Amendment or not. What is the question raised by this Amendment? It is that we shall substitute for the proposal in the clause a provision stating that the Land Commission shall have regard to the difference in prices affecting agriculture in counties, poor-law unions, or other areas between the fifteen years expiring on the 1st November next and the previous fifteen years. According to the hon. Gentleman's speech the Land Commission is not an efficient body to collect prices, and in that case, of course, he ought to vote against the Amendment; but there are greater objections to the Amendment than those which the hon. Member has just laid before the Committee. What is proposed under the Amendment is that the prices from 1885 to 1900 should be compared with the prices from 1870 to 1885, but as a matter of fact there are no records of prices from 1870 to 1885, and on that ground alone the Committee will see that it would be impracticable to adopt the Amendment. One of the objections urged by the hon. Member for North Louth on the Second Reading of the Bill was that we proposed to put too great a responsibility on the Land Commission. The Land Commissioners, it was said, were the guardians of the Church Fund, and it was not right that they should have any interest in fixing figures by which the fund would be affected. But our proposal, which is automatic, depends on the rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioners all over Ireland, and would throw nothing like the responsibility on the Land Commissioners that the Amendment would, because the Amendment provides that the Land Commissioners shall not only determine prices in these different areas, but shall also
524
determine how far the tithe rent-charge should be equitably reduced. Under these circumstances we cannot accept the Amendment. It would involve a responsibility which ought not to be placed on the Land Commissioners.
MR. DILLON: The speech to which we have just listened illustrates very forcibly the extraordinary position to which we have been brought by the methods adopted in connection with this Bill. The chief part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman dealt with the tail of the Amendment which has just been cut off.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Only one sentence.
MR. DILLON: I want to direct the attention of the Committee to the fact that by the cutting off of the tail of the Amendment we have in the first place rendered it unreadable—it will not fit into the clause—and in the next place the meaning of the Amendment has been absolutely altered, and a very valuable Amendment it was. You are substituting for the law which existed for half a century a new method of machinery for varying the tithe rent-charge, and it is absolutely outside the scope of human intelligence to debate an Amendment on Clause 2 or Clause 3 without referring to the whole of the machinery you propose. Clause 2 leads up to Clause 3, and has no meaning or purpose except as considered with Clause 3. Clause 2 proposes to substitute a new basis of variation for the old system, and my point is that if at the beginning of Clause 2 you lay down the machinery, you govern the whole of the discussion on the remainder of Clause 2, and also on Clause 3. Therefore I maintain, with all due respect and submission to the Chair, and without the slightest intention of controverting the Chairman's decision, that the entire Amendment is in order. It was drafted by the hon. Member for North Louth, who is undoubtedly and by admission a past master in the art of drafting Amendments. The Amendment was put down for the purpose of altering the entire machinery by which it is proposed to vary the tithe rent-charge, and if it were carried it would affect materially, and necessitate consequential alterations in, Clause 3. I hold that it is impossible to discuss the machinery and method of

525
the variation of the tithe rent-charge with due regard to order after the first subsection of Clause 2 is passed, because if you impose on the Land Commission the duty of ascertaining the average reduction in judicial rents, it will then be argued that we have laid down the principle; because it may be said, "Why should the Land Commission ascertain the variation respecting judicial rents if not for the purpose of varying the tithe rent-charge?" According to your ruling, Sir, the whole Clause will be turned into nonsense if this Amendment is left as it is. The Amendment proposes to leave out all the words from ''Commission," in line 23, page 1, to "and" in page 2, line 4, and to substitute the following words—
"Having regard to the difference in prices affecting agriculture in counties, poor-law unions, or other areas, between the fifteen years expiring on the first day of November next after the passing of this Act and the previous fifteen years shall determine with reference to such areas what variation (if any) ought equitably to be made in the tithe rent-charge payable in respect of hereditaments situate in such area."
The result of your ruling, even with the consequential Amendment to leave out the word "and," would be that the meaning of the Amendment would be totally different to what was intended. It was never contemplated that the tithe rent-charge should be varied in direct ratio to the variation of prices. That was not the Amendment at all. The proposition in the Bill is that the tithe rent-charge should vary with the same variation as the judicial rents. The Amendment proposed to substitute a different proposal—not that the tithe rent-charge should vary in direct proportion to the variation in prices—but that having regard to the variation of prices, the Land Commission shall determine what variation (if any) ought equitably to be made. It proposes to leave it to the Land Commission, in the first place, to determine whether there is any equitable case for variation at all; and in the second place, supposing there is, what variation should be made; but no one ever dreamt of laying down the proposition that the variation in tithe should be in direct ratio to the variation of prices As now presented, however, the Amendment contains a diametrically opposite proposal to what was intended. I have been very much impressed by our experience during the debates on this Bill.
526
It is a Bill of vast importance to Ireland, and with the exception of the Local Government Bill it is the most important measure introduced during this Parliament. And yet look at the condition of the House. Is it not enough to make an Irish Member despair? There are two or three unfortunate hungry Irish landlords looking on and waiting for their share of the Church Fund; there is a body of Irish Nationalists on this side, and five or six English Members, while a Bill, very technical and very difficult, dealing with a great public fund badly required for public uses in Ireland, is under discussion. Hon. Members are scattered over the reading-rooms and. dining-rooms of this House, and they will come in to vote without knowing in the least what a particular Amendment is about. It is perfectly outrageous; and yet we are told we have only got to come to this great intelligent and impartial Legislature to get all our demands considered. I venture to affirm with absolute confidence that, of the English Members voting on these various Amendments, not one in a 100 has the faintest conception of them. I think it is disheartening that we should be compelled to carry on this debate under such extraordinary circumstances. With reference to this Amendment, I do not know whether to support it or oppose it. The Amendment on the Paper is, I think, perfectly in order.
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present (Mr. CRILLY, Mayo, N.). House counted, and forty Members being found present.
MR. DILLON (continuing): I have been endeavouring to explain the difficulty we are in in connection with this Amendment. As the Amendment appeared on the Paper it would receive my most hearty support, because it raised a most important issue; but the tail of the Amendment has been ruled out of order, and the extraordinary result is that it now has, as I submit, an entirely opposite effect to what was intended. I cannot see how it can be contended that it is out of order to debate the whole question of the machinery for the revision of tithe rent-charge on the first sub-section of Clause 2, when if the the sub-section is allowed to remain as it is you prejudge to a very considerable extent the question of the machinery to

527
be provided. I think we are entitled, therefore, to know whether we are not at liberty to move the Amendment as it appears on the Paper.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member appears to think that this is the first Amendment ever appearing on the Paper that has been ruled out of order. Part of the Amendment is in order, and part of it is out of order. Clause 2 lays down the standard which is to be arrived at by some means or other by the Land Commission as to the variation which should take place in tithe rent-charge. The Amendment on the Paper suggests another means of arriving at that standard. Clause 3 goes on to say that, having arrived at that standard showing the variation now existing as compared with fifteen years ago, it is to be applied in dealing with tithe rent-charge. The matter is divided into two sections instead of being in one. It is quite impossible to allow an Amendment on one of these clauses which would really give the go-by to the subject-matter contained in the other. The proper course for the hon. Member, if he does not approve of my ruling, is to withdraw the Amendment and object to the whole clause. The hon. Member says that by accepting the first and remaining sections of Clause 2 his hands are tied with regard to Clause 3; but it is open to him to move the rejection of Clause 2, and having got rid of it he could then suggest some other means for varying tithe rent-charge to that suggested in the Bill.
MR. DILLON: There is very considerable difficulty in dealing with this Amendment under these restrictions. I did not imagine that no Amendment on the Paper had ever been ruled out of order. I suppose 500 of my own have been ruled out of order during my Parliamentary career; but in this particular instance the effect of the operation is of a most extraordinary character, because it has completely altered the Amendment, and the clause will not read. The clause as it stands is quite clear, but the ruling of the Chair with regard to the Amendment has thrown the matter into confusion. The sense of the Amendment is altered, and I contend that it does not read into the clause at all.
*SERJEANT HEMPHILL: If I am in order, may I most respectfully
528
ask you, Mr. Chairman, to read the whole-Amendment now, so that I may know exactly what I have to deal with?
*THE CHAIRMAN: I endeavoured to. save the Amendment as far as I could by cutting out only that which was disorderly. Of course, I am not responsible for the original form of the Amendment. The Amendment will read—
"As soon as possible after the passing of this Act the Land Commissioners, having regard to the difference in prices affecting agriculture in counties, poor law unions, or other areas, between the fifteen years expiring on the 1st day of November next, after the passing of this Act, and the previous fifteen years, shall certify the average percentage which such variation represents."
*SERJEANT HEMPHILL: As that stands there is no variation to which the "such" refers. As the Amendment originally stood there was a variation of one period of fifteen years, and another period of fifteen years, and the Land Commission was to—
"determine, with reference to such areas, what variation, if any, ought equitably to be made in the tithe rent-charge payable in respect of hereditaments situate in such areas."
Thus the words "such variation" has reference to what was contemplated by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth. But even as the Amendment now stands on the Paper it raises a very important question of principle, because undoubtedly what is sought by Section 2, and which will be somewhat qualified by the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for North Louth, is to confiscate a very considerable portion of the Church Fund of Ireland. The effect of making the reduction of rents by the Land Commissioners the standard by which the rent-charge is to be raised or lowered will be to lop off some 20 or 25 per cent. from the existing tithe rent-charge. That is a very serious step. I am very glad that there are even forty Members of the House now present, because last night, when the House was full, and when an opportunity might have been offered to explain to English and Scotch Members the morass into which the Government was leading the House, we were closured on Clause 1. Now that there are a few Members here, I want to call their attention to what has been done on this Clause 2. We are practically reducin

529
the tithe rent-charge now payable in Ireland by 25 per cent. That is a very great boon, undoubtedly, to the tithe-payer, but in doing that we are repealing one of the most solemn statutes on the Statute-book—namely, the Act which disestablished the Irish Church. That was the result of a long period of agitation, and was forced upon this House by the Imperial necessities of the time.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I rise to a point of order. Surely the application of this provision to the period of fifty years rent-charge is a matter that will be more conveniently raised later on.
*SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I am not speaking now of the difference between ecclesiastical and lay tithes; I am speaking of the meaning, if it has any, of this section, and the standard by which the tithe rent-charge is to be reduced by 25 per cent. That is my proposition, and if it is wrong it can be met by argument. What I was going to say to recently arrived English and Scottish Members of this House was that by the 68th section of the Church Act a trust is imposed upon the Church Fund which we have no right to violate or break, and which, if it were a private trust, could not be violated. What is that trust? By the 68th section of the Act it is declared that the surplus of the Church Fund is to be devoted "to the relief of unavoidable calamity and suffering in Ireland." That is at the basis of all Irish legislation for the last thirty-one years.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is now travelling beyond the limits of the Amendment, to which he must confine himself.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: With great respect, Mr. Lowther, on point of order, is not my right hon. friend justified in describing the effect of he proposed standard of variation in the clause, and in showing that that effect is a fraud of the Church Fund?
*THE CHAIRMAN: There are two alternatives now before the Committee, as I have repeatedly pointed out. One alternative is that a standard should be fixed by the Land Commission on the
530
basis of judicial rents, and the other alternative is that the basis to be taken should be the prices of agricultural produce. That is now the question before the Committee, and the only one. As to whether any standard should be fixed at all, that will come on for debate on the question that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is not my right hon. friend absolutely in order in showing what the effect on the Church Fund would be of the section now before the House if it is not modified by the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth?
*THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has not referred to the Amendment, and was not discussing the second alternative; he was discussing the effect of the whole case.
*SERJEANT HEMPHILL: How could I convey two sentences in one breath? The object of this clause is to alter the old existing standard, and how can I possibly argue that this clause is imperfect or bad, and that the Amendment would improve it, unless I called the attention of the House to the history of this matter?
*THE CHAIRMAN: In my opinion, that ought to be gone into when the question is put that Clause 2 stands part of the Bill. I do not think it is competent to go into history upon an Amendment which would take another basis for variation from that in the clause as it stands. The light hon. Gentleman may compare the two methods in arriving at his conclusions.
*SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I bow, with the utmost deference, to your ruling, and shall endeavour, if possible, to keep myself within it. Now, what reason has been assigned, either to-day or when the Bill was introduced, for this organic change in the standard for fixing the tithe rent-charge in Ireland, which has existed for more than seventy years? The Act which regulated the mode by which tithe rent-charge, or tithe composition, was fixed was 2 and 3 William IV. It was a perfectly fair mode. They were to ascertain the average price of wheat or corn, according to whether wheat or corn was the staple cereal of the district, for

531
the previous seven years, and when so ascertained to compare the average of seven years with seven years, and vary the tithe rent-charge according to the variation resulting from that comparison. Now that law has never been changed; but this Bill comes in and suggests a change in the system deliberately adopted nearly seventy years ago. What has occurred to make such a change desirable? The object of the Amendment is that if you will have a now system let it approach as closely as possible to the old system, and let it be regulated not by fixing it on judicial rents—the effect of which will be, as I have said, to reduce the Church property growing out of tithe rent-charge by 25 per cent—but by fixing it on the prices of wheat and corn in particular areas. That is the way I was coming to the object of the Amendment, and to ground my reasoning why the Amendment should be adopted. The Amendment says—
"The Land Commission, having regard to the differences in prices affecting agriculture in counties, poor-law unions, or other areas, between the fifteen years expiring on the first day of November next after the passing of this Act and the previous fifteen years shall determine with reference to such areas what variation, if any, ought equitably to be made in the tithe rent-charge payable in respect of hereditaments situated in such area."
That is following exactly the principle of the old valuation, and the words are in substance the same as those in Section 6 of the Act 2 and 3 William IV., chapter 119, which is as follows—
"That all compositions heretofore or which may hereafter be made and established in any parish shall … remain and endure for ever, or until the same shall have been redeemed or extinguished … but subject, nevertheless, to such variation from time to time … in the amount of such compositions as hereafter mentioned; that is to say, in respect of all compositions heretofore made and established, to variation at such periods as such compositions may now be respectively liable to; and in respect of such compositions as may be invariable during the whole period of twenty-one years for which they may have been made, to variation at the termination of such period, and thenceforth at any time between the First of May and First of November in each succeeding seventh year; and in respect of all such compositions hereafter to be established, to variation between the First of May and First of November in each seventh year next after the day from which each such composition shall commence."
All that the Amendment does is to substitute fifteen years for seven years.
532
Why alter this old standard, and make the standard the result of the judicial rents? It is only to placate the supporters of the Government in Ireland. The object of the whole Bill is to stop the mouths of the tithe-payers, who have been indignant at not being compensated for the loss of their rents through the operation of the Land Acts. It is a sop to them, and the effect will be to reduce the tithe to which they are now liable by 25 per cent. The excuse for altering the standard is that, by the omission of its duty on the part of some Government Departments in Dublin, the Dublin Gazette failed to publish since 1887 statistics showing what the average price of wheat and corn had been, and because of that omission the Court had decided in Metge's case that as we have no standard to compare with now, the tithe must remain as it stood at the last previous revision. But a short Bill might have been brought in enabling the standard to be ascertained and set up—a similar standard to that provided in 1838, when the landlords of Ireland got 25 per cent. of their tithe rent-charge struck off which would otherwise have been payable to the parson. There was never such a confiscatory measure as this, because it unsettles that solemn compact by which 25 per cent. was given up by the poor parson for the purpose of having the 75 per cent. better secured. The landlords were glad to take that from the parson, and the receivers of tithe were content; but now they are not satisfied with that settlement made in 1838, and wish to rob the Church Fund to the extent of another 25 per cent.
MR. CRILLY: Order, order! I object to the Chief Secretary speaking to the Chairman. Let him leave the Chairman alone.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is in charge of the Bill, and he is perfectly entitled to give me any explanation I may desire.
*SERJEANT HEMPHILL: Surely his explanations ought to be given in the face of the House. I cannot possibly address the Committee when these conferences are going on.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman will see that it is impossible

533
for me to get up and ask the Minister for the information I need.
*SERJEANT HEMPHILL: This is a very serious matter. I do not know whether any member of the Church of Ireland is present, but the Church was robbed of 25 per cent. of its income in 1838, and now what is represented as the Irish Church Surplus Fund is being further robbed of a similar amount. I daresay it is not pleasant to hear these statements made on the floor of the House; but I speak what I believe to be true, and I am utterly regardless whether I give satisfaction to any Member of the House or not. I know that Ireland was a scene of bloodshed, and not until the Tithe Composition Act was passed, over seventy years ago——
*THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman is really irrelevant in going back on the history of tithe, which has nothing to do with the Amendment now before the Committee.
*SERJEANT HEMPHILL: What I say is this: that no reason has been assigned for this Bill. We are not to pass every Bill that a Government, no matter how strong, brings in, at any rate without thorough discussion. There has been no public demand for this Bill, no agitation, no boycotting, no material reason for it. It is brought forward without any explanation or comment. The right hon. Gentleman does not condescend to tell the Committee why, instead of following the old Act and getting rid of some omission of duty on the part of some Department of the Government in Ireland, he substitutes a standard for revising the tithe rent-charge in the future, which will diminish the Church property by 25 per cent. Let the right hon. Gentleman get up and say that I am wrong in my calculations. He has not told us what the practical effect of this change will be on the Irish Church Surplus Fund, which was devoted by Act of Parliament "to the relief of unavoidable calamity and suffering" amongst the Irish people. He is bound, as a trustee of the State, before he violates that trust, to tell the House of Commons to what extent he is going to impair or encroach on that fund. Neither in his opening statement nor at any period of this debate has he intimated to the House what will
534
be the effect on the Church Fund in pounds, shillings, and pence of this legislation. I think the House is entitled to that information. Some hon. Members may think that they are not. That is their concern, not mine. But it is a matter in which their constituencies are interested even more than mine, because the Imperial Exchequer must make good all the differences in the Irish Church Fund, upon the faith of which public money to the extent of nine or ten millions have been already advanced. So do not let hon. Members imagine that this is only an Irish question, and that they will not have to render an account of it to their own constituents.
*THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman is again wandering from the question before the Committee. He must confine himself to the Amendment; otherwise I shall have very reluctantly to call his attention to the Order against irrelevancy.
*SERJEANT HEMPHILL: Of course, Mr. Lowther, I bow to your ruling; but I confess that, while I do so, it seems to me that it amounts to this: that all I can say is that the Amendment is better than the original clause, and therefore I vote for the Amendment.
*MR. JEFFREYS: The right hon. Gentleman says that, if this clause is carried, the tithe rent-charge will be reduced by 25 per cent. on account of the reduction in the judicial rents. I understand him to say that he would sooner go back to the old method of fixing the tithe rent-charge by the average corn prices. But if he did so, instead of reducing the tithe rent-charge by twenty-five per cent. it would reduce it thirty-three per cent.
*SERJEANT HEMPHILL: The rent-charge was not abolished by the Act of 1872 as to lay tithe. The lay tithe is exactly in the same position as before.
*MR. JEFFREYS: What I wish to point out is that the reduction of the tithe on the price of cereals is much greater than would be the reduction on the basis of judicial rents. At the present time in England every £100 of tithe is

535
only worth £66 15s. 10d., while hon. Members will remember that in 1878 every £100 of tithe was worth £112, showing a fall since 1878 of 43 per cent. Therefore it would be much better to acquiesce in the terms of the Bill, to the reduction of the tithe according to judicial rents, than to corn averages. I have always myself thought it was very difficult to settle the tithe rent-charge on the average price of corn, because by Act of Parliament the prices have to be recorded in various towns and are not accurately taken. It would be much easier to fix the tithe rent-charge in the various localities according to the rents in those localities. It seems to me only fair and just that tithe should be reduced according as rents have been reduced. All these payments have to come out of the land, which must support three classes of people—the landlord, the tenant, and the labourer; and if the tithe is reduced, the better it will be for all; and if it benefits all three classes, surely every Irishman, whether landlord, or tenant, or labourer, should be in favour of the Bill. The hon. Member for Dundee rather expostulated with the Government for going on with this Bill as a flirtation with the landlords; and then he took occasion to find great fault with the Government for having reduced the rates on land in favour of the farmers. Surely if that was introduced into Ireland, everybody would agree that it would be a most excellent measure. Then he went on to say that the Government had relieved the landlords of some part of the land tax.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is not in order in discussing speeches made on an Amendment on another clause which was disposed of yesterday.
*MR. JEFFREYS: I only wish I had been present last night. I trust that this relief to be given to the landlords of Ireland will meet with the approval of a great number of Irish and English and Scottish gentlemen. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!] Why not? It is a just reduction on account of the fall in price of cereals, and the fall in rents. On that account I shall warmly support this clause as a simple act of justice.
MR. FLYNN: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is wrong a little bit. The reason why the
536
Government adopt the standard in relation to judicial rents rather than in regard to the prices of corn, is that it will operate very much more largely in favour of the landlords, and by it the landlords will get a larger chunk out of the Church property. I can prove that out of the mouths of the landlords themselves. There was nothing which the landlords a short time ago insisted upon with greater force and persistency in regard to judicial rents than that these had been reduced out of all proportion to the fall in agricultural prices. I see the right hon. Gentleman who represented the landlords on the Fry Commission present, and he will remember that landlord after landlord, and agent after agent, was brought before that Commission to prove that the fall in agricultural prices had been very moderate indeed. That is the very reason why in this particular clause the Government have adopted a variation by judicial rents, and not by prices. Unquestionably there has been a reduction in the price of cereals, the largest being that of wheat, but it has not been great, if anything, in the case of butter and other dairy pro-duets and cattle. At the same time the landlords cannot have it both ways. Let them stand to one case or the other. If they are justified in contending that judicial rents have been reduced out of all fair proportion to the prices of agricultural produce, why not accept the Amendment and let that be the basis for fixing the tithe rent-charge? It has been said that the list of prices has not been published in the Dublin Gazette since 1887; but, as has been pointed out, it would be quite easy to rectify that. I would be very slow to accept prices taken by the Land Commissioners, but the authorities could readily obtain authentic data as to agricultural prices from 1887 to the present time, and that being done let them come to this House, if they are anxious to give a boon to their friends, and extract a large sum from the Irish Church Surplus Fund and hand it over to the landlords. Another reason why judicial rents should not be exclusively taken as a basis upon which the variation of the tithe rent-charge is fixed is that the reduction in the judicial rents is largely made up from the improvements made by the tenants themselves.
*THE CHAIRMAN: That question will be raised by the next Amendment.
MR. FLYNN: I do not want to anticipate an interesting Amendment, and I conclude by saying that there is no denying the fact that by fixing judicial rents as the basis of variation of tithe rent-charge the largest possible amount of money will be abstracted from the Irish Church Fund, which ought to be devoted to the general benefit of the whole Irish people, for the benefit of one class only.
MR. CALDWELL: In regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for Basingstoke, he may be thoroughly satisfied that if this Amendment were to give to the Irish landlords more money than the original clause in the Bill the Government would have accepted it at once. So far as I am concerned I do not look upon this matter as one of pounds, shillings, and pence, but as one of principle. Tithe in all the existing Irish, Scotch, and English Acts is based upon a footing of prices of agricultural produce. Now, why change that standard in Ireland? What principle is there for changing it? We are going to set up an unnatural
basis, because tithe has nothing to do with rent, whether fixed judicially or by agreement. Tithe rent is a burden on the land, without any reference whatever to rent, or whether there is a tenant or not. There may not be a tenant at all. I cannot understand why the Government should set up a new basis altogether for fixing the tithe rent-charge, which has no warrant, no foundation, no application whatever to the facts of the case. The suggestion thrown across the floor of the House that the Amendment would give more to the Irish landlords than the original clause we may dismiss as a figment, otherwise the Chief Secretary would have jumped at it.
MR. G. W. BALFOURrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 176; Noes, 108. (Division List No. 175.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

Allsopp, Hon. George

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hobhouse, Henry

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

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

Howard, Joseph

Atkinson, Right Hon. John

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hozier, Hon James Henry Cecil

Baird, John George Alexander

Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Baldwin, Alfred

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

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

Cruddas, William Donaldson

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

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

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Banbury, Frederick George

Curzon, Viscount

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

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

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l)

Donkin, Richard Sim

Kenyon, James

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Beckett, Ernest William

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Kimber, Henry

Bethell, Commander

Dyke, Rt. Hon Sir William Hart

Knowles, Lees

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Lafone, Alfred

Biddulph Michael

Faber, George Denison

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

Bill, Charles

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Blakiston-Houston, John

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

Leighton, Stanley

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

Brassey, Albert

Fisher, William Hayes

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Brymer, William Ernest

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Flower, Ernest

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Fry, Lewis

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Hatcher, John George

Galloway, William Johnson

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow)

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Lowe, Francis William

Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Lucas-Shadwell, William

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

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

Maclure, Sir John William

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

Gull, Sir Cameron

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

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

Gunter, Colonel

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

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

M'Killop, James

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

Malcolm, Ian

Marks, Henry Hananel

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Pretyman, Ernest George

Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Purvis, Robert

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Pym, C. Guy

Stock, James Henry

Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Milward, Colonel Victor

Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l)

Thornton, Percy M.

Monk, Charles James

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Tollemache, Henry James

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Robinson, Brooke

Warr, Augustus Frederick

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Welby, Lt.-Col A. C. E. (Tauntn)

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

Round, James

Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)

Morrell, George Herbert

Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)

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

Morrison, Walter

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon.

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

Mount, William George

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Saunderson, Rt. Hon. Col. E. J.

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Murray. Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

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

Myers, William Henry

Seely, Charles Hilton

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Wrightson, Thomas

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Wylie, Alexander

Parkes, Ebenezer

Sidebottom, William (Derbys.)

Wyndham, George

Percy, Earl

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Pilkington, R. (Lanes. Newton)

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Plunkett, Rt. Hn. Horace Curzon

Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. J.

Philipps, John Wynford

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Gold, Charles

Pickard, Benjamin

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Harwood, George

Power, Patrick Joseph

Baker, Sir John

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Price, Robert John

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

Priestley, Briggs

Billson, Alfred

Holland, William Henry

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

Birrell, Augustine

Horniman, Frederick John

Rickett, J. Compton

Blake, Edward

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Broadhurst, Henry

Jacoby, James Alfred

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Jones, David B. (Swansea)

Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire)

Burt, Thomas

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

Souttar, Robinson

Caldwell, James

Labouchere, Henry

Spicer, Albert

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Langley, Batty

Strachey, Edward

Carew, James Laurence

Leng, Sir John

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Carvill, Patrick George H.

Macaleese, Daniel

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

Cawley, Frederick

MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qn.'s Co.)

Tennant, Harold John

Channing, Francis Allston

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Clancy, John Joseph

M'Crae, George

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

Colville, John

M'Ewan, William

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Crilly, Daniel

M'Ghee, Richard

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Crombie, John William

M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

Wallace, Robert

Daly, James

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Dillon, John

Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr)

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Doogan, P. C.

Murnaghan, George

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

Duckworth, James

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)

Dunn, Sir William

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

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Emmott, Alfred

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wilson, John (Govan)

Engledew, Charles John

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudd'rsfld)

Evershed, Sydney

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East),

Field, William (Dublin)

O'Dowd, John

Yoxall, James Henry

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

O'Kelly, James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Malley, William

Sir Thomas Esmonde and. Captain Donelan.

Flynn, James Christopher

Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL, who spoke seated and covered, desired on a point of order to call attention to the fact that if the Amendment were submitted in the
540
form in which it had been put, it would ex-elude two subsequent Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Louth.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is quite right, but I put the question in that way in order to preserve the position of the hon. Member for East Mayo. I put the question two or three times and no objection was taken.
MR. DILLON: How could objection be taken when the closure had been moved?
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for North Louth was not present when the Amendment was called, and the hon. Member for the Northern Division of Dublin County took charge of it, and moved it on his behalf.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: With all respect, if any hon. Member is not present in whose name the Amendment stands, it is competent for any hon. Member to move it.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I have repeatedly put the question to the House during the afternoon. If my attention had been drawn to the point when the question was first put I would have done my best to reserve the following Amendments, but we cannot go back now.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: With all respect——
*THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I may also remind the hon. Member that the Committee has by its vote decided that the question which I have already proposed should be put; and therefore I could not amend the form of the question if I wished to do so.
Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'and,' in page 2, line 4, stand part of the clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 185; Noes, 113. (Division List No. 176.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

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

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Allsopp, Hon. George

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Cruddas, William Donaldson

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Band, John George Alexander

Curzon, Viscount

Kenyon, James

Baldwin, Alfred

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

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

Donkin, Richard Sim

Kimber, Henry

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Knowles, Lees

Banbury, Frederick George

Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

Lafone, Alfred

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

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

Lecky, Rt. Hn William Edw. H.

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

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

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

Faber, George Denison

Leighton, Stanley

Beckett, Ernest William

Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

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

Bethell, Commander

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

Lockwood, Lt. -Col. A. R.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Biddulph, Michael

Fisher, William Hayes

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Bill, Charles

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Liverpool)

Blakiston-Houston, John

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Blundel1, Colonel Henry

Flower, Ernest

Lowe, Francis William

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Brassey, Albert

Fry, Lewis

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Galloway, William Johnson

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Brown, Alexander H.

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Maclure, Sir John William

Brymer, William Ernest

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

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

Bullard, Sir Harry

Goldsworthy, Major-General

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

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

M'Killop, James

Butcher, John George

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Malcolm, Ian

Campbell, Rt. Hon J A (Glasgow)

Green, Walford D (Wednesbury)

Marks, Henry Hananel

Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Gull, Sir Cameron

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

Gunter, Colonel

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J (Birm.)

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Milward, Colonel Victor

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

Monk, Charles James

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampste'd)

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hobhouse, Henry

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Howard, Joseph

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

Hozier, Hon. J. Henry Cecil

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

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Morrell, George Herbert

Morrison, Walter

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Thornton, Percy M.

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Robinson, Brooke

Tollemache, Henry James

Mount, William George

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Round, James

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute)

Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)

Welby, Lt-Col A. C. E. (Taunt'n)

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts)

Myers, William Henry

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

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

Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Williams, Joseph Powell- (Birm)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Seely, Charles Hilton

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Pierpoint, Robert

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Pilkington, R. (Lancs Newton)

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Sidebottom, William (Derbysh)

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

Plunkett, Rt. Hn Horace Curzon

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Wrightson, Thomas

Pretyman, Ernest George

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Wylie, Alexander

Purvis, Robert

Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks)

Wyndham, George

Pym, C. Guy

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Remnant, James Farquharson

Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

Stock, James Henry

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

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

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

Thorburn, Sir Walter

NOES.

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

Gold, Charles

Pickard, Benjamin

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Harwood, George

Power, Patrick Joseph

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Price, Robert John

Baker, Sir John

Hazell, Walter

Priestley, Briggs

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Billson, Alfred

Holland, William Henry

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

Blake, Edward

Horniman, Frederick John

Rickett, J. Compton

Broadhurst, Henry

Hutton, A. E. (Morley)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Jacoby, James Alfred

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Burt, Thomas

Joicey, Sir James

Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Jones, David Brynm. (Swansea)

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Caldwell, James

Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Spicer, Albert

Carew, James Laurence

Kitson, Sir James

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Carvill, Patrick George H.

Leng, Sir John

Strachey, Edward

Cawley, Frederick

Macaleese, Daniel

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Channing, Francis Allston

MacDonnell, Dr. M A (Queens' C)

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

Clancy, John Joseph

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Tennant, Harold John

Colville, John

M'Crae, George

Thomas, Abel (Camarthen, E.)

Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

M'Ewan, William

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

Crilly, Daniel

M'Ghee, Richard

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Crombie, John William

M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Daly, James

M'Kenna, Reginald

Wallace, Robert

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Dillon, John

Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

Wason, Eugene

Doogan, P. C.

Murnaghan, George

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Duckworth, James

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

Dunn, Sir William

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

Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)

Emmott, Alfred

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Engledew, Charles John

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

Wilson, John (Govan)

Evershed, Sydney

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd)

Field, William (Dublin)

O'Dowd, John

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

O'Kelly, James

Yoxall, James Henry

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Malley, William

Flynn, James Christopher

Palmer, George W. (Reading)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

Philipps, John Wynford

MR. DILLON: The object of this sub-clause, as has already been pointed out, is to set up a totally new standard for the variation of the tithe rent-charge in Ireland, a standard differing entirely in
544
principle from any system adopted either in England or Ireland, and I shall be able to show that unless my Amendment is accepted the standard proposed would be simply monstrous. It will be grotesque

545
even if my Amendment be accepted, but it will be absolutely monstrous if it is not. But I must at the present time confine my remarks to the Amendment which I propose to submit. I propose for the old system of varying the tithe rent-charge an automatic system, which shall vary automatically in exact ratio to the variation of the official judicial rents. That is to say, if the judicial rent has been re-educed during the last fifteen years 25 per cent., the tithe rent-charge in that district would be automatically reduced by 25 per cent. It is a notorious fact that reduction of judicial rents in Ireland is based mainly on a two-fold consideration, or two considerations quite distinct and apart from each other. Judicial rents may be reduced on account of the fall in the price of agricultural produce or, on the other hand, they may be reduced, and to a great extent are reduced, in consequence of the improvements made by the tenants. Now, could a more monstrous proposition be conceived than that the head rent, the tithe rent-charge of the landlord's property, should be reduced by the same amount as that by which he has been obliged to reduce the rent of a tenant owing to improvements which have been made by that tenant? I should have thought it could not have been supported by any member of this House. The landlord reduces his rent by 30 per cent. on account of the improvements of his tenant. The whole of it may be taken off, not because of any fall in the price of agricultural produce, but as an adequate allowance for the improvements of the tenant, and in respect of that allowance the landlord gets a reduction of 30 per cent. on his tithe rent-charge. I cannot understand why the Government should make such a proposal. The effect of my Amendment will be to remove this extraordinary anomaly. It will, if passed, leave a standard based on such reductions on agricultural rents as were found to be due to the fall in the prices of agricultural produce, and eliminate those reductions due to the improvements made by the tenants. This is an important point, because those of us who are acquainted with the conditions of Ireland know that the reduction in rents in great part was due admittedly to the improvements of the tenants. Therefore this clause would very seriously alter the standard by which the tithe rent-charge is collected. The whole scheme contained in Clause 2 of
546
the new scheme, upon which these reductions are to be made, is grotesque, but if this Amendment is accepted it will modify to a great extent the injustice of the Bill. There are many other elements of injustice in this proposal, but I think I should confine myself to the one particular element dealt with by this Amendment. At present I do not propose to take up further time in moving this Amendment, and I shall wait with considerable curiosity to hear what are the views of the Government, and see what attitude they will adopt on this matter. I only know of one argument which can be used, and that I have no doubt will be used. They will talk about the calculations which will have to be entered into. I quite admit that it will necessitate considerable calculation, but that is not our fault, it-is the fault of the Government; and when the Government bring in revolutionary proposals of this kind the responsibility for the mass of calculation which will be necessary to arrive at the reduction to be made must lie with the promoters of those proposals and not with us who are endeavouring to set the matter right. If the Government seek to base these reductions on that argument, some compromise may be arrived at, without going into minute calculations in each case, by leaving it to the Land Court to say how much or how little of the reduction on the judicial rent is due to tenants' improvements, and to strike out that from the amount of the tithe rent-charge, because it is due to the improvements which have been made by the tenants.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 4, after the word 'rents,' to insert the words 'deducting in each case, where a judicial rent has been fixed, the amount of the variation which was made in respect of improvements made by the tenants."'—(Mr. Dillon.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. G. W. BALFOURsaid the acceptance of the Amendment was not only difficult but it was impossible, because, as a matter of fact, no record had been kept of the tenants' improvements before the year 1876, and therefore, in order to carry out the Amendment, it would be necessary to make special inquiry into every

547
holding to ascertain what the tenants' improvements had been during the past twenty years. It must be perfectly clear to the hon. Member that, from the practical point of view, the Amendment was not one which could be accepted by the Government. No doubt the reductions in rent made by the Land Commissioners had been to some extent due to the fact that the Land Act allowed a reduction for tenants' improvements, but he would remind the Committee that tithe was originally calculated on produce, and the tenant who had to pay tithe would have had to pay on his improvements in so far as the produce of the land was dependent upon them. If the English system of variation were applied in Ireland, the proper reduction would be not 25 per cent., but something over 30 per cent., and if that system were to obtain in Ireland the tithe rent-charge, having regard to the price of wheat and oats, would be greatly increased. In the case of wheat it would be 50 or 60 per cent. and in the case of oats 60 or 70 per cent. He contended that the hon. Member had made out no case for the Amendment.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that nobody would appreciate the revolutionary boldness of this measure without bearing in mind that the right hon. Gentleman had had the courage to attempt to change a system of taxation that was spoken of in Genesis, and which was already ancient when Moses came down from the Mount with the tables of the law. He would also remind the right hon. Gentleman that when he attended Divine service his attention was called to "the kindly fruits of the earth," but even that appeal to the antiquity of this tax had not been sufficient to keep him from this revolutionary proposal. Having dealt with the theological aspect of the case, he would now turn to the political consequences of the action of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman answered the arguments of the hon. Member for East Mayo by saying that the improvements of the tenant should not be taken into consideration. Whilst listening to the right hon. Gentleman he wondered what might be the thoughts of the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Stephen's Green—who accepted these proposals with such extravagant joy—upon the speeches of the right hon.
548
Gentleman and the hon. Member for Basingstoke. It was perfectly well known that the prices of agricultural produce had fallen so little as to justify no reduction of rent at all. The right hon. Gentleman asked that the tithe rent should be reduced because the rents had been reduced, and that the tithe should be reduced in exact proportion to the reduction of the rent. Was there ever a more extraordinary collocation of absolutely irrelevant and unconnected circumstances? What connection was there between the reduction of rents and the reduction of tithes? The right hon. Gentleman proposed by the Bill to reduce the tithes in exact proportion to the reduction of rent. He was asked by the hon. Member for East Mayo to deduct from the reduction of rent those reductions which were made in consequence of the improvements of the tenants. Could anyone who looked at the subject with a fair and open mind, unbiassed by the prospect of boodle, suggest that that was not a fair request? Rents were not reduced owing to the fall in the price of commodities, but because the Land Courts held that they were bound to take from the rent the improvements made by the tenants. The reduction was made entirely irrespective of the landlord. The landlord had his rents reduced because he was taking and putting into his own pockets property which did not belong to him. It was held that the improvements belonged to the tenant and should not be charged in the rent but should be taken from it, and because legislation had restored to the pockets of the tenants the property which belonged to them, the landlord sought to take advantage of the restoration of that property and make that a reason for asking; for a redaction of his tithes. If the right hon. Gentleman had said the tithes ought to be reduced because the amount on which they were collected was reduced the proposition would at least have been arguable, always providing that there was any justification for the reduction of tithes at all. But he held that there was no such justification. A tenant gets a bit of bog land and manures it. He and his fathers before him for thirty, forty, or even a hundred years, had by their labour, skill, and capital brought the bog into fertile action and the court came and said, "We will not charge you on the additional value you, have given to this land and the improve-

549
merits you have made," and now it was said that the landlord was to come to that House, and on the ground of his own wrongdoing make a claim for the reduction of his obligations. The proposition had only to be stated to show its grotesque absurdity. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman know the absurdity and injustice of the Bill as well as anybody in the House. They could not defeat the principle of the clause, because already it has been accepted by the Committee, but at least they could try to mitigate its evils. It was absurd to make the reduction of tithe in any way proportionate to or dependent upon the reduction of rent. If they did establish that principle they should at least mitigate its operation by excluding from the reduction of tithe such a reduction in the rent as was due to the improvements of the tenant. The right hon. Gentleman said it was not a perfect measure. It was a rule-of-thumb measure. Surely it was very easy for the right hon. Gentleman to get another rough-and-ready method—that was all his hon. friend asked—by which these improvements would be excluded from the scale which entitled the landlord to a reduction on his tithe. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, when Chief Secretary for Ireland, dealt with a point analogous to the one now before the House— namely, the sudden reduction in prices which made existing rents impossible. The right hon. Gentleman was able to pass through the House an automatic, rough-and-ready means by which the reduction of rent was made proportionate to the reduction in prices. In the same way the Chief Secretary, if he really had the will, could easily find the way of carrying out the proposal of his hon. friend. The request of the right hon. Gentleman that the landlords should have their burdens decreased was one of the most grotesque irrelevancies ever heard in that House.
MR. MURNAGHANsaid it appeared to him that the whole principle that underlay the Bill was to benefit the landlord at the expense of the tenant. The Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for East Mayo was one that ought to receive the assent of the House. If the tenant in days gone by had paid more rent than he ought to have done he did not see why the House should interfere in the way proposed to
550
give the landlord the benefit of the improvements made by the tenant. The arrangement which the Bill proposed to set aside was entered into voluntarily. There was no compulsion put on the landlords to accept it. They thought they were entering into a very good arrangement. Now, after the lapse of a period of years, they came and sought to benefit at the expense of the tenants. That was an unfair proposal which the Committee certainly should not accept. If rents in former years were fixed on the improvements of the tenants, and were now fixed on the value of the land, that was a matter that should be taken into consideration. The tithe-rent should be fixed according to the reduction of the holding, exclusive of improvements. That was the whole point at issue.
MR. DILLON: I wish to say a few words in reply to the Chief Secretary before the Amendment goes to a division. The Chief Secretary in his speech made no attempt to justify his refusal to accept the Amendment. I knew the argument he would use would be that it would lead to a great deal of difficulty, and that it would be impracticable. I do not think it is impracticable. The reduction of a first charge on the land is a method which has never been applied in any country before, and it is of such an extraordinary character that I say it is our duty to fence round and safeguard the proposal so as to inflict the least possible amount of injustice. Let us for a moment see how this works out. Take the historical case of Adams v. Dunseath. In that case a man built a house on his holding. It was nearly double the value of the holding, and in the original trial under the Land Act, twenty years ago, the landlord was found to be entitled to put rent on the house built by the tenant. After fifteen or sixteen years the tenant in this case came into court again the other day, and owing to certain decisions in the final Court of Appeal he succeeded in getting all the rent paid on his house taken off, and he had it properly restored to him. A concrete case of this sort represents better than anything else the gross absurdity of the proposal in this Bill. Under this Bill, if you apply the principle now before us to the case of Adams v. Dunseath, the landlord would get a first charge on

551
his estate reduced by 30, 40, or 50 per cent., whereas if he had never placed on the house the unjust rent which he has been compelled to forego he would not get the reduction. Can absurdity go further? It is quite true that that injustice was done by a rule of thumb system, but that does not affect the principle, and in order to illustrate the preposterous and grotesque nature of the principle on which this scale is to be based I am entitled to apply it to an individual case. I admit frankly that I have selected an extreme case. I do not mean to contend for a moment that the result of the Bill all over Ireland would be as extreme as it would be when applied to the case I have referred to, but the principle is equally rotten. Really I think it would be impossible to imagine a more monstrous proposition. When the right hon. Gentleman says the Amendment cannot be accepted—because, forsooth, it would give too much trouble to the Land Commission—he should devise another scheme. If he finds that he cannot by Amendments bring this scheme into consistency with logic, reason, and justice, then I say he is bound to throw away this scheme and propose another. We cannot dismiss from our minds the fact that this is one of the most extraordinary revolutions over proposed in regard to the charges on land. What did the right hon. Gentleman say in his reply? He said I seemed to forget the real character of the variability inherent in tithe. What is variability in English tithe does not apply here, because it is no longer inherent in Irish tithe. It is a monstrous abuse of language to talk about variability being inherent in tithe, which thirty years ago was made the subject of statutory settlement in this House, the basis of which was that there should be no variability. What is variability? The right hon. Gentleman might easily have told the House that it was supposed to be a tenth of the produce—that is to say, the tithe varied in proportion to the value of the produce. Rents do not and ought not to vary in direct proportion to the rise and fall in prices. This I consider a most important point as bearing on this proposal, because I contend, and every agricultural expert whose works I have ever read on this subject contends, that rent, if justice is done, must vary in much greater proportion
552
than the variation of price. That is an accepted axiom in dealing with these questions—that is to say, if the price of agricultural produce varies by 10 percent., the rent ought to drop a, great deal more. Rent pays, and ought to pay, in proportion to the cost of production, the price of labour and a variety of other considerations, but the variability inherent in tithe was based on a totally different standard. It was variability directly proportional to the price of produce. The right hon. Gentleman is. entirely wrong when he refers me to the variability inherent in tithe, and he is,! doubly wrong when he leans on the hon. i Member, who spoke in absolute sincerity. but in absolute ignorance of the history of Irish land, which is an extremely complicated subject. He thinks he can, settle the question by telling us of the, present condition of English tithes. He-might as well tell us what is the position, of tithe in China, if there is such a thing. That would have as much bearing on the position of tithe in Ireland as the speech, of the right hon. Gentleman. Tithe in Ireland has been the subject of a series of arrangements. I am acquainted with the history of these settlements. I know that tithe in Ireland has been different throughout the whole century from; what it has been in England, and to say that because variations take place in English tithes, similar variations ought to take place in Ireland, where a totally different system has been in force, where the land has been held for generations under a totally different system, is an utterly absurd and preposterous argument. You talk about the variability inherent in tithe. I maintain that, substantially speaking, there has been no variability inherent in Irish tithe since 1838. The right hon. Gentleman himself admitted that such was the variability since and before the settlement of 1838 that not one in a hundred ever succeeded in getting his tithe varied, and that for practical purposes that variability was invariable. The result was that for all practical purposes the tithe-payers in Ireland had settled down, and accepted their tithe as an invariable charge on the land. It is absurd to base an argument in support of this revolutionary and extraordinary change on anything that existed in England. We have to deal with a case of tithe which for nearly one hundred years has been practically an invariable charge, so far as the

553
ecclesiastical burden is concerned. The principle of inherent variability is invoked for the purpose of justifying this extraordinary proceeding, which really has no justification, and which is a frank and simple act of plunder.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have been sitting here in expectation that we should really have some arguments adduced against the Amendment, but, so far as I understood, the Chief Secretary founded his opposition mainly on the assertion that it was practically impossible to draw the distinction which the Amendment implied. He did not, so far as I am aware, find out what would be the reduction of rent as based on tenants' improvements, but I did not understand that the right hon. Gentleman at all disputed the equity of the arguments used by the hon. Member for East Mayo. I confess to having been more or less in attendance while the Bill was being discussed, and I cannot help saying that it appears to me to be perhaps the most extraordinary measure of the session, if not of the Parliament or of the century. There was the initial puzzle why the Bill was introduced at all. Then there is the further puzzle why the funds to enable this obvious and naked gift to be made to the landowners of Ireland are to be taken from the Irish Church Fund, which was given by Parliament to the relief of the poor and needy, the distressed and suffering in Ireland. Then there was the puzzle of the mysterious printer's error which crept into two Acts of Parliament, and upon which the whole case appears to me to be founded. Then we have the puzzle that tithes which have been for many years fixed and stereotyped by the law of the land, and which before that we were told were practically fixed, so difficult was it to take the means to make them vary, are all the time inherently variable, and that such variability is of a sacred character and ought to be respected. The next puzzle is that tithes are no longer to have to do with the prices of produce, but with the reduction of rents, an element which had never come into the matter before. I have gone from one of these puzzles to another, and now I come to the last, that the reduction of rent, on the ground of which the landlord is to receive a benefit, is to include a reduction made in consequence of his having exacted
554
a rent on his tenant's improvements. That was rent that he should never have had at all, and because he has been under the legislation, beneficent or otherwise, of recent years estopped from any longer exacting rent in this iniquitous fashion in a way that has been condemned by Parliament, he is to receive a pecuniary advantage now from this Bill. That is a chain of puzzles that I have never seen equalled in connection with an Act of Parliament before. In regard to the last proposal, I have waited expecting to hear some argument in its defence, and if there is no such thing to be said, why should we be stopped in preventing this gross injustice because there may be some difficulties in the way we have not heard of. It is an injustice in more senses than one, because it is in itself inequitable and illogical. Besides that, remember every penny that is taken out of the Irish Church Fund is taken from some other beneficent purpose, and there are hundreds of claims in Ireland which, I venture to say, ought to take precedence over the one with which we are now dealing.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman stated that he had been in constant attendance.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: More or less. I was in attendance during the whole of the Second Reading debate, which gave me a certain knowledge of the subject.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I think it is rather a pity that the right hon. Gentleman did not address to the House on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill the observations he has just made, because the greater part of the observations are totally irrelevant to the Amendment now before us. I have already given the general grounds on which the provisions which the right hon. Gentleman attacks have been inserted in the Bill, and I am, therefore, content to address myself to the particular Amendment before the Committee. The hon. Member for East Mayo proposes that we should not take the reductions of rent as the standard of variation of tithes, and asks that an allowance should be made in each case for the improvements made by the tenants. My answer to that is that it

555
would he absolutely impracticable. The thing could not be done, and I would say that the acceptance of the Amendment would ruin the whole Bill, and we might as well drop the Bill at once. The hon. Member for East Mayo has stated that I said nothing whatever with respect to the justice of the proposal. What I stated previously was that I did not think the considerations of justice adduced by the hon. Member were such as to need that serious weight should be attached to them, and I have given my reasons for so thinking. I have also, over and above that, referred to the inherent variability of the tithes, and I would remind the hon. Member that tithe in its first form, in which it was really one-tenth of the produce, did and would include an amount due to the tithe-owner in consequence of greater productivity resulting from tenants' improvements, as well as the produce of the land apart from those improvements.
MR. DILLON: What about a house? There is no tithe on a house.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I think the reduction of rent has nothing to do with houses. But I would ask the Committee to look at the question a little more broadly. I have not said that tithe ought to be reduced because rents have been reduced, although I think I could quote speeches made by hon. Gentlemen opposite to that effect. What I said was that it was necessary to establish some standard of variability. There are strong objections, denied by nobody, to establishing the old standard of variability in Ireland, and we have therefore to introduce a new standard. I do not believe a fairer standard of variation
could be devised than the one which we propose in this Bill. I have been told again and again that it is a revolutionary proposal, and that such a thing has never been heard of before. I think the principle, if I am not mistaken, was introduced into the Act of 1891, but in any case the general adoption of a principle of this kind has not been possible in any other country except Ireland, and in Ireland it is only possible from the circumstance that there we have had rents judicially fixed. We have taken advantage of that circumstance, and I venture to think that if the Bill passes there will be a better standard of variation for tithe rent-charge than there is in this country.
MR. FLYNNsaid it was quite evident, when the right hon. Gentleman could only make such a lame defence of the proposal, that there was no case. After all was said and done, the greater portion of the reduction was based on the tenants' improvements. They were bound to resist this Bill at every possible stage—firstly, because of its own inherent defects, and, secondly, because money was being taken from an Irish public source and given to one special class of the community. Up to 1881 the landlords of Ireland had a legal right to confiscate improvements, and to rob and penalise the tenants, and because, as the Leader of the Opposition had said, they were stopped from defrauding the tenants, they were now to get the largest possible share out of the Irish Church Fund. He hoped the House would protest against the action of the Government.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 121; Noes, 198. (Division List No. 177.)

AYES.

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

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Caldwell, James

Duckworth, James

Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. Henry

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Dunn, Sir William

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Carew, James Laurence

Emmott, Alfred

Bainbridge, Emerson

Carvill, Patrick Geo. H.

Engledew, Charles John

Baker, Sir John

Cawley, Frederick

Evershed, Sydney

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Channing, Francis Allston

Field, William (Dublin)

Billson, Alfred

Clancy, John Joseph

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Birrell, Augustine

Colville, John

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Blake, Edward

Crilly, Daniel

Flynn, James Christopher

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Crombie, John William

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Broadhurst, Henry

Daly, James

Gold, Charles

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Dalziel, James Henry

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Dillon, John

Harwood, George

Burt, Thomas

Doogan, P. C.

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Holland, William Henry

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W)

Strachey Edward

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Jacoby, James Alfred

O'Dowd, John

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

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

O'Kelly, James

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

O'Malley, William

Tennant, Harold John

Joicey Sir James

Palmer, George W. (Reading)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Jones D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r

Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

Philipps, John Wynford

Wallace Robert

Kitson, Sir James

Pickard, Benjamin

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Wason, Eugene

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wedderburn, Sir William

Leng, Sir John

Price, Robert John

Weir, James Galloway

Lough, Thomas

Priestley, Briggs

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Macleese, Daniel

Reckitt, Harold James

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Q'n's Co)

Reid, Sir Robert Thershie

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Richardson, J. (Durham S. E.)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

M'Crae George

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Wilson, John (Govan)

M'Dermott, Patrick

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

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

M'Ewan William

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Hudders'd)

M'Ghee Richard

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

M'Hugh Patrick A. (Leitrim)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfars.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.

Murnaghan, George

Souttar, Robinson

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

Spicer, Albert

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hozier, Hon. J. Henry C.

Allsopp, Hon. George

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cruddas, William Donaldson

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Jackson, Rt. Hon. W. Lawies

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Curzon, Viscount

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness)

Donkin, Richard Sim

Kenyon, James

Baird, John George Alexander

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. Wm.

Baldwin Alfred

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Kimber, Henry

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

Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

King, Sir Henry Seymour

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

Dyke, Rt. Hon Sir William Hart

Knowles, Lees

Banbnry, Frederick George

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

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

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

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

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

Faber, George Denison

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swans.

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

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Beckett Ernest William

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

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

Bigwood, James

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Long Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

Bill, Charles

Fisher, William Hayes

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Blakiston-Houston, John

FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

Lopes, H. Yarde Buller

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

Lowe, Francis William

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

Forster, Henry William

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Brassey, Albert

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Fry, Lewis

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Brymer, William Ernest

Galloway, William Johnson

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Bullard, Sir Harry

Gibbons, Lloyd

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

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

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

Butcher, John George

Goldsworthy, Major-General

M'Killop, James

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Glasgow)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Malcolm, Ian

Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Marks, Henry Hananel

Carson, Rt. Hon Sir Edw. H.

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

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

Gull, Sir Cameron

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

Gunter, Colonel

Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Milward, Colonel Victor

Coghill Douglas Harry

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.

Monk, Charles James

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hardy, Laurence

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

Henderson, Alexander

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

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

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Hobhouse, Henry

Morrell, George Herbert

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

Howard, Joseph

Morrison, Walter

558

559

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matthew W

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Mount, William George

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

Thornton, Percy M.

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

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Vincent, Col Sir C E H (Sheffield)

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Robinson, Brooke

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Myers, William Henry

Round, James

Welby, Lt.-Col. A C E (Taunton)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)

Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

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

Parkes, Ebenezer

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

Saunderson, Rt. Hon. Col. Ed. J.

Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm)

Penn, John

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Pierpoint, Robert

Seely, Charles Hilton

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Pilkington, R. (Lancs., Newton)

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

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

Plunkett, Rt. Hon. Horace C.

Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Wrightson, Thomas

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Wylie, Alexander

Pretyman, Ernest George

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

Wyndham, George

Purvis, Robert

Stanley, Edw. J. (Somerset)

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Pym, C. Guy

Stanley, Sir Henry M. (Lambeth)

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Richards, Henry Charles

Stock, James Henry

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l

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

It being after half-past Five of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

VETERINARY SURGEONS AMENDMENT BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.
NEW BILL.
  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACT (1888) AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, and to provide for the better carriage by rail of cycles, ordered to be brought in by Sir Howard Vincent, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Butcher, Mr. Marks, Mr. Kimber, Mr. Thornton, and Mr. Lowe.
  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACT (1888) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, and to provide for the better carriage by rail of cycles," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 16th July, and to be printed. [Bill 283.]

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Trade (in-
  560
  cluding Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures: — Mr. John Wilson (Durham): and had appointed in substitution: Sir James Woodhouse.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
  Eighth Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  CHINA—ANTI-FOREIGN OUTBREAK— RECENT NEWS.
  On the Motion for Adjournment—
  MR. ASQUITHasked if the Government had any information to give the House with regard to the state of affairs in China.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (MR. BRODRICK,): I am afraid that I have no satisfactory information to give to the House. The situation, so far as we know, is practically unchanged since yesterday, and the allied Admirals do not seem to have been able to take any forward movement towards Tientsin.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Has there been any backward movement? A statement which appears in the press to-day conveys that impression.
  *MR. BRODRICK: We have no reason to suppose that any backward movement has been made, but we have no information that they have yet seen their way to undertake any further movement forward.
  Adjourned at ten minutes before Six of the clock.