Commons Sitting of 18 February 1908

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
New Writ for the County of Carmarthen (Western Division), in the room of John Lloyd Morgan, esquire, K.C. (Recorder of the Borough of Swansea).—(Mr. Whiteley.)

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Macclesfield and District Tramways (Abandonment) Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
Holderness Water Bill (by Order). Read a second time, and committed.
Dublin and Central Ireland Electric Power Bill (by Order). Read a second time, and committed.
Wolverhampton Corporation Bill (by Order). Read a second time, and committed.
Divorce Bills.—Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Attorney-General, Sir Edward Carson, Mr. Cave, Sir David Brynmor Jones, Sir John Kennaway, Sir Joseph Leese, and Mr. Solicitor-General were nominated members of the Select committee on Divorce Bills.—(Mr. Whiteley.)

PETITIONS.

  LICENSED PREMISES (EXCLUSION OF CHILDREN).
  Petitions for legislation: From Barton-on-Humber; Blaenavon; Bowes Park;

  607
  Cheetham; Children's Protection League; Cullercoats; Devonport; Leeds (two); Martock and Ash; Middlewich; Newcastle-upon-Tyne; New Holland; North Shields; Northwich; Penzance (two); Richmond; Tynemouth; West Bromwich; and Winsford; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Ashington; Bedford; Birkenhead (five); Carrington; Deal; Dulverton; East and Mid Surrey; Goldsithney; Halifax; Hyson Green; Hyde; Lambeth; Leeds; (two); Oxford; Percy Main; Priest-man; Ringwood (two); Rotherhithe; St. Hilary; Sileby; South Durham; South Lambeth; Smethwick; Timsbury; West Bromwich (two); and Winchester (two); to lie upon the Table.
  WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Dundee; and Marple; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  INEBRIATE REFORMATORIES (ENTERIC FEVER AT BRENTRY).
  Copy presented, of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, by R. W. Braithwaite, esquire, M.D., D.P.H., His Majesty's Inspector under the Inebriates Acts, concerning an outbreak of Enteric Fever at Brentry Certified Inebriate Reformatory [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVAL WORKS ACTS, 1895, 1896, 1897, 1899, 1901, 1903, and 1905.
  Account presented, showing the amount of Money issued out of the Consolidated Fund; the mode in which it was provided; the amount and nature of the Securities created in respect thereof; the amount of the surplus of Income above Expenditure for the financial year ended 31st March, 1896, and the amount of money expended in pursuance of the Acts during the year ended the 31st March, 1907; together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to he upon the Table, and to be printed.
  NATIONAL DEBT (MILITARY SAVINGS BANKS).
  Account presented, of the Gross Amount of all Moneys received and paid by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt on account of the Fund for Military Savings Banks, from 19th September, 1845, to the 5th January, 1908 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 64.]
  UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN.
  Copy presented, of Abstract of Accounts of the University of Aberdeen for the year ending 30th September, 1907 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 65.]
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the county of Flint from Dyserth to Newmarket (London and North Western Railway (Dyserth and Newmarket Light Railway) Order, 1908) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT. 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the county of Salop from Stottesdon to Billingsley (Stottesdon, Kinlet, and Billingsley Light Railway Order, 1908) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT. 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the parish and rural district of Catherington, in the county of Southampton, in extension of the Light Railway authorised by the Portsdown and Horndean Light Railway Order, 1898, and for other purposes (Portsdown and Horndean Light Railway (Extension, etc.) Order, 1908) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PRICES OF EXPORTED COAL.
  Return ordered, "giving the quantities of Coal Exported from each of the ports of the United Kingdom, by quarterly

  609
  periods, in 1906, at prices not exceeding 5s., above 5s. but not exceeding 6s., above 6s. but not exceeding 7s., and so on (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 90, of session 1907)."—(Mr. David Alfred Thomas.)

  COAL EXPORTS, &c.
  Return ordered, "giving for the year 1907 the Export of Coal from each port in the United Kingdom to each country abroad, together with summary statements showing the export of Coal in every period of three months from the principal districts of the United Kingdom to the principal groups, of foreign countries; and also showing the quantity shipped at each port in the United Kingdom for ships' use on foreign voyages during the like period (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 94, of session 1906)."—(Mr. David Alfred Thomas.)
  BRITISH MUSEUM.
  Account ordered, "of the Income and Expenditure of the British Museum (Special Trust Funds) for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1908; and Return of the number of persons admitted to visit the Museum and the British Museum (Natural History) in each year from 1902 to 1907, both years inclusive; together with a statement of the progress made in the arrangement and description of the collections, and an account of objects added to them in the year 1907."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Seamen's Waiting Boom at Belfast.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in every British shipping port of importance there is a seamen's waiting room, who await discharge or engagement in a vessel; and whether seeing that at the Mercantile Marine Office at Belfast no such waiting room exists, he will make inquiries into the matter with the view of having one established.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) A waiting room for seamen is attached to the Mercantile Marine Office at most of
  610
  the larger ports. There is some difficulty in providing a room in the Belfast Office in a convenient position, but I am in communication on the subject with the Irish Board of Works, who are in control of the building.

  School Teachers' Superannuation Fund.
  MR. LANE-FOX: To ask the President of the Board of Education what was the total number of male and female teachers respectively paying into the Teachers' Superannuation Fund on 31st March. 1907; what was the total amount paid by the teachers in the year ending 31st March, 1907, and the total amount for the seven years ending 31st March, 1907; what was the total sum paid to the teachers in the year ending 31st March, 1907, and when the promised revision of the scale of such payments will be made known to teachers; and whether he can yet state what alterations will be made in the amount of superannuation payments to be paid in future to the teachers.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I have no figures giving the number of teachers contributing to the Deferred Annuity Fund on a given date. The number of certificated teachers in employment on the last day of the school year ending between 1st August, 1905, and 31st July, 1906, was 29,414 men and 54,860 women. To ascertain the number contributing to the fund it would be necessary to deduct those who did not accept The Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1898, and to add a number of teachers who were contributing in respect of an interval in their service under Rule 13 of the Elementary School Teachers' Superannuation Rules, 1899, and certain others who are serving in pupil-teacher centres and other institutions in which service may be recorded. The total amount received from the teachers in the year ending 31st March, 1907, was £199,966; the total amount for the seven years ending 31st March, 1907, was £1,105,500. The total amount paid to the teachers during that year was £988. I am not aware that any promise of a revised scale of payments either by or to the teachers has been made. The actuarial inquiry required by the Act has taken

  611
  place, and the Report has recently been laid before Parliament. Section 4 (2) of the Act provides that: "If it appears from any actuarial report under this Act that the assets and liabilities of either account of the fund are such as either to require a reduction or to justify an increase of the annuities, the Treasury may cause fresh tables to be constructed and those tables, when approved by the Treasury, shall come into force, and shall be laid before Parliament, and the former tables shall cease to be in force, and so on from time to time as occasion requires."

  Workmen's Insurance in Germany.
  MR. L. HASLAM: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will grant the Return relating to Workmen's Insurance (Germany) on to-day's Notice Paper.*
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Yes, Sir.

  Number of District and Sub-District Boards.

  Number of Members.

  Area in square miles under Board's jurisdiction.

  Officials.

  Non-officials.

  231

  624

  2,247

  101,691

  Nominated

  Elected.

  1,584†

  1,287

  † Includes 27 ex-officio members.

  Income from all sources.

  1901–2.

  1902–3.

  1903–4.

  1904–5.

  1905–6.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  295,923

  326,463

  320,010

  292,286

  379,006

  * Return showing, in terms of English money, the latest available annual statement with reference to Workmen's Insurance in the German Empire against (1) sickness, and (2) invalidity and old age; giving in each of the above classes of insurance (1) the number of

  Local District Boards in the Bombay Presidency.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he can give the number of local district boards in the Bombay Presidency and their names; the number of members on each board, distinguishing between officials nominated and elected; the area in square miles of the jurisdiction of each board; and the amount of money placed at the disposal of each board for each year during the last five years for which figures are obtainable.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I shall be happy to send my hon. friend the Annual Reports for the five years ending 1905–6, published by the Government of Bombay, on the working of district boards in the Presidency, which give for each district and sub-district board the information he desires. I append a summary of the figures for the Presidency as a whole.
  persons insured, (2) the number compensated. (3) receipts from all sources, (4) contributions from employers, contributions from employees, contributions from the State, (5) amount of expenses incurred, (6) amount of accumulated funds, and (7) average compensation per case.

  Foreigners holding Public-House Licences in the United Kingdom.
  MR. BONAR LAW: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of foreigners who hold public-house licences in England and Wales, in Scotland, and in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) There is no information in my Department or, as I learn, in the Scottish and Irish Offices, enabling me to answer this Question accurately. I am not aware of any statistics bearing more nearly, in point of date and otherwise, on the Question put to me than those which are to be found in the Occupation and Nationality Tables of the Census Reports. Foreigners, to the number of 638, are shown as engaged in England and Wales in the year 1901 in occupations broadly classified as "Inn, Hotel-keepers: Publicans, Beersellers, and Cider Dealers" (Cd. 1523, pp. 280–1) in Scotland twenty-nine foreigners are shown under the heading "Inn, Hotel-keepers: Publicans, Wine and Spirit Merchants" (Cd. 1798, p. 771). The precise meaning of "foreigner" in these Reports depends on the rules set out in the Reports as having been adopted for the purpose of classification. In the Census Reports for Ireland (where occupations in which not more than forty foreigners were engaged are not shown separately) there is no entry of foreigners under a heading similar to the foregoing. I am informed that it has been ascertained that there are three foreigners holding public-house licences in the Dublin Metropolitan Police district.

  Compulsory Attendance at Evening Schools.
  MR. CLOUGH: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he received a request from the West Riding Local Education Authority last September to appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into the feasibility and advisability of making attendance at evening schools compulsory; and whether he can see his way to accede to this request.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I have received the request to which my hon.
  614
  friend alludes. The matter was some time ago referred by the Board to the Consultative Committee, who have already been giving very careful consideration to it, with a view to submitting a Report to the Board.

  Overtime in Statistical Office, Customs.
  MR. O'DOWD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury what was the average amount of overtime done in the Statistical Office of the Customs in the years 1906 and 1907. and whether there is any hope of the present excessive amount of extra duty being reduced, as indicated in reply to" a Question last session.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I am informed that the average amount of overtime work performed in the Statistical Office of the Customs in the years 1906 and 1907 was 300 hours and 303 hours per head respectively. My reply of 20th August last to the hon. Baronet the Member for Wandsworth, to which I suppose the hon. Member refers, that every effort is made to reduce the amount of this extra attendance, still holds good of course, but I am afraid I can hold out no hope of any material reduction below the figures quoted.

  Promotion in the Statistical Office, Customs.
  MR. O'DOWD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, in view of the fact that some eighty new class assistant clerks in the Statistical Office of the Customs are eligible by service for promotion, will he arrange for a proportion of the vacancies at the forthcoming examination for port clerkships to be given to meritorious men in the Statistical Office.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman). The course suggested by the hon. Member has in fact been taken. Four assistant clerks in the Statistical Office have been nominated by the Treasury for appointment to port clerkships, which in ordinary-course would have been offered for competition at the forthcoming examination.

  Purchase of the Inverliever Estate.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what is the approximate area

  615
  of the Inverliever estate, purchased recently by the Government with a view to affcrestation; what was the price paid for it; and what was taken as its annual value for rating at the time of the purchase.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The approximate area of the estate is 12,530 acres, and the price paid for it was £25,000. Its annual value for rating is understood to be £1,137.

  Period.

  Loans raised.

  Loan charges (Principal and Interest).

  £

  £

  School Boards

  Year ended 29 Sept. 1901

  2,244,988

  1,881,088

  School Boards

  Year ended 29 Sept. 1902

  2,283,705

  2,022,306

  School Boards

  Year ended 29 Sept. 1903, or where appointed day under Part III. was earlier than 30 Sept. 1903, from 30 Sept. 1902 to appointed day

  2,745,645

  1,878,987

  School Boards

  Periods commencing 30 Sept. 1902 and ending with appointed day

  852,442

  590,714

  Local Education Authorities

  Year ended 31 March 1904, or where appointed day was later than 1 April 1903, from appointed day to 31 March 1904

  662,978

  939,931

  Local Education Authorities

  Year ended 31 March 1905, or where appointed day was later than 1 April 1904, from appointed day to 31 March 1905

  1,721,958

  2,210,964

  Local Education Authorities

  Year ended 31 March 1906

  2,134,370

  2,352,697

  Tariff on American and other Goods entering the Philippines.
  MR. BONAE LAW: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether, after April, 1909, all American goods are to be admitted free of duty to the Philippines, while existing duties are to be retained on goods imported from all other countries countries.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I am not aware that any decision has been arrived at, but inquiries are being made.

  Elementary Education Loans.
  MR. A. G. C. HARVEY: To ask the President of the Board of Education if he will state the amount of loans raised for purposes of elementary education by education authorities in England and Wales, and the payments made in respect of loan charges, principal and interest, in each year from 1901–1 to 1906–7.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.)—

  Suggested Grant to Mr. D. A. M'Laughlin, Mate of the "Dundonald".
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether his attention has been directed to the circumstances following the total loss of the British ship "Dundonald," in the course of her return voyage from Sydney to Falmouth, on Desolation Island, one of the Auckland group, about 180 miles south of New Zealand, in March of last year; to the manner in which the survivors succeeded in maintaining them-

  617
  selves under circumstances of almost unprecedented difficulty throughout the southern winter and in constructing a primitive craft and so reaching another island of the group, from which they were afterwards rescued; how the safety of the party was largely due to the capable leadership, for a period of more than six months, of the second mate, Mr. Daniel Aloysius M'Laughlin, of Old Kilpatrick, Dumbartonshire, whose conduct was worthy of the best traditions of the merchant service; and whether he can see his way to making any award to Mr. M'Laughlin in recognition of that conduct.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Yes, Sir, my attention has been called to the loss of the British ship "Dundonald," and to the services rendered by Mr. D. A. M'Laughlin. The case has been carefully considered by the Board of Trade, and, while highly appreciating the praiseworthy manner in which Mr. M'Laughlin performed a difficult duty imposed upon him in exceptional circumstances, they regret that the case is not one in which they can grant any reward.

  Hop-Growing Industry in Western American.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he will instruct His Majesty's consuls at Portland, Oregon, and other places on the Pacific Coast, to keep him informed as the progress and action of the Pacific coast hop-growers' syndicate.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether Chinese and negro labour is employed in the cultivation of hops on the Pacific Coast of America; and how the wages of such Chinese and negro labourers respectively compare with those paid to hop pickers and others employed in the industry in this country.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) His Majesty's consuls have been instructed to supply some information with regard to these matters.

  Imports of American Hops.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, what
  618
  proportion of the hops consumed in Great Britain have been imported from the United States of America during each of the last thirty years.
  (Sir Edward Strachey.) No official statistics of the production of hops were collected prior to 1885. The proportions borne by the imports from the United States to our total supply from that year inclusive are as follows—

  Year.

  Per cent.

  1885

  14·01

  1886

  3·94

  1887

  6·32

  1888

  18·48

  1889

  11·42

  1890

  16·00

  1891

  12·89

  1892

  13·70

  1893

  23·61

  1894

  13·63

  1895

  20·20

  1896

  20·99

  1897

  15·17

  1898

  32·99

  1899

  15·17

  1900

  27·92

  1901

  9·92

  1902

  16·56

  1903

  13·78

  1904

  25·63

  1905

  4·61

  1906

  26·98

  1907

  23·56

  Grubbing of Hops.
  Mr. COURTHOPE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, how many acres of hops in this country have been grubbed during each of the last thirty years; and whether grubbing is increasing or decreasing during the present winter.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) We are unable to say to what extent grubbing has taken place during the last thirty years, inasmuch as our Returns only give the net loss or gain, and do not show the acreage of new plantations. The total area under hops in 1907 was 26,851 acres less than in 1878.

  Hop Picking Seasons—Persons Employed.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total number, and the number per acre

  619
  of persons employed permanently and during the picking season respectively, in the English hop industries.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) It is not possible to state separately the numbers permanently engaged in the hop industry, but some estimates of the additional numbers engaged during the picking season will be found in a Report by Dr. Reginald Farrar to the Local Government Board, of which I sent the hon. Member a copy.

  Protection of British Hop Industry.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether pending the Report of the Select Committee on the Hop Industry, he will take steps temporarily to safeguard British hop-growers against the action of the Pacific Coast syndicate.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) As I have already informed the hon. Member, I have not yet heard whether such a syndicate as that to which he refers has been actually formed. I cannot recommend that any action should be taken in the matter.

  Supply of Electricity Bill.
  MR. ASHTON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is his intention to reintroduce this session the Supply of Electricity Bill of the session of 1906.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I hope to introduce a Bill amending the Electric Lighting Acts as soon as there seems to be a reasonable prospect of time using available for its discussion.

  Metropolitan Boroughs adopting the Notification of Births Act.
  MR. A. ALLEN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, how many metropolitan boroughs have decided to adopt the Notification of Births Act; and whether any, and if so which metropolitan boroughs have decided not to adopt this Act.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The Act has been adopted in the City of London and in sixteen out of the twenty-
  620
  eight metropolitan boroughs. I have received information to the effect that it is proposed to adopt it in another of these boroughs. The only metropolitan borough in which, so far as I am aware, the council have expressed a view adverse to the adoption of the Act is the borough of Deptford.

  Milk-Blended Butter.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will state the nineteen names under which milk-blended butter is sold, in accordance with The Butter and Margarine Act, 1907, with the approval of the Board of Agriculture.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The names which have been approved by the Board for use in connection with milk-blended butter are Consumo, Casora, Casmon, Casova, Casana, Casoa, Casa, Iveldale, Iveldene, Iveleat, Ivelene, Ivelette, Ivelike, Ivelmene, Ivelmore, May-blossom, Pearks' Breadmate, Pearks' Bredspred, and Pearksown. We do not know how many of them are actually in use.

  Building Loans in Ireland.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say what is the procedure to be adopted by a tenant farmer in Ireland to acquire a loan from the Board of Works for the purpose of building a dwelling-house on his land; at what rate per cent. is the money repayable; and under what Act of Parliament has the Board power to advance money for the purpose.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The procedure is for the farmer to write to the Secretary of the Board stating that he desires to obtain a loan, when full directions will be sent him. Loans are repayable in twenty-two years at a rent-charge of £6 10s. per cent., which includes interest at £3 8s. 3d. per cent. The Acts of Parliament under which loans of this class are made are 10 Vict., c, 32, and 44 and 45 Vict., c. 49. I will send the hon. Member a pamphlet giving further details.

  Sale of Clonrellick Farm, County Westmeath.
  SIR WALTER NUGENT: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a portion of the farm known as Clonrellick, formerly held by Mary J. Little, near Moate, county Westmeath, but now sold to the Estates Commissioners, has been sold to a man who already holds 200 acres of land in the neighbourhood; and, if so, whether in view of the provisions of the Act which was passed for the relief of congestion in Ireland, he will say what action he proposes to take.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that the lands referred to in the Question have not been sold to them, but are included in an estate which the owners have agreed to sell direct to the tenants, and in respect of which advances have been applied for. When the estate comes to be dealt with by the Commissioners in order of priority they will carefully consider the nature of the tenancies and the advances applied for.

  Evicted Tenants—Case of Miss Margaret Clarke.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Miss Margaret Clarke of Posserstown, Nobber, in the County of Meath, has applied to the Estates Commissioners to be reinstated on a farm from which she was evicted on the estate of Mr. Smyth, situate in the electoral division of Carricklick; whether her case has been dealt with, and if so, what is the result.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The Estates Commissioners assume that the Question refers to an application for reinstatement which they have received from Miss Margaret Clarke, who alleges that she was evicted from a holding on the estate of Mrs. Penelope Filgate. The application, which is dated July, 1907, has not yet been inquired into.

  Delay in Erection of Labourers Cottages in Navan.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of the delay in appointing an arbitrator
  622
  to deal with the scheme for the erection of labourers cottages in Navan raral district; and whether, seeing that in order to secure to the labourers to whom plots have been allotted the ensuing season's crop it is necessary that the plots should be immediately fenced, he will urge the Local Government Board to avoid unnecessary delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The application for the appointment of the arbitrator was received by the Local Government Board towards the end of last month. The necessary order of appointment is in course of preparation, and it is expected that it will be signed in a day or two.

  Case of James Gore on the Balfour Estate at Rathkenny.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have agreed to purchase the estate of R. B. Balfour, situate at Rathkenny, Slane, county Meath; whether James Gore has applied to be reinstated on the farm on this estate from which he was evicted, and if it is intended to give him the whole of his former holding; and, if not, will he say why it is not to be done.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The Estates Commissioners have been in negotiation with Mr. R. B. Balfour for the purchase of the farm referred to in the Question, and the owner has intimated that he is prepared to accept their price. James Gore has applied to be reinstated in the farm, which comprises about 200 acres. The Commissioners, however, do not intend to give him the whole farm, as it is considered that it would be too large for him. The matter is at present under consideration.

  Case of Edward Brady on the Gerrard Estate.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Edward Brady has applied to the Estates Commissioners to be reinstated in his former holding on the estate of Mr. Gerrard, Gibbstown, Navan, county Meath; and what action has been taken in this case.

  623

  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The Estates Commissioners cannot trace the receipt of any application from Edward Brady for restoration to a holding on the estate of Mr. Gerrard; but they have received an application from an Edward Bradley, and this is under consideration.

  Case of Francis Hopkins on the Lyster Smythe Estate.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the application of Francis Hopkins to be reinstated in his former holding on the estate of Colonel Lyster Smythe, situate at Nobber, county Meath, has yet been considered by the Estates Commissioners; and what is the result.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The application of Francis Hopkins for reinstatement or for a new holding is under the consideration of the Estates Commissioners, who have not yet come to a decision on the matter.

  Case of Christopher Carolan on the Estate of Lord Gormanstown.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Christopher Carolan as representative of James Nulty, an evicted tenant on the estate of Lord Gormanstown, Kilbride, Nobber, county Meath, has applied to the Estates Commissioners for an equivalent farm; and what action, if any, has been taken in his case.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The Estates Commissioners received the application in question, and after due inquiry and consideration decided to take no action in the matter.

  Pay of Imperial Yeomen transferring to the Territorial Force.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state whether non-commisioned officers and men of the Imperial Yeomanry who elect to serve in the Territorial Forces to complete their period of engagement, are to receive pay at the rates now existing in the Imperial Yeomanry, or at the rates
  624
  assigned to their branch of the Territorial forces.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Men of the Imperial Yeomanry enlisting into the Territorial Force for the unexpired portion of their Imperial Yeomanry engagement or re-engagement will be allowed to retain Yeomanry rates and conditions of pay for the period for which they re-enlist. Non-commissioned officers paid as such at the end of the 1907 training may retain Imperial Yeomanry rates and conditions of pay until the end of the 1910 training if they continue to serve as non-commissioned officers for so long.

  The Management of the Royal College of Surgeons.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: To ask the Prime Minister whether he will state what action has been taken by the Lord President of the Council in regard to the memorial which was presented to the Prime Minister in the session before last, on behalf of members of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, asking him to take such steps as might secure to members some voice in the management of the college and its property; and what reply has been received from the council of the college to representations made by them by the Lord President.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Banner-man.) It is a matter of common knowledge that, in reply to the different deputations which he received, the Lord President expressed the general sympathy of the Government with the objects of the memorial; but the council of the Royal College appear to maintain the rigour of their attitude on the subject.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Rosyth Works Contract.
  MR. JOHN WARD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any provision is being made in the contract for the works at Rosyth to secure trade union rates of wages being paid to the navvies and other workmen who will be employed upon the

  625
  construction of such works; and whether the contract will also provide machinery for deciding what are the proper rates, seeing that at present, owing to the nature of the case, there can be no already existing standard.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON, Dundee): In accordance with the Resolution of this House, the contract will contain the usual fair wages clause. The question whether, in the circumstances of this case, any special machinery is needed will be considered before the contract is let; and if the hon. Member has any suggestion to offer, that will be duly considered.

  Tuberculosis among Soldiers.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, what action he proposes to take in regard to soldiers suffering from tuberculosis, in view of the findings of the Select Committee appointed to go into the matter.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE, Haddington): The recommendations of the Select Committee have been recently considered by the Government as a whole. The decision is that, however desirable the special provision recommended by the Committee in the case of soldiers discharged from the Army because of tuberculosis, it is impossible to justify the assumption of this new kind of obligation by the State unless it is extended to other services as well as the Army, and possibly more widely still. The question thus raised becomes one of great gravity and cannot be decided by any single Department.

  Woolwich Arsenal Discharges.
  MR. JOHN WARD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the question of suspending further discharges of workmen at Woolwich Arsenal, with a view to such workmen as may be suitable being transferred to those Departments of His Majesty's dockyards where excessive overtime is being worked by thousands of workmen.
  MR. HALDANE: The War Office is consulting the Admiralty on this mattes.

  The Zakka Khel Expedition.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether correspondents of the Press have been permitted to accompany the expedition against the Zakka Khels, and, if so, how many, and what are the newspapers they represent; what has been the reply of Lord Kitchener in response to the right hon. Gentleman's cablegram on this subject which reached Lord Kitchener before the starting of the expedition; whether the practice in recent times has been that Press-correspondents are permitted to a company field forces subject to the supervision of a military Press censorship, to be exercised only in restraining the communication of information which might benefit the enemy in counteracting military operations; whether this practice is to be observed in reference to the presence of the representatives of the Press in the Zakka expedition; and, if not, what is the reason for this departure.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY, Montrose Burghs): Throe Press correspondents have so far applied for and received permission to accompany the expedition: they represent two English and six Indian newspapers. I have addressed no telegram to the Commander-in-Chief in India; but on all subjects connected with this expedition I am in communication with the Government of India. The usual practice as to censorship, which is as stated in the Question, will no doubt be followed.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What are the English newspapers represented with the expedition? I suppose The Times?
  MR. MORLEY: One is The Times and the other is the Daily Mail.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Hear, hear.
  MR. MORLEY: I do not know what the hon. Member means by that ejaculation. Does he mean I am to exercise a Press censorship?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What I mean is—Is Lord Kitchener of Omdurman to exercise a Press censorship? You recollect his arrangements.
  [No further Answer was given.]
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether any, and, if so, what, directions have been given with reference to the furnishing of exact information of the numbers of the killed and wounded of the Zakka Khel in the various punitive operations of the expedition; and, having regard to the fact that, while in recent wars with native races, approximate numbers of the killed have been given there is little account of the wounded or of their ultimate fate, what directions, if any, have been given that the same standards of conduct should be observed in this expedition as in warfare with a civilised race, and what are the guarantees, if any, for their observance.
  MR. MORLEY: No directions have been given in either case. It is clearly impossible to require exact information as to the casualities of an enemy, more especially if, as in this case, it is his practice, if possible, to carry off his dead and wounded. As to the second part of the Question, I am confident that the discipline and humanity of the troops and their commanders render unnecessary any special orders of the kind suggested in the Question. Perhaps I may also be allowed to answer the Question on the Paper which the hon. Gentleman has addressed to the Secretary of State for War. I am informed by the Government of India that no expanding bullets have been issued to the troops, and none are kept in store in India.
  The Question referred to was as follows:—
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the dum-dum bullets constructed to expand on impact, invented by a British officer in the town in India from which they are named, which were condemned by the overwhelming volume of opinion at the Hague Peace Conference
  628
  of 1899 and were not used in the late South African War, are being used by the British troops in the Zakka Khel expedition; and, if so, whether he will peremptorily forbid their use.
  MR. LUPTON: Is it in accordance with humanity for the troops to destroy the houses and carry off the food, corn, and cattle of the inhabitants of the valley?
  MR. MORLEY: If my hon. friend thinks that military operations can be conducted on the principle that regulates our own pacific dealings, I am afraid his view is chimerical.
  MR. LUPTONpressed for a direct Answer to his Question.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The Question hardly arises out of that on the Paper.

  Blocking Motion.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool, when he will place on the Notice Paper of the House of Commons the Resolution of which he has given notice of his intention to move in reference to the situation on the Indian frontier; whether he has taken any, and, if so, what steps to secure an opportunity for the discussion of his Resolution; and whether he intends to take any steps with a view of securing its discussion.
  MR. F. E. SMITH: In answer to the first part of the Question, the production of the Resolution will not be unduly delayed, having regard to the circumstances under which the notice was set down. In answer to the second part of the Question, I am attentively watching the Parliamentary situation, and will not fail to apprise the hon. Gentleman should a favourable opportunity present itself of initiating a discussion.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: My hon. and learned friend has given a perfectly satisfactory Answer. Will he ask the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs to second the Motion?
  MR. F. E. SMITH: I must ask the hon. Member for notice of that Question.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Montgomery District when he will place upon the Notice Paper of the House of Commons the Resolution of which he has given notice, of his intention to move in reference to the Zakka Khels expedition; whether he has taken any, and, if so, what steps to secure an opportunity for the discussion of his Resolution; and whether he intends to take any steps with a view of securing discussion.
  MR. REES: In answer to the first part of the Question—at an early date. In answer to the second part of the Question—at an early Parliamentary opportunity. In answer to the third part of the Question—so far as I am in a position to answer for His Majesty's Government, Yes.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the hon. Gentleman take an early opportunity of using his great influence with the Government?
  MR. REES: I have never had an opportunity of testing that influence.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the hon. Member send a copy of that valuable reply to the Executive Committee of the Radical Party in his own constituency?
  MR. REES: The affairs of my constituency are between myself and my constituents. They have nothing whatever to do with the hon. Member.

  Primary Education in India.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India when it is proposed to introduce free primary education into India.
  MR. MORLEY: I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the Government of India have referred the question to the local Governments, but I have not yet received their final recommendations.

  Indian Civil Service.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can give the total number of Government civil appointments in India carrying a salary of £250 per annum and over, excluding those reserved for the Covenanted Civil Service; and will he state the number of these appointments held by Europeans and natives of India, respectively.
  MR. MORLEY: I cannot give the exact figures at the present time, but in 1903 the total number of the appointments referred to was, roughly, 6,000, of which rather more than 3,400 were held by Europeans, and rather less than 2,600 by natives of India. This estimate is based on a return published in the Gazette of India for 4th June, 1904, to which I would refer the hon. Member for detailed figures.

  Indian Famine Relief Works.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what percentage of the inhabitants of India are at present in receipt of famine prevention relief; and how that percentage compares with the percentage of persons in receipt of outdoor relief in Great Britain.
  MR. MORLEY: According to the latest information about 740,000 persons are in receipt of famine relief in the whole of India including native states. Calculated on a total population of 300,000,000 the ratio is about one quarter of 1 per cent. But the ratio would, of course, be much higher if struck on the population of the districts where the crops have failed and the provision of the Famine Relief Codes are in force. The ratio of paupers in receipt of outdoor relief to the inhabitants of England and. Wales was stated to be a little over 1½ per cent. in 1907.

  St. Helena Flax Industry.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how many people are employed in the new flax industry in St. Helena; and whether this industry promises to expand successfully.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY or STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N.W.): The Governor has not yet reported the exact number of men employed on the Government fibre mill in St. Helena. In addition to the men so employed, a considerable number of small proprietors and of those who are in the service of the large landowners must have benefitted, either directly or indirectly, through the establishment of the fibre industry. In reply to the latter part of the hon. Member's Question, it is too early as yet to say with confidence that the industry will expand successfully; the mill was only opened at the beginning of December and the first consignment of fibre and tow has only just reached the London market. The Governor reports, however, that there appears to be a general feeling in the Island that the fibre industry has come to stay; and he is himself sanguine that it will do a great deal towards placing St. Helena on her feet again.
  *MR. CATHCART WASONasked whether in view of the great success attending this industry in New Zealand the Government would obtain a report from an expert from that country?
  MR. CHURCHILL: If my memory serves me, the industry was initiated by a gentleman from Now Zealand.

  Distress in St. Helena.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what further steps he intends to take to cope with the distress prevailing in the island of St. Helena.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am glad to say that the Governor has reported to the Secretary of State that the situation in St. Helena is steadily improving, and that matters generally are much brighter than they were a year ago. I am informing the hon. Member, in reply to another Question, of the opening of the Government fibre mill; and improvements to the water supply for the mill, which are being carried out at the present moment from funds provided by His Majesty's Government,
  632
  should provide a partial and temporary remedy for unemployment in the island. I may mention also that within the last few days a grant of £360 has been agreed to for the maintenance, during 1908, of the roads required in connection with the fibre industry; this grant should serve the same purpose. In addition, the lace industry, which was started last year in order to provide employment for the women and girls in St. Helena, has now got into working order. The hon. Member may like to know that specimens of the lace produced are on view at the offices of the League of the Empire at Caxton Hall, Westminster. In view of the comparatively large amount which His Majesty's Government is providing, and the improvement which the Governor reports in the situation, the Secretary of State does not consider that any further action is necessary at present in the direction of providing relief work from Imperial funds.
  MR. WARDLE: Is this a Government Factory in St. Helena?
  MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, a Government fibre factory has been started in order to provide a remedy for unemployment.
  MR. WARDLE: When may we expect to have Government factories in England?
  MR. CHURCHILL: England is not under the Colonial Office.
  MR. LUPTON: Have we not already several hundred Government workshops—workhouses?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Emigration from St. Helena.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the scheme of State-aided emigration has proved successful at St. Helena; how many of the inhabitants have availed themselves of it; and whether it still continues.
  MR. CHURCHILL: It has not been found possible to arrange any scheme

  633
  of emigration from St. Helena, but, as I informed the hon. Member in June last, a number of men have found employment in the Cape Colony.

  Chief Crown Agent for the Colonies.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, when such a large salary as £2,500 a year was sanctioned in the case of the Chief Crown Agent for the Colonies (Sir Ernest Blake), so placing him upon a par in regard to salary with officials of great commercial and financial institutions, the Colonial Office had in mind the fact that, whilst the former is entitled to a considerable pension, no such rule obtains in the case of the latter; whether the Chief Crown Agent can now claim his pension; and, if so, what would be the amount of the same.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has no personal responsibility for the amount of the salary sanctioned in the case of Sir Ernest Blake, the amount having been settled by the right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square. Lord Elgin is certainly not prepared to say that he regards the arrangement then made as excessive or improper, having regard to the very great scale of the business transacted, and to its special character. I understand that the Chief Crown Agent is in a position to claim a pension, but the amount is determined by the Secretary of State on date of retirement. As I informed the hon. Member on the 11th instant, Lord Elgin has decided to appoint a Committee to deal with pensions and cognate subjects. I hope to be able to make an announcement with regard to its composition shortly, as the preliminaries to its appointment are already well advanced, and I deprecate in the meantime questions bearing upon matters which will fall within the purview of its deliberations.

  Trinidad Cocoa Plantation—Indentured Labour.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that indentured labourers from the East Indies to the Trinidad cocoa plantations in many
  634
  cases are paid only 3s. per week instead of 5s. 2½d. per week, as guaranteed to them before leaving home; that such labourers are unable to obtain redress; and, if so, will he take action with a view to the men receiving the wage stipulated at the time of their engagement.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I venture to think that the hon. Member has been misinformed as to the figures. My information goes to show that indentured immigrants are promised a daily wage of 1s. 0½d. a day, six days a week, and that the Immigration Ordinance provides for payment of wages at not less than this rate on every day on which the labourer is willing and able to work. If the hon. Member can give me any specific cases of breach of the Ordinance I shall be happy to have inquiry made.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I shall have great pleasure in providing the information.

  Recruiting Indentured Labour in Madagascar.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will take steps to expedite the completion of the business necessary to enable him to lay Papers dealing with the recruiting of indentured labourers from the Island of Madagascar.
  MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; I see no reason why a correspondence should be manufactured in order to lay Papers. The Transvaal Government will continue the correspondence when they desire to do so.

  Galapagos Islands.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any Report has been received from the trustworthy agent who was sent to the Galapagos Islands last August, by the consul at Guayaquil, to inquire into the case of the British subjects kept in servitude there
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): His Majesty's Consul at Guayaquil has reported the result of his agent's mission

  635
  to the Galapagos Islands in connection with the British subjects detained on the group against their will. The agent has, after due investigation, paid the debts of twelve of the 1 bourers, whom he has brought back with him to Guayaquil. They are subsequently to be repatriated, should they wish it, to their homes in the West Indies. The two remaining labourers, however, declined to leave the Islands, even if they were enabled to do so by their debts being paid; and they have accordingly been left on the group.

  Taxation Proposals.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the expediency of establishing an employers' tax of a penny in the £ upon the amount of wages and salaries paid to their employees.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH, Fifeshire, E.): I can only once again repeat the assurance that I am always giving—that all suggestions for taxation are receiving, and will receive, my careful consideration.

  Departmental Overlapping.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the proposed inquiry as to the allocation of business between Departments will include inquiry into the overlapping of official statistics, the want of coordination of statistics, and the possibility of combining improvement with economy, under the direction of the Treasury, the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade, the office of the Registrar-General, or otherwise.
  MR. ASQUITH: I am not yet in a position to make a statement as to the precise scope of the proposed inquiry, but I will take care that my right hon. friend's suggestion is not overlooked when the matter is being considered.

  Smith's Vaults, Ulverston.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the case of the taking away of the licence
  636
  of the premises known as Smith's Vaults, Ulverston, and the payment of compensation amounting to £3,664, which has been succeeded by a club, known as the Magpie Club, on premises adjacent to the above, and said to belong to the same firm; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in regard to such cases.
  MR. ASQUITH: My attention has been called to several cases of the kind referred to, and the matter is one which is receiving the careful attention of the Government in connection with the Licensing Bill now being prepared.

  Mines (Eight Hours) Bill.
  MR. GLOVER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state when he will introduce the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): I hope to introduce the Bill in the course of this week. As the Bill will be the same as last year's with the exception only of the necessary alterations of dates, no introductory speech will be required.

  Unclaimed Bank Balances.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the expediency of promoting legislation for the purpose of requiring the banks of the United Kingdom to make a return showing the total of the sums of money in their hands in respect of dormant and obsolete accounts.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon Boroughs): I am not at present prepared to promote legislation for this purpose, but I am making inquiries into the matter.

  Unemployment in New York.
  *MR. SOAMES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that 34 per cent. of the members of trade unions in New York are out of work; and whether

  637
  he can give the corresponding figures for the United Kingdom.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I understand that the percentage quoted is in accordance with the official returns of unemployment at 31st December last in New York. City. About nine-tenths of the total unemployment is said to have been due to lack of work and the remainder to trade disputes, sickness, and other causes. On this basis the proportion of trade unionists out of work in New York City in December from causes included in the Board of Trade Returns would have been about 31 per cent. It is right, however, that I should state that the figures for New York City are not in all respects comparable with those for the United Kingdom as a whole, since among other reasons the trade unions on which they are based include a much larger proportion of building operatives. But I need not point out that even after allowance has been made for this factor the returns show a much worse condition of unemployment than that which prevails in this country.
  MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: asked the total number of unemployed in New York City.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am afraid I cannot answer that without notice.

  Railway Inquiry.
  MR. WARDLE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether an inquiry into the existing relations between the Railways and the State is to be held; and, if so, if he can say what the nature and extent of the inquiry will be and when the inquiry will commence.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am not in a position to answer my hon. friend's Question at the moment, but I shall be glad to do so later if he will put it down for a day towards the end of next week.
  MR. WARDLEasked if the inquiry now proceeding of which they read in the newspapers had any reference to the inquiry which the right hon. Gentleman announced last week?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: No; that is a Committee which was set up six weeks or two months ago. In reference to the debate of last week, I am now considering the question whether the inquiry then promised can be conducted by that Commission or whether it will be necessary to set up a perfectly independent Commission. I must consult the views of those who represent the Board of Trade.

  Export of Horses to Rotterdam.
  MR. RICHARDSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has any official information as to the number of worn-out horses sent from Nottingham and Worksop to the Continent, and as to whether these animals are there converted into sausages and then imported into this country for consumption as human food; if so, can he say to what port on the Continent they are exported; and what proportion of this sausage is consumed in this country.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS, Battersea): I have no information as to the number of worn-out horses sent from Nottingham and Worksop to the Continent. I have not met with any definite evidence pointing to the importation into this country of sausages prepared from horses, though it is sometimes alleged that sausage meat imported in bulk contains horse meat. I have the subject of the importation of sausage meat under consideration in connection with the regulations which I am preparing under the Public Health (Regulations as to Food) Act of last session.
  MR. RICHARDSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the regulations will be ready?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: So far as my Department is concerned, very soon, but I cannot promise when specific action will be taken as other interests have to be consulted.
  MR. JOHN WARD: Does the right hon. Gentleman's Answer indicate an intention to draw up regulations allowing horse-flesh sausages to come in?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Not if I can help it.

  Lambeth Workhouse.
  MR. THORNE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the overcrowding at the Lambeth Workhouse to the extent of 257 inmates, and to the fact that, in consequence, number of them are sleeping on the floor; and if he intends taking any action in the matter.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: My attention has been called to the overcrowding of the Lambeth Workhouses. Certain alterations have been made which have enabled the numbers for which the workhouses are certified to be enlarged, and the guardians are now making arrangements whereby further accommodation will be provided. The matter will continue to receive my attention.
  MR. MYER: Has the Local Government Board no power to compel reactionary authorities to put into operation the Act relating to the unemployed?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Not a great deal of power, but what persuasion I could I have exercised.

  Vaccination Exemption Certificates—Case of Mr. Taplin.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that Mr. Taplin, of 5, Lancell Street, Church Street, Stoke Newington, the parent of a child born on 2nd September, 1907, tried twice before the child was four months old to get exemption at the North London Police Court, but was refused by the magistrate there on the ground that he had not sufficient reason for an exemption certificate to be granted; whether he will give the local vaccination officer instructions not to prosecute in this particular case, seeing that the parent of the child has twice lost time from his work on purpose to comply with the law then in force; and whether he will introduce a Bill, as soon as possible, protecting from prosecution all those parents who
  640
  have tried at any time since 12th August, 1898, to get exemption and failed.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have no information as to the case referred to. The new Act came into operation on 1st January, and prior to that date a person desiring to obtain exemption from penalties under the Vaccination Act had to satisfy the magistrate to whom application was made that he conscientiously believed that vaccination would be prejudicial to the health of the child. This, as I understand, the applicant in the case in question failed to do. I am afraid I could not undertake to propose legislation for altering the Act of last session in the sense suggested.

  Ilminster Sub-Postmaster.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether in view of the fact that the vacancy for a sub-postmaster at Ilminster, Taunton, was advertised recently at a salary of £120 per annum, and that a number of the members of the established staff applied for the position, he will state the reason for its being allocated to a person who was not a member of the postal staff.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The officer selected for the appointment is a member of the established staff, and has served in the Post Office for many years.

  Political Organisations in the Post Office.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether having regard to the expressed view of His Majesty's Government that no political organisation can be useful unless it is a party organisation, he will rescind his decision forbidding the existence of a branch of the Primrose League among postal servants; and if he will state why-Liberal party organisations and Socialist organisations are permitted among Postal employees.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am not aware that His Majesty's Government have expressed the view attributed to them by the hon. Member. The decision I gave in regard to the Primrose League was

  641
  founded on the existing rules governing the conduct of Post Office servants as civil servants. It was to the effect that while Post Office servants are not forbidden to join societies of a political character, such as the Primrose League, they are expected to maintain a certain reserve in political matters; and that it had been decided by my predecessors that Post Office servants ought not to hold office under the League; and that I saw no reason to alter this decision. I understand that, in conformity with this decision, those postal servants who were interested in the matter have formed, or are about to form, themselves into a Constitutional Society, which is to be conducted independent of and apart from Party politics. I am not aware of the existence of any Liberal Party organisation within the Post Office. The only Socialist Society of the existence of which I am aware is the Civil Service Socialist Society (into which the Pioneer Socialist League has, I understand, been incorporated) which is open to membership from any branch of the Civil Service. According to its constitution, a copy of which has been furnished to me, the object of the society is to educate the members of the service in the principles of Socialism. Political action is expressly stated to be outside its province, and the general funds of the society are not to be used for any other organisation.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the Attorney-General stated in this House a few days ago that no political organisation was useful which was not a Party organisation?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am not aware of it. I understand that the Attorney-General does not quite recognise the words put into his mouth. However, I am responsible for the Post Office.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYasked whether the Postmaster-General would inquire whether there was a branch of the League of Young Liberals in the Post Office.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his refusal to allow a branch of the Primrose League in con-
  642
  nection with the Post Office with his permission to establish a branch of the Civil Service Socialist League?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I understand the decision was given by my predecessor, who has more knowledge of the Primrose League than I can claim to possess. He decided that it was of such a nature as not to be suitable for members of the Post Office to take office in. With regard to the Civil Service Socialist League, I understand that its constitution expressly provides that political action is outside its province. I, of course, have to take into consideration in these matters the constitution of the societies.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: Is the House to understand that the Postmaster-General considers Socialism is not politics?
  MR. THORNE: Not at all—economics.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: My opinion with regard to Socialism, or any other subject, is not in question. It is a question concerning the attitude and action of these societies in the Post Office.
  MR. R. DUNCANasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was governed by the decision of his predecessor, or whether he would not exercise his own discretion.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am not bound by the decision of my predecessor, but, naturally, I take his decision into consideration in deciding these matters.

  Boy Clerks in the Post Office.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether it was arranged before he became Postmaster-General that every boy clerk employed in the Post Office, whose service is satisfactory, should have the opportunity of competing for a permanent appointment; and will he state what opportunities Post Office boy clerks possess other and better than any boy in the United Kingdom in this respect.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Every boy clerk whose service is satisfactory

  643
  has now, and has always had, the opportunity of competing for permanent appointments of several kinds; but the boys who compete are of course more numerous than the appointments available. Certain clerical posts in the Engineering Department, and Registry Assistantships are reserved for boy clerks in the Post Office exclusively. Assistant Clerkships are also reserved for boy clerks, and in the open competition for Second Division Clerkships boy clerks receive the special advantage of service marks. Some of these advantages are shared by boy clerks in other Government Departments, but none of them are shared by boys outside Government service. The question of the boy clerks is receiving the consideration of the Treasury.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that there are now over 1,000 boy clerks employed in the Post Office, the large majority of whom are in London, and that only about ten appointments as Registry Assistants and certain clerical posts in the Engineering Department are annually reserved for the 1,000 or more boy clerks; and whether as he finds it impossible to create other appointments, he will take the alternative of reducing considerably the number of boy clerks in the Post Office, so that the problem of boy labour may be grappled with.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The number of boy clerks employed in the Post Office is a little over 1,000. Of these only a fraction, of course, leave each year. For these there are a considerable number of openings of various sorts. During the last year the special opportunities afforded to boy clerks approaching the age of twenty of securing permanent situations in the Post Office resulted in twenty-three obtaining appointments as Registry Assistants, and five as junior clerks in the Engineering Department. In addition, forty-seven boy clerks in the Post Office were appointed to Assistant Clerkships and others to Second Division Clerkships. At the same time a large number have unfortunately to leave the service. For this reason, I am already considering
  644
  whether it is possible to reduce the number of boy clerks employed in the Post Office.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Does the number of boy clerks who obtained appointments in the Post Office in the period referred to in the question show an increase on the previous year or not?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTOX: I do not think it shows a decrease.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Are not permanent appointments throughout the Civil Service available to boy clerks?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTOX: I cannot answer that, but I know the Treasury has the whole matter under consideration, and we are really doing our best to find employment for these boys.

  Post Office Savings Bank.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether there is at present a lack of candidates for female appointments in the Post Office Savings Bank and other branches of the Post Office; whether boy clerks who are capable of performing the work are being discharged daily; and whether he will consider the advisability of re-arranging the staff, so that instead of endeavouring to induce girls to undertake duties under his Department he will utilise the material already to hand by the permanent retention of suitable boy clerks.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have no reason to suppose that there is now any lack of candidates for the female appointments mentioned. The boy clerks to whom the hon. Member refers are apparently those who, in accordance with the conditions of their employment, which apply to the whole Civil Service, terminate their service at the age of twenty. One of the advantages gained by the recent re-arrangement in the Savings Bank is that it will permit of some reduction in the number of boy clerks employed.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Of boy clerks?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: In this case the boy clerks are not under the

  645
  Post Office, and they leave at twenty under the Treasury regulations.

  Kirkchester School.
  MR. LANE-FOX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether his personal attention has been called to the case of Kirkchester, in the West Riding of Yorkshire; and whether the Board of Education is prepared to accept the proposal of the governors of the endowed school there to provide a new central school without imposing any burden upon the rates, and under such conditions that the wishes of the parents, whether members of the Church of England or Nonconformists, with regard to the religious instruction of their children would receive satisfaction.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OP EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA, monmouthshire, N.): I beg to be excused from distinguishing between cases which have and which have not been brought to my personal notice. I take full responsibility for all. A proposal of the governors is before the Board, but the questions involved are extremely complicated, and I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject. I must not, however, be taken as admitting that the conditions proposed would meet the wishes of the parents, whether they are members of the Church of England or Noncontormists, with regard to the religious instruction of the children.
  MR. LANE-FOXasked if the right hon. Gentleman would order further inquiry or agree to receive a deputation from the local education authority, as the time had nearly run out?
  MR. MCKENNAsaid he did not think an inquiry was desirable, but he would look further into the matter and answer the hon. Member later on.

  Teachers' Superannuation Fund.
  MR. LANE-FOX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education what was the total number of male and female teachers respectively paying into the Teachers' Superannuation Fund on 31st March, 1907; what was the total amount
  646
  paid by the teachers in the year ending 31st March, 1907, and the total amount for the seven years ending 31st March, 1907; what was the total sum paid to the teachers in the year ending 31st March 1907, and when the promised revision of the scale of such payments will be made known to teachers; and whether he can yet state what alterations will be made in the amount of superannuation payments to be paid in future to the teachers.
  MR. MCKENNA: If my hon. friend will allow me I will circulate the Answer, which must necessarily be rather long, with the Votes.

  Swine Fever Regulations.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the statement made by the President of the Board last December that he hoped to be able to revise the regulations with reference to swine fever and to remove some of the hardships incidental thereto, he will, in devising fresh regulations, bear in mind the representations made on the subject of the exclusion of pigs from Ireland; and whether, in view of the greater success obtained by Ireland in dealing with swine fever, he will see that any future regulations will not unfairly restrict the importation of pigs from Ireland.
  THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY, Somersetshire, S.): The representations made by the hon. Member will be kept in view, but the new Orders which my noble friend proposes to issue do not relate to importation of swine from Ireland to great Britain.

  Overtime in the Customs Service.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the amount of Crown overtime paid to preventive officers and preventive men for the year 1907; and the number of hours of Sunday duty performed by the re-rummage crews in Gravesend in the years 1905, 1906, and 1907, respectively.
  MR. J. A. PEASE (Essex, Saffron Walden; for Mr. RUNCIMAN): I am informed that the amount of Crown overtime paid to preventive officers and preventive men for the year 1907 was £10,792 19s. 10d. The number of hours of Sunday duty performed by the re-rummage crews in Gravesend in the years 1905, 1906, and 1907, was: 1905, 325 hours; 1906, 411 hours; 1907, 412 hours.

  Tilbury Dock—Baggage Crews.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will explain why there was but one baggage crew in attendance for three passenger ships with 140 passengers on Sunday, the 9th instant, at Tilbury Dock, while officers on river duty at Gravesend were obliged to attend to passengers in Tilbury Dock, thereby leaving the river unprotected during their absence.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: I am informed that the three vessels referred to were berthed at 8.15 a.m., 1.55 p.m., and 3.48 p.m., respectively. The first was dealt with by the station staff, the second by the same staff supplemented by a crew for whose attendance arrangements had previously been made, and these staffs also dealt with the third vessel. It is not the case that the river was left unprotected as stated in the last part of the Question. I may add that the standing directions on the subject of Sunday attendance, made in the interests of economy and of the staff, are that great care is to be taken that no more officers are called out for duty than are absolutely necessary. The Board of Customs inform me that they are satisfied that the staff provided on the occasions in question was adequate for both classes of duty.

  Government Establishments and the Employees' Liability Act.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether a new or revised scheme of compensation to workmen who may be injured while employed in Government establishments has been submitted to the Chief Registrar of
  648
  Friendly Societies for approval; and, if so, was the scheme submitted to the employees for their consideration; and were they given a reasonable time to decide whether they should accept or reject the scheme.
  *MR. J. A. PEASE: Yes, Sir, a revised scheme has been submitted to the Chief Registrar and approved by him. It has since been submitted to the employees for consideration and for their acceptance if they think fit. The Treasury requested the Departments to allow the workmen a week's interval, where possible, before deciding as to the acceptance of the scheme.
  MR. W. T. WILSONasked if in some of the dockyards the papers were called in in less than a week?
  *MR. J. A. PEASEsaid that the Treasury understood that the workmen desired a week's notice, and had consequently recommended that where possible such notice should be given. The Treasury had no knowledge as to whether in some cases less than a week's notice had been given, and any question on the subject should be addressed to the Minister representing the Department concerned.
  MR. JENKINS: Why have the Government initiated a scheme to enable Government employees to contract out of an Act passed unanimously by this House?
  *MR. J. A. PEASEasked for notice.

  Superannuation Regulations.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the decision of the Government, under the Superannuation Act, 1859, in respect of ex-sailors and ex-soldiers, was arrived at without ascertaining the number of men affected by such decision; and whether the Government are satisfied that these men have been adequately recompensed for their services, having regard to the pay and conditions of other servants of His Majesty, whose remuneration and conditions of service have been reconsidered and improved since 1859.
  *MR. J. A. PEASE: The Answer to both parts of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: What is the objection to giving any figures to the House?
  *MR. J. A. PEASEsaid the collection of information with regard to numbers was not only very troublesome, but somewhat expensive, and the information was not of sufficient advantage to justify the trouble and the expense.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Is the House to understand that the question whether the number is large or small is a matter of indifference to the Government?
  *MR. J. A. PEASEsaid it was a question not of number, but of principle.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: What is the principle involved?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  River Leven.
  MR. R. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he has now received the Report of an expert upon the condition of the River Leven; if so whether the Report indicates a satisfactory state of matters; and whether the Report will be laid upon the Table of the House for the information of Members.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR, Forfarshire): I have received the Report referred to by my hon. friend. The state of matters disclosed is not satisfactory: the Report will be laid upon the Table.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: When may we expect the Report?
  MR. SINCLAIR: I will lay it as soon as possible.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate a day?
  MR. SINCLAIR: No, Sir.

  Execution at Inverness
  MR. ANNAN BRYCE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the sentence on Joseph Hume, condemned to death at Aberdeen for a murder committed in Morayshire, is, under the Judge's order to be carried out at Inverness where no execution has taken place for seventy-three years, and where the prison is in the middle of a residential district, and that a very strong feeling has been aroused in Inverness against this arrangement, whether he can, and if so, will, order the venue to be changed, or failing this whether he will give instructions that the tolling of the bell and display of the black flag be dispensed with.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The practice is for the sentence of death to be carried out in the prison for the district in which the crime was committed. Hume committed murder in the County of Elgin, and Inverness prison is the prison for that county. Accordingly, the magistrates of Inverness are, in terms of the Warrant by the High Court, charged with the execution of the capital sentence Instructions have been given for the tolling of the bell to be dispensed with on this occasion.

  Dromod Police Hut.
  MR. MCKEAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the entire absence of crime in the district, as also to the fact that the alleged reasons for its erection have long since ceased to exist, he will suggest to the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary the advisability of having the police hut removed from Dromod, near Ballybay in the county of Monaghan.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY, Liverpool Exchange): The police hub in question was originally provided upwards of twenty years ago as a protection post, but for the past ten years it has been used as a permanent police station with a district attached, and the police employed there perform all the ordinary duties appertaining to a police station.

  651
  The locality is peaceable, hut the two nearest police stations are each five miles distant, and the Inspector-General thinks it necessary that the station should be retained for ordinary police purposes.
  MR. MCKEAN: And is it an example of retrenchment to keep on a hut which the Inspector-General says is not necessary?
  MR. CHERRY: On the contrary, he says it is required as an ordinary police station and that is the reason why it is retained.

  Loans for Seeds.
  MR. THOMAS F. SMYTH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the loan which is being given to boards of guardians in Ireland this year to procure seed, oats, and potatoes, in consequence of the failure of those crops last year, will be given free of interest, the same as has been done on former occasions, with a view to lessening the cost of the seed on the people getting it.
  MR. CHERRY: The Answer to this Question is in the negative. Prior to the year 1905 the interest on seed loans was paid out of the Church Temporalities Fund, which fund now forms part of the endowment of the Department of Agriculture. Interest was charged on the loans made in 1905, but the Department gave a grant towards the cost of the seed which more than covered the interest charged on the loans.

  Land Purchase in County Leitrim.
  MR. THOMAS F. SMYTH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state how many estates in County Leitrim have been sold since the passing of the Land Act of 1903; and also how many of those sales have been completed and taken over by the Irish Land Commission.
  MR. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners inform me that up to the 8th instant proceedings for purchase had been instituted before them in respect of seventy-nine estates in County Leitrim, and advances had actually been
  652
  made in respect of eighteen of these estates.

  Reinstated Tenants in County Leitrim.
  MR. THOMAS F. SMYTH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state how many evicted tenants have been reinstated in County Leitrim, under the Land Act of 1903, and also under the Evicted Tenants Act of 1907; how many cases of reinstatement of evicted tenants in the same county are at present under consideration; and if he can state in how many cases have the present occupiers of evicted farms in County Leitrim expressed their willingness to the Estates Commissioners to surrender those farms and accept compensation.
  MR. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners are at present preparing for presentation to Parliament the Return prescribed by Section 3 of the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907, which will contain particulars of all cases of the restoration of evicted tenants. It is not considered desirable to delay the compilation of that Return by diverting the Commissioners' staff to the preparation of partial Returns in a different form. The prescribed Return will be presented as soon as possible.

  Kenmare Estate. County Kerry.
  MR. J. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland why the Congested Districts Board failed to purchase the congested portion of the Kenmare estate, County Kerry, when it was offered to them; and if the Board propose to do anything in future to deal with the congested districts on this estate as they have dealt with similar districts elsewhere, or do they intend to allow the opportunity of dealing with a large area and a congested population to pass without using their powers to improve the position of affairs on the estate.
  MR. CHERRY: In November last Lord Kenmare offered for sale to the Congested Districts Board the portion of his estate in the congested electoral divisions of Coon, Coolies, and Doocarrig, at prices which represent a reduction of 7s. 3d. in the £ on first term rents,

  653
  and 5s. 3d. on second term rents, these prices having been agreed upon between a committee of the tenants and Lord Kenmare. The Congested Districts Board decided that they could not purchase on the proposed terms. If they should take over the property with the sale price of each holding to the tenant already fixed, they would have no power to enter upon holdings for the construction of roads and drains or the apportionment of turbary, nor could they carry out any re-arrangement of the holdings without the consent of all the landholders concerned. Moreover, the Board have no funds at present available for improvement works. In these circumstances, the Board do not propose to make any further effort to purchase the property.

  Dunmanway Labourers Cottages.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what stage has been reached in the improvement scheme under the Labourers Acts by the Dunmanway District Council; what is the cause of the delay in sending the petition for the local inquiry to the Local Government Board; and will steps be taken to expedite matters so that labourers living in unsanitary houses may be promptly provided with better dwellings.
  MR. CHERRY: The Local Government Board have ascertained from the clerk of the district council that the proposed scheme has not yet been signed. The maps in relation to the scheme appear to have been made out, and the notices prepared for service on the owners and occupiers. The Local Government Board are about to address the district council in regard to the unnecessary delay which appears to have taken place in the matter.

  Tarmonbarry Weir Wall.
  MR. THOMAS F. SMYTH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if steps will be taken to have the weir wall at Tarmonbarry, on the River Shannon, lowered by at least two feet, as, owing to its present state, the farmers in county Leitrim who have low-lying lands suffer losses every
  654
  year to the extent of several thousands of pounds, owing to their crops, particularly their hay crop, being flooded in consequence of the present great height of the Tarmonbarry weir wall.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: I am informed that the course proposed by the hon. Member would have the effect of destroying the navigation above the weir, and owing to this reason the Government do not feel justified in adopting the suggestion.

  Irish Quit and Crown Rents.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury how much has been paid in redemption of quit and Crown rents in Ireland.
  *MR. J. A. PEASE: The amount received in respect of the redemption of quit, etc., rents in Ireland from 2nd July, 1827, when Irish Land Revenues were placed under the charge of the Commissioners of Woods, to 31st March, 1907, is £716,397.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: What has become of the money?
  *MR. J. A. PEASE: It has been mainly invested in Crown lands in the United Kingdom.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: How much was invested in Ireland?
  *MR. J. A. PEASE: I will ascertain if the hon. Member desires it.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I am much obliged, but it will not give you much trouble as I know that not a single pound was invested.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
William Middlebrook, esquire, for the Borough of Leeds (South Division).

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee.—1. "That, in the case of the Camborne Water, Petition for leave to deposit a Petition for Bill, the Standing

655
Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to deposit their Petition for a Bill." 2. "That, in the case of the Lower Thames (Grays) Dock, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill." 3. "That, in the case of the Dover Graving Docks, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill." 4. "That, in the case of the Margate Corporation Bill, Petition for Additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the promoters have leave to insert the additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit." 5. "That, in the case of the Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the Petition of the 'Grimsby Rural District Council' against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."
Resolutions agreed to.

NEW BILL.
  PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS (REGISTRATION) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the qualification and Registration of Parliamentary Voters and for other purposes relating to elections," presented by Sir Randal Cremer; supported by Mr. Burt, Mr. Bell, Mr. Cobbold, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Maddison, Mr. Dudley Ward, and Mr. John Wilson (Durham); to be read a second time upon Thursday, 27th February, and to be printed. [Bill 93.]

  PRIVILEGES.
  Mr. Attorney-General, Sir Henry Aubrey-Fletcher, Mr. Balfour, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. Ellis, Mr. MacNeill, and Mr. John Wilson (Durham) were nominated Members of the Committee of Privileges.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the Quorum.—(Mr. Whiteley.)

  SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) (SALARIES, &c).
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Mr. Emmott (Oldham) in the Chair.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If this Resolution only dealt with the salaries of the new officials to be created for the purpose of working the provisions of this Bill, I should certainly discuss them myself, as far as I could, and oppose' the further progress of the Resolution; but it also contains certain provisions for aiding small holdings and dealing with the difficulties of crofting areas in Scotland, and in these circumstances, so far as I am concerned, I see no reason why we should spend any fraction of the very short time that the Government has allocated to this Bill in discussing the Resolution. I recommend, therefore, my friends to offer no opposition.
  Resolved, that for carrying out the provisions of any Act of the present session to encourage the formation of Small Agricultural Holdings in Scotland, it is expedient to authorise—(i) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of the salaries of the chairman and of each of the other members of the Land Court; (ii) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, of—(a) the salaries and remuneration of the Agricultural Commissioners and other persons appointed or employed by them and by the Land Court, and the expenses incurred by the Land Court and the Agricultural Commissioners in the execution of their duties; (b) an annual sum not exceeding eighty-five thousand pounds for the use of the Agricultural Commissioners; (c) compensation in certain cases to members and officers of the Crofters Commission.—(Mr. Sinclair.)
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR, Forfarshire): Sir, I do not know that it often falls to the lot of a Minister in this House to introduce

  657
  a Bill for the third time, and under these circumstances, I would most humbly ask for the special consideration of the House in endeavouring to discharge the duty which falls upon me on this occasion. While much of what I have to say must be familiar to many hon. Gentlemen who sit opposite to me, there does lie upon me an obligation of some sort to state, as sufficiently as it is necessary, the details of the Bill, in order that the case may be fairly and properly presented. This Bill was first introduced in the session before last, in 1906. Last session it was again introduced and carried through all its stages in this House, and then it went to the House of Lords, where it failed to pass owing to action of the Opposition Peers. Two months after this Bill was introduced in this House last session—two months indeed after it was read a second time—the Small Holdings Bill was introduced by the Government for England and that Bill passed into law. As to a comparison between these two Bills, I mention the English Bill now in order to point out the distinction which is apt to render all such comparisons illusory. The English Bill provided solely for the creation of new holdings and allotments, but the aim of this Bill is not so simple, and no matter what your scheme may be, it cannot be so simple, for while there are in Scotland, as in England, county councils charged with duties under the Small Holdings Act of 1892, we have in addition in Scotland two other bodies which have powers in regard to small holdings, or what are virtually small holdings. Since 1886 the Statutory Crofters Commission has been at work in Scotland, and there is also the Congested Districts Board. Neither of these bodies has its analogue in England. The Congested Districts Board, although it has worked assiduously and has met with considerable success, is imperfectly equipped, and in the public interest it "is in urgent need of reorganisation and of development for the proper discharge of its duties. These duties are somewhat miscellaneous. They relate to piers, harbour lights, roads, footpaths and the like. The Board performs further the duties of the Department of Agriculture for that part of Scotland, but its largest undertakings have been purchases of land for the purpose of resale to tenants, and latterly carrying out
  658
  a scheme for the settlement of tenants upon land as tenants under the Crofters Act. On the other hand, the Crofters Commission is a judicial body charged with the duty of fixing fair rents and other duties laid upon them by the Statute. It has done this work with general acceptance, and while it is looked upon as the guardian of their rights by the great body of the crofters and tenants, it has the respect and support, and in many cases the gratitude, of proprietors in the Highlands, as being a competent and impartial tribunal which has done justice to all sides. I suggest no comparison with his colleagues, the other Commissioners, when I say that the success and the high public appreciation of the work of this Commission is largely and properly identified in Scotland with the name of the first, hitherto the only, Chairman of the Commission, whose recent death, so deeply and widely mourned by his friends, has made this important office vacant. I refer to Sir David Graham. His name will not be forgotten by the Highland people, and his death has deprived Scotland of an able, faithful, and distinguished public servant. Any Secretary for Scotland responsible for legislation on the subject of small holdings in Scotland is bound therefore, to keep in view, not only the work of the county councils, of which there is only one instance in this respect in Scotland, but also the work of these two other authorities I have mentioned. This Bill does not touch in any shape or form the question of ownership of the land. It deals solely with conditions of occupation by the cultivating tenant. The House will naturally inquire why do we persevere with this Bill. On its merits, because we believe it to be urgently necessary, and because we believe—at any rate, that is our experience—that it is the only scheme which fits the facts of the situation. Why is this legislat on necessary? Nobody will deny that the business of farming has become more scientific. Cultivation, as it becomes more and more close, requires more brains, more education, more capital, and more security for the capital. Thirty years ago a fall in prices brought to a head an agitation among farmers of general education in this country for a remedy for their grievances The demand they put forward

  659
  was for greater security of tenure, and the reply of Parliament was a series of Agricultural Holdings Act, beginning with the Act of 1879, the last of the series being the Act of last year. Among farmers of all sizes there are numerous cases still, I expect, at any rate in Scotland, in which the absence of security of tenure restrains the tenant from making improvements, acts as a check to his enterprise, and diminishes the productiveness of the soil, to his loss, and the loss of the community; and when we come to examine the circumstances of small holdings and small farms, Parliamentary inquiries, two of which have been held during the last sixteen or eighteen years, have told the same story. Small holdings are disappearing. In comparison with other countries, far less land is under such cultivation; there are far fewer small holdings in Scotland than in other countries. There is a far smaller proportion of our population living in the country districts and a far larger decrease of that rural population registered by every succeeding census. While the land has been brought under cultivation in recent years in foreign countries, in this country it has gone out of cultivation. While many of the best young men and women from the rural districts seek their fortune in America, Canada and other countries, and our small towns and villages are being starved for want of population, on the other hand you have the fact that our imports of perishable farm produce are enormously increased. The vital importance to the nation of a country population is admitted on all hands as valuable to agriculture and essential to the nation politically. If that is so it is obvious that the present system of land tenure—whatever be its merits in other directions—has signally and disastrously failed to keep the people on the land. The fact is that the inducements are not sufficient, and we have to increase them. In discussing this Bill in another place last year Lord Balfour of Burleigh said—
  "It is more difficult for a landlord to get a good tenant than it is for a good tenant to get a farm."
  I say that if that is the case, there can be no greater condemnation of the present system. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may say that that is theory and may argue that the real root of the evil which has produced
  660
  this state of things is not the lack of security of tenure. But I say that theory is supported by fact when a comparison is instituted with other countries. It is undeniably the fact that in every prominent agricultural producing country at the present time—whether in the form of ownership or in the form of tenancy or any other form—the cultivators have complete security of tenure.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Are there cases of other forms?
  MR. SINCLAIR: Yes, there are other forms in Denmark, there are other forms nearer home in many parts of England. I will refer the right hon. Gentleman to Evesham where the most successful system of cultivation has been developed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I thought he was speaking of foreign countries.
  MR. SINCLAIR: So I was, and I can point the right hon. Gentleman to France and Denmark where facilities are given for security of tenancy, although they may not be the same things which we propose by this Bill. In foreign countries they do give security of tenure. But let the right hon. Gentleman look nearer home. Let him look in England where in various parts he will find a tenant-right system, say in Essex. Let him go to Ireland; I am not afraid to go to Ireland for support for our scheme. The most successful part of Ireland from the agricultural point of view is the North of Ireland, where there exists a system of tenancy very comparable with the tenancy which we establish under this Bill. The value of security of tenure is that upon that foundation small cultivators have built up a fabric of education, of organisation, and of co-operation which are the only conditions under which the business of small farming can prosper, and be carried on successfully at the present time, We all know the improvements brought about in Scotland by the Crofters Act. And, as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, security of tenure has been given in other ways. It has been given by purchase in Ireland, but I will not

  661
  trouble the House about purchase at any length, and it is obvious to those who have studied this question that purchase does not settle the question. When you have established your scheme of purchase, when you have handed to your peasant proprietor his land, whether it is a small or a large plot, you do not settle this question, because it becomes his absolute property, and it is open to him to sell, mortgage, or get rid of his land, or subdivide it.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: No, no.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The right hon. Gentleman I know differs from us on that point, and thinks he has provisions which will guard against those contingencies, but they exist in Ireland, under the measures of the late Government; therefore I would remind the House that these difficulties have still to be met even if you do establish a system of purchase. This Bill places no obstacle in the way of the sale of land to purchasers who wish to become small holders. It leaves to the county councils their present powers under the Act of 1892. As I have said before in this House on this subject, I believe that there is in Scotland a limited demand for purchase of land for small holdings for special purposes, and that demand I think is well within the capacity of private effort to satisfy, and nothing in this Bill interferes with the progress of the satisfaction of that demand. But there is no evidence whatever of a general demand for purchase in Scotland by people who are likely to become small holders. Landlords may be willing enough to sell in some cases, especially to the Government or to any public-authority, but it is too large a speculation for the small man and it requires four times at least the capital to purchase as it does to become the tenant of a holding, and these men will not entertain it for the very good reason that the cannot afford to do so. Let the small man by tenancy get his foot on the first rung of the ladder, and you can leave purchase and the rest to be undertaken by him in good time. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley that the Committee of
  662
  1890, though they reported in favour of purchase, did so in a great measure against the weight of evidence given in that Committee. Out of eighteen witnesses examined by that Committee, eleven declared in favour of tenancy, and it was the influence we are combatting now, the influence of the owners of the land, which induced that Committee to report in favour of purchase. We all know the result of that Act. Even in England it has not been of very great effect, while in Scotland there has only been one instance of land being taken under it. What is the method of giving security of tenure which is adopted by this Bill? The. Bill gives security of tenure under statutory conditions at a fair rent fixed by a Land Court, to all existing small holders of a rent of £50 or under, or alternatively, holding 50 acres or less. At the opening of my remarks I ventured to remind the House that the problem to be solved in Scotland was more complex than the kindred problem in England. Let me draw their attention now to the difference of method of this Bill. We think that to spend Government money in the creation and equipment of new small holdings in Scotland, without doing anything to prevent the tendencies which are bringing about the absorption of existing small holdings, would be an unjustifiable use of public money. These small holdings are the subject of agreement between landowner and tenant, which may be presumed to be satisfactory to both. They have survived their difficulties, which are not economic, but due to the fact that imperfect land laws have hitherto denied to them the security of tenure essential to their permanent existence and development. Scattered through Scotland as they are in twos and threes, and often groups of larger numbers, they are an invaluable nucleus and foundation for the organisation and co-operation without which they and the new small holdings which may be added to them cannot prosper. Their existence is imperilled in our view, by the absence of security of tenure and therefore the first step taken by this Bill is to place them under that condition. We have adopted the statutory conditions slightly amended of the Crofters Acts and applied those conditions throughout

  663
  Scotland, replacing the Crofters Commission by a Land Court having jurisdiction throughout Scotland. The Congested Districts Board is abolished and succeeded by Commissioners of Agriculture for Scotland. It is obvious that the granting of fixity of tenure at a fail-rent to existing small holders is the mainspring of the objections to the Bill, and I have been severely censured for my supposed unwillingness to accept Amendments to the Bill. I do not think that accusation can be made good. There are two classes of Amendments. There are Amendments which are openly intended to destroy. This Bill, founded as it is on the principle of security of tenure, from which naturally flows a fair rent, under an authority to fix the fair rent, does not admit of the consideration of Amendments obviously intended to destroy the principle. There is another class of Amendment. The Amendment intended to correct errors, to facilitate smooth working, to extend, if you like, in some respect the operation of the Bill or to restrict it. These Amendments have been freely considered by the Government, who have always been willing and are willing still—willing and anxious—to consider all proposals and suggestions that are made with that view. Nobody can deny that fixity of tenure must imply an impartial independent authority to fix a fair rent, no matter by what name that authority is called. Undoubtedly, that is the central principle of the Bill, and if security of tenure is to be given, if some rent-fixing tribunal is to be set up, in the opinion of the Government the Land Court proposed in the Bill is likely to be the best, most expert, capable and impartial and cheapest tribunal which can be obtained. It is not a Land Court upon the Irish model. Its powers and duties differ in most important respects from the Irish example, and so does the Statute which it will have to administer. It is a system of which we have had trial and successful trial in Scotland in small holdings. One other point I would mention in regard to this security of tenancy in regard to existing small holdings. Our desire is to give this security of tenure with the minimum of interference with the present system of tenancy. For this purpose, while a small
  664
  holder cannot be deprived of his right of fixity of tenure, he is under the Bill at liberty to enter into an agreement as to rent for a term of years, which agreement is binding upon him as long as it lasts, and suspends the exercise by him of the right to a fair rent fixed by the Land Court. There are some other objections upon which I should like to say a word or two. The impartiality and competence of the Land Court is questioned. Such criticism is either directed against the Government which appoints the Land Court, or against the possible conduct of public officials and servants in Scotland. I say without reserve that I will be no party to the appointment of what can fairly be characterised as a partisan Court, and I know no member of the Government who would. Further. I have complete confidence that those who are appointed will be guided, by the sense of public duty and responsibility proper to their judicial or quasi-judicial functions. But apart from the question of the authority, apart from the machinery, this proceeding of giving security of tenure to the existing tenants is strongly opposed, and by nobody more strongly than by the Leader of the Opposition. In a speech at Glasgow recently he described it as confiscation, not only of the land, but of the landlord's capital in the land. Now confiscation is a hard word and a plain word in its meaning, though it is often used some what recklessly in political controversy, and I cannot reconcile the plain meaning of the word with what is proposed it the Bill. Here is the position. The nation is losing its country population and threatened by symptoms of physical deterioration, and yet having to do its utmost to maintain the physique of its people for their own sake, to compete with other nations, to maintain our industrial efficiency and to man the Army and the Navy. Was there ever a set of circumstances which more amply justified the interference of the State, and surely it is too late to contend that the State under no circumstances is justified in interfering in the relations between landlord and tenant. What are all our factory laws, sanitary laws, public health laws but interferences of a similar kind? And even in regard to the use of land for railways, for housing

  665
  schemes and for other public improvements, Parliament has interfered to enable the public interests to override the private interests concerned. Here is a great public purpose if there ever was one, where the public interest is at stake, and in this Bill there is I believe the minimum of interference necessary to achieve the end in view. The land remains the property of the landlord, to sell, to bequeath, or to mortgage. He retains his mineral, his timber, and his sporting rights. He is to get a fair rent for it, equipped as it is, and a fair rent for his capital. His capital and his improvements are protected by statutory conditions which he can enforce and which the Land Court is bound to help him to enforce. If any other statutory conditions can be suggested, which do not interfere with the sense of security of tenure of the tenant, we shall be very willing to consider them. All that is done by this Bill is done now by a good landlord—and I am far from making any accusation against landlords as a class, when I say that it is the system, the law, that is at fault and of which we complain, and which we now propose to amend, and not landlords personally. But there are landlords who are not good landlords. There are landlords who are poor landlords and cannot afford to lay out money on their property. There are landlords who are represented by factors. There are trustees who are landlords, and the upshot of the system as a whole is that we have come to the present pass, and a remedy is urgently called for. Another argument which is put forward by landlords is that legislation of this kind will disturb the existing relations between landlord and tenant. No doubt it will alter those relations, but I believe that it will alter them for the better. Recently some gentlemen visited some of the crofter districts, and subsequently recorded their opinion of the working of the Crofters Act, and they say that—
  "The chief good effect of the Crofters Act has been to give the crofters complete independence and full security for fair rents and for improvements made in their houses and holdings. It is scarcely open to doubt that the sense of security which has been created has mitigated the agrarian difficulties which existed before the passing of the Act. The Acts have also encouraged the crofters to improve their houses, in so far as they had the means
  666
  and desire to do so, since they are now protected against the risk of losing the advantage of their improvements."
  That is the evidence of witnesses by no means friendly to this Bill, as having been the result and effect of crofter legislation. No doubt the landowner does lose some of his arbitrary rights. That is true; but in any walk of life is the arbitrary power of one man over another likely to foster good relations between them? I say that the restraint of such arbitrary power and the giving to men of a sense of independence, is likely to increase their sense of justice and equality and fair play which is the salt and strength of the British nation. There will in future, it is urged again, be no landlords' expenditure upon those small holdings. I am not in the least alarmed on that score. In the first place, this Government has come forward to enable landlords to overcome what has been the obstacle to the creation of small holdings, viz., the cost of equipment, and the Bill provides for loans to new holders for the erection of their houses and their buildings. In the second place, let me remind you that the tenant of existing as well as new holdings is free to enter into agreements as to rent. This opens the door to the landlord if he is still willing to maintain the old relationship and his former responsibilities towards the holding; for an agreement as to rent obviously may include a quid pro quo in the shape of money provided for buildings or for some other improvement; and therefore, if the small holders cannot get on without the landlords' capital the Bill provides the opportunity for the landlords to come forward and help in this way. Thirdly, let me remind the House that the experience of the crofter system has shown that in these remote and unfertile regions tenants will come forward and expend their own capital to improve their own homes where landlords' capital has not in many cases been forthcoming. Fourthly, let me call the attention of hon. Members to the fact that the prosperity of agriculture in other countries—say Canada and Denmark—does not rest upon landlords' capital.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: They are all landowners.
  MR. SINCLAIR: It depends upon the tenants themselves. In these countries it does not depend upon the landowners' capital; that is to say, the capital of wealthy men who can afford to own land. It depends upon themselves.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: They are owners.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The right hon. Gentleman sees purchase in everything, but I wish to point out that once you give security of tenure you provide a foundation for the use of credit, for the employment of co-operation, for the establishment of laud banks and the development of agricultural organisation for which there is no firm basis at present, and which will go far to fill the gap, if there is any gap left by the absence of landlord's capital. Another objection is entertained by some farmers who apprehend that their farms, or a part of them, may at any time be taken for the creation of new holdings. This point was raised in Committee, and words were inserted to safeguard the interests of farms under close cultivation. I believe the provisions of the Bill as it stands will meet that difficulty, and the real check upon the Agricultural Commissioners in regard to any rash proceedings of this kind is the money compensation which they will be obliged to pay. If any further suggestions can be put forward which will meet those apprehensions we shall be glad to consider them and to insert any other reasonable precautions which do not interfere with the working of the Bill. It is repeatedly urged that Scottish opinion is against us, and Bills have repeatedly been introduced in another place formulating a rival policy. It is something at any rate for us to have achieved that and brought hon. Gentlemen opposite to the point of embodying their policy in measures after an interval of fifteen years, and thus admitting the necessity of legislation. But let me point out that it was not until after the English Bill of the present Government was introduced that they found salvation. I need not describe these rival Bills which embody the criticisms which were made on this Bill in another
  668
  place last year. I should like to point out one or two difficulties which they present. In the first place, their policy takes two Bills instead of one. The first amends the Crofters Act, confines it to the crofters area and amalgamates the Congested Districts Board with the Crofters Commission, that is to say amalgamates an administrative body with a quasi-judicial authority which is at present subject to no appeal. The second Bill adapts the clauses of the English Bill of last session, or attempts to adapt them, to Scottish circumstances. I think there are grave and fatal objections on their merits to the policy embodied in these Bills. Examine the notion of employing county councils for this purpose in Scotland. Look at the cost in the first place of making every county council in Scotland a landowner, buying and selling land, with an office in every county where at present there is no staff for the purpose. Look at the initial cost of such a system. County councils in Scotland are not representative bodies.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Question.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I doubt whether they ever can be representative in the full sense, I am not making any accusation against the county councils or their members. I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the map of Scotland. He will find not only in the Highlands but in the Lowlands to a far larger extent than in England, that in every county there is a remote inaccessible district not traversed by railways, or any means of rapid communication and the result is that members of county councils inevitably find it extremely difficult to attend, to sacrifice the time and the money, to give up a day or two days to attend meetings. That is a physical and I think for some time to come an insuperable difficulty to county councils in Scotland being so thoroughly representative as they are in England and I think it is an insuperable obstacle to their ever undertaking business which requires frequent attendance at the county council. Then take another point. Scotch counties are much poorer than English counties. Scotland has about

  669
  half the area of England. It has only one-sixth of the population. Take the counties of Northumberland and Berwick. You will find that Berwick has three-quarters of the acreage of Northumberland. Northumberland has ten times the population of Berwick and seven times the valuation, excluding the towns. Many of the Scottish counties are a great deal poorer than English counties and, therefore, are less likely to be able to afford to embark on this business of creating small holdings, whether by purchase or in any other way. They are much more likely to be timid and cautious, and very' properly so. There is another reason which would contribute to their caution. They are largely manned by owners of land. The rates in Scotland fall on the owners and the occupiers. In England they fall almost entirely upon the occupiers. After all I think this is a burden which would more properly fall on taxes than on rates. It is likely to be very unequal as falling upon different counties, and it will have to come to that in the end. Then again, in Scotland we are not accustomed as hon. Gentlemen opposite know, to overriding one authority by another. Then look at the duplication of authority. In the Highlands you are to have the Crofters Commission creating and enlarging holdings and doing all the work of the Board of Agriculture for the crofters, the crofters looking to them for the protection of their rights and to fix a fair rent. In the same counties you are to have county and parish councils creating small holders and allotment holders subject to being overridden by a branch board in Edinburgh, and that branch subject to the authority of the Department of Agriculture in London. Any scheme more likely to lead to extravagance and confusion I cannot imagine. I do not think the Government could have dared to propose it. On their merits, therefore, there would be great difficulty in inducing the people of Scotland to believe that these are practicable alternatives to our proposal. To what extent are they supported? Lord Balfour of Burleigh made a long speech in the House of Lords criticising the Government Bill. He said he thought it was an honest Bill, and I thank him for
  670
  that admission. But he did not say one word in favour of committing these powers to county councils. Lord Rosebery also made a speech on that occasion. He was a Member of the Government that passed the Crofters Act, and was Prime Minister when Sir George Trevelyan brought forward his Bill about extending the Crofters Act to eight additional counties. The Bill never passed. It was never even discussed in Committee, but it was always understood in Scotland as providing a real and effective extension of the Crofters Act and if it had been on examination shown to be anything short of that it would never have been accepted as meeting what was then the demand of Scotland in that regard. Lord Rosebery, so far as I can understand, and I hope I do him no injustice, now opposes the extension of the area of the Crofters Act and supports the application of the English Act to the rest of Scotland. I am not sure of this. There is room for doubt, because recently in Glasgow he declared himself in favour of purchase. That is another alternative. He denounced the machinery of this Bill for the establishment of Agricultural Commissioners and a Land Court as savouring of an Edinburgh job and as an insult to county councils. If there is offence to Scottish sentiments, where is the greater offence—in the Government Bill which leaves the county councils their present powers without interference and without being overridden, and establishes the machinery of this Bill with a Scottish Agricultural Department, or in the English Bill which establishes in Scotland simply a branch of the English Board, which cannot help being a predominantly English Board, which can do nothing without the authority of that Board, and gives to the Board and also to its subordinate branch in Edinburgh power to override the county councils, and I believe the parish councils, and march into every county and parish in Scotland for the purpose? Let me say a word then about the opinion in the House of Commons. During the debates in this House the Opposition gave no indication whatever of having found salvation until after the introduction of the Government's English Bill, except that on one occasion during the debates

  671
  the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition declared himself in favour of a purchase scheme. But the Opposition has, I am sorry to say, been strongly fortified in their work on this occasion by my hon. friend the Member for Leith Burghs. What is his position in regard to this Bill? The other night he declared the Bill to be, in his opinion, unamendable—so bad that nothing could possibly make it a measure worth passing into law. That was not always his opinion. When the Bill was first introduced into this House he gave it a hearty support, subsequently, I admit, explaining that he gave that support under a misapprehension which was cleared up a few days later. But in supporting the Bill he made some general statements which I think I may fairly quote as indicating that he has come to his present position gradually. He said—
  "When they came to extend the crofting area, there was nothing for it except the inclusion of the whole of Scotland. That was inevitable. They might dispute as to the exact kind of protection to be given to the small tenant within the crofting area and outside of it, but whatever they did beyond the crofting area must necessarily extend to the whole of Scotland."
  And as bearing on the subject of county councils, let me quote this from the same speech—
  "Local authorities were really of no use in dealing with the subject of allotments or small holdings."

  My hon. friend may object to my quoting the passages which I have just read, as having been uttered before he saw the Bill in print, but some time after he had seen the Bill in print he again spoke on the subject, at the meeting of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture in Edinburgh, on 10th October, 1906, and let me quote from what he then said—
  "In regard to the Bill, I speak as one who is in favour of its main provisions. I believe in a Land Commission, I do not think the county councils are of much use in such a matter. I believe in the £50 holdings: I believe in applying the Bill to the whole of Scotland, and I believe in a separate Board of Agriculture for Scotland."
  These are general observations which I find it very difficult to reconcile with the position which my hon. friend has taken up in regard to the Bill, and which I greatly regret. Then take the indications of public opinion outside Parliament.
  672
  The Party to which I have the honour to belong has consistently advocated the amendment of the Crofters Act, and its extension to the eight additional counties included in the 1895 Bill has long been the official policy of the Party. What of the Unionist Party? They, I assume, are now in the position of opposing all extension of the area of the Crofters Act. In the eight additional counties of the Trevelyan Bill, one after another of their candidates, successful or unsuccessful, from 1892 to the present time, has declared himself in favour of the extension of the Crofters Act and its application to those counties. Then take the opinion of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture. Their attitude has varied. The first occasion on which they considered this Bill was at the conference which I have mentioned, on 10th October, 1906. Their resolution on that occasion was not condemnatory of the Bill, but expressed the opinion that full information should be obtained before legislation is introduced further, and that the conference was opposed to the provision in the Small Landholders Bill by which it is proposed to establish a system of dual ownership in Scotland. Down to this present time they have not said one word in favour of adopting the county council as the authority for such legislation. I want now to correct one or two misapprehensions about the Bill, and then I will sit down. It has been stated in regard to the Agricultural Commission we wish to establish that the expenses of that Department will fall upon and, pro tanto, diminish the fund of £100,000 set aside under the Bill for the purpose of creating small holdings. That is not the case, because the expenses of that Department will be defrayed by the Votes. Therefore, there is no limit, except the limit imposed by Parliament and the Treasury, to such expenditure, and there is no obstacle in the way of giving Scotland as well an equipped Department as any other Department discharging similar duties. It is intended that this Department shall be well equipped, and that it shall be an efficient servant of Scottish agriculture. Let me say one or two words about another misapprehension concerning the exclusion of Canadian cattle. I may point out that that is not a matter which falls within the province of

  673
  the Agricultural Department at all, because it has been determined by statute. We have argued this matter repeatedly and nobody has taken greater interest in it than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, who has strenuously opposed the establishment of a separate Board of Agriculture for Scotland. He said on 23rd October, 1895, when he paid his first visit to Scotland as President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries—
  "If you are going to break up your Department, do not make two bites of a cherry. Take hold of your nettle, and do not mince matters. If you are not satisfied with the Agricultural Department, do not be content wish asking that which would be of no use to you at all, a man in Edinburgh who would be subordinate to the Minister in London, who could give no answer without communicating with the Minister, and who could afford no informal ion which you could not get yourselves by writing a note."
  I submit this Bill again with confidence to the House because, in my judgment, it stands as the only scheme which fits the facts of the case. No doubt there will be plenty of opportunities for us to examine the rival Bill, but in my judgment no practical alternative has yet been suggested. The opposition to the Bill is, in essence, a political opposition, and those who are leading it are, with exceptions, those who oppose the Government not on this count only but on all counts. They are chiefly owners of land in Scotland, against whom personally I have no feeling of hostility whatever; but they have openly scorned and resented the authority of the promoters of this Bill to deal with this subject. We pretend to no special authority whatever. Our authority comes from the support of this House which has been so emphatic and it is this House which speaks for the people. It has never been admitted that landowners or any class of men are the best judges or should be the sole judges in their own case. Landowners not less than any other class desired to be fair to others, but I suggest with all humility that it is true that landowners, from the very nature of the case, are not in sympathy with the feelings of the tenants or farm servants. [An HON. MEMBER: Why not?] Because they have never been tenants or farm servants, and it is the hardest
  674
  thing for anyone to understand another man's point of view, especially when we are in business relations with that man. We are confident that in putting forward this Bill we have the support of a large number of the farmers of Scotland. ["No."] I have had as good an opportunity as other hon. Members of ascertaining public opinion upon this Bill, and I am giving my individual opinion for what it is worth. I say that this measure has the support of a large number of farmers, who have as good a right to their opinion as other men. There is no doubt whatever that the opinion of the mass of the people is that this Bill opens a career to the men working on the land. It will give them incentive to thrift and industry, and strengthen the character of the people as a whole. I trust that this Bill will be honestly and fairly considered. The Government are willing and anxious to consider amendments and changes which may be suggested. [An HON. MEMBER: There is no time.] There will be opportunities offered to the opponents of this Bill to suggest Amendments. ["Where?"] In another place, [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh!"] My own opinion is that it would be a reckless course of conduct to refuse without further consideration to pass this measure because that would put a stop to the progress of this branch of farming in Scotland; you would be making it known that there is to be no greater security of tenure to farmers, and denying to Scotland what I believe her people really want. I beg to move.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Sinclair.)
  MR. LAMBTONin moving the following Amendment, "That this House whilst desirous of increasing the number of small owners and occupiers in Scotland wherever they are likely to prosper, declines to proceed with a Bill which establishes in the Lowlands of Scotland a system of land tenure alien to the traditions of the people and utterly unsuited to the conditions of agriculture," said the Secretary for Scotland began his speech by asking why did the Government proceed with this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had occupied sixty-five

  675
  minutes in explaining why the Government had proceeded with the Bill, but the question remained a riddle still. The right hon. Gentleman had only left the House two hours and three-quarters, and it was a little too much to hear a democratic Minister say, in effect: It does not matter what you discuss in this House, for the Bill will go to another place. They had some discussion last week on the question of the guillotine. But he would not deal with that now, because they had been told that minorities must suffer. Neither would he refer to that fruitful topic, the proceedings of the Grand Committee. They had left pleasing memories in his mind—memories of the courtesy, good nature, and kindness of his political opponents and a strong appreciation of the many good characteristics of the Scottish people. Those memories only strengthened his determination to prevent the infliction upon so charming a people of the misfortune of the passing of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that fixity of tenure was the greatest thing in the world. He had told the House strange tales of how small men had succeeded because they had security of tenure, that there was no such thing in Scotland, and that the only way to get it was by passing this measure. He had made charges against landlords. True, he spoke in a moderate tone about them, and said they had arbitrary powers, were out of sympathy with their tenants, and could not understand the points of view of other people, and that therefore their powers should be curbed. He had charged some of his opponents with using language which pointed to confiscation. He (Mr. Lambton) objected to the Bill not only because of what it contained, but because of the whole tone and spirit of it, and because the foundation of the Government's agrarian policy had been hostility to the landlords. When the Bill of last year was introduced, and again to-day, when reintroduced, the right hon. Gentleman described it as a great democratic measure. The right hon. Gentleman said that he and his friends were wedded to Liberal principles and Constitutional practices. That might be so, but he did not think he could congratulate them on their fidelity. There seemed to him to have been a great many lapses
  676
  latterly. During the past two years they had been flirting with Socialism, and now they were flirting with anarchy. He maintained that half of the evils in the Bills proposed by the Government, and half of the faults of the measure now before the House, were due to the alliance made with the Socialist. Party below the gangway.
  MR. SINCLAIR MR. SINCLAIR indicated dissent.
  MR. LAMBTONsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman objected to the word "alliance" he would withdraw the expression, and say they were the tools of Socialism. They had not heard in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman anything with regard to the purchase of land. Everybody knew that the Socialist Party objected to the purchase of land, and he believed the reason why the possibility of anyone becoming the owner of his holding had been denied in this measure was to be found in the opposition of hon. Members below the gangway. Hon. Members on that side of the House thought that a great mistake; they considered it desirable to increase the number of small owners as well as the number of small occupiers. He did not make this charge without authority. He could quote high authority. Last year before the introduction of the English and Scottish Bills speeches were made by the Prime Minister and the Under-Secretary for the Colonies. The Prime Minister speaking at a luncheon at the Holborn Restaurant attributed the depopulation of the rural districts to the fact that the labourers could not call their souls their own. [MINISTERIAL cheers.] That statement was cheered on the other side. He thought at the time that it was a slip of the tongue, or one of those things said to a too ignorant audience, and that it would not be repeated. But it was repeated to the Drury Lane audience by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies. That sort of charge was what produced hostility on that side to the measures of the Government. His opposition to these measures was because they were bad measures. He was not one of those people who cared which quarter measures came from. He looked at their merits and judged accordingly. He objected

  677
  to the principle of legislation of this kind. There seemed to be a desire to do something uncomfortable to the landlords. The Government must remember that they were trying to ride three horses at once in this matter. He dared say that the English Land Act was an excellent measure. Hon. Members opposite said it was a great triumph of legislation, but they would on no account apply it to Scotland. They were going to spend £65,000 a year to establish in Scotland a system which they were to spend about £100,000,000 in getting rid of in Ireland. He would not venture to speak on this particular subject had he not some knowledge of the conditions in the Lowlands of Scotland. He could not see why the Lowlands of Scotland should not be treated in the same way as England. He had been for fifty years on the border of Scotland. He did not think that hon. Members in going through the counties of Roxburgh and Berwick would know whether they were on Scottish or English soil, for the conditions were practically the same in regard to flocks and herds, farms and farm buildings. [An HON. MEMBER: The laws are different.] He did not think that was a relevant interruption. The conditions being practically the same, why could not legislation suitable for England be extended to that part of Scotland? He had never yet heard a feasible argument against it. He knew that there was one put forward by the Prime Minister last autumn, but he did not think it was a good one. The right hon. Gentleman told an audience in Scotland that Scotland must have this Bill becauses the Tweed was not dry yet. That was a physical fact which could not be denied. He thought the Prime Minister was wise in making that statement, because it could not be contradicted. Supposing the Welsh Members became a little restive in regard to the Welsh Disestablishment Bill all the Prime Minister had to say was that Snowdon was not yet flat. Last year when it was broadly stated that there was lawlessness in Ireland, that the Government had ceased to exercise the right to govern and had handed over its power to the Irish League, all that the Attorney-General for Ireland had to say was that there was still salt water in St.
  678
  George's Channel These geographical reasons were not good reasons. The right hon. Gentleman objected to purchase in Scotland. Why did he object to give to the loyal Scottish what the Government were so anxious to give to the Irish? Dual ownership was established in Ireland. It was proposed to establish in Scotland what existed in Ireland. They knew that in Ireland people were only too anxious to own their land. Was the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that in establishing that system in Scotland there would not be brought about the evils which had attended the system in Ireland? What example was the Government going to give people in Scotland to be patient under this Bill, and to hold their land until they obtained that which the Government had promised them—this elysium in the shape of security of tenure? There was only to be £65,000 advanced for this purpose. Many people might become impatient. Were they to be allowed to break the law and to render the lives of others insupportable because the right hon. Gentleman could not give them what they desired? To apply the Irish system to Scotland would be fraught with danger. There were many objections to the Scottish Bill of last year. In the first place, it was a Bill to legislate by reference, and all authorities would agree that there was no worse way. It was proposed to apply the Crofters Act throughout Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted some remarks from a Report pointing out how the crofters had benefited by having security of tenure given to them. It was obvious from the fact that the crofters had benefited that they deserved the Act. He did not think anybody objected to the passing of the Crofters Act, or similar legislation, for the crofters had made their own improvements and built their own houses. The crofting districts were in an entirely different position in that respect from the rest of Scotland. The quotation read by the right hon. Gentleman applied solely to the persons living under crofter conditions. If the right hon. Gentleman had read another portion of the Report he would have seen that the Commission reported quite the opposite in regard to the Lowlands. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to

  679
  point out a single case in which these conditions existed in the Lowlands. He had never been able to get the right hon. Gentlemen, or any of the people who advised the Government in Scotland, to point out any specific case in which a tenant in the Lowlands had made his own improvements, and yet the Crofters Act was to be extended all over Scotland, although the conditions were different. In the Amendment he said that the Bill proposed to establish in the Lowlands of Scotland "a system of land tenure alien to the traditions of the people and utterly unsuited to the conditions of agriculture." Although the Crofters Act did justice to the tenants, it had not produced a satisfactory state of agriculture in the Highlands. Evidence went to show that although the houses might in certain instances be improvements they were not suitable habitations from a sanitary point of view for other parts of Scotland. Yet the right hon. Gentleman pointed to the Congested Districts Board as a panacea for the rest of Scotland. Being a Scotsman himself the right hon. Gentleman should recognise that the agriculture of Scotland was the highest form of agriculture in the world, and yet he came down to the House and said that the system of land tenure in Scotland had been an absolute failure.
  MR. SINCLAIR: What I said was that the system, whatever its merits, was fatal to keeping people on the land.
  MR. LAMBTONsaid the right hon. Gentleman stated that that was the fault of the system. The evidence given before the Commission said that depopulation in the crofter districts had been as great as in the other parts of the country. Therefore, according to the light hon. Gentleman's own showing, although the crofters had security of tenure the decrease of population in those districts was as great as in other parts of Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that it was not the English land system that accounted for repopulation. It was going on in the other countries of Europe, and even in Canada the same thing was taking place. People were leaving the land for the towns, and they all recognised that it
  680
  was a great evil. It was a fallacy to say that it was the fault of the English land system. The right hon. Gentleman had not referred to the very important question of rates. In the crofting districts no rates were paid in respect of the buildings on the holdings. Did he mean to apply that exemption to the rest of Scotland? If he did, it would be a great hardship to the holders of property in the other districts. The right hon. Gentleman was very proud of the constitution of the Land Court, believing that it would be of great advantage to small landholders. But he and his friends on that side of the House objected altogether to a Land Court for fixing rents and deciding the compensation to be paid. Why should the relations of landlord and tenant be decided by a Land Court? The provisions for the constitution of the Land Court were of the most arbitrary description he had ever heard of. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that there ought to be an Agricultural Commission set up for Scotland. The constitution of such a Commission might be a very good thing in the right hon. Gentleman's eyes, but it was not, in his (Mr. Lambton's) opinion, necessary. The existing Agricultural Commission in England might do all the work required of it in Scotland perfectly well. There was no necessity for a new Agricultural Commission for Scotland—it would involve two sets of authority and two sets of rules and conditions, which would prove most tiresome to both farmers and merchants. Those who attended great agricultural markets like Berwick-on-Tweed and Carlisle were not to know under what conditions their transactions were being conducted. The necessity for this Bill had never been shown, and there was no reason why the English Small Holdings Act should not be made applicable to Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman had said that poor men were not represented on the county councils of Scotland; but he thought that the Scottish of the rural districts were men of independence. At any rate, the same conditions existed in England, and any difficulties that might arise were being got over every day. The county councils in Scotland were being granted by this Bill extensive powers with which they should not be entrusted. The right hon.

  681
  Gentleman had made the extraordinary statement that Scotland was a poor country, and that the small landholders should be enabled to equip and furnish their holdings. But why should the cost be placed on the rates in England, and in Scotland on the taxes? That was perfectly unjustifiable. They had not yet Home Rule in Scotland, and if there was going to be a great new system of land tenure for that country passed by the House, they ought to see that the financial conditions were equal to those that existed in England: that what came out of the taxes in England should come out of the taxes in Scotland, and what came out of the rates in England should come out of the rates in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that Scotland was a poor country, and that they were unable to look after their own affairs.
  MR. SINCLAIR: No.
  MR. LAMBTONsaid that the right hon. Gentleman told the House that the county councils were not representative. What then were the people of Scotland doing? The hon. and learned Member for South Edinburgh had told them that the people of Scotland had made up their minds in regard to a reform of the county councils.
  MR. A. DEWARsaid that what he had stated was that there were large counties in Scotland from many parts of which the meeting places of the county councils, were inaccessible, and that therefore these could not be represented by poor men. It sometimes took a three days journey to get to the capital town of the county.
  MR. LAMBTONsaid that the Secretary for Scotland had declared that the people could not look after their own affairs; and now that was whittled down by the hon. and learned Member for South Edinburgh to the statement that there were a few places in Scotland from which it cost a good deal of money to get to the meetings of the county council. When the debate took place in the other House—although he would prefer to have the discussions in the House of Commons—he hoped that the remarks of the Secretary for Scotland and of the hon. and learned Member for South Edin-
  682
  burgh would be remembered. There was no validity in the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He most seriously asked the House to pause before passing a measure such as this. There was no necessity for it. He was not one of those who declared that this was a measure which was never meant to pass; but he did not think that hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial Benches, although they wished it to pass, ever expected to pass it now. He believed that the reason why so many Members opposite thought well of it was because it was one of those which went to filling up the cup. He did not know how long their siege of the House of Lords was going to last. Frontal attacks were very dangerous, and so they were resorting to flank movements. The House of Lords would, however, take care of itself, and he did not think that this measure was of a sort that would shake its foundations. The Secretary for Scotland had said that he had got some support for the Bill from farmers in Scotland, but his own belief was that all the farmers with holdings of greater extent than fifty acres were opposed to it. They would have no security at all for their farms under its provisions. They might be taken from them and cut up into small holdings to-morrow. But it was not only the farmers who would be left insecure; the stewards, shepherds, and farm labourers would be in the same position. He knew something of the landlords of Scotland, and they would not embark their capital in new equipment for their farms; they would not build new houses for their stewards, shepherds, and labourers, and the Bill if it became law would lead to great distrust in the agricultural community. In the Lowlands of Scotland they knew what agriculture was. They did not farm patches of land and eke out a living by fishing. The stewards, shepherds, and farm servants in the Lowlands were, he ventured to say, better housed than any crofter in the Highlands, and their houses were erected and maintained at the expense of the landlords. He had known the landlords in the Lowlands all his life, and he was sure that it had never entered into their minds to oppress their tenants or farm labourers—very far from it. There had been political attacks upon the landlords, but he maintained that they had borne uncomplainingly the sufferings due to agricultural depression during the last

  683
  forty or fifty years. The right hon. Gentleman had made attacks upon them for their shortcomings and the want of security of tenure which their tenants had, but he would point out that the Tents had gone down from £60,000,000 to £40,000,000 during the last fifty years. Moreover, there was not a district in Scotland where more money tad not been spent on improvements during the past twenty-five years than in any previous quarter of a century, and yet the return on the capital expended was very much smaller than formerly. The assertions that the landlords did not do their duty were unjust and were made to catch votes. He thought that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite had found out their mistake in that respect and that they should trust to the solid middle-class opinion of England. Honest men did not like such attacks as had been lately made on the landlords of the country. This Bill ought not to pass. If it would conduce to the interests of agriculture he would support it. The right hon. Gentleman's intentions, his hopes, and his auguries might be very good, but the Bill itself by which he proposed to carry them out was a hopeless mockery. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
  *MR. YOUNGERsaid he was not one of those who thought for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland bad not a sincere desire to pass this Bill on its merits. He believed with his hon. friend who had just spoken that the right hon. Gentleman could not expect to fulfil that desire by proceeding to deal with the whole of Scotland in one measure instead of two. He happened to be in the unfortunate position of representing both the Highlands and the Lowlands, and he found on many occasions that he had to take the view of one section of his constituents on a particular measure and the view of the other section on another measure. But in this particular case he was inclined to think that both sections desired some kind of measure which would increase the number of small holdings in Scotland. However, the Lowland part of his constituents did not approve of the crofterisation of their agriculture; and when he fully explained his position to his constituents in Oban he found that they did
  684
  not desire to be made a cat's paw of in order to crofterise the Lowlands, and that they had no desire to back up the right hon. Gentleman opposite in pressing the scheme of this Bill. He thought he was entitled to complain of the persistence with which the right hon. Gentleman unfairly presented the attitude of the Unionist party on the Crofter question. What had been the Unionist record in the past? Who had done most for the crofters I He frankly admitted that the Liberal Party had the credit of passing the Crofters Act of 1886. He gave them every credit for that, but they passed it with the general support of their political opponents, who in many respects desired to extend it beyond the principles on which it was founded. And the curious fact was that every shilling since voted in the interests of the crofters had been voted by the Unionists who, by the irony of fate, almost immediately after the Bill was passed into law, by the turn of the screw, came into power. Their first step was to pass an Act making a grant of £30,000 to the Scottish Fishery Board for the benefit of the poor fishermen crofters on the West Coast; and consistently from that time these Crofters Acts had been sympathetically and generously administered by the Unionists for 17 years. Lord Lothian appointed a Commission in 1889, of which Mr. Spencer Walpole was the chairman, to find a remedy for the destitution and discontent which then existed. That Commission reported in 1890, recommending railway extensions and grants for lines of steamers, piers, and harbours, to the immense advantage of the crofting population and the country as a whole. The Government passed the Highlands and Islands Works Act in 1891, under which no less than £200,000 was granted to and spent on the poorer parts of these districts in order to help them. In the course of time the Act was superseded by the Congested Districts Boards Act, under which £350,000 had been spent. During the whole of this period hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were only in power for three years, from 1892 to 1895, during which time they did nothing whatever. He remembered that the bon. Member for Invernesshire re signed his seat as a protest against what he considered was the neglect of the crofting interest. He called attention to this

  685
  because throughout the whole of the discussions that had taken place on this question not a single word of acknowledgment had fallen from the right hon. Gentlemen or the Lord-Advocate with regard to the services rendered by the Conservatives and the Unionist Party. As they could not get any acknowledgment from the Government for the credit they were entitled to demand, he claimed that credit now. They were anxious to continue their policy and help these people. The crofters were never in a more distressing condition than at present. Legislation had been too long delayed, and it would be delayed again if the right hon. gentleman persisted in his policy of making a condition of his scheme the crofterisation of the whole of Scotland. That was a price they could not pay and which they would not pay. It would deny to the crofter the legislation they should immediately receive. He vigorously protested against the right hon. Gentleman persisting to deal with the whole of Scotland under one scheme, instead of two.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out all the words after the word 'that' in order to insert the words 'this House, while desirous of increasing the number of small owners and occupiers in Scotland where-ever they are likely to prosper, declines to proceed with a Bill which establishes in the Lowlands a system of land tenure alien to the traditions of the people and utterly unsuited to the conditions of agriculture.'"—(Mr. Lambton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  *MR. H. J. TENNANTsaid he would like to make it quite clear at the outset that he was deeply impressed with the gravity and danger of rural depopulation on the one hand, and the accompanying phenomenon of urban overcrowding on the other. In the recent discussions there had been an almost universal agreement as to the desirability of setting up small holdings in the abstract. But when it came to the concrete, the desirability was so overlaid with doubts and difficulties that the advocacy became mere lip service. The Bill in no way met the difficulties, and in so far as it ignored them it merely did paper service. But other countries which had
  686
  similar difficulties had met them with success, and their success was a warrant for our proceeding on their lines. This Bill was dangerous in principle and defective in machinery. It was dangerous in principle because it set up dual ownership, which in Ireland had produced such disastrous effects. It was defective in machinery because it set up a permanent board divorced alike from popular control and all touch with local sentiment. What was required was a popularly elected body practically acquainted with the special circumstances of the particular districts, and above all outside the influence of red tape and routine. The Bill might be suitable to the Highlands, but it was unsuitable to the county which he had had the honour to represent in this House for fourteen years. He contended that it was unsuitable to the needs of Scotland because there was no analogy between the Highlands and the Lowlands. What sort of holdings were contemplated by this Bill? Many of its supporters appeared to think that ordinary extensive agriculture could be successfully pursued under its provisions. They were mistaken. In the Lowlands, and, in speaking of the Lowlands he desired to bind himself to Berwickshire, East and Mid Lothian, and any part of Roxburghshire, it was impossible to make fifty acres pay by ordinary extensive cultivation; a man with fifty acres could not compete with the large farmers. Fifty acres would not keep a pair of horses. He trembled to think what would happen to those poor men who tried to make fifty acres pay in such seasons as that which had just passed. These were not the days in which we could afford to get the second or third best out of the land. The productivity of the land must be stimulated to the utmost of its bent. They in Berwickshire were proud of their agriculture, which they believed to be the best or nearly the best in the whole world. Even if it were true that by extensive cultivation fifty acres could be made to pay, the only result would be that a farm servant would be taken from one farm and put into another. The population question remained untouched. All that this Bill would do would be to postpone his departure from the country for a few months or a few years, but he would enter the town with empty pockets, impoverished in hope, embittered in spirit,

  687
  with nothing behind him but the memory of his failure. It had been urged "why criticise so closely, it is only a small measure and will have but a small range." Was this what Scotland wanted? This was not his conception of the needs of the country: the consineration of its needs led him to criticise the Bill from the point of view of its sins of omission. It contained no recognition of the experimental character of the proposal; no provision for teaching either by travelling instructors or technical instruction in the schools; no provision for the establishment of experimental plots such as had been so useful in other countries. France had 3,000 or 4,000 of these plots upon which experiments could be made by which the cultivators of the soil could tell what would pay, and to determine the class of agriculture which would profit the people on the land. Let them learn by the experience of other countries. What could they teach us? The staple products which came from abroad were butter to the extent of £22,000,000, cheese £6,900,000, eggs £7,100,000, poultry £903,000, and vegetables £3,700,000, of which potatoes and onions alone represented £2,371,000. The only way in which we could get hold of those markets was to spend money on training. The Belgian Minister for Agriculture in a message to Parliament said—
  "Every franc spent on agricultural teaching brings brilliant returns."
  And the Dutch President of the Agricultural Council said—
  "Every guilder spent on the promotion of agricultural teaching brings back profit one hundredfold."
  The greatest illustration of this was to be found in the case of Denmark. The British Vice-Consul at Copenhagen in 1860 said that Danish butter at that time was execrable. Now they exported to this country butter to the extent of £9,000,000 or £10,000,000 a year. The extraordinary progress which had been made in Denmark was entirely due to agricultural training. Having regard to the objectionable features of the Bill and all it omitted, how could he vote for it. If he were the Chief Secretary for Ireland he might say, "I won't," but being the humble individual he was he could only say," I cannot." He advocated a policy of small holdings, and had his right hon. friend introduced a Bill for occupying ownership, different-
  688
  tiating between the Highlands and the Lowlands, and introducing a scheme of agricultural training and experimental plots and providing money for these purposes, and had placed the scheme on a democratic, basis, abjuring bureaucracy, he would have laid up for himself treasure not only in the ballot boxes but in the hearts of the people.
  *MR. MURRAYsaid he could not agree with the last speaker for the reason that he had recently returned from his constituency, where he had spent November and December taking the opinion of his constituents on this Bill from early morning till late at night. He found that from one end to the other of East Aberdeenshire a great majority of the people were in its favour. At his first meeting, which was composed of crofters and farm servants, he was told when leaving, "Mr. Murray we could have sat and listened to you all night;" and at the last meeting he was told that all they wished to listen to in East Aberdeenshire was about this Land Bill. That showed the feeling in his constituency. It was always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for South East Durham who combined those two qualities so rare in a Scotsman, cynicism and chaff, but there were one or two points of the hon. Member's speech which he would like to refer to. The hon. Member asked why a Bill which was suited to Northumberland should not suit Berwickshire. He might as well have asked why the religion which suited Northumberland would not suit Berwickshire. For centuries England tried to make Scotsmen Anglican and did not succeed. Or it might be asked, Why would not the education that suited Northumberland suit Berwickshire? The answer was that the Scots were a totally different people, a different race with different traditions. One reason why this Bill pleased the great majority of Scotsmen was that it gave every man a chance to rise in life. Every man should have a chance, but at present the farm servant had no such opportunity. The Leader of the Opposition had said that if circumstances in Scotland were analogous to those of Ireland he would have no objection to this Bill being applied to the Lowlands of Scotland. He (Mr. Murray) could only say that he represented one of the largest Lowland constituencies in

  689
  Scotland, and that, if it had not been for the small holders, East Aberdeenshire would have been a howling wilderness. It was the small holder who had taken in almost every rood of land in Aberdeenshire. He spent night and day with his wife and children under every conceivable hardship and privation, reclaiming the soil from nature. And what was the reward which he received for his toil? He started with what was known as an improving lease—that meant that with great labour to himself and family he dug and tenched the land, he gathered the stones, he drained the land and fenced it with the stones gathered from the fields, he built his house and homestead, and at the end of his lease in nine cases out of ten his rent was raised long before he was able to recoup himself for the labour spent on the holding. They had frequently heard that the landlords of this country were a fair-minded race. No one had heard him saying they were not, but during his recent tour in East Aberdeenshire he was impressed by the fact that the sense of awe with which for centuries the peasantry regarded the landlord had not yet in many cases been stamped out. If it was difficult for an employer of labour to know what his employees thought of him, it was still more difficult for a landed proprietor to know what his tenants and the peasantry generally thought of him and those connected with him. He was struck also by the struggle for existence on the part, not only of the small landholders, but of many farmers of every description. This worried him very much, because it was forty years since he spent twelve months on his father's farm and there was then a great deal of prosperity in the neighbourhood. What did he find on looking into the facts? In 1860 this country ceased to produce sufficient mutton and beef for its own demands, and although supplies were imported from France, Germany, and Spain, they were insufficient to keep the prices down. Prices rose considerably, and in 1878 rents followed in the wake of high prices, and no embarrassment followed. In 1878 prices reached their highest, and since then had been gradually falling, until we were now where we were in 1860. The prices of cattle now were perhaps a little less than they were forty-seven years ago, and oats were 4s. a quarter less. Against this, the wages of farm
  690
  servants had risen about 80 per cent., and rents, although they rose in sympathy with the high prices, had stopped in the decline half-way down, so that in Aberdeenshire the rent now was about 30 par cent. higher that in 1860. It had been contended that it was impossible for a farm of fifty acres in East Aberdeenshire to nuke a living, but it was equally impossible for a farm of 200 or 300 acres to do so. The bigger farm was producing exactly the same articles—oats and beef. He knew it was contended that certain things must be produced on a largo scale at a profit when on a small scale would entail a loss, but he contended that intensive cultivation on a small holding could produce what a large farm could not. Not only the Liberals, but many Tories also in his constituency were in favour of this Bill. The chairman of one of his meetings remarked to him—"Mr. Murray, we do not agree in politics, but I am thoroughly at one with you in your enthusiasm for this Bill." In regard to the disappearance of small holdings, he told the House that in forty-seven years the number in East Aberdeenshire had diminished to the extent of between one fourth and one-third. That was a very serious condition of things, because, as everybody knew, the best farm and domestic servant that could be had was the child of a small holder. One question he put before his constituents was that of purchase. He did not advocate purchase because it took more money to become an owner than a tenant. A tenant could farm 100 acres with the capital he required to purchase a thirty-acre croft. It was perfectly true that the Duke of Fife, for reasons of his own, sold farms on a basis of twenty years purchase some years ago, and that, therefore, one or two of his (Mr. Murray's) friends favoured purchase. It was all very well for a wealthy landlord like the Duke of Fife to sell on such terms, but the, average landlord in Aberdeenshire could not afford to do so, an I would require thirty or forty years purchase. Therefore, he did not see that purchase was possible in his constituency. If the tenants got fair rent and fixity of tenure, although they did not get the dignity of a landed proprietor nor the responsibility they got all they wanted to make their business a success. For these

  691
  reasons he wanted, speaking for East Aberdeenshire and a great many Tories as well as Liberals, to tell the Secretary for Scotland that they were almost unanimously in favour of the Bill.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid this was not this Bill's first time on earth and it would appear that those responsible for its successive reincarnations considered it of such merit that it was in their view entirely unnecessary to discuss in this House that considerable portion of the Bill which last year was passed under the guillotine. Having that view the Government apparently thought that the Bill had behind it a strong body of public opinion in Scotland. If that were so, which he begged leave to doubt, then it only remained for him to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and the Government on having done what no previous Government had succeeded in doing. They had produced out of their inner consciousness about one-third of the very long Bill of last year in a form so perfect that no discussion in this House was required and no Amendment needed; in such a perfect form that it reflected the opinions and wishes of the whole of Scotland. That was a most laudable thing for any Government to do. It must be a matter of pride to the Lord-Advocate and the Solicitor-General to reflect that Clause 3 was produced in such a perfect shape that it required no discussion with regard to the principle of setting up a Land Committee in Scotland. The people of Scotland had no criticism to offer to that; all they desired was that the junior members of that august tribunal should receive an extra £200 a year. If that was the view they held he considered it flattering but incorrect, because if they took expert agricultural opinion it was hopelessly and overwhelmingly against the Government. To begin with, at the very inception of the Bill, the report for which the Bill did not wait—the Report of Lord Onslow's Small Holdings Committee—condemned in unmeasured terms the principle which was embodied in it, as also did the Secretary for Scotland's Danish Commission by eighteen votes out of twenty. The Douglas Commission, which had just inspected the working of the crofting system, had condemned the
  692
  Bill. The Chamber of Agriculture had condemned it, not once, but repeatedly, and the Chamber of Agriculture was originally commended to them by the representative of the Board of Agriculture as a body of hard-headed Scottish farmers representing Scottish agricultural opinion; and more than that, the President of the Board of Agriculture took occasion in October, 1906, to make some remarks with regard to the limiting of landlords' contractural rights, and their power of negotiating incoming tenants, and said—
  "Such legislative regulation of the terms of contract is a first step in the direction of valued rents and a Land Court, and without saying whether these are good or had I doubt whether the members of the Chamber are prepared to enter upon that step without much further consideration."
  That further consideration was given and it was surely strange and worth more than passing comment that when the Chamber of Agriculture made up its mind that the Bill was not good but bad, the noble Lord who presided over the Department found it inconvenient and undesirable to go to Scotland and discuss the matter with those whom he had previously found so willing to meet. Even at the Perth Liberal Conference there was one prominent agriculturist who said they had raised against the Bill an almost solid mass of agricultural opinion. Then as to popular opinion, he did not know what opinions the farmers and farm servants of East Aberdeenshire expressed when under the spell of the hon. Member's eloquence, but he knew that a petition was presented to the House from the farmers and farm servants of Aberdeenshire, Kincardineshire, and Banff, protesting against the terms of the Bill. It was signed by 2,573 farmers and 852 crofters, and 1,095 farm servants. The hon. Member's speech was a demonstration of the elasticity of the present system as regarded the constitution of small holdings. He said Aberdeenshire was accounted a small holdings county, but it was made a county of small holdings under, existing conditions. He fancied the hon. Member for Argyllshire would hesitate to subscribe to the doctrine that the Government were infallible interpreters of Scottish public opinion or to the view that the action which the Government had taken with regard to arbitration, for instance, under the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1906, was an accurate reflex of public opinion and wishes. The

  693
  Secretary for Scotland had taken hi; stand once more upon the successful working of the Crofters Act in preventing depopulation. The difference of conditions in the crofting districts and the south of Scotland had been pointed out before and was admitted by those responsible for the original drafting of the Crofters Acts. But it was more than doubtful whether the Crofters Acts had proved such a success in stemming depopulation as the right hon. Gentleman would have them believe. The Douglas Commission Report was open to very considerable misconception. The members recorded their general conclusions with regard to the working of the Crofters Acts as follows:—
  "Our general conclusions as to the working of the Crofters Acts in the districts where they apply is that while they have made possibly considerable improvement in crofters' homes, given independence to the people, and in some' causes stimulated improvement in farming, they have not in point of fact in the course of twenty-one years created a successful or prosperous agriculture. It may very well be the case that economic and other considerations make it impossible for any agrarian change to bring about these results in the crofting districts, but the fact remains that the crofting system as it exists at present furnishes no positive indication of its capacity to bring about agricultural prosperity. We have found no evidence that the Crofters Acts have served to arrest rural depopulation"
  That extract gave a fairer idea of the general sense of the Report of the Committee than that read by the right hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister had said little about the working of the Crofters Acts, but had said much about the effect of the growth of the small holdings system in North Wales in preventing rural depopulation. He understood that an error of something like 100 per cent. had been detected in his figures by one of his open followers, but taking them as they stood, as a matter of fact the proportion of shall holdings in Wales and in Scotland at present was almost identical, and the Prime Minister's argument appeared to lack any logical sequence whatever. If small holdings had checked rural depopulation in Wales, one would have been expected to institute the same system in Scotland. The right, hon. Gentleman, however, proposed to introduce into Scotland an entirely different system. As a matter of fact with regard to the figures on the relation of rural depopula-
  694
  tion and small holdings, one could only say that there was the greatest confusion and uncertainty. It was impossible to trace any real connection between one and the other. Over all Scotland in the period from 1891 to 1906 small holdings from five to fifty acres had increased on an average by 9 per cent. and rural population had decreased by 4·9 per cent. In the seven Crofting counties small holdings had increased by 19·7 per cent. on an average, and rural population had decreased by 6·4 per cent. In 13 of the counties there had been a decrease both in the number of small holdings and in rural population. The average decrease was 5·8 per cent. of small holdings and 8·8 per cent. in population. In only two counties had there been an increase in small holdings and in population, 9 per cent. and 3·2 per cent. respectivaly. In 18 counties the increases and decreases had not been in sympathy, but had been different one from the other. In four counties there had been a decrease in the number of small holdings and an increase in population, and in 14 counties it had been vice versa. Any attempt to draw a clear and definite argument from the figures was obviously not borne out by the facts. That was worth considering in regard to the cry of "Back to the land." That was not so much a political as an economic problem. If small cultivation could be made to pay plenty of people would seek and find opportunities of returning to the land, and he had always thought it was a curious inconsistency which had led gentlemen opposite to make the laying down of permanent pasture, which was certainly not a good means of decreasing the amount of rural depopulation, an improvement so great that it could be made without the landlord's consent and compensation be required from the landlord for making it. If they looked at the Bill from an economic point of view, the proposed limit of 50 acres was about as uneconomic as they could make it. In Roxburghshire and Berwickshire a very strong opinion had been expressed to him with regard to this uneconomic limit. 'The right hon. Gentleman had cited Blairgowrie and the Vale of Evesham, but they were not parallel cases. Surely the Government did not imagine they were going to have intensive cultivation all over Scotland. That was impossible, and they

  695
  had to consider how small holdings could be worked under ordinary economic conditions. Intensive cultivation was an excellent thing, but the fact remained that small holdings must be worked under ordinary economic conditions, and the only way in which a successful result could be achieved was by cooperation and organisation. Clause 4 of the Bill contained a large number of provisions which the Agricultural Commissioners were to carry out. Those functions were all very well and good, but the Bill gave them no money to carry them out. The sum of £35,000 out of the £100,000 was ear-marked for the operations of the Congested Districts Board and the other £65,000 must go automatically towards the constitution of new holdings and the enlargement of holdings under the Crofters Act. All the talk about what was going to be done under Clause 4 meant nothing, because the Agricultural Commissioners were not to be given any money.
  MR. SINCLAIR: Apparently the hon. Member did not hear my statement on this point. I stated that the cost of the work of the Board of Agriculture would be placed upon the Votes.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid he did not understand that the right hon. Gentleman's statement covered the point to which he alluded, and he did not follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument about the unrepresentative character of the county council. He said it would be a long way from some remote glen to a county town, but it would be a much longer distance to Edinburgh. Divided ownership had been referred to. He understood that the Secretary for Scotland had now ranged himself on the side of those who supported this measure because it did not contain the principle of divided ownership. He hoped that before the debate closed they might have an opportunity of understanding once and for all whether the Government had made up their minds that they were supporting the Bill because it contained dual ownership or because it did not contain dual ownership. He hoped the Lord Advocate would inform the House whether the Bill contained that principle and whether
  696
  he agreed with the Lord Chancellor that it was being supported on that account. The only other argument was the suggestion that the Bill contained the germ of a great democratic principle. He doubted that suggestion, and he thought that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were present he would reflect if he looked at Clauses 16 and 17, because he would find that on the one hand the landlord was restrained from letting, and on the other the tenant was restrained from leaving, and he would begin to doubt how far liberty, not only upon its negative, but upon its positive side, was being secured. If judicial rents, crofting tenure, and a Land Court were essential parts of the democratic principle of Liberalism, what about the English Act? If those were essential principles he would like to hear from the First Commissioner of Works why it was that the English system was alien to the traditions of the people of the Lowlands, and why it was that the crofter system this Bill sought to introduce had none of the demerits which they alleged against it.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid that one of the disadvantages of the debate was that they had had the Lord Chancellor telling them that the Bill contained dual ownership whilst the Solicitor-General assured them that it contained nothing of the kind. Then the First Lord of the Admiralty had told them that he preferred the county councils, and the Secretary for Scotland had told them that he did not. Under those circumstances it was small wonder if when on the introduction of the Bill he gave his support to the right hon. Gentleman on general principles, that indiscretion carried him somewhat farther than he intended. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman of one or two points he had raised. First, in regard to the extension of the Crofters Act under Sir George Trevelyan's Bill. That Act was extended to adjacent counties and applied only to crofting parishes of those counties, and to very few of them. That was one of the reasons why he adopted that form of procedure, because he desired to carry out the principle that any further legislation should extend to the whole of Scotland. He never proposed that the

  697
  Crofter Commission should be abolished; on the contrary, he had argued that the Crofter Commission and the Congested Districts Board should be united. He had always advocated that local authorities should have large powers. Throughout the whole of this matter he had at any rate been consistent in this way, that he had advocated the extenison of any further legislation to the whole of Scotland. He had also advocated that tenants below £50 rent should have a valued rent, with precautions, however, against fixity of tenure. Regarding small farms as an experiment, he thought that experiment would be better conducted by a central authority than by a local authority. The main work of land reform, however, was to give free access to the land for the purpose of cultivation, and that matter would be best dealt with by local authorities. They had learned a good deal since the Bill was introduced. The English Bill had provided that central coercion or stimulus for the local authorities which was necessary to make them effective. The whole of the members of the County Councils of Sutherland and Caithness were turned out at the last election. Nobody would tell him that the local authorities in Scotland were less representative or more subservient to the landlords than the local authorities in England. To be told that Carlisle and Berwick were fit to take land and to administer it, and that Dumfries and Kelso were not, was really to state a proposition at which "the man o' independent mind looked and laughed." To be told that Northumberland was free while the Lothians were servile, and that the Agricultural Commissioners attached to the Board of Agriculture were for the landless in England and against the landless in Scotland was a preposterous statement. He maintained still that a central authority was more effective for making what he regarded as a most difficult experiment—the creation of small farms—an economic success. He thought the English Act had shown them the way, and that Act, although it was called the English Act, was based upon the evidence in and the Report of the inquiry which extended
  698
  equally to Scotland and England. This Bill was hurried into the House while the Report was in the hands of the printers. Now they were told by the right hon. Gentleman that small farmers had to provide against difficulties which were not economic. The whole question was economic. Why had the large farmer thrown out the small one? It was because of the dealing in bulk, the greater freedom of the access to markets, and the use of machinery, and the only way in which they could restore the small farm to its former place was by providing a wider system of agricultural education, arranging for co-operation, and giving better access to markets. That would put the small farmer more on a level with the large one. The efficiency of the present agricultural system rested upon the owners' expenditure. Whether that was right or wrong was a matter on which opinions might differ, but they brought agriculture into ruin and chaos if they stopped that expenditure without making any alternative provision for it. There was another point which the Bill overlooked, and that was responsible management. It was not only the fact that the owners had provided over £1,00,000,000 worth of equipment which was withdrawn from the protection of the ordinary law, but they had to spend over £2,000,000 a year in the renewal of that equipment. They had also to find £250,000 a year for management in order to safeguard against waste. If they established occupying ownership as in Denmark, or gave free sale as in Ireland, there would be in the one case no need of responsible management, and in the other comparatively little need; but occupying ownership and free sale were tabooed by the Bill, and therefore they must retain responsible management unless there was to be in definite waste. The real question before them with regard to that matter in the Bill was the question of justice. It was not really the position of the owner that was before them. That was a secondary consideration. The real question was the position of agriculture under the Bill. The Bill would knock agriculture on the head in Scotland. He did not say it would do so for ever, because some way would be

  699
  found out of the situation. The difficulty in regard to divided ownership in Scotland would be in a much more acute form than in Ireland, because they could not transfer the £100,000,000 worth from the owners to the occupiers. There would be a far more complicated divided ownership in Scotland, and there would be far more litigation. As a consequence there would be a deterioration in agriculture through the landlord's equipment to which the tenant had been accustomed being stopped. There would be litigation in the Courts, and finally they would have to have land purchase in Scotland also. The Government had to provide an alternative system for the one it was about to destroy, and it would have to find £2,000,000 for equipment, and £250,000 to meet the cost of its own factorship. It would also have to find equipment for the new holdings. Land purchase itself would not be a solution of the problem in Scotland any more than in Ireland. They would have to find £100,000,000 or more for land purchase, and they would have, according to the policy of the Government, to divide up a great proportion of grass and arable land to find new holdings, and all this at a time when they were faced with great expenditure in Ireland. Why the Government should court similar expenditure in Scotland without the slightest necessity was beyond his comprehension. It was because the carrying out of the proposal would mean chaos to existing agriculture that he was so staunch an opponent of the measure to-day, and would be until they got on to more rational lines.
  *MR. BARNESsaid that the mover of the Amendment had put forward the idea that this was a Socialist Bill, and had further ventured the opinion that the Government had been forced to adopt Socialist principles because of the pressure brought to bear on them by himself and his colleagues on those benches. As a Socialist he wished a Socialist Bill. But he was afraid that they would have to disagree with the hon. Member. This was by no means a Socialist Bill, but one framed on the principle put forward a few weeks ago by, he thought, the, Chancellor of the Exchequer,
  700
  namely, social reform conditioned by individual enterprise. He had not the right hon. Gentleman's exact words, but they were to that effect. There was a sense in which this was a Socialist Bill; it embodied the principle of fair rent and fixity of tenure in substitution for rent fixed by the hard need of the occupier. It made a further Socialist Bill possible, because he thought it might reduce rents, and, therefore, make it easier later on to go a step further in the same direction. He need scarcely say that he committed nobody on the other side of the House when he gave expression to that opinion. He would like to associate himself fully with what had been said by the hon. Member for Berwickshire who spoke of the need for co-operation and education. He also thought there ought to be relief from the exorbitant railway rates so as to make it easier for the agricultural population to hold their own. This Bill was by no means final. It set up machinery whereby, so far as he could see, at all events co-operation would be easier in the future than it had been in the past. It set up commissioners who were specially charged with the duty of agricultural organisation, and, therefore, it was a step in the direction of achieving the object which the hon. Member had in view. The Secretary for Scotland had stated that he intended to press for more money. He thought, therefore, the hon. Member for Berwickshire might be encouraged to hope that the Bill would at no distant date achieve the object he and himself had in view. He had waded through the 467 columns of Hansard in which the proceedings in this House on the Bill were reported last session. The speeches of hon. Members who opposed the Bill occupied 283 columns, leaving only 184 for its defenders. He saw no reason to alter the opinion which he had held more or less ever since the Bill was introduced. He had given a somewhat qualified support to the Bill in all its stages in the House, but not because he believed that it was a final Bill. He wanted responsible ownership and responsible control. He wanted public ownership and control. The Bill was not an heroic one. It was not an ideal one. There were many defects. For

  701
  instance, the resources were too small. He thought there was a general concensus of opinion that £65,000 would only have the effect of setting up 100 to 150 small holders in the year. That did not go far enough. He was against divided control. Another serious defect was that it did not help the labourers to get advantage of it. And, finally, he would like to see the £50 limit altered. It was too low. He believed that what was good for small farms was also good for larger ones. But he believed that the Bill within its limited scope gave effect to a principle which was calculated to transform Scottish agriculture, if only it was carried out to its logical conclusion. That was the principle of fixity of tenure. The result of his own energy, enterprise, and labour should be secured to the small holder. It stood to reason that a man who was working for himself, as it were, knowing that he was going to benefit in proportion if he worked hard and put skill and ardour into his work, was going to be more productive and therefore more beneficial not only to himself, but to the community, than the man who was liable to be turned adrift at any time by an arbitrary landlord. Me was not speaking disrespectfully of the landlords of Scotland. As a result of fifty years experience he found that: "We are all pretty much of a muchness." But what he wanted to direct attention to was that there was an inequality between the parties making the bargain—between the poor and therefore dependent man on the one side and the rich landlord—at any rate, many of them were rich—on the other. There was no equality there. The bargain made, in the nature of things, must be an unfair one. Landlords made bargains as other people did, having regard to all the circumstances of the case; and the salient circumstance in this case was the poor man with whom the bargain had to be made. He heard the Secretary for Scotland allude last year to the disadvantages with which the State had to contend in making bargains with landlords. The State was always expected to buy dear and to sell cheap. But whatever these disadvantages were they were as dust in the balance compared with the disadvantages of the poor men
  702
  in Scotland who had to compete one against another for the occupancy of those small farms, and therefore were charged a higher rent than they otherwise would be. He believed that the Bill, small as it was, was calculated to attract people to the country, or, if not, to stop the rural depopulation. So far as he understood the position, the chief argument he had heard against the Bill was one which might be applied to all the Bills having that as its end and object. It was put by the hon. Member for North-West Lanark when he said that the reasons why the people left the country had nothing to do with the Bill or the things that they had been discussing that day, but were economic in their character. That plea was put forward by the Leader of the Opposition last year, who speaking on the Bill said in reference to its bearing upon urban congestion—
  "However you are going to deal with the urban problem you do not diminish its gravity by increasing the number of rural inhabitants of the country. The effect is exactly the reverse."
  And again, later on, the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "The more you increase the number of families engaged in agriculture the larger is the source—the birth-rate remaining the same—from which people will have to leave agriculture and to enter the towns."
  The right hon. Gentleman had proceeded on to support that argument by comparing agriculture with engineering and cotton-spinning, and he said that agriculture being depressed, the people would leave it just as now people left engineering and cotton-spinning, and for the same reason. And the right hon. Gentleman went on to say—
  "That that had nothing to do with land tenure."
  He submitted to the House that the conditions under which engineering manufacturing and cotton-spinning manufacturing were engaged in were altogether different from the conditions under which small farmers in Scotland engaged in their industry. In engineering and cotton-spinning there was, at any rate in most cases, a guarantee that their rent was not going to be increased in proportion to their energy; and if, peradventure, any one of them was in a

  703
  position to have his rent increased, he did not lead that strenuous life which was necessary in order to contribute to holding his own in competition with other people. Neither would the farmer. There were two things involved in the argument of the Leader of the Opposition and of the hon. Member for North-West Lanark. First, that agriculture must be a diminishing industry in proportion to the industrial activity of the whole people. That was perfectly true among a wealthy people, because food was a relatively smaller proportion of their needs. Secondly, machinery had, to some extent, displaced people from agriculture as in other industries. But he would say that rural depopulation did not proceed from either of these two causes, but from the fact of the insecurity of the tillers of the soil, together with the absence of proper education, and co-operation. The right hon. and hon. Gentlemen seemed to have forgotten the importation of immense quantities of agricultural produce, mentioned that day. We imported something like £60,000,000 of value in the way of agricultural produce. Hon. Members above the gangway might say that the way to stop that was by imposing taxation on food stuffs. He and those who agreed with him believed in a better way, and that was to make our soil more productive, and, by sustaining a larger number of our own people on the land, to make a market for our own manufactures. He and his friends were going to support the Bill, because it was a step, however small, in that direction. They hoped the Bill would pass in the House this year, and he felt sure that the agricultural population of the country were in favour of it. Some of the small people who were working at present for wages, if the Bill passed, would be in a position to start on that lower rung of the ladder so often spoken of. There were a large number of people in Scotland with a little money who, could they but get a footing on that lower rung, would develop and increase the agricultural population of Scotland, and save us, he believed, from a great deal of that deterioration that was going on in our race, and ultimately do something to mitigate the terrible urban congestion. For these reasons he hoped
  704
  the Bill would pass through this House and also the other House this session.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am reluctant to interpose so early in the debate, and I do not desire to trespass longer than I can possibly help on the attention of the House. But I think that even the most devoted supporters on that side of the House of the new form of closure, if they have been present during the debate, must have been asking themselves some rather anxious questions as to the desirability of the procedure which the Government have adopted. This debate has lasted about three hours out of the four that we have at our disposal; and it must be manifest to the most casual listener that the time has been altogether too short for the full expression of the views of hon. Gentlemen in all quarters of the House. I am not going to suggest that His Majesty's Government took refuge in this remarkable procedure in order to save themselves from an unpleasant position. It is a remarkable fact that out of those who spoke this afternoon and who usually support the Government two hon. Members, both Scotsmen and Scottish Members, acquainted with Scottish needs and Scottish affairs, throughout the whole of their speeches condemned the Bill root and branch and gave very substantial reasons for doing so. I am sure that the Secretary for Scotland must regret that he had committed himself to the astounding statement that the opposition to the Bill is political and partisan, and proceeds from those who are opposed to the Government on general political grounds. The right hon. Gentleman has already heard two Members of his own Party criticise the Bill and oppose it; and he should know better than I do that in Scotland this last winter and before, there were many men who hold the same political views as he does and belong to his Party who have condemned this Bill, basing their condemnation of it on their acquaintance with agriculture in Scotland. Through the whole of the debate there has run a sense of unreality. It is not this Bill that is in hon. Gentlemen's minds. It is not the merits or demerits of this particular measure. It is quite another

  705
  thing. We know that—we were not in doubt about it, we knew it definitely from the candid avowals of the Secretary for Scotland himself who told us that there was plenty of time for Amendments. And when some of my friends anxious to take part in the debate became a little impatient at the very large proportion of the limited time at our disposal taken by the right hon. Gentleman, he reminded them that they need not be impatient because there would be opportunity for them to express their views. What opportunity? Then the right hon. Gentleman in justification of that statement told us that although the Government are limiting discussion here, there is another House in which the Bill will be discussed. What an astounding second volume this is of the great work which was commenced in the autumn. We were told from platforms all over Scotland that this Bill was to be brought in line by line and word for word as it was before, sent up to the House of Lords, and if they did not pass it they must take the consequences. Now we are told by the only member of the Government who has spoken that it is to the House of Lords the Liberal Government looks for the full discussion and adoption of Amendments which this House is forbidden even to consider. I think nobody who has listened to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, nobody who has followed the strange history of this Bill, can doubt now that whatever confidence the Government might have in their Bill or some of their other proposals they have not got the same robust confidence in their policy with regard to the House of Lords which seemed to animate them in the earlier part of last autumn. The right hon. Gentleman gave a somewhat lengthy description of the Bill, and quoted some of the criticisms that have been addressed to it. But what struck many of us as being very remarkable was that he did not tell us what were the reasons that led the Government without inquiry or investigation to adopt this Bill as a remedy for the evils of which they complained. He told us in an earlier speech, and he referred briefly to it in this, that the object of the Government is to put an end to the depopulation of the rural districts. I do not know whether he has any
  706
  real confidence in this Bill as a remedy for depopulation, but if he listened to the admirable speech made by the hon. Member for North Lanarkshire earlier in the afternoon he must have realised that figures which cannot be answered were produced by my hon. friend, and I do not think that anybody will be found in this House or outside of it who will contradict them. These figures prove that by small holdings you are not of necessity going to get rid of rural depopulation; they also show that where you have adopted the small holding system in some cases there is a decrease of the population. In the recess a comparison was made between Scotland and the rest of the country, and we had some wonderful figures produced by the Prime Minister in regard to Wales. Those figures have all collapsed. They were challenged; and by whom? The Secretary for Scotland tells us that the policy of the Government is opposed only by their political opponents. But was it a political opponent who exposed the travesty of the Prime Minister's figures, showing that they were erroneous and that not one of them could stand the smallest test? Was it a political opponent who showed that the analogy of Wales which the Government had put forward was one which could not be relied upon. No; that destruction of the Government's own figures came from one of their own supporters, and yet the Secretary for Scotland wishes us to believe that the opposition to this measure is purely political.
  MR. SINCLAIR: When I made that statement everybody must know that I made it with some exceptions.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The right hon. Gentleman says he made the statement with some exceptions, but let us see what this infers. There have been two Scottish members who are supporters of the Government who have led the debate this afternoon and some of their supporters in the other House spoke against it and an active part was taken by Lord Rosebery. But apart from that, if the criticism of the Secretary for Scotland means anything it means this, that our opposition is not based upon our honest opinion that

  707
  the Bill is a bad Bill, and that it will prejudicially affect the agricultural industry in Scotland, but that it is because we are political opponents of the Government that we resist it.
  MR. SINCLAIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to explain? I mean to say that the Party opposite have determined to oppose this Bill, and has therefore commanded the legions of its supporters to give them their assistance in opposing it.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I confess I am a little puzzled to see what the interruption means, but I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that the statement which he has made now is not what he said when he was moving the Bill this afternoon, which was to the effect that the opposition to this Bill was a political opposition.
  MR. SINCLAIR: Hear, hear!
  MR. WALTER LONG: And that the opponents of the Bill were the partisans who belonged to this side of the House, the only limitation being that there were some exceptions. I maintain that the opposition to this Bill in Scotland has come from those, many of whom are supporters of the right hon. Gentleman, who are experienced in agriculture and whose knowledge of agriculture has compelled them to oppose the Bill irrespective of their own political views. I go further and I say that it is not the opposition to the Bill which is political and partisan, but it is the support of the Bill which comes from the political followers of the right hon. Gentleman that is so. The support of the Bill comes from hon. Gentlemen who believe that some great political advantage will be created by dealing in this way with the land question in Scotland. Take it from the right hon. Gentleman's own point of view. In order to get rid of depopulation in your rural districts you are prepared to tear up by the roots the whole agricultural system of Scotland. You are prepared to apply to the Lowlands of Scotland, principles which have hitherto been limited to a part of Scotland different
  708
  in every respect from the Lowlands and from parts of Scotland in regard to which I do not think that even now you can produce evidence that this kind of legislation has been beneficial and successful. It may be that in certain cases you have secured the improvement of the condition of the crofter tenant; but where you change a system in that way you get rid of the landlord influence, the landlord power, and the landlord money, and where you put the whole responsibility and all the burden upon the tenant and do not make him the actual owner, you have no right to claim that you have any experience of the results until that system has been in vogue not for twenty years, but for a period more like half a century. We know very well that it is in the second generation that difficulties occur in regard to your fixity of tenure. At all events there will be no dispute about this, that whatever may be the condition of things in Scotland, the introduction of dual ownership of land in Ireland brought evils which made it compulsory upon all parties who were committed to it, to get rid of the system by buying out one of the parties to the contracts. Is there any reason to believe that what has been the experience of Ireland must not be the experience of other countries where similar principles are applied? You apply to Scotland, in order to get rid of this difficulty, a system which I believe, notwithstanding the views held by the Government, gives undoubtedly dual ownership, and, as my hon. friend the Member for Leith Burghs says, you have not the courage of your convictions. You do not go on to complete the fabric by giving freedom of sale. Therefore you have again a fixity of tenure, you have again a dual ownership which contains all the vices of the original land legislation for Ireland and none of its virtues. The right hon. Gentleman was indignant with one of my hon. friends for saying that he had condemned the landlords wholesale. It is perfectly true that the right hon. Gentleman said that there are some good landlords, and that he believed the majority of them are trying to do their duty, but he made the amazing statement that it

  709
  was impossible for the ordinary landlord to appreciate the feelings or comprehend the needs of the tenant farmer or of the labouring man. If that is in the smallest degree true, is it not remarkable that the agriculture of Scotland and of Great Britain should be what we know it to be, the most developed and the very best form of agriculture that is to be found in any country in the world, and producing crops which will compare both as regards quality and quantity with those of any other country except one? And yet these results have been brought about by the wise and generous expenditure of money by the landlord on the development of his estate, and by the excellent way in which the farmers and labourers combine to add their share in the production. These results have followed under a system where the whole development rests upon the owner of the property, who is, according to the right hon. Gentleman, unable to appreciate the real needs of the tenants on his estate. I do not believe that there is any gathering of labourers or tenant farmers in England, Scotland or Wales, who would not say, if the question were put to them apart from politics, that there is not a shadow of foundation for that charge against the landlords. We were irresistibly reminded by the speech of the Secretary for Scotland to-day of the comment made by the Leader of the Opposition last year when he told us that this was a Government which legislated in compartments. Could anybody who wanted to attack the English Land Act of last session have done so more completely, more emphatically, or I might say with greater venom, than the right hon. Gentleman did in the course of his speech in defence of his own measure, which was an absolute condemnation of the Bill which he and his colleagues passed last session? He told us that everything that had been done in this country with regard to land was wrong, that the tenants could not protect themselves, that the labourers could not protect themselves, and that without a Land Court you could not expect justice or benefit to agriculture. But he went further and gave as his reason that he did not
  710
  believe in the county council. Last year his colleagues said that if you are to develop small holdings you must trust the county councils which have local knowledge and local responsibility to aid you in the work. Now the right hon. Gentleman says: "Not at all, because in Scotland the county councils do not represent the locality." Then an hon. Gentleman behind him told the right hon. Gentleman that in some cases in consequence of the bad train service in Scotland, the poorer men could not get to the county council meetings. But it is not a question of the train service, but of the amount of time it takes to serve on the county councils which the poor man cannot afford to give. But what is the right hon. Gentleman's remedy? It is a novel remedy for Liberal administration. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the county councils are not representative; and what are we to have under his scheme? We are to have more centralisation than ever before. He assured us, and I am confident that it will be so in his case, that the men who are appointed will not be appointed from any political motives and that he will see that the best men are secured. Whom will these men represent? Are they in any way representative of the people whose interests are confided to them? They are more officials centralised in a Government Department to do work which in England has to be done by those who are elected by the people. It is an extraordinary illustration of the difference in the legislative achievements of the Government. I can only say that during the whole of the debates on the English Land Bill there was nobody on this side of the House so powerful and so bitter in their condemnation of the proposals of the Government as the Members who spoke from the Ministerial side of the House this afternoon, and who usually support the right hon. Gentleman. I do not wish to discuss the merits or rather the demerits of the Bill. We are charged with opposing it on purely political grounds. I do not know on what grounds others may be opposing it, but so far as I am concerned I oppose it because I believe it deals in the very worst way possible with agriculture either in Scotland or in England. The

  711
  Bill does give fixity of tenure and does create dual ownership, and the right hon. Gentleman proposes under it also to separate the Scottish business of the Board of Agriculture from the English and to give Scotland a separate Department. He quoted some words of mine on a former occasion, but I think he ought to have quoted the words I used on the main proposition. The right hon. Gentleman forgot to tell the House that I did not go to Scotland as Minister for Agriculture once, but five times, and upon the last two occasions the suggestion for a separate Board of Agriculture had dwindled to a suggestion that there should be one or two officials in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman's contention with regard to the Contagious Disease Act falls entirely to the ground. He says these Acts are administered by Statute and the Minister could not alter them. That is true, but the Minister can repeal them if necessary. But it is not the question of the administration of these Acts alone. What happened the other day when questions were asked in this House as to the serious outbreak of cattle disease in Scotland? That was not dealt with by a separate answer. I All Members of the House were deeply interested in that serious question, and there was a Minister in this House who could answer for it, and there was the knowledge that the orders of that Minister would be carried out. If the alteration proposed by the right hon. Gentleman is carried out that could no longer be the case, because it is obvious that when you set up a separate Department with a separate head for Scotland, and a case of this kind occurs, Members of this House will not only have to address themselves to the President of the Board of Agriculture but also to the Scottish section, and it will be necessary to see that the orders sent out by the two Departments are the same. This is one of the most serious questions that could be met with, because one of our great sources of wealth is our flocks and herds, and anybody who remembers the ravages made in our flocks and herds thirty or forty years ago must see how very serious it is. The anxiety in all quarters of the House upon this question is manifest; and I say that if this change is made the administration must
  712
  be weakened and cease to be as perfect as we desire it to be. This change is to be made in Scotland to stop rural depopulation. To stop rural depopulation you are going to treat the lowlands of Scotland in a totally different manner from that in which you treat the north of England. My hon. friend the Member for South-East Durham in my opinion made a perfect case against this Bill. For my part I am thankful that you are not going to apply this system to England. On our side of the border we do not want Land Courts. I believe our farmers do not want continuity of tenure and that they are satisfied with the present laws. And I very much doubt whether in Scotland there is the strength of feeling on this subject to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Why have the Government gone through the farce of giving three days to this Bill? As it is quite certain that the Government intend this Bill to be amended in the House of Lords, let it go straight to the House of Lords and come back to us with the Amendments which we are not allowed to make. Then there will be three or four days in which to deal with it in its amended form instead of debating it as we now are in its incomplete state. The defence of the Bill is not very whole-hearted, because one of the supporters of the Government has told the House that he only supports it as a small instalment of a great reform. I believe his remark is more true than that of the Secretary for Scotland. I believe this Bill is more likely to injure agriculture and the labourer on the land than anything else that could be done. I believe that if this Bill passes into law you will have to carry fresh legislation to abolish the landlord altogether and get rid of dual ownership or you will have, by other legislation, to amend the law in a different way. Convinced as we all are that this will injure agriculture and not assist it we oppose the Bill not as political partisans but as citizens of this country who wish to prevent injury being done to our greatest industry.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW,): In the discussions upon this question during the last two years, Scotland at all events,

  713
  may be said to have derived one advantage in so far that we have been successful in ingathering to our Scottish discussions the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin. It is a pleasure to listen to him in these debates. I may have to differ from him on a few points, but we all recognise the great interest which he takes in these matters, and his honesty of purpose in discussing them. The right hon. Gentleman very naturally founded on the tact that two speeches have been made by Liberal Members against the Bill, and he says, "Look at that. Is not that a startling thing in a short debate I "Well, it is better to look at how the figures actually stand. Scotland at this moment is represented by seventy-two Members. Sixty of these are Liberals. Of these sixty, three disapprove of the Bill, and of these three two have spoken to-day. So that the situation even now with regard to the opinion of Scotland is as strong as this—that fifty-seven Scottish Members are enthusiastically for it, and fifteen Scottish Members are against it. Of course it is very difficult for English Members, and several of them have taken part in this debate, to realise the strength of feeling in regard to this measure. My right hon. friend who has just spoken has adopted exactly the attitude adopted by Lord Lansdowne in the House of Lords. On the visit he paid to Scotland, Lord Lansdowne laid down two propositions which have been reiterated in this House this afternoon. In a short word—he said this Bill was Irish, and it should be English. To that our answer is that this Bill is Scotch and should be Scottish. I thought we could not improve upon or vary those propositions until I heard the hon. Member for Leith Burghs, whose views appeared to be that the Bill should be neither Irish nor Scottish, but that on the whole it should incline to a Welsh solution. I wish to say one word in the limited time at my disposal upon the proposition that the Bill is Irish ere I take up the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman who says that it contains none of the virtues of the Irish system and all its vices. Roughly speaking, the Irish system is a system of three F's.—fixity of tenure, fair rent, and free sale. In the crofting counties in Scotland we have for twenty-two years adopted,
  714
  and in this Bill we adopt a system of two F's. We have no free sale; and the advantage of having no free sale is that the Gombeen man has never been able to penetrate into the Highlands of Scotland. A negotiable asset has never been created for the tenant under which the merchant and the money lender could come around and persuade him to part with his property. The system that we have is the two F's. What is the attitude of the Unionist Party with regard to the two F's? Authoritatively they have declared that these are vices. It is a vice to have a fair rent impartially fixed. Could ever landlordism declare itself more absolutely? It is a vice to have fixity of tenure. The very secret of the independent holding of land is fixity and permanence of tenure. Rather than have that, say the Unionist Party, let the landlords be expropriated altogether. There is the whole diameter of the opposition between the two Parties in the State on this Bill. I wish to make now one other remark as to a good many of the figures which were given by the Member for Lanarkshire. I will take one broader figure. I agree with him very largely in the view that he took with reference to percentages and population in various areas. I agree that it is very difficult to make any induction which will lead you to an absolutely irrefutable conclusion. We have over and over again heard Irish members declaiming on the subject of emigration, and saying that the lifeblood of Ireland was being drawn away across the Atlantic. In Scotland in the last recorded year, 1906, we were able to make a contrast on the subject of emigration in Ireland. In Ireland there were 51,200 souls who left and went abroad, and the net fiugre of actual emigration was 31,000. In the same year 53,100 men, women and children left Scotland, and the net figure wae 34,000. For the first time in our history the tide of emigration has been greater from Scottish shores than from Irish shores. Apart from percentages I trust that the House will agree that that is a fair and broad view to take as to the necessity for some measure which will undo this, which will revoke this tendency to leave our native shores. And when I say that

  715
  in Scotland the amount of land available stands in this position, that there are nearly three millions of acres dedicated to sport, and that for every man, woman and child in Scotland there are 4½ acres of ground, I submit to the House that we have mace out a case for saying that these great spaces, North, South, East and West, in our native land should be made more a refuge for the population than for the deer. It is said: "Why not give this duty to the county councils?" We have had some experience of county councils in regard to this matter. In the first place, I have not observed during these two years of discussion that any county council in Scotland has asked Parliament to entrust this duty to it, and not to a central body. But, in the second place, we have had sixteen years experience of county council action—or inaction, which is it? The count of Inverness is not without knowledge on the subject. Somewhere about 1,200 applications were made in that county. The county council appointed a committee; that committee appointed a local visiting subcommittee that spent nine days in the affected districts, and that subcommittee reported strongly to its committee, which in turn reported to the county council of Inverness, that the demand for land was clamant and there was abundance of land to satisfy the demand. That happened nine years ago. And the county council has never disposed of the applications yet! It knew that it could either grant the request or refuse it and that an appeal could be made to the Local Government Board of Scotland; but it neither granted nor refused the request and so appeal has been impossible, and the thing is suspended till this moment. What we say as a Government is that, with experience such as that, we wish to entrust the management of this Statute to those who are in whole-hearted sympathy with it. Unless you have wholehearted sympathy with a measure you can never get it well administered. I had little experience with the county of Lanark. It is the most populous of our counties,—even apart from its urban population, what remains is still the most populous. A factor wrote to me asking me not to say anything against
  716
  the county council because, he said, since the Allotments and Small Holdings Act of 1892 they have not, although they have advertised in a dozen newspapers, been able to get any application until March, 1907. I wrote back to get hold, of the advertisement and found that it contained an announcement that the council was desirous "of ascertaining whether there was a demand for small holdings" under the Act of 1892. When was that advertisement made? Will the House believe it; it was only made in March, 1907. Is not the like of that a conclusive example of the need for seeing that the administration of the Act is placed in the hands of those who will have an insight into the situation and whole-hearted sympathy with its administration? I know perfectly well that two counties have taken this matter up. The county of Caithness took it up because the county council passed a resolution against the Bill. An election came on; and out of twelve vacancies ten of the old councillors were turned out and ten approvers of the Bill were put in. In Sutherland several men who contested seats were turned out if against the Bill and replaced by these in its favour. These are instances of what we say—that not only by the inaction of the county councils, but by their positive actions and declarations of policy, we are justified in adhering to the precedent of the Crofters Act and administering not through county councils but through a central body. I will only say with reference to observations that have been made as to the provisions of the Bill, that it is out of the question now to suggest as Lord Rosebery once did, that in some reckless and ruinous fashion farms are going to be cut up. Section 7 preserves the right of every tenant during the entire currency of his lease, and compensation on the full scale is granted, not only to the tenant, but to the landlord, and to the landlord in respect not only of the holding, but of its effect upon the estate generally. Accordingly, I think we have no attack made upon the shape and frame of the Bill. It is only said: "Why is it not English?" I will put this to my hon. friends on the other side. Assuming you had a line drawn from Chester to

  717
  Bournemouth, and on one side of that line you had a most excellent system on which improvement had followed, and in many cases the very face of the country had been transformed—better drainage, better fencing and better housing for man and beast—and assume that a Bill was brought in to extend that system to the rest of England. But the House of Lords says: "Oh, no. Do not make the rest of England like the part that has gone on so well. Make it like Scotland." How would Englishmen like that? Suppose they were threatened by the Lords that they must become Scottish in dress? Or that in religion they must as in Scotland treat every Episcopalian as a Dissenter? The fact is, this argument cannot apply in the case of a self-governed country like Scotland which is so fully alive to its own interests. I never yet heard it suggested that Scotland did not know the right side of a shilling. Upon this simple ground that the shrewdest of nations is absolutely resolved upon this Bill, I ask all Members of the House—Englishmen who appreciate the illustration given, Irishmen who know the value of self-government, and Scotsmen who know exactly the outs and ins, the pros and cons of this measure—to adhere to the policy of last session. As to the shortness of our debate, it is well to be short, although the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has given us a hint which may fructify in time to come as to a shorter method still of disposing of our business when another House is recalcitrant. We shall not forget that. A word in conclusion as to the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Berwickshire. He is all in favour of education and co-operation among these small holders. So am I. I find nothing
  in the Bill to derogate from these great functions, but I find much in it that is to their advantage. Education, co-operation, and all those things which are so important in a country which at this moment is importing from foreign shores not less than £70,000,000 worth of perishable farm produce, are, in our view, best built upon a situation in which the tenant shall be secure in his holding, shall have independence in his life and career, and shall face all the problems not only of his individual and family effort, but of co-operation with others on the footing that he cannot be dispossessed or penalised in consequence of good agriculture.
  *MR. J. F. MASONsaid that perhaps the best argument that had been brought forward in favour of the Bill was that the crofters had spent £150,000 of their own money on the crofts. But he asked the House to remember that there were 28,000 crofters, and that the Crofters Acts had been in operation for twenty-two years, so that the expenditure of the crofters on their crofts amounted to 5s. 6d. per croft per annum.
  And, it being a quarter before Eight of the Clock, Mr. Speaker proceeded to put the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded this day under the Order of the House of the 13th February.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 353; Noes, 106. (Division List No. 12.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Agnew, George William

  Barker, John

  Boland, John

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Brace, William

  Armitage, R.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Branch, James.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Beale, W. P.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Brodie, H. C.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Ches.)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Grant, Corrie

  Lough, Thomas

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Grayson, Albert Victor

  Lupton, Arnold

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Burt, Rt Hon. Thomas

  Gulland, John W.

  Maclean, Donald

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Cameron, Robert

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

  M'Crae, George

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Hart-Davies, T.

  M'Kean, John

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  M'Killop, W.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Clough, William

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Massie, J.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Masterman, C F. G.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Henry, Charles S.

  Meagher, Michael

  Cooper, G. J.

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Menzies, Walter

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Middlebrook, William

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Mond, A.

  Cox, Harold

  Hodge, John

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Crombie, John William

  Hogan, Michael

  Montagu, E. S.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Mooney, J. J.

  Cross, Alexander

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Crossley, William J.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Cullinan, J.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Murray, James

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hudson, Walter

  Myer, Horatio

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras. N

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Nolan, Joseph

  Dillon, John

  Jackson, R. S.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Nuttall, Harry

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Duckworth, James

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Duffy, William J.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Jones, Lief (Appleby)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Grady, J.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Elibank, Master of

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  O'Malley, William

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Erskine, David C.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Essex, R. W.

  Kelley, George D.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk. Eye)

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lambert, George

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lamont, Norman

  Pollard, Dr.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh. Central

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Gill, A. H.

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras. E.

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Radford, G. H.

  Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Glover, Thomas

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  720

  721

  Rees, J. D.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southamp'n

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

  Wardle, Gaorge J.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn

  Snowden, P.

  Waring, Walter

  Richardson, A.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wason, Rt Hn. E. (Clackmannan

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Weir, James Calloway

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Robinson, S.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Summerbell, T.

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Rose, Charles Day

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Rowlands, J.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthn

  Runciman, Walter

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E

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

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Thorne, William

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Toulmin, George

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

  Seddon, J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Seely, Colonel

  Ure, Alexander

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Shacklelon, David James

  Verney, F. W.

  Wodehouse, Lord

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

  Vivian, Henry

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Wadsworth, J.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Walsh, Stephen

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Walton, Joseph

  NOES.

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fell, Arthur

  Nield, Herbert

  Balcarres, Lord

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Percy, Earl

  Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Forster, Henry William

  Randles, Sir John Scurran

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Gardner, Ernest

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Beach, H. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Guinness, Walter Edward

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hamilton, Marques of

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

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

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Starkev, John R.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cave, George

  Hills, J. W.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Keswick, William

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Clark, George Smith (Belfast, N.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Whitbread, Howard

  Coats, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

  Lockwood, Rt. H. Lt-Col. A. R

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin. S

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim,

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Younger, George

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir. Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Mason, James F (Windsor)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Main Question put.

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Corbett, C H (Sussex. E. Grinst'd

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cowan, W. H.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Agnew, George William

  Cox, Harold

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Crombie, John William

  Henry, Charles S.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cross, Alexander

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe

  Armitage, R.

  Crossley, William J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Cullinan, J.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Astbury, John Meir

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Hodge, John

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hogan, Michael

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Raring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Barker, John

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Barnard, E. B.

  Dillon, John

  Hudson, Walter

  Barnes, G. N.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone. N

  Duckworth, James

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Beale, W. P.

  Duffy, William J.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Jackson, R. S.

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Jenkins, J.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

  Elibank, Master of

  Jones, Sir H. Brynmor (Swansea

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Boland, John

  Erskine, David C.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Essex, R. W.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Joyce, Michael

  Brace, William

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Branch, James

  Fenwick, Charles

  Kelley, George D.

  Brocklehnrst, W. B.

  Ferens T. R.

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  Brodie, H. C.

  Findlay, Alexander

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Ches.

  Foster, Rt. Hon Sir Walter

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lambert, Geroge

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Gill, A. H.

  Lamont, Norman

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.

  Lardner, Jumes Carrige Rushe

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Glover, Thomas

  Layland-Barratt. Francis

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Cameron, Robert

  Grant, Corrie

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Gulland, John W.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Lough, Thomas

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Lupton, Arnold

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Clough, William

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn's. sh

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hart-Davis, T.

  Maclean, Donald

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Collins, Sir W. J. (S. Pancras. W.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hayden, John Patrick

  M'Crae, George

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  M'Kean, John

  † See correction in second entry following Division List.

  The House divided:—Ayes. 247†; Noes, 103. (Division List No. 13.)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  M'Kllop, W.

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Radford, G. H.

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Summerbell, T.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Maddis on, Frederick

  Rsa, Russell (Gloucester)

  Taylor, Austen (East Toxteth)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Reddy, M

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Rees, J. D.

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E

  Massie, J.

  Rendaall, Athelstan

  Thorne, William

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Meagher, Michael

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

  Toulmin, George

  Menzies, Walter

  Richardson, A.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Ure, Alexander

  Middlebrook, William

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Verney, F. W.

  Mond, A.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Vivian, Henry

  Montagu, E. S.

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

  Wadsworth, J.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Robertson, Sir G Scott (Bradf'rd

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Robinson, S.

  Walton, Joseph

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Ward, W Dudley (Southampton

  Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Wardle, George J.

  Murray, James

  Rose, Charles Day

  Waring, Walter

  Myer, Horatio

  Rowlands, J.

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Runciman, Walter

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Watt, Henry A

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Schwann, G Duncan (Hyde)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Weir, James Galloway

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Seaverns, J. H.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Seddon, J.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Seely, Colonel

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Shackleton, David James

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  O'Grady, J.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.

  Wiles, Thomas

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthn

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  O'Malley, William

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Williamson, A.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Snowden, P.

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wodehouse, Lord

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Steadman, W. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  NOES

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Dalmenny, Lord

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cave, George

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Balfour, Rt. Hn A. J. (City Lond.)

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A (Worc.

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Clark, George Smith (Belfast, N.

  Fell, Arthur

  Banner, John S. Harmood.

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birminghm

  Forster, Henry William

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Guinness, Walter Edward

  Bull, Sir William James

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  726

  727

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Tennant Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Hills, J. W.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Nield, Herbert

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W

  Percy, Earl

  Ward, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Keswick, William

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Williams, Col. R, (Dorset, W.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Wilson, A Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Younger, George

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Starkey, John R.

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

  SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL DIVISION (NUMBERS INCORRECTLY REPORTED).
  Mr. Joseph Pease and Viscount Valentia, the Tellers in the Aye Division Lobby, in the Division this day on the Question, "That the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill be now read a second time," came to the Table and stated that they had erroneously reported the number of the Ayes as 247 instead of 347, which was the proper number.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER directed the Clerk to correct the number in the Journal accordingly; Ayes, 347; Noes. 103.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  DUNDALK URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL (BY ORDER).
  Read a second time, and committed.

  LOCAL TAXATION.
  *Mr. HEDGESsaid that the Motion which stood on the Paper in his name in regard to local taxation was one which he thought the House would agree with him was very opportune, coming as it did before the Budget was introduced, and demanding a reform which was very desirable. It was—
  728
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the present system of Local Taxation and the relations between Local and Imperial burdens demand the immediate attention of His Majesty's Government, with a view to a more equitable adjustment as between Local and Imperial obligations."
  He hoped that the opinions which might be expressed in the discussion that evening would have some weight in the decision which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might arrive at a later stage of the session. He was rather confirmed in that expectation by the fact that a few days ago the right hon. Gentleman, in replying to a question, said that
  "The relationship between local and Imperial finance was receiving the attention of His Majesty's Government."
  It would be within the memory of the House that the final Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into this question was presented in 1901, but nothing much was done until last year, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made an excellent start by clearing the decks for action. Under these circumstances, he thought he was in some sense preaching to the converted. In the speech which the hon. Gentleman made on that occasion, referring to the stopping of ear-marking of certain taxes for local purposes, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said—
  "The object is first of all to get rid of an enormous, most unsightly, and inconvenient complication in our national accounts; second, to set free the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to a large area of taxation and thirdly, to clear the ground—for this is only a provisional arrangement—for a future re-settlement, I hope on equitable terms, of the whole relations between the central authority and the local authorities."

  729
  Perhaps this Motion might be looked upon as a reminder to the right hon. Gentleman who, he hoped, would be able to say that having put his hand to the plough he would not look back. After this, he was sure that no expression of his in regard to the existing state of affairs could be considered an exaggeration. It was piecemeal, haphazard, unbusiness-like, and involved; that description was a re-echo of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman last year. The method of allocation seemed to him to be very like legislation by reference, but somewhat worse. This was what was said in the Report of the Commission in regard to the apportionment of the proceeds of whiskey money between county boroughs and counties—
  "The Commissioners determined that an equitable adjustment between each county and the county boroughs deemed to be therein situate would be effected by giving to such several authorities in each year the annual amount received prior to the passing of the Local Government Act out of the grants discontinued after the passing of that Act together with the amount payable under the above mentioned Section 20 of the Act, and dividing the remainder in proportion to the rateable values of the county and boroughs."
  He ventured to suggest to the House that such a sentence as that was worthy to be compared with the most involved ruminations of a philosopher, but few had any idea of what it meant. We suffered, he knew, in this country from the disadvantages just as we enjoyed the advantages of being citizens of an old country with old traditions, and he suggested that the time had now arrived, and was more than fully ripe, when the whole question should be gone into of the relationship between local and imperial burdens, so that these might be put on an equitable basis. What were the complaints? Undoubtedly they were very constant, and perhaps they heard more frequently of them in the localities interested in the matter. But he was sure that hardly a post arrived at head-quarters which did not bring some inquiry or complaint from local authorities in regard to the position in which they stood on this important matter. Roughly, the complaints of local authorities ranged themselves under four heads. In the first place, ratepayers had to meet the cost of national services which ought to be borne by the
  730
  tax-payer, who had the broader shoulder. In other words, there should be a more clearly marked distinction between the payment for onerous services and the payment for services which were beneficial. Secondly, there was a lack of variety arising from the fact that rate were confined to the occupiers of rateable property. Thirdly, there was a wide disparity between different areas, though adjacent and fulfilling the same conditions; and fourthly, the cause a complaint was one very frequently ex pressed, and found its chief exponents in the agricultural districts—he mean the incidence of rates upon the agricultural part of our population; the urban ratepayers in their turn complaining that by reason of the relief given to agriculture by the Agricultural Rates Act their burdens were by so much increased. In other words, the urban ratepayers paid for agriculturists who even now said they bore more than their fair share of the burden. He thought that under a wise and properly adjusted scheme both these complaints would disappear. It was not fair to either the agricultural or the urban ratepayers that either of them should have just cause to say that one or the other was treated with favouritism. In fact the very existence of this mutual suspicion and mistrust showed that the method of rating was not fair to all those involved. Lastly, it was essentially the poor districts of low total rateable value which particularly suffered. He thought to even the wayfaring man—the man who ran could read—that those things were fairly self-evident. Perhaps the most important of them came under the head first mentioned, that was to say that rate-payers as such were bearing large burdens for national charges. Generally, it might be said that we suffered from another peculiarity in regard to our position in local finance, viz., the multiplication of spending authorities. There were the county council, the district council, the town council, the parish council, and the boards of guardians, all spending money. Another peculiar feature was that although half the total rates were called poor-rates, only a half of these was used in any sense for the relief of the poor. That might not be a very important matter, for it would

  731
  not affect the amount of the cheque which would have to be drawn; but it was rather an archaic and anomalous thing that we should call by the name of poor-rate, something which had nothing to do with the relief of the poor. It was a matter of congratulation that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had practically stopped the system of assigned revenues. It was with the greatest possible pleasure that they heard in the last Budget speech that that absurd method—by which certain revenues, which were assigned to local authorities, was going to be stopped, and the right hon. Gentleman gave them all the more hope that he had taken this matter in hand in a business-like fashion and really intended to place the whole scheme on a business-like foundation. Periodical grants-in-aid on no fixed principle whatever were a hand to mouth expedient, with the necessary equivalent grants to parts of the United Kingdom not affected by legislation which might entail expenditure; they were not defended, but as a temporary palliative pending permanent adjustment. The more the whole position was considered as to the relationship on which local and national finance stood, the more he thought the balance of criminality lay here: that there was a want of system and of any fixed principle. It might be forgotten, but the original intention was undoubtedly expressed in the earlier Acts regulating the imposition of rates, that it was axiomatic that rates and taxes should be levied according to capacity to pay; and there was no doubt that the rates themselves were originally intended as a local income-tax, and that the rent was only a rough and ready method of calculation. The income-tax as now levied followed the eternal principle of justice, that taxation should be levied according to the capacity to pay, but in the rates this principle was ignored to a large extent. The rates were fixed on the basis of the rent of a man's house but in these days of commerce and trade that was a very poor index of a man's capacity to pay. They had heard a good deal in the course of the discussion of this question about taxing certain things, such as land, houses and so forth, but they did not tax these anymore than they taxed coffee, or sugar;
  732
  but they taxed the people who paid. He hoped he might be pardoned for making such a simple statement, but nevertheless it was necessary to bear it in mind and to understand that it was the people who paid and not the places they occupied. The incidence might be difficult to trace, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech last year evidently did not dismiss the idea of exacting a contribution from personalty. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "As regards the death duties, with the revision of those duties in 1804 by Sir William Harcourt even the semblance of a special contribution from personalty to local taxation disappeared; and the Agricultural Rates Act and various other Acts which have since been passed have rendered the system even more intolerable than it was before."
  The regretful tone of that phrase "Even the semblance of a special contribution from personalty to local taxation disappeared," seemed to indicate that there was some lingering hope in the Chancellor's mind that there was some spot at which personalty might be hit. As he had said, the incidence might be difficult to trace, but he thought that taxation, even local, should fall on the lines which he had indicated and should have regard to the capacity of the person rated to pay. The position seemed to him to be brought down to these lines. There were certain charges which were collected locally and administered locally, but which were undoubtedly onerous and national. No one in his senses would pretend or even suggest that the collection of dust from outside a man's own house should be borne by the National Exchequer. That was an ordinary expenditure which undoubtedly should be borne by himself without reference to any larger issue. But when they came to some of the other expenditure which was collected and administered by local authorities it could not be denied that it was national in its character and national in its results. He had only to mention the item of expenditure for education to show that it was now more than ever a matter of national concern and a matter which brought national benefit, especially in these days when migration was becoming almost the order of the day. A very large number of our lads and

  733
  maidens were educated in our village schools; then they went away, to his mind, unfortunately, into the large centres of population, and there used the education which the rural ratepayers had paid for, for the benefit not only of the towns in their ordinary commercial capacity, but, as he was glad to know, also for the benefit of the physique of the people of those metropolitan communities. That could hardly be called a local responsibility, when so many of our young healthy lives were poured into the large cities after having been educated at the expense of the rural ratepayers. Then again there was the question of emigration, and there they came against not only a national question, but one which affected the whole of the Empire. If a locality was famed for education, he thought the least they could ask the English House of Commons was for some assistance with regard to the expenditure. Then another point which had been a matter of very serious complaint, was the money which had to be spent by local authorities upon main roads. He knew, and those who were the happy or unhappy possessors of motor cars, were equally well aware, that they did not confine their use of them to the parish in which they were rated, but that in the course of their peregrinations they covered the roads of perhaps 100 or 200 authorities, who had to maintain them at great cost, at the expense of the ratepayers in their respective areas. Regard should also be had to the fact that this new method of traction was not only used for motor cars and pleasure vehicles, but was applied to those tremendous engines which went about country roads drawing forty or fifty tons behind them, and doing damage. They did not belong to any particular area, but seemed to come more within the class of railway transit than anything else. He thought the time had arrived when the local authorities should be relieved of a huge portion of the expenditure on what were called main roads, and at least half of these heavy payments should be met by payments other than rates. There ought also to be main national roads. He believed that this evil was likely to grow to a very large extent, and if we got the local authorities to look after the administration of
  734
  these affairs, the least we could do as a central authority was to see that they were not out of pocket by the process. Several methods had been suggested from time to time with regard to the raising of the money which might be devoted to helping local authorities, and relieving the burden under which they were undoubtedly labouring, and with the permission of the House, he would like just in passing to deal with some of those which had been suggested, and had more or less reason behind them. First he would say that no inconsiderable portion of those who had thought upon the subject, had a leaning towards the imposition of a local income-tax. He was bound to say that at first sight the local income-tax was very attractive and had much to commend it. It fulfilled the admitted conditions as to taxable capacity, and he did not think it should be altogether dismissed from the minds of those who had the management of these affairs, without further consideration. He was quite aware that the difficulties in the way were not inconsiderable. It would act undoubtedly perhaps in exaggeration of the difficulty he had mentioned of the disparity between the burdens in different areas. That was to say that in rich residential centres money would be raised when it was not particularly wanted; but in poor and thickly populated areas they could not raise the money required for the purposes to which local taxation was devoted. But might he suggest that one difficulty could be overcome, and he believed it was overcome in some of the Continental countries where a local income-tax was in operation? The difficulty which at first sight seemed almost insurmountable was the case of a man who had two or three residences, or had a residence in addition to that of his business premises. It would be manifestly unfair that he should be taxed or rated upon his whole income in every locality in which he resided. But a very easy system might be devised to overcome the difficulty; for might it not be possible to bring into account the various rents which he paid in order to adjust the amounts payable in the different areas. He only mentioned these as methods which had been suggested for raising

  735
  money for local purposes, and there was one which had been brought forward and had been mentioned by the Commissioners in their Report of 1901. It was to localise Schedule A of the income-tax. He did not think there were so many objections to that, but still there were manifest objections to it. He only suggested it, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer pulverised it with a sentence he would have nothing to say. What it meant was to transfer from the book of the tax collector to the book of the rate collector the amount payable under Schedule A. It could not be denied that the value attaching to property under Schedule A was a local value, that was to say it had obtained its present position of value by work done on the spot and was local in its circumstances. Then, of course, it had this extra advantage which his hon. friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme would appreciate, that it would fall on the owner and would therefore, according to his view, be more equitable. Then there was another suggestion made with regard to the transfer of the inhabited house duty, but there were very much the same objection to that as to the localisation of the income-tax under Schedule A, to which he had already referred. There remained, of course, the plan which had been in existence for some little time, that of making direct grants from the Exchequer to local authorities in order to relieve them from these onerous burdens which they had to bear, and when one had eliminated these different expedients, with their various advantages and difficulties, they came back at last to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and asked him to see that the payments made from the central authority were more in accord with the services rendered by the local authority on national lines. It had this advantage. It was simple and clear, and it involved no muddle for the accountants. There were objections raised by purists in economy and finance with regard to payments from the central authority, which though trite were none the less unreal. The objection to the extension of Parliamentary aid to local authorities was one based on economy. It im-
  736
  plied that the money would be wasted. To this he thought the all-sufficient answer was that it depended upon the efficiency of the central control. The burden of the income-tax was just as much felt as the burden of the rates. The burden of the rates could only be lightened by an increase in the taxes, and the man who paid both was no better off. As a payer of taxes he was interested in national economy, and as a payer of rates in local economy; was it not absurd to say that the same person considered as a ratepayer was a miser, and considered as a taxpayer was a spendthrift. In this matter he had endeavoured to steer clear of figures, and all those matters which were difficult to follow, and which were, perhaps, neither interesting nor intelligible; but he thought he had said sufficient to show that the inequality had been recognised, the anomaly admitted. Local public life during the past twenty-five years had been growing in importance, and was, in his opinion, destined to become of much greater importance in years to come, when this House devolved further duties and responsibilities upon it. Local authorities and those who took part in local government were much grieved at the delay that had taken place in the settlement of this long unsettled question. This House had ever and again placed new obligations upon those who heroically and without any idea of reward carried on the drudgery of local government. New obligations and fresh responsibilities were placed upon them, and the reward in most cases was abuse from the ratepayers because the rates had gone up. He thought the time had arrived when they could with confidence look to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do something which would relieve this intolerable strain; which would give greater freedom of action to those who had undertaken with no selfish interest the management of our local affairs, men who were public spirited in the highest sense. Now was the opportunity for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give some word of encouragement and some word of hope, which would send these men on their course of public service with greater confidence, and a great desire to use all those advantages

  737
  which their position gave to fulfil the responsibilities this House placed upon them. He begged to move.
  MR. ROGERSsaid that after the exhaustive speech of his hon. friend he desired only to place one particular aspect of this question before the House. He approached this question as one who had devoted some time to local government; who had been a member of every board in his district, and who was now vice-chairman of the county council. The present size of the local burden had produced a condition of things which had caused those responsible a considerable amount of anxiety. The voice of the ratepayer was always heard and always would be, but never had there been a time when his voice was heard so clearly and so persistently as at the present. It had become impossible to raise the standard of local government, and it was very difficult even to maintain the standard of efficiency which now existed. That the grievance of the ratepayers was to some extent justified there could be no doubt. A great number of things upon which the rates were spent to-day were strictly national, and a case certainly existed for the transference of some of those burdens to the Exchequer. There was education. He held, and held very strongly, that because a child was born in an out-of-the-way rural district that was no reason why that child was not to have every opportunity that was given to the child born in a progressive urban district. But no money was more difficult to raise than the education rate, or money that was to be spent generally on education. That was the direct result of localising it to a great extent. Then let him take the Poor Law. That was almost entirely a local burden. Very little contribution was made to Poor Law expenditure, and the whole burden fell upon the locality. It might have been all right years ago when population was differently distributed, but at the present time there existed very rich districts with a high rateable value and a small poor population, and consequently a very small poor rate, and on the other hand poor districts with a large poor population and an exceedingly high poor rate. That again was the direct effect of localisation instead of nationali-
  738
  sation. He supported very heartily the statement of his hon. friend that the ratepayer had great ground for complaint. He knew how impossible it was to persuade the occupier of the land that his rates were really a part of his rent, and how impossible it was to get the occupier to throw his weight and influence into the scale in favour of efficient administration when he knew it meant more expense. It was no good to discuss with these men the merits of a particular reform, the advantages of education, of public health, or of sanitation. One always came back to the fact that they were not willing to accept a higher standard if it meant an addition to what they had to pay. That might be a narrow view to take, but when the fact that an occupying farmer whose farm was rated at £100 paid just as much rates as the man who lived in a house rated at £100, was taken into consideration, and when regard was also had to the fact that the rates bore no relation to the profits he made, it was not surprising that such a view should be taken. Although it might be contended that in the long run the rates were paid by the landlord, it was only in the long run. It was actually the tenant of the farm who paid, and until there was some revision in land tenure the burden would remain on his shoulders. Another complaint he desired to make from the point of view of those engaged in local government was of the extraordinary complexity of the system of accounts. The finance system of a council was the most impossible thing that an ordinary person could set himself to unravel. It was not natural, but the result of historical accident; of grants-in-aid given from time to time, which had the effect of complicating in a most marvellous manner the accounts with which they had to deal. The most weighty charge which local authorities had against Parliament was that hardly a session passed without measures of social reform being passed and handed over to the local authorities to administer without any assistance being given to the local authorities for that purpose. For the past twenty years hardly a session had passed without Parliament adding further responsibilities to those already borne by the local authorities. In this

  739
  connection he might mention several Education Acts, in reference to the last of which he ventured to urge on the Government the importance, and in fact the necessity for finding some money for its administration. Unless something was done in this direction he was certain that the administration of that Act would be ineffective. In many districts as little as possible would be done as was compatible with the control of the central Government. The general proposals he would venture to lay down which seemed to be important were first as to the way in which relief was given now, and the way in which it should be given. He did not agree with those who desired to place national services, on the ground that they were national services, on the Exchequer. He believed that such a thing would destroy all control by the local authority. If education were transferred to the central Government it would be necessary to have central administration, which would go a long way to destroy that local control which was one of the most creditable features of our public life. The present system of grants should be thoroughly overhauled, and grants made, distinctions being drawn between the national and local services which local authorities performed. National services should be assisted by grants and local services performed by the local authorities for their own benefit left to the charge of the local authorities. Any money that was given to local authorities should be given for a definite purpose, and should not be a mere dole; not a mere subsidy or a grant-in-aid, but given for a definite purpose like the education grant at the present time. The advantage was that they retained in the hands of Parliament the control which always ought to accompany the spending of money and enabled Parliament to exact a sufficiently high and uniform standard of administration in all the localities, and by this means they could also obtain a greater equality of burden between one district and another. In the Education Act of 1902, he held that some grants were given on the principle of the relation which the rateable value of the district bore to the child population, and by that means they got some relation between the wealth or poverty
  740
  of a district and the amount of the burden which the district had to undertake. Again the grants made under the Poor Law for medical officers of health and Poor Law officers had proved on several occasions a very useful weapon in exacting a proper standard of administration for the various Poor Law boards, and had prevented them from making the far too common mistake of expecting to get good service from officers whom they did not pay an adequate salary. He earnestly hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would avoid the model of the Agricultural Rates Act under which the greatest amount was given where it was least needed, and the least where it was most needed. It was a grant simply in aid of expenditure and was not given for any definite and specific purpose. It also created the widest disparity of rates as between one district and another. The Act did nothing to level up the conditions between poor and rich districts, and the relief was given just as much for the maintenance of the district rate as it was for the repair of main roads, the expenses of the Poor Law, or education, which might fairly be described as national objects. It was only for national objects that he suggested more money was required, but it should be given on certain definite principles and always be subject to central control, and when local authorities were entrusted with the carrying out of certain work they should endeavour to obtain a high standard of efficiency in it. He earnestly asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether this matter could not be dealt with during the present Parliament. Unless something was done he felt certain that local government would not progress. It was difficult enough now to keep the work going and to get a sufficiently high standard of administration. Unless some more money was found for these national services which Parliament handed over to local authorities he was afraid the standard of all local government would go back, and it would be found more and more difficult to get men to serve upon these bodies unless they went there merely to save the rates, and the programme which the Government had set before itself to carry out

  741
  would fail in many of its most important features.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, the present system of Local Taxation and the relations between Local and Imperial burdens demand the immediate attention of His Majesty's Government, with a view to a more equitable adjustment as between Local and Imperial obligations."—(Mr. Hedges.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): I have listened, as I am sure every Member present has listened, with the greatest interest to the two able and lucid speeches from my hon. friends. I do not think the case, strong in many of its features as it undoubtedly is, could have been presented in a more persuasive way than it has been put before us by them. I will at once frankly state, on behalf of the Government, that I do not intend to offer any opposition to the Motion that has been put on the Paper by my hon. friend. I may perhaps make some reservation in my own mind, and I may as well make it also public, to the introduction of the word "immediate." In every political vocabulary that word is subject to a very wide construction. The hon. Member must be content with the assurance that I will give it as strict a construction as the exigencies of public life allow. Subject to that qualification, I see no objection to the Resolution, nor have I much ground of quarrel with the proposed Amendments or additions to it which are on the paper in the names of hon. Gentlemen opposite. One hon. Gentleman wishes to have "a more reasonable apportionment of the incidence of local burdens." I quite agree. A noble Lord wishes a more equitable adjustment "as between agriculture and other industries and sources of wealth." Taking these words in a discriminative sense, I quite agree that agricultural and other industries and all other sources of wealth ought to have their burdens equitably and fairly adjusted between them in regard to their ability to bear them and to their special circumstances. But, although I am not going to address the House, and certainly not my hon. friend, in a con-
  742
  troversial spirit, there are one or two observations which I think I am bound to make and for which I would ask the indulgent attention of the House. Like almost every proposition that is discussed here on a private Member's night, this is a demand for a further and a very large sum from the Imperial Exchequer. Our professions of economy and our practice of economy, as we all find in our actual experience of political life, are limited to subjects on which expenditure can safely be restricted, while every one has one or more subjects of his own on which he thinks that public expenditure may be largely and legitimately increased. There is no demand received with more general favour than a demand for a contribution in aid of local rates. The solution of this problem, as my hon. friend has said, has been long delayed. That is no fault of mine. We have had no opportunity for a long time of dealing with the subject. The report of the Commission which dealt with it was presented to Parliament as far back as 1901, and until I last year undertook what I believe to have been the absolutely indispensable preliminary step towards simplifying national and local accounts, I am not aware that anything had been done to grapple with the question. That does not absolve us from the duty of facing it now. Let me point out one or two facts which perhaps are not sufficiently borne in mind in most of the controversies which take place on this subject. An enormous amount has been done in the last sixty years in the way of contributions from the Exchequer in aid of local taxation. Seventy years ago the Exchequer contributed not one halfpenny to local expenditure. The amount contributed last year, omitting the most import, ant item of all—namely, the amount expended on primary education in the shape of the Parliamentary grant—was no less than £8,600,000 for England and Wales. And that does not take into account the fact that in the meantime the State has resumed the complete control and the entire expense of some costly services which formerly were locally administered. If we take the case of agriculture, while I do not deny that agriculture has still a grievance in the matter, the facts are very remarkable. The amount of public

  743
  rates of all kinds levied in the rural parishes of England and Wales in the last year for which information is complete—namely, 1904–5—was £8,600,000, exactly the amount of the imperial subvention for local purposes, which I have already mentioned. Of that sum levied by local rates, £7,900,000 takes the form of poor rate, £630,000 separate rate for special expenses in rural districts, and £70,000 for rates under lighting and watching. To show that agriculture has not been entirely left out in the cold, let me point out that as regards poor rate, under the Agricultural Rates Act, one-half of the rate, as it stood at the time of the passing of that Act, is now contributed by the Imperial Exchequer, and the agricultural occupier pays only the balance. I quite agree that since that Act was passed the burden of local rates in the agricultural districts has increased substantially, largely owing to the increase of the local cost of education. But the fact remains that, as regards the poor rate the agricultural ratepayer is in an exceptionally favourable position. Then, as regards the rate for special expenses, he is rated only on one-quarter his annual valuation; and as regards the lighting and watching rate only on one-third. Notwithstanding that recognition by Parliament of the heavy pecuniary local burdens of the ratepayers, I agree that there are districts in which the rates still press very heavily on agriculture. In my opinion, and the opinion of my colleagues, it is a condition precedent to making any progress in this matter that we should have a proper system of valuation. There is no use going on doling out money here and there so long as our valuation, both as between different interests and still more as between different areas in different parts of the country, is conducted, not on a uniform, but on a thoroughly haphazard and inequitable system. In our judgment, the first step to be taken is to bring into existence machinery which will secure a uniform and adequate valuation on equitable principles of the whole of the property of the country. We are awaiting the Report of the Poor Law Commission, which we hope to have this year or the beginning of the next.
  744
  I think it will lay the foundation for distinguishing between site value and the value of improvements, and in that way will provide an additional source of revenue for the discharge of purely local burdens. Assuming that these preliminary steps will be taken, as I hope they will be, completely and effectively, we come to what is the crux of the whole problem. How, and by what principle ought you to discriminate, not between local and national expenditure, but between local expenditure locally administered, and national expenditure locally administered? That is a most difficult problem. Let me assume for the purpose of my argument that that distinction has been established. There remains the question of how to meet the charges properly locally administered and properly locally chargeable. Certainly I am not a great admirer of our present rating system, even if based on a proper system of valuation. There is the problem of how to increase from local sources the revenue at present derived from the rates. I have suggested one source from which additional revenue may possibly come. I doubt whether you will find successful any attempt to bring personalty within the scope of the local rating law. Personalty is not local in its nature, in its origin, or in what I might call its permanent domicile and residence. It is an illusory fluctuating mobile thing, which is earned in one place, spent in another, and accumulated in a third; and any attempt to fix down a specific part of a man's property as that share of his personalty which should contribute to the local expenses of the place where he resides or carries on his business is a task which I doubt is capable of accomplishment. I do not look with much hope upon any scheme of that kind, nor do I think it would be possible to localise Schedule A, but I will not give my reasons now. For the local expenditure which is ultimately to be chargeable locally you will have to rely first, on an improved system of rating, and, secondly, upon additional revenue to be derived from some system of taxation of site values. But that is, after all, not the problem which interests us particularly to-night. I come to the endeavour to answer

  745
  the question. How are you to discriminate between local services in the strict and narrower sense, and those services which, though locally administered, are of a national character, and towards which, therefore, the Imperial Exchequer, though not discharging the whole, is required to make some contribution? There are two or three very plain principles which it seems to me ought to regulate any action which takes place in regard to this. In the first place, if we are to combine, as we must combine, the continuance of local administration with an increase in Imperial contribution, it is perfectly clear that localities must continue to discharge some substantial share of the obligation, otherwise you will find yourself landed in an absolutely paradoxical situtaion; money would be contributed by one set of people and expended by another who had no responsibility of an sort or kind towards those who forwarded the money. All experience shows that that is in the long run extravagant and inefficient. If you are to combine a thing like education, which I agree is one of those services which may be described as national in their character, if you are to have what is called local control over the administration of education in our public elementary schools, it is quite clear that the whole cost of education cannot be thrown on the Exchequer. The same thing applies to the Poor Law, which again, I think, is a national service; and to any other specimens of the same class. That, I think, is perfectly plain. Then the next principle I lay down, and here I am in entire agreement with both my hon. friends, is this, that whatever form your subvention takes it should not be, as unfortunately it has been, by the allocation specificially of Imperial taxes to local purposes. We have had a good many years' experience of this system, and I think it was the general consent of all parties that I obtained consent last year to sweep it away. X Instead of allocations of taxes to local purposes, your Imperial contribution ought, I am satisfied, to take the form of a subvention—that is to say, of a grant in aid of these national services performed by local authorities, subject to the condition that the central authority is able
  746
  from time to time to satisfy itself by proper means that those services are being efficiently and economically administered on the spot. In other words, your Imperial contribution ought to take the form of a grant, but it ought to be a grant not of a specific tax, but for a specific purpose; not a general grant in aid of the expenditure of the local authorities, but a grant for some specific purpose. It follows from that that the Central Authority ought to have adequate power to see that the specific purpose is being accomplished in the hands of the local auhtority. To give an illustration, such a form of subvention as the exemptions by the Agricultural Rates Act is altogether to be deprecated. That form of subvention is the worst of all forms, because it is distributed in a perfectly haphazard and uneven fashion, falling with undeserved leniency on places whose needs are not great, while starving places whose needs are really urgent. I have sketched what, in my view and that of my colleagues, ought to be governing lines on which the problem is to be met. I am most anxious to have an early opportunity of dealing with it, but I repeat I cannot put the matter in train for legislative solution until, first, having la it year swept aside the cumbrous system of assigned revenue, we next get a proper system of valuation in working order, and so can do evenhanded justice not only as between the Imperial Exchequer and the ratepayers of the country, but also as regards the localities.
  MR. CHAPLIN: The right hon. Gentleman has admitted to the full the grievances of the ratepayers which has been so plainly put before the House; he has admitted the grievance of agriculture itself, and thinks that in the course of time this, too, ought to be dealt with. This is, indeed, an agreeable change since the days when we were engaged in passing the Agricultural Rates Act. Then the grievance of agriculture was not admitted, and the Government of the day were taunted with giving doles. All the evidence since then shows clearly that the whole of the benefit given under that Act has gone straight into the pockets of

  747
  those for whom it was intended—the occupiers of the land. ["No."]
  MR. ASQUITH: I thought I had made it perfectly clear that my opinion is that the Agricultural Rates Act is the very worst measure of this sort that could be passed.
  MR. CHAPLIN: That expression of opinion adds to my wonder that the right hon. Gentleman has not repealed the Act. The first step, we are reminded, must be the facing of a Valuation Bill. That is an absolute essential, and, so far as I have been able to follow him, the right hon. Gentleman has given us no indication whatever when that Valuation Bill is going to be introduced, and when it is going to be carried. That fact is quite sufficient to satisfy my curiosity or anxiety on the point, but I doubt whether it is sufficient to satisfy the mover and seconder of this Resolution.
  MR. ASQUITH: It is in the King's Speech.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I read many things in the King's Speech which never come to anything. I think I gathered from the right hon. Gentleman that we shall, at all events, have to wait for the Report of the Royal Commission which is now sitting upon the Poor Law. Agriculture is not the only industry which has a grievance. The Report of 1901, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, teems with evidence as to the grievances which the ratepayers suffer at present. In its very earliest pages, if I remember aright, it deals with those services which it calls onerous and national services. It includes Poor Law and education. The police, I think, is another. The Report lays down that these services ought to be dealt with with as little delay as possible, and yet the right hon. Gentleman has held out no hope that there is any immediate, or even distant, prospect of his dealing with the question at all. What are his remedies when it is to be dealt with? He has examined the question of calling in personalty, and making it contribute its fair share to the rates, and after full consideration, he has come to the conclusion that personalty will not do, and that it must be set on one
  748
  side. The right hon. Gentleman falls back on one thing. He looks to what he calls site values by which a real and serious contribution can be obtained. Has the right hon. Gentleman ever examined the Report of the evidence on this subject?
  MR. ASQUITH: Frequently.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Then I wonder that he did not tell the House something about it. It is diametrically opposed to his view. First of all there is a great difficulty as to the cost of these proceedings. I looked at the Report this afternoon, and endeavoured to refresh my memory. There is any amount of evidence upon it, and out of all the evidence of surveyors and valuers who dealt with the question, I could only find three witnesses of importance who favoured the plan of the right hon. Gentleman, and seemed to think that it was practicable. I will quote some of the opinions expressed by witnesses—
  Mr. Cross, surveyor and valuer of Manchester, thought that, though it would not be actually impossible to put a separate figure upon the value of a site and a structure, it would be exceedingly difficult, and that it was not really a proposal which could be put into actual practice, and, in any event that it would not be worth while owing to the cost.
  Mr. Mathews, land agent and surveyor, of Birmingham, thought that though it was possible to put a separate value on site and structure it was not practicable, as it would involve an inquiry into the most productive use the land could be put to. He also thought that the proposed system would give rise to endless litigation.
  Mr. F. W. Hunt, architect, agent, and surveyor, of London, also stated that though a valuation of site and structure was possible, he considered that the proposal was not a practicable one.
  Mr. H. A. Hunt said it would probably cost several millions to value the sites in London if experts were employed. He also thought that the cost of the litigation might come to as mum as the primary valuation if it were indifferently done.
  Mr. Wainwright asserted that it would be impossible to value the sites at 1s. apiece, and that the valuation of half a million houses would cost over two millions.
  What sort of a valuation are you to have? If you want a fair and reasonable valuation, in which all the circumstances shall be taken into consideration, it must inevitably be a very serious matter with regard to the cost. I have

  749
  the greatest possible doubts as to the value of the remedies suggested by the right hon. Gentleman even when he is able to try them. Upon that point we have no information whatever. We have absolutely nothing held out to us except that the right hon. Gentleman very plainly and distinctly states that he will have nothing to do with the acceptance of the word "immediate" in the Resolution. I think that is a not unreasonable disclaimer on his part. This question, I frankly admit, has been postponed a great number of years. It is not for me to say why that has been. Certainly so far as I am concerned, having been President of the Local Government Board at the time the Commission was appointed, no charge can be brought against me since the Report was published. I do wish to impress on the right hon. Gentleman that this is a grievance which is growing day by day on the minds of the ratepayers of the country. It is one of those questions which must be dealt with and cannot be indefinitely postponed. As regards agriculture the right hon. Gentleman must remember that although considerable advantage was given to the agricultural interest at the time by the passing of the Agricultural Rates Act, in many cases the whole of that advantage has been swept away already by the large increase of other rates which has taken place since then. I believe it to be an actual fact at the present moment that it would not be difficult to produce instances where agriculturists are worse off to-day than they were before the Agricultural Rates Act was passed owing to the enormous increase of rates which has occurred. I am bound to say that having listened to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, it appears to me to be of the smallest possible value. It holds out no hope or encouragement with regard to the future. The only remedy on which the right hon. Gentleman relies, even when he is able to attempt to deal with the question, would prove to be worthless, but as to the time when he is going to attempt to put that remedy into operation he has given no indication whatever. I can only say that I am bitterly disappointed at the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
  *MR. MILDMAYsaid that he could not help thinking that the Motion must meet with very general sympathy from all sides of the House, for as he read it, it was not brought forward in the interests of any single class in the community. Was there any hon. Member, be his constituency what it might, who could deny that the whole question of rating cried out for legislative consideration? But the question must be considered from a more comprehensive point of view. If they perused election addresses at the last general election, they would find in them an all but unanimous consensus of opinion amongst candidates that the rates were at present charged with certain responsibilities which were really matters of national concern, and so should be a charge upon the national purse. For instance, could it be denied that education was a national concern? Surely education was as much a national service as were the Army and Navy. Their continued efficiency as a nation, their continued pre-eminence in the markets of the world, and therefore, their continued prosperity depended as fully on the average mental equipment and development of the people as they did upon the efficiency of the defensive forces of the Crown. Especially was that so in these days when their great commercial rivals, the United States and Germany, were straining every nerve to outstrip them in the field of educational efficiency. As he had said, he did not wish to consider the question from the point of view of any single class, but as representing an agricultural constituency, he could not refrain from saying what a hardship it was that the ratepayers in the country districts should be called upon to provide an education which unfitted he children for country life, how unfair it was that the farmer and small holder should have to pay the bulk of the local contribution to an educational system which tended to their own discomfiture. He would not pursue the subject, but would only now ask the assent of hon. Members to the proposition that educational efficiency was a national interest, and so should be a national charge, at any rate to a greater extent than it was at present. Then

  751
  there was the question of the expense of the maintenance of the poor. He had high authority for saying that the cost of maintaining the poor was not equitably distributed at present. It was Mr. Gladstone who had said that it was impossible to look at the nature of the tax for the support of the poor without being struck with the inequality of its incidence. The relief of the poor was a purpose for which, as far as could be done, all property, and not one description of property only, should be liable. Now the ever increasing proportions of the county rate must give sincere concern to those who studied such matters. If that increase were analysed, it would be found that it had occurred principally under the headings of (1) Education; (2) Maintenance of pauper lunatics; (3) Main roads. His experience in these matters was confined to Devonshire, and he had found that the education rate bad increased from £166,300 in 1905, to £193,287 in 1907, but this was not the whole of the story, for the county debt had increased from £141,500 in 1890, to £307,589 in 1907, and this increase had been mainly due to an education loan of £142,636. Putting aside education, with regard to the second heading, pauper lunatics, many thought that they should be a charge upon the public purse to a greater extent than at present. It was true that the State did contribute to their maintenance, but counties and boroughs were now compelled to erect palatial edifices as lunatic asylums. The requirements of the Lunacy Commissioners were always increasing. In view, therefore, of the fact that counties and boroughs were not masters of their own expenditure in this counection, in view of the fact that the central body dictated that expenditure, it seemed to him that the national purse should defray its cost. He passed from that part to the third heading, the question of the cost of main roads. In Devonshire the expenditure on main roads had increased from £24,000 in 1890 to £72,000 in 1907. That was a terrible increase. Could there be found any to contend that in these days of motors, the cost of keeping main roads in fit order, a cost which had risen enormously through motor traffic, should fall, not on those who destroy the roads as fast as they were mended, but
  752
  on the unfortunate agriculturists who lived in the vicinity of these roads? Prior to the introduction of railroads, when there was a considerable through traffic along these roads, the cost of their maintenance was defrayed by means of turnpikes. With the advent of railroads that through traffic had died out, and the turnpikes has been done away with, but with the introduction of motors a great through traffic had once more developed itself along the main roads of the country, and it was manifestly unfair to compel the locality to keep up these roads for strangers to destroy. The rural population admittedly suffered very great inconvenience and discomfort, yes, and in many cases even serious injury, through the stream of motor traffic along the main roads, and it was the height of irony to make this injured population pay for the maintenance of these roads in order to facilitate the advent of motor traffic which they loathed. All must admit that this was quite indefensible. As an owner of a motor car himself, he thought owners of motor cars should be anxious to see an alteration of this state of affairs. They recognised that motor traffic could never be as popular as it ought to be, and that the motor industry would not advance as it should so long as the present state of things existed. He was on the executive of a large automobile club, and he spoke on their behalf, and he believed on behalf of the general run of motor-owners, when he said that they would be prepared to submit to an increased tax on motors, but on the distinct understanding that the money should be allocated to the provision of sound, smooth, mudless, and well made roads. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh; but there was no reason why our roads should not be made efficient. He maintained that there were main roads throughout the country which fell very far short of what they should be and what they were in Germany and France, where they were constructed on the best scientific principles. He would remind right hon. Gentlemen that they had recently passed an Act involving local expenditure under a new heading. A year or so ago they provided for the medical inspection of school children. Now if this was properly done,

  753
  it would involve considerable expenditure, especially in the country districts. Even in Plymouth it involved the increase of the remuneration of the medical inspector by £300 a year, and there, of course, all the schools were concentrated within a small area. The cost would be very much greater in the country districts, where the schools were scattered over a large tract of country. He believed he was right in saying that there were 20,000 school children in the administrative county of Devon, that was Devonshire, excluding Plymouth, Devon-port, Exeter, Barnstaple, and Torquay. In view of this considerable expenditure, the Devon Education Committee had unanimously passed a motion praying that it should be a charge upon the national purse, and as the proposer of that resolution had been. Sir Thomas Acland, a gentleman whose name might almost be said to be historic as far as West-country Liberalism was concerned, he had some hopes that the Government would listen to the prayer of the petition. He had pointed out three respects in which local ratepayers were saddled with an unjust burden. Other instances might be adduced in this connection. He would not, however, labour these points. He had said enough to show how urgent was the need for inquiry into this branch of the subject. Then, as he had already said, the whole question of the incidence of local taxation should be attended to. All must wish that the burden of the rates should fall upon individuals in proportion to their ability to pay. Did it so fall? No one for one moment could contend that it did so. Their present system was a survival of the days of old, when there was but one form of property, real property, land and houses, visible property. Their present antique system shut its eyes to the fact that the bulk of the wealth of the country was represented by personal property. Personal property was three or four times as great in volume as real property, and under these circumstances he hoped the House would agree that it was manifestly unjust to impose local taxation, and especially to impose local taxation for national objects, exclusively upon real property. The Agricultural Rating Act was a very crude method of endeavouring to remedy this state of affairs, which Mr. Gladstone
  754
  himself, let him say, had been wont to characterise as an injustice; and very rightly did he so characterise it, for what were the rates originally? They were intended to be a kind of local income-tax under which all were to contribute to local objects according to their incomes reckoned by what they owned in the parish. People had to pay on all kinds of property, real and personal. For long the tax had been fairly collected, but in time, owing to the difficulty of estimating income derived from property other than real property, it gradually grew to be the custom to levy rates only on owners and occupiers of land and houses, property which was easily seen and valued, and so it came about that the retired merchant or manufacturer, the owner of personal property, escaped altogether from paying the rates in proportion to his means. In consequence of complaints the whole matter was referred in 1841 to a Court of law, which laid down that all should contribute to the rates in proportion to their means, whether their incomes were derived from real or personal property. This was a serious blow to the owners of personal property, and being an influential class they succeeded in inducing the Parliament of the day to pass a law relieving them altogether from the payment of rates in respect of personal property, and throwing the whole burden of the rates on the owners and occupiers of land and houses. At the same time it was felt that this was rather rough on the latter class, and accordingly the operation of the Act was limited to a single year, so that the whole subject might be reconsidered; but so far from the matter being reconsidered, for over sixty years Parliament had annually passed an Act exempting the owners of personal property from payment of rates according to their means, which the law of the land would otherwise have compelled them to do. There was the injustice. For over sixty years the owners and occupiers of land and houses had been paying their own share of the rates and that of the owners of personal property as well. The Agricultural Rating Act had been denounced by many as a dole, but how could this so-called dole, conferred by the Agricultural Rating Act, compare with the dole annually presented to the owners

  755
  of personal property by the yearly Act conferring upon them total exemption from rating in respect of that personal property. It was not as if it was a Party matter. The injustice of the incidence of the rates had been recognised by all parties, by Mr. Gladstone himself, and even by the Liberal Commission which looked into the matter under the Chairmanship of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton. It was an extraordinary thing that the general public should imagine that because half the rates on agricultural land were paid by the State, that therefore agriculture was treated with peculiar indulgence. Nothing could be more untrue. The agricultural industry was treated with gross injustice in this connection, and was singled out as no other industry was, to bear an unjust burden. It could not be too often repeated that those who got their living from the land did not want exceptional treatment. They were not in love with the Agricultural Bating Act. They recognised that it was a crude, a rough and ready method of dealing with the difficulty. All they asked was that their industry of agriculture, which, after all, was the most important industry in the country, should not be treated more harshly than any other industry. All they asked was that the raw material and stock-in-trade of the industry should not be specially singled out for taxation, while the raw material of all other industries was specially exempted. The peculiar thing was that while so many of those who sat on the opposite side of the House were up in arms at the suggestion of the slightest taxation of the foreign importer of agricultural produce, they were wholly indifferent to the ever-increasing burden of taxation which was being heaped upon the home producer. They did not mind taxing him. Could they not see that such unjust taxation was constantly adding to the English agriculturist's expenses of production, and that by forcing him to pay unjust taxes to which the foreigner was not subjected, they were protecting the foreign producer in their home markets and unfairly handicapping the home
  756
  producer in his competition with the foreigner. Were not those who got their living from the land rightly imbued with a sense of injustice in this connection? Let them take a concrete instance. He would like before he sat down to give, a concrete instance of an injustice. They might have a capitalist, a retired manufacturer living in a rural district in a villa rated at £100, he having an income of from £5,000 to £6,000, derived from investments. Next door to him was a yeoman farmer, farming his own land of 250 acres, the farmhouse buildings and agricultural land being rated at £250. The profits of the latter, under very favourable circumstances, would not amount to more than a hundred pounds or two. Perhaps he might have a struggle to make both ends meet, and yet he contributed to local purposes more than double what was required of his neighbour who had an income of several thousands a year. Did the farmer get more advantage out of this local expenditure? No, the capitalist with his motorcar, horses and carriages, got more use out of and did more damage to the roads. The protection of the police was more essential to the rich man's house than to the farmer's house. All must agree that the position was indefensible. There was now a unanimous desire to increase the number of small holdings in the country. Could not hon. Gentlemen see how such unjust burdens militated against the success of small holdings? Could it be denied that excessive local taxation had been a great factor in the, disappearance of small holdings, and had contributed to rural depopulation? As he had said, the Agricultural Rates Act was a rough-and-ready method of dealing with the difficulty; it was not satisfactory. Agriculturists did not ask for exceptional treatment, but they were entitled to ask for that justice which Mr. Gladstone and all great financial authorities had admitted had long been denied them in this connection. The light hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in speaking for the Government, had just now said that at any rate his party was not responsible for the neglect of this

  757
  question, because it was only in the year 1901 that the Commission repotted in favour of a reform in the incidence of local taxation, but surely he was not entitled to urge that plea. The question had been an urgent one long before 1901, and he found corroboration of his views in the words spoken by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Wolverhampton, a member of the present Government, in 1883. He had said, "Why should taxation be assessed on only one description of property, when the expenditure is for the benefit of all?" Twenty-five years ago the right hon. Gentleman had asked "Why?" And echo had continued to answer "Why" ever since. Let him, however, disavow any intention of bringing forward this Amendment in the interests of the agricultural community alone. Local taxation pressed unfairly at many points, and he claimed the support of a strong contingent of opponents in that House who were of opinion that the system of rating machinery required looking into. There were many conflicting opinions in regard to that question, but all were agreed upon one point. The system under which machinery was rated was a huge muddle, and required elucidation. Nobody could defend the present happy-go-lucky method of rating machinery. The difference of practice in different parts of the country was indefensible, and severely handicapped many manufacturers in their competition for the favour of the market. He could not go into the question at length that evening. He was not competent to do so, but there were all sorts of subsidiary questions in this connection which cried out for settlement. For instance, there was the question of rating unfixed machinery. No one could say what was really the law as to the rating of machine tools on manufacturing premises. He would not say more than that ail would agree that the practice of the law with regard to the rating of machinery was so uncertain as to be a serious handicap in many industries, and
  758
  he claimed the support that evening of all those who were of this persuasion. He felt that he had spoken at some length, though there was much more that might be said. The right hon. Gentle man who had spoken for the Government, had expressed sincere sympathy with the terms of the Resolution, and he said that it was a matter which must be dealt with, although it could not be dealt with immediately. That would seem to be satisfactory, but unfortunately that was what every Government had been saying for thirty years past. All Governments had in the past put off consideration of this question. For years past it had been admitted by successive Governments that our system of local taxation was chaotic, and that being so he was asking the House to declare that it was the duty of the Government of to-day to tackle the question, not to keep putting it off, to face the difficulty and to deal with it boldly.
  *MR. LUKE WHITEsaid he would not occupy the House more than two or three minutes, because he found that from all quarters of it there was a disposition to accept this Motion, which had already been accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Anyone who had any acquaintance of local taxation could come to no other conclusion than that the time had arrived when the whole question should be discussed and dealt with. With regard to the question of agriculture, to which so much allusion had been made that evening, he might say that, representing a large agricultural constituency, he felt that agriculture especially had great complaint to make with regard to the existing burdens which had been placed upon that industry. The Royal Commission which reported in 1901 made it quite clear that some attempt should be made in order to lessen the burdens upon agriculture which then and still existed. He did not think he need occupy the attention

  759
  of the House that night with any remarks as to the mode and manner in which Parliament should deal with this question of the incidence of local taxation. He was very glad indeed to find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made it clear that he agreed with the Report of the Royal Commission that there was now placed upon local rates an expenditure for various services which were national in their character. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had alluded to Poor Law relief as being a national service, and also to the fact that education was a national service, and that various other services the expense of which was borne by the localities were national in their character. That was a very great admission to be made by a Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he agreed that in altering or reforming the system of local taxation, the people of this country must have grants from the National Exchequer equivalent to or very largely equivalent to the expenditure incurred by them in these services. He wished to make an appeal to the Government to deal with this question. It was true that for the last fifty or sixty years Motions had been passed in this House calling for a remedy or a reform with regard to the system of our local taxation. But nothing had been done. In 1901 the Royal Commission reported, but before they had made their Report to this House, the Government promised to bring in a Bill which was absolutely necessary to deal with the whole question, and the first step in dealing with the reform of local taxation as was mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was to pass a Valuation Bill. He had the privilege in the last Parliament of hearing a promise in the King's Speech each session to bring in a Valuation Bill. It was true that in the last Parliament the right hon. Member for South Dublin, then President of the Local Government Board, did bring in a Bill for that purpose, and that Bill might and would be in the future a very difficult and com-
  760
  plex measure. This was a difficult matter, but it had to be faced, and he now hoped that his right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board would bring in this Valuation Bill at the earliest opportunity. It would be a measure that between its First and Second Reading would have to be considered by the local authorities throughout the country, and the ratepayers and taxpayers throughout the land. It would be a measure which would require great consideration, and therefore it was necessary that it should be brought in and discussed at the earliest possible moment. He appealed to his right hon. friend to give some promise to-night as to when he would be able to introduce this measure, because it would have to become law before local taxation could be dealt with. As Parliament thought the time had come when the problem of local taxation should be dealt with he trusted the House would now support him in his appeal.
  MR. JOWETTsaid that the hon. Member for the Totnes Division had referred to the fact that for sixty years an Act had been renewed every year to set aside the power of the overseers to rate the citizens according to their ability to pay. Since this Parliament had assembled he had endeavoured to raise the question when, under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, the Act came up for renewal. On that occasion he endeavoured to obtain from the Chancellor of the Exchequer some word of hope for the ratepayers of the cities and towns of the kingdom who were groaning under burdens which were almost too heavy to bear. On that occasion he failed to obtain such a promise as would bring the relief for which he had hoped. On this occasion he trusted the House would receive something more tangible than anything they had obtained previously. That was still to come, if it came at all, because the speech

  761
  of the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not bear any construction that was likely to be of importance to the over-burdened ratepayers for some time to come. The first word he would like to say was that the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer contained a rather deprecating reference to the idea of rating according to ability to pay. It was, however, somewhat late in the day to say it was impossible to rate according to ability when those who had read anything of the literature on the subject knew full well that in Germany rating according to that principle was already in operation. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Local Government Board were no doubt aware, in German cities there was some arrangement which gave municipalities some advantage in the shape of the imposition of an income-tax for local purposes. That was what he and some of his friends would like to see put into operation in this country, and if it could be done in Germany it could certainly be done here. With reference to the right hon. Gentleman's statement as to the taxation of site values, he did not desire to be misunderstood, because he was one of those who believed in the taxation of site values, but he could not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right in endeavouring to lead the House to believe that there would be any very serious and tangible relief accruing to the ordinary ratepayer through such, taxation. The theory of the Solicitor-General for Scotland with reference to the taxation of site values was that there should be a transference of rating from the property to the land. That merely meant a shifting of the burden. The hon. and learned Gentleman was of opinion that all local rates
  762
  should be placed on the land value. If such a step were taken no increase in the amount of revenue could be expected The property owner as such apart from the land would be released, and the land would bear the whole burden. But he would like to point out that in nearly every municipality in the kingdom, the rates were greater in amount than it was possible to put on the land value. He had in mind a municipality which recently was rated at 9s. in the £. If they took as an average the land values at one third of the total rateable value, it was evident that the whole of the land values would be taken by the municipality under such a system. He wanted to know as early as possible what was the view of the Government on that matter. He did not think that hon. Members opposite should go about the country declaring that the Party to which they belonged were in favour of the total confiscation of land values unless the Ministerial Bench were also in favour of it. He would like to know exactly where they were. It would be interesting to find out. The taxation of site values would not bring an increase unless it was placed upon the owner of sites as an extra burden. If it was an extra tax put on the owners of property and sites there would be an extra revenue, but if it was merely to take burdens from the owners of other forms of property there would be no such relief. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had asked the overburdened ratepayer to wait until that precious Poor Law Commission had reported. That Commission had sat a long time. The end was not yet clearly in sight, and meanwhile the injustice pressed heavily on those concerned. Let them take the case of a professional gentleman who needed only for the pur-

  763
  poses of his business perhaps a couple of offices, and who was making perhaps a thousand or two thousand a year. A poor shopkeeper who was obliged to occupy commodious premises might be struggling with adversity and hardly able to make ends meet and yet might be paying £100 a year or more in rates. The amount was almost unlimited according to the nature of his business. There was nothing fair in that. And further it was becoming the custom in manufacturing towns for large capitalists to escape the obligation of holding and running machinery by simply taking an office and putting their work out at the lowest possible price to impecunious owners of machinery, who were bound to take the work at whatever price they could get. For instance, a loom if it stood for a week might cost the person responsible for it 7s. in standing charges. He could not afford to let it stand, and he cut the loss. The rich man who had made himself a factor sat in his office and waited for the manufacturer to come to him at his wits end, and then squeezed all the profit he could out of him. But that man was let off with a very small payment every year. That could not be right. It was not tolerable. The increasing tendency to pass laws excellent in themselves but providing no money, ought to be taken into account in a discussion of this kind. They had passed the Feeding of School Children Bill. How many authorities had put it into operation? Many of them had hesitated for fear of the intolerable burden of the rates. Something must be done to give help and succour to the municipalities that had extra burdens of that kind placed upon them. Money was also needed for the Medical Inspection Act. It was all very fine for that Assembly in
  764
  righteous and virtuous fits to pass laws and hand them coolly over to localities to put them in operation without supplying the money. The position was coming to a climax. Municipalities which were doing their best for the public good found they came against this dead wall of inability to find the necessary money. He trusted the President of the Local Government Board would go a little further than the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  *MR. STUARTsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had placed before the House the claim of agricultural districts for consideration under such a measure as this. As far as he had been able to gather, the speeches had dealt chiefly with the agricultural difficulty. He would like for a moment to divert the attention of the House to another matter which deserved attetion. He would take as an illustration an instance which he knew well, the case of the county of Norfolk and the city of Norwich. Before the Agricultural Rating Act of 1896 was passed the rates in Norwich were 8s. 8d., and the rates in the county was 2s., and the relief that was given to the rates in the city was 16 per cent. of its expenditure, while the relief given to the county was 28 per cent. of its expenditure. In the county there was practically the same amount of rateable house property as there was of rateable agricultural land, so that the remainder of the expenditure, which was 72 per cent., was borne half by agricultural land and half by house property. Under the Agricultural Rating Act the county was relieved of an additional 18 per cent. of its expenditure, making a total of 46 per cent., while the city continued to be relieved only to

  765
  the extent of 16 per cent. Therefore, there was great inequality between the relief given to the county and that give to the city. That was a fair sample of many cases, and he hoped that agricultural relief would not be the only plea heard in that House, more particularly as the Royal Commission was the produce of circumstances such as he had described. The right hon. Gentleman who was then President of the Local Government Board, admitted that a large concession had been made in relief of agriculture by the Act, and he set up the Commission with the object of seeing what could be done for urban districts. He warned the Chancellor of the Exchequer against meeting the difficulties by a too tree expenditure from the Consolidated Fund, as the tendency of such relief was to help in the long run the owner of the site value and not the occupier for whose relief it was primarily intended. There were two Reports from the Royal Commission, and among the signatures to the Minority Report was that of the Chairman, Lord Balfour. That Minority Report expressed the view that site values could be taxed, and went so far as to say that they ought to be taxed, that accompanying grants there should be a site value rate, the tendency of which would be to fall on owners, and the benefit of the subventions would be secured to those for whom it was intended, the occupiers. When they requested the Chancellor of the Exchequer to mitigate their difficulties by paying out of the general fund of the country, it should be remembered that unless something was done corresponding to what the Minority Report of the Royal Commission represented as necessary, what was done would, he was afraid, be a gift of the
  766
  hard earned money of the general population to the owners of site values in towns. The persons who appeared to get the benefit were the occupiers, but it slipped through them like sand through an hour-glass into the pockets of the site owners. It was on the site owners that the rate ultimately fell, and therefore to them that relief to the rate ultimately accrued. A good system of valuation was the first necessity. The present system was absurd and ridiculous. A system of separate valuation of sites would be easily and successfully accomplished.
  VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid the debate had shown remarkable unanimity in one respect. No one had said a word on behalf of the present rating system. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that this was another demand upon him, and that it was intended to make something out of the Imperial Exchequer. That was quite true, but it seemed to him that there was a difference between this and certain other demands. They were not asking the right hon. Gentleman to draw more deeply on the national funds as he was asked to do in connection with other schemes which had been proposed. On the contrary it was a transference of expenditure from one purse to another rather than any fresh expenditure which was being pressed upon him this evening. A good deal had been said about onerous and national services, but he thought what had been said did not really go to the root of the matter. If they were going going to follow out the suggestion in Sir George Murray's Report and only transfer the cost of one half of these services to the national Exchequer, the incidence of the other half would be as

  767
  unjust as at present, and practically it would be no remedy. He could not understand why they should not transfer the whole of the cost of the national services to the Imperial Exchequer. There was a very excellent precedent in the action of the Secretary of State for War who had recently set up local bodies which were to be administered for national interests out of national funds. Poor relief, asylums, and education, could be so treated. The cry of want of economy if that were done would not really be a sound one, because so long as the money was devoted to particular purposes, and the Exchequer audited most carefully, there would be no room for extravagance. The second grievance of the ratepayers was that which owners of real property had against owners of personal property, and the third grievance was that felt by agriculturists against other forms of real property. This was a genuine grievance only partially remedied by the Agricultural Rates Act. Some hon. Members might think that that Act was crude, but, at all events, it had answered its purpose for the time being in affording farmers a substantial measure of relief. He could give a great number of instances of the complaints of farmers about the injustice which they felt on account of the burden of rates which fell so heavily upon them. He would not go into these, but he would take a hypothetical case and compare two men—one a farmer, and the other a tradesman, and both in a small way. He would suppose that the income of each was £100. A farmer, according to the income-tax schedule, was supposed to pay one-third of his rent as income-tax, and if he had an income of £100,
  768
  it might be supposed that his rent would be £300. That was not an uncommon calculation. On the other hand, the tradesman would probably pay for his house one-fifth of his income, and, therefore, he thought that without unfairness it might be put down at £20. Therefore, a considerable disparity arose in the method of assessing these two men. Whereas the tradesmen paid rates only on £20, or making the usual deduction as to rents to be paid, on £16 13s. 4d. the farmer with the same income paid rates on house and buildings (say £30, less one-sixth), £25; agricultural land (half £270, less one-eighth), £118; total assessment, £143. Hon. Members would see that in the case of an education rate of 6d. the farmer would pay on that assessment, £3 11s. 6d. and the tradesman only 8s. 4d. That was an enormous difference and a grave injustice. The one paid eight and-a-half times more than the other towards the rates, in spite of the Agricultural Rates Act. Had it not been for that Act, the farmer would have paid seventeen times more than the tradesman with a similar income. When hon. Members talked as if the Agricultural Rates Act was a charitable gift from the nation to the agriculturist, they forgot how great was the injustice which had been inflicted, and how very partially that injustice had been relieved. He need not say this tax, which practically amounted to an excise duty on home-grown food, had been very deplorable in its results on agriculture. The fact that it was paid by the producer and not by the consumer did not make the hardship the less. When one reflected that it was the policy of both parties in the House to encourage the people to get

  769
  back to the land, and to encourage agriculture as an important national industry, it was deplorable that that industry should labour under such grievous disadvantages compared with other industries. He should also like to point out that the whole difficulty arose from the fact that the farmer for the purpose of his trade needed more rateable property than other people for their trades. When members who represented urban districts pointed out the grievances which their constituents had to contend with, they who represented agricultural constituences did not wish to minimise their grievances. All they wished was a frank recognition of the grievances of the agriculturalist. The whole thing lay in a nutshell when it was remembered that in the case of a farmer his income was calculated as one-third of the rent, while in the case of other people their rent was calculated at one-fifth of their income. He hoped that some thing would soon be done to remedy this injustice, and that the word "immediately" would have a little more liberal interpretation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer than he had led the House to believe. He Was sure that the sooner the Government—he was indifferent as to which side of the House it belonged to—took up this question the better it would be for the agricultural industry.
  MR. HUGH LAWsaid he hoped that when this Government did tike up this question they would devote their attention to the special recommendations made by Lord Balfour of Burleigh and other Commissioners with regard to different contributions of aid of rates in Ireland. An hon.
  770
  Gentleman opposite had given striking figures in regard to the county of Norfolk, but he could give a companion picture of what occurred in two agricultural districts in Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had described the system of valuation and the system of grants-in-aid as hap-hazard and inequitable. That description was certainly not exaggerated. The valuation was such as to penalise all improvements, and it was incredible the burden which the rates put on the inhabitants of poor districts. It was impossible for these poor people to put up so much as a pig-stye without an appreciable difference being made on the rates. Again, the present manner of granting Exchequer contributions was such as to give relief where it was least needed. If hon. Members would refer to page 24 of Lord Balfour's Report they would find two extraordinary cases. In one the rateable value per head of the population was 13s., and the amount paid from the grant-in-aid was 1s. 3d. per head, while in the other case the rateable value was £12 13s. and yet the grant-in-aid per inhabitant was no less than 7s. 6d. In districts where the rateable value was very low it was impossible for the guardians and the district council to provide the merest decent accommodation for the sick poor.
  Resolved, "That, in the opinion of this House, the present system of Local Taxation and the relations between Local and Imperial burdens demand the immediate attention of His Majesty's Government, with a view to a more equitable adjustment as between Local and Imperial obligations."—(Mr. Hedges.)

  POLLING ARRANGEMENTS (PARLIAMENTARY BOROUGHS) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.
  WORKMEN'S INSURANCE (GERMANY).
  Return ordered, "Showing, in terms of English money, the latest available annual statement with reference to Workmen's Insurance in the German Empire against: (1) sickness, and (2) invalidity and old age; giving in each of the above classes of insurance: (1) the number of persons insured; (2) the number compensated; (3) receipts from all sources; (4) contributions from employers, contributions from employees, contributions from the State; (5) amount of expenses incurred; (6) amount of accumulated funds; and (7) average compensation per case."—(Mr. Lewis Haslam.)

  PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed, to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as relate to Private Bills; and that such Committee do classify and prepare abstracts of the same, in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and do report the same from time to time to the House; and that the reports of the Commitee do set forth, in respect of each Petition, the number of signatures which are accompanied by addresses, and which are written on sheets headed in every case by the prayer of the Petition;
  772
  provided that on every separate sheet after the first the prayer may be reproduced in print or by other mechanical process:—And that such Committee have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions, as shall appear to require it:—And that such Committee have power to report their opinion and observations thereupon to the House.
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of;—Mr. Edward Barry, Mr. Burt, Mr. Charles Craig, Mr. Ellis Griffith, Mr. Leicester Harmsworth, Mr. Henniker Heaton, Colonel Kenyon-Slaney, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. Wynford Philipps, Mr. Agar-Robartes, Mr. Charles Shaw, Lord Willoughby de Eresby, Mr. Wills, and Mr. Henry Joseph Wilson.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—(Mr. Whiteley.)
  In pursuance of Standing Order No. 1, "Sittings of the House,"—I hereby nominate—

  The right hon. Charles Beilby Stuart Wortley,

  Sir William Holland,

  Mr. Charles Fenwick.

  Mr. Alfred Hutton, and

  Mr. Patrick Joseph Power

  to act during this session as temporary Chairmen of Committees when requested by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
  JAMES W. LOWTHER,
  Speaker.
  18 th February, 1908.
  Adjourned at live minutes after Eleven o'clock.