Sitting of 5 July 1889

QUESTIONS.

  IRISH PETTY SESSIONS CLERKS.
  MR. BLANE: I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland if Petty Sessions Clerks are prohibited from acting as newspaper editors or publishers; if the presentment at Drogheda Summer Assizes, Nos. 57 and 56, make payments for contracts as publisher of the Drogheda Conservative to a Mr. M'Dougall, who is Clerk of Petty Sessions for the districts of Termonfeckin, County Louth; Julianstown, County Meath; and Duleek, County Meath; whether complaints have reached him that Mr. M'Dougall keeps his office in Drogheda, several miles beyond his Petty Sessions district, notwithstanding the rule that Potty Sessions Clerks should keep an office for the issue of summonses within their district; and, if so, will the Government require him to keep an office in each district of which he is Petty Sessions Clerk?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks is informed by the Clerk of Petty Sessions mentioned that his father is the proprietor, editor, and publisher of the newspaper referred to, and that if he himself is described as publisher in the presentment book it is a mistake for which he is not responsible. No complaint has been received by the Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks as to the situation of the clerk's office, and the clerk states that no such complaint was ever made to him; but that the inhabitants of all the districts find it convenient to apply to him in Drogheda. For some time after his appointment he attended at stated intervals at each of his districts to issue summonses; but finding that the public did not apply there he discontinued these attendances. If upon communication with the magistrates of the districts, or in consequence of any complaints that may be made to the Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks, it should appear that inconvenience has

  1577
  resulted from the present system attendances in the districts will be again resumed.

  THE DEBTORS (SCOTLAND) ACT— CASE OF WILLIAM ARNOTT.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Trustee and Commissioners in the sequestration of William Arnott, Corn Factor, Glasgow, reported to the presiding Judge, under Section 15 of the Debtors (Scotland) Act, any offences against that Act; whether the Judge directed information to be laid before the Lord Advocate in the terms of the Act as a case which he thought ought to be prosecuted; and, if so, whether the criminal authorities took any action on the Report?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): The facts stated in this question are correct. After careful consideration by my predecessor in office it was decided that there was no ground for criminal action. I have also looked into the matter and am of the same opinion.

  CLOTHING OF THE POLICE.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the recent practice of several provincial police forces, and of the postal service, can be extended to the Metropolitan police, and some provision be made for the lighter clothing, during the summer months, of constables on day duty, and especially of those on fixed points or employed in the regulation of traffic in the full sun, and of those who have long beats to cover in the outlying districts?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I have consulted the Commissioner of Police on this matter, and he entirely concurs with the opinion of Sir Charles Warren, which I stated in answer to a question in this House on September 9, 1886, to the effect that in our climate there is more danger from wet and cold than from excessive heat. If we had in this country the continuous hot weather of tropical climates the adoption of summer clothing for regular wear would, no doubt, be advisable; but under the extremely variable conditions of our
  1578
  climate I should not be justified in incurring the expense, which would be great, while the accruing benefits to the men of the force would be more than questionable.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS—ACCOMMODATION FOR MEMBERS.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if, in the allocation of the new rooms at his disposal on the west side of Westminster Hall, ho will be able to comply with the widely-felt wish among honourable Members that a room in which they could dress, without returning home, for evening meetings in which they have to take part, in the discharge of their political duties, would be a great convenience, and enable them on such occasions to give additional time to legislative attendance?
  MR. R. WEBSTER: Has the right hon. Gentleman heard that there is a widely-felt wish on the part of Members of this House to change within the precincts of the House from ordinary dress to Court or military dress?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): I hope it will be possible to some extent to carry out the suggestions of my hon. Friend. it would be, I think, a little Pharisaic to limit the change of dress to any special occasion.

  IMPRISONMENT OF BRITISH SAILORS AT BILBAIO.
  MR. GROTRIAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a statement which appeared in Spanish newspaper, El Uoste, of 22nd June, according to which two British sailors have been confined in prison in Bilbao since January last, upon an allegation of having assaulted the police, but without ever having been brought to any trial; and, whether he will cause inquiries to be made, and, if the statement be found to be correct, take measures to protect these British subjects and ensure that they are brought up for trial in open Court?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): I do not know to what case the hon. Member is referring; but if he can give me some

  1579
  further particulars I will have it looked into.

  THE SALVATION ARMY.
  MR. ROWNTREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is correct that Ambrose Sutton, a member of the Salvation Army, who was sentenced to a fine of 10s. and costs for obstructing the highway, at the Bungay Petty Sessions on the 20th June, or in default to fourteen days' imprisonment, and on whose behalf an appeal was duly lodged, was put to hard abour, and underwent five hours on the treadmill each day, in addition to picking oakum; if, at the time of such imprisonment, Ambrose Sutton was in weak health, suffering from a complaint which caused him to vomit a quantity of blood; and if such punishment was authorized by the sentence inflicted; and, if so, whether inquiry will be made into the fitness of such punishment in view of the prisoner's state of health, and pending his appeal?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Prison Commissioners that Ambrose Sutton was received into custody on the 21st of June under a sentence of 14 days' hard labour. He was accordingly put to hard labour on the tread-wheel for five hours instead of the usual number of six hours for four days. The remainder of each day he was employed on oakum-picking. On the 28th of June an appeal was received at the prison, and the prisoner was forthwith discharged on entering into recognizances. There was no vomiting of blood and no evidence of ill·health beyond complaints of trifling ailments on the 26th and 27th of Juno, on which days he had no hard labour. The punishment was in accordance with the sentence, and under the existing prison rules, provision is made for the cessation and regulation of hard labour under the medical officer's advice.
  MR. ROWNTREE: Is it usual to pass a sentence of hard labour in default of the payment of a fine of 5s?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I can hardly say that it is usual, but it is very common.

  IRELAND-FAIR RENTS IN KILDARE.
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland whether he can give the number of fair rent applications still remaining undis-
  1580
  posed of in the County of Kildare; whether he is aware that owing to the delay in hearing these applications, and to the enforcement of the payment of the old rents pending the fixing of the fair rents, a number of tenants who wore unable to pay the old rents have been obliged to enter into judicial agreements on the terms proposed by the landlords; and, whether he will state when the Sub-Commission will next sit at Naas or Athy?
  MR. MADDEN: The Land Commissioners report that originating notices have been received in 557 cases in the County of Kildare which have not been listed for hearing or disposal. In only three of these cases have judicial agreements been lodged since the 1st of January last. By the fifth section of the Act of 1887 it is provided that, when the Court fixes a judicial rent for a holding, the rent so fixed shall be the rent payable by the tenant as from the gale-day next after the application, and also makes provision for an account between the parties to settle the difference between the payments actually made and the judicial rent. A date has not yet been fixed for the sitting of a Sub-Commission to hear cases arising out of the Union of Naas; but a sitting will be held for the Union of Athy early in August.

  DISTURBANCE AT THE BERMONDSEY VESTRY MEETING.
  MR. LAFONE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, on Monday evening last, 1st July, the entrance leading to the Board Room of the Bermondsey Vestry was forced by persons breaking through the door, and resisting the orders of the Vestry then sitting; and, whether the Chairman had previously communicated in writing with the Chief Commissioner of Police, who declined to send policemen to prevent the proceedings of the Vestry being interrupted?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The Commissioner of Police informs me that the police were not called in on the 1st of July, and that he has no personal knowledge of the facts stated in the first paragraph. Two persons were charged by the Vestry with stealing, and were taken into custody by the police, and their case will be heard on the 9th inst. No previous

  1581
  communication was made on this occasion to the Commissioner, who, if he had received such a communication, would have taken the usual steps to prevent any breach of the peace.
  MR. LAFONE: Do I understand that if the police had been called upon they would have protected the entrance to the Vestry?
  MR. MATTHEWS: It would be the duty of the police to prevent any breach of the peace; but the police have no authority to regulate the proceedings of private meetings.
  MR. LAFONE: That was not exactly my question. This was a meeting held in a largo public hall, and I want to know if the police can be called upon to protect the entrance?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am afraid that I must ask for notice of that specific question.

  MOUSSA BEY.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is a fact that a number of the Armenian deputation, who recently waited upon the Grand Vizier at Constantinople, to present a petition on behalf of 500 natives of Mouche, temporarily residing in the Turkish capital, praying for the punishment of the notorious Kurdish chief Moussa Bey, have been arrested by his orders, and will be shortly exiled to Tripoli?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Her Majesty's Government are not aware whether the report referred to is correct. It has already been mentioned to the Secretary of State, and an inquiry as to its truth has been addressed to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople.
  MR. MORE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information as to whether any inquiry into the charges against Moussa Bey has commenced at Constantinople; and, if so, what is the nature of the inquiry, by whom is it conducted, and is it public or private?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Moussa Bey has, I believe, been summoned to Constantinople to answer the charges which are made against him. We have not heard that the inquiry has commenced, nor do we know who is conducting it; but, of course, it will be conducted
  1582
  under the immediate orders of the Imperial Ottoman Government. I am unable to say whether it is to be an inquiry open to the public.

  VESTRY MEETING AT LOWESTOFT.
  MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the proceedings of a recent vestry meeting at Lowestoft, summoned for the purpose of electing guardians, at which the chairman refused to allow more than eight nominations, and ruled that the voting should be by way of motion and amendment; whether he is aware that as a consequence, two of the names first submitted were not voted on by the vestry; that when a poll was demanded the chairman decided that the voting should be on the motion which contained three names, and for the amendment which contained six names (one candidate having been nominated twice), and that the chairman peremptorily closed the poll within five minutes of opening it, the clock having struck twelve; and, whether, under the circumstances, he intends to take any action with regard to this election?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG,): The attention of the Local Government Board has been drawn to the circumstances connected with the recent election of Guardians for the parish of Lowestoft. The Board propose to direct a local inquiry, with a view of ascertaining the facts as to the proceedings and determining as to the course which the Board should take in the matter.

  NON-DELIVERY OF TELEGRAMS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the sender of a telegram, handed in on the 27th May at the office 101, Cannon Street, City, for transmission to Addiscombe, complained on 28th May of the non-delivery thereof; and, if he can explain how it happened that it was only on 17th of June that a reply was forwarded to him, stating that the non-delivery of the telegram was due to its having been overlooked in one of the transmission offices?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): I will

  1583
  have inquiry made respecting the subject of the hon. Member's question, and an answer shall be sent him from the Telegraph Branch, to which the matter appertains.

  THE TITHE RENT CHARGE BILL.
  MR. DILLWYN: I think it would be for the convenience of the House if the First Lord of the Treasury would say whether the Tithe Rent Charge Bill will be taken on Monday next?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I think it is very improbable that it will be reached on Monday. I have already stated that the Scotch Local Government Bill will be taken de die in diem until it is disposed of.

  ROYAL GRANTS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Can the First Lord of the Treasury state when the names of the Select Committee on the Royal Grants will be given?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have every reason to hope they will be put on the Paper on Monday. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that it does not rest with me alone to put down these names.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Then I understand that the Committee will not be taken on Monday?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No; certainly not.

  THE FIGHTING ON THE NILE.
  SIR W. LAWSON: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for War if he has any information concerning the continued fighting on the Nile, which was reported in the newspapers this morning?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): I have received no information of further fighting. The enemy appears to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of our own forces, but I can give no information as to any further fighting.

  METROPOLIS WATER (No. 2) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading upon Wednesday 17th July, read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  FACTORS BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 310.]

  LONDON COAL AND WINE DUTIES CONTINUANCE BILL. (No. 43.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  LAND PERPETUITY (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 94.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  GLASGOW AND CARLISLE TURNPIKE ROAD.
  Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, the determination of the Secretary for Scotland with respect to the Glasgow and Carlisle Turnpike Road Trust ought not to take effect.—(Mr. Hozier.)
  IRISH SOCIETY AND LONDON COMPANIES (IRISH ESTATES).
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire and report as to the terms of the charters or other instruments by which their estates in Ireland were granted to the Irish Society and to the London Companies, and as to the trusts and obligations (if any) attaching to the ownership of such estates, and as to the mode in which the sale of their estates has been effected, or can be effected consistently with such trusts and obligations as may be shown to have existed or now exist.—(Mr. Arthur Balfour.)
MOTION.

  METROPOLIS WATER (NO. 3) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Octavius V. Morgan, Bill for enabling the County Council of London to purchase the rights of existing Water Companies, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Octavius V. Morgan, Mr. Beaufoy, Mr. Buxton, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Howell, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Montagu, Mr. Pickersgill, Mr. Rowlands, and Mr. James Stuart.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 311.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL (No. 187) AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS BILL (No. 188).
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 10 (Regulations as to convener and vice-convener of county.)
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 42, to leave out the words "or persons qualified to be such."—(Mr. J. B. Balfour.)
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): This question was discussed at considerable length during the latter part of last night's debate, and strong opinions were expressed against the enlargement of the powers of the County Council. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) tried an experiment which deserves the attention of the Government. He took a Division on the Motion to report Progress in order that the Government might have an opportunity of studying the disposition of the Scotch Members towards this proposal. We have studied the Division List, and we find that 25 of the Scotch Members voted with the Government and 20 against. I have no wish to misinterpret the opinion of the majority. I am quite aware that Members on the Front Bench who voted with us for going on with the Bill would have voted against us on this specific Amendment. But it affords the Government a good idea of the amount of resolute support they are likely to receive if the Bill is proceeded with in a spirit of conciliation and good humour. Fortified by that Division, whatever opinion may be expressed on minor points, I think the Government need not press this proposal. We take this course in complete reliance upon the general desire to proceed with the Bill without undue debate, and I shall, therefore, accept the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for Clackmannan (Mr. J. B. Balfour).
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: I need not say with what pleasure we have listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, not so much on account of the concession he has made as on account of the spirit which that speech manifests. As far as I am acquainted with the feeling and desire of those with whom I act, we have every desire to facilitate the progress of the Bill, and also to make the measure we are engaged upon as useful
  1586
  and as large a measure as possible. We have no desire to take advantage of any opportunity which may offer of treating the measure in the least, I will not say from a political point of view, because the whole matter is political in the larger sense—but with a view to any small political advantage. But we have insisted upon this point because it involved a question, as we thought, of principle. It is not a large point, because even if the County Councils were granted, the choice to which we object, they would not, I believe, exercise it. But it is characteristic of Scotchmen to be sticklers for principle, and this is why we have been so stubborn.
  DR. CAMERON: I should net have thought it necessary to say anything if it had not been for the very pointed reference which the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate has made to me. The experiment which was tried last night has been absolutely successful. The right hon. Gentleman finds that 25 Scotch Members voted against reporting Progress, and 20 in favour of it. But he knows that, of the 25, six on the Front Opposition Bench and six behind him were dead against the proposal in the Bill, so that so far as the majority of Scotch opinion is concerned, it is largely in favour of the contention which we urged upon the Committee. But I would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to confine himself to the particular Division to which he has referred, but to look through the whole of the Division Lists last night. If it had not been for the last Division we should have had this point carried against us with the probability of having to reconsider it on the Report. I would recommend the right hon. Gentleman to look to the concessions he has made to Scotch opinion as far as the Bill has gone. The first Amendment was brought forward by the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries (Mr. Reid) and 45 Scotch Members, including 12 Unionists who are habitual supporters of the Government voted for it, while only 12 Scotch Members voted against it. The next Division was to ask the Government to schedule the arrangements it was proposed to make in connection with the County Councils. Twenty-nine Scotch Members voted in favour of the Amendment, and only 14

  1587
  against it. Yet it was carried by the Government against the wishes of the Scotch Representatives. Finally, we had another Division, taken by the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Lanarkshire (Mr. D. Crawford), the purpose of which was to leave it an open question whether the Local Authorities in police burghs might not be entrusted with the same power of licensing as those enjoyed by the Magistrates in Royal burghs. Again the Division went against us, although the majority of the Scotch Members voted in favour of the Amendment. Probably if I had not yesterday evening taken the course I did of moving to report Progress, this Amendment would also have been voted down by the supporters of Her Majesty's Government, and the decision upon it would have been put off until the Report stage of the Bill. If the Government propose to amend every part of the Bill on which they find themselves at variance with the large preponderance of Scotch opinion expressed in the Committee, I am afraid they will find that they will have a precious lot to do. I would advise the right hon. Gentleman therefore to study the Division List on every occasion.
  DR. CLARK: I congratulate the Lord Advocate on the wise course he has taken in giving way on this point, as I believe it will materially facilitate the progress of the Bill. This was the thin end of the wedge, introducing for the first time the principle of non-election. As yet no Scotch baillie has ever been in the position of a Liverpool Alderman.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  DR. CAMERON: I have now to move, in line 43, after the word "and" to insert—
  "And such convener shall possess all the powers and exercise all the functions possessed or exercised at the date of the passing of this Act by the Provost or Chief Magistrate of a Royal or Parliamentary burgh, and shall by virtue of his office be a Justice of the Peace for the county."
  The Amendment is designed to assimilate, as far as possible, the powers and position of the Municipal Authority in the county to those which are well understood in the case of the Municipal Authority in the burghs. The
  1588
  words "and shall, by virtue of his office, be a Justice of the Peace for the county," are taken verbatim from the English Act of last year. As it has been found necessary to insert it in the English Act, it may, I think, be well incorporated in the present measure.
  THE CHAIRMAN: There is a further Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member which is not admissible at all. I have some doubts as to the admissibility of this, but I will put it to the Committee.
  Amendment moved, in Clause 10, page 2, line 43, after "such," insert—
  "And such convener shall possess all the powers and exercise all the functions possessed or exercised at the date of the passing of this Act by the Provost or Chief Magistrate of a Royal or Parliamentary burgh, and shall by virtue of his office be a Justice of the Peace for the county."—(Dr. Cameron.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The proposal, taken by itself, is not a matter of great importance, but on the other hand it relates to subjects which do not come within the scope of the Bill. As the Bill stands, the convener of the county will have certain functions to perform, but they will not include the administration of justice, and I would remind those hon. Members who are less acquainted with the Scotch than the English administration that the powers and importance of a Justice of the Peace in Scotland are very much less than in England. In Scotland the work of administering justice is done in the main by the Sheriff and the Sheriff Substitute. I speak particularly ofhe counties, and so far as the scope of the Bill is concerned, it is entirely outside the burghs. I do not think that the Committee have any desire to amplify or extend the administration of Justices of the Peace which, at present in Scotland, is most insignificant. There are great differences between the duties of Provosts and those of the proposed conveners who might have been made Justices of the Peace if it had been intended to hand licensing over to the County Councils. That, however, is not proposed to be done, and the tenour of recent legislation has been in the direction of introducing skilled and paid Magistrates rather than of increasing the number of amateur Justices of the

  1589
  Peace. I hope that at the proper time the Committee will support the Government in refusing to introduce into the Bill the burning and distracting question of licensing.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I very strongly sympathize with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow in this matter, though I admit that the Government may have difficulties in at once accepting the Amendment. My idea is that in dealing with this entire subject we should take the municipal government of the towns as our model, and apply it, as far as possible, to the counties. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of licensing. We regret that the Government do not give the County Councils the control of the licensing; but the point will be raised later on. I think it would be advantageous to place the convener and a certain number of elected Magistrates in the same position as the Magistrates of the burghs. The right hon. Gentleman says that the whole current of opinion runs in the direction of introducing skilled and paid magistrates, rather than of increasing the number of amateur Justices of the Peace, and I quite agree with him. Burgh stipendiary Magistrates are being more and more employed. But there are still certain functions which it has never been proposed to transfer to paid Magistrates and which remain in the hand of the Provost and elected Magistrates; and on the ground of the general symmetry of the arrangements, I think it would be prudent to extend to the counties a system which has worked so satisfactorily in the burghs. For these reasons I shall support the Amendment.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I desire also to say a word in support of the Amendment. I admit that there is a distinction between a Justice of the Peace in England and in Scotland, and, so far as the Scotch Members are concerned, we prefer the decision of a Court presided over by a Sheriff in Scotland to that of a Court presided over by a Justice of the Peace in England. In regard to the licensing question, the argument of the Lord Advocate scarcely applies. Let me take the present position of licensing in the burghs of Scotland. The Court of
  1590
  Appeal is the Court of Quarter Sessions, and that is the final tribunal in regard to burgh licences. The appeals are heard by the Chief Magistrate and the senior baillie is ex officio a member of the Court of Quarter Sessions. What harm, then, could take place if the convener of the county holds the position of ex officio Justice of the Peace for the county? Leaving out all reference to the burghs, I submit that the case of the convener of the county has been fully made out by the hon. Member for Glasgow. The Lord Advocate has taken a somewhat too extended view of the matter. All that is wanted is that the person who is appointed convener should be ex officio a Justice of the Peace, and I hope that in a spirit of conciliation the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see his way to make this moderate concession.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I have listened with attention to all that hon. Members have said. The Amendment, however, goes a little too far, and I strongly deprecate the carrying by process of analogy of the powers enjoyed by a Chief Magistrate in a burgh into the counties, considering that the whole situation is different in the counties from what it is in the burghs. As I do not think there would be much harm in making the conveners Justices of the Peace, I have no objection to accept the latter part of the Amendment.
  DR. CAMERON: I have no desire to interfere with the functions of the Sheriffs' Court or the burghs Justices of the Peace.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: The Provost of a burgh is a Justice of the Peace, but although he is entitled to sit in the Police Court he does not usually do so.
  DR. CAMERON: As a matter of fact I never knew the Lord Provost of Glasgow to sit in the Police Court. In the English Act there are different sorts of representatives on the Council—Aldermen as well as Councillors.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The office of Alderman does not necessarily carry with it magisterial functions.
  Question, "That such convener shall by virtue of his office be a Justice of the Peace of the county," put, and agreed to.
  MR. STEWART: I have to move an Amendment in the clause to provide that the tenure

  1591
  of office of the convener, instead of being for one year as proposed by the Bill, should continue for such period of time as the County Council exists. The term for which the County Council is to be elected is three years; and it will be convenient to have the convener's term of office fixed for the same period. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment, which is a very simple one, although, in my opinion, a very important one.
  Amendment moved, Clause 10, page 3, lines 1 and 2, leave out "be one year," and insert "shall continue for such period of time as the County Council exists."—(Mr. M. Stewart.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'be one year' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I do not know whether the Government intend to accept the Amendment, but I am bound to say that there is a good deal to be said in favour of it. I think it would be a pity to put the Councils to the trouble of resettling their administration every year. The gentleman who accepts the office of convener should be allowed to run through the period of the County Council's administration without the turmoil of re-election every year.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The reason why one year has been inserted in the Bill is because the present convener of the county is elected annually. It is quite true that his re-election is generally undisputed so long as he retains the qualifications which commended him to the choice of the Commissioners of Supply; but the proposal of one year has been adopted primarily because it would give a freer hand to the County Council; and I should have thought, therefore, that it was more consonant with the views one often hears of the Chairman representing the opinions of the County Council, that he should be elected year by year instead of for three years. The preponderance of argument is, I think, in favour of one year.
  MR. CALDWELL: I believe that the preponderance of Scotch opinion is in favour of the convener being elected during the existence of the County Council. I hope therefore, that the Government will give way. At the same time, I think the words of the Amendment will require
  1592
  alteration. The duration of the School Board and other Boards in Scotland is for three years, and the chairman is appointed to act during the existence of the Board. But in the Bill as it stands it is not the County Council that is elected for three years, but the Councillors.
  MR. SHAW-STEWARTFor my part I am in favour of giving to the County Councils as free a hand as possible.
  COLONEL MALCOLM: The custom of the Commissioners of Supply is to elect the convener annually.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: The annual election is a mere matter of form. The convener when once elected retains the office.
  MR. HOZIERsupported the Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment moved, Clause 10, page 2, line 15, after "occurred," to add—
  "(5) If a County Councillor is elected Convener he shall not thereby vacate office as a County Councillor."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
  Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  The Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod, being come with a Message for the House to attend the Lords Commissioners, the Chairman left the Chair:—
  Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair:—
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;—
  The House went;—and being returned;—
  Mr. Speaker reported the Royal Assent to,—
  1. Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Act, 1889.
  2. Secretary for Scotland Act, 1889.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL (No. 187) AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS BILL (No. 188).
  Again considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 11: Transfer to County Council of powers of Commissioners of Supply, Road Trustees.
  Amendment proposed, to insert in line 17 before the word "there," the words "Subject to the provisions of this Act."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: I have an Amendment to line 21. I will not say it is the crucial Amendment to the Bill, but it certainly is one of the crucial Amendments: it raises the question, Are the Commissioners of Supply to continue or not? The Bill proposes to maintain the elaborate machinery for keeping up the list of Commissioners of Supply, and any expenditure that may attend upon it, for the simple purpose of enabling the Commissioners of Supply to form a Joint Committee with the new County Council. The Commissioners of Supply are only to meet once a year, and they are expressly told that on that occasion they shall transact no business other than the election of a chairman and the choice of seven members to represent them on that committee. They are, therefore, to be deprived of all independent functions whatsoever, and it is only for the purposes of the Joint Committee that they are to exist. What has the Joint Committee to do? Under the presidency of the Sheriff it is to be the Police Committee of the county, and is to have certain control over capital expenditure and over the borrowing powers of the County Authority. There is no question about it, that this matter turns largely upon the question of the control of the police. I believe we were right in what we said, in the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill—namely, that the idea of continuing the Commissioners of Supply was designed merely in order to prevent the control of the police falling entirely into the hands of the County Councils, and that the reason of the jealousy as to the control of the police was that there have been of late years difficulties in certain crofter counties of Scotland. I will not repeat all that has been said regarding the unfairness of punishing and curtailing the natural powers of the whole population of Scotland, because one or two counties, or one or two parts of counties, have behaved
  1594
  in an unruly manner. The truth is that the control of the police is the most elementary function of civic life. The Government know perfectly well that if this system of Local County Government is to be a reality at all, the control of the police must be given to the councils. I think the Government might very well have trusted the people even in the so called disturbed parts of the country, knowing that if the people were vested with responsibility in the matter they would not exercise their powers improperly. If they shrank from doing this, they might have made some exceptional arrangement to suit the exceptional state of things. But that all the counties of Scotland shall be shorn of this power on account of the supposed condition of things in some parts of the Highlands is a reason that I do not think will be publicly stated at the Table of the House. It is obvious that if our object is to simplify administration and to make the new system as complete as possible the proposals of the Bill can only be regarded as transitional proposals. Now, we have reason to allege that there is a strong feeling in Scotland in favour of doing away with the Commissioners of Supply. In two or three counties the Commissioners of Supply themselves have actually memorialized—or, at any rate, expressed publicly their conviction—in favour of transferring the whole business of the counties to the new bodies. Where that opinion has not been publicly expressed, I am satisfied it is largely entertained. I impress on the Government the expediency of giving way in the matter. This is not a point which is essential to to the scheme of the Government. Two or three years, or at any rate, ten or a dozen years, will not pass before all this part of the Bill is repealed. The Lord Advocate will admit that it is well to give the newer bodies he is creating the largest amount of dignity and the greatest extent of power that we can give to them. With regard to capital expenditure, it is very easy to insert such safeguards as have been inserted in other measures of this kind, which would avoid any danger of an abuse of the power, The Lord Advocate will not only consult the general feeling of Scotland, but will do much to secure good government in the Scotch counties

  1595
  he will consent to the transference of the whole of the powers now enjoyed by the Commissioners of Supply to the County Councils.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 11, page 3, line 21, leave out "Save as hereinafter mentioned."—(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: I very strongly support this Amendment. The Lord Advocate will admit one or two propositions which I will lay down. In the first place, this limitation on the present scheme is one that cannot be permanent; it is one that cannot last more than a very few years. Secondly, this limitation is entirely opposed to the wishes and desires of the Scotch Members, and, thirdly, the functions for which the Joint Committee is created, and the Commissioners of Supply kept up, are really the only functions of any importance that the Bill deals with—namely, the control of the police and capital expenditure. This provision makes the Bill a delusion and a snare. You profess to set up a representative body which you call a County Council, and you withdraw from the control of that body the only two subjects of importance which are gathered within the four corners of the Bill. I hope the Lord Advocate will see his way to make a concession on this point. I think we may with perfect safety intrust the County Councils with the control of the police and with the expenditure of capital. Is it to be said that, on account of some temporary disturbance in certain counties, the whole scheme of Local Government is to be utterly spoiled and thwarted? That is a most unreasonable proposition.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: Both the hon. Gentlemen who have preceded me have referred to certain parts of Scotland in which disturbances have taken place, and have said it would be very hard if, on account of these disturbances, the whole of Scotland were deprived of the control of the police. As the Representative of the largest of the Crofter counties, I should have no objection whatever to all the powers of the Commissioners of Sup-
  1596
  ply being vested in the new Councils. The Committee may rest satisfied that the powers would not be abused, but that the County Councils would act in every matter just as fairly and as honourably in the management of the police as the Commissioners of Supply, or any existing body. I protest in the strongest manner against my own county and also other counties in Scotland being deprived of powers which rightly belong to them, because of certain disturbances in the Highlands in recent years connected with a single question.
  MR. BOLTON: I rise to support, in the strongest manner, the Amendment of my right hon. Friend. Only yesterday I presented to the House a petition from the Commissioners of Supply of the county I represent, asking the House to put an end to the Commissioners of Supply. I do not know how many counties have followed that example; but I do know that all representative men in Scotland are in favour of some arrangement by which the Commissioners of Supply should be ended. Reference has been made to the necessity for safeguards. With respect to capital expenditure and borrowing powers, I do not think there would be any objection raised any where to make it a condition of capital expenditure that the approval of the Secretary for Scotland should be obtained; and with respect to the police, if the Government really entertain the belief that the Police Committee would not be loyal, or that some members of it would not be loyal, I do not think there would be any objection to make the Lord Lieutenant an ex officio member of the Committee. Surely, with such safeguards, we might intrust the management of the police to the elected Representatives of the people. I hope the Government will give this matter the consideration it deserves, and that they will pay some heed to what I believe to be the genera] wish of the Commissioners of Supply.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I trust the Lord Advocate will not think me presumptuous when I say that the feelings of the people of Scotland with regard to this Bill depend upon his action in this matter. Representing one of the largest counties in Scotland, I cannot see how the position of the Government can the maintained. I have no objection whatever to the

  1597
  approval of the Secretary for Scotland being requisite in the case of capital expenditure, but I put it to the Lord Advocate, would not the Town Councils of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, and other burghs be placed in a most humiliating position if they had to go to another authority before they could make any capital expenditure? How can it be said that the County Council of Aberdeenshire will not be quite as fit to be entrusted with capital expenditure as the County Council of the City of Aberdeen? The population of the county is larger than that of the city, and the intelligence and business capacity of the people cannot be said to be inferior. Why, therefore, should the Lord Advocate set up in the county a Council which is an inferior body to the Council of the city? Will any hon. Member on the Government Benches say there is more danger in intrusting the control of the police to County Councils than to Town Councils? Can it be said that the people of the county are less law abiding? Are we to have this Bill spoilt on account of some little disturbances in one or two of the Highland counties? If this is to be a popular measure I cannot too strongly urge upon the Government the necessity of trusting the people in the counties in the same way as the people of the burghs are trusted.
  MR. BARCLAY: The Commissioners of Supply of the county I have the honour to represent resolved unanimously, at their general meeting, "That there was no necessity for the existence of this Committee of the Commissioners of Supply." It is surely very absurd to refuse the control of the police to the County Councils when we intrust it to a small burgh of 7,000 inhabitants. I certainly am of opinion that in Highland counties the control of the police can safely be intrusted to the new Councils.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: My right hon. friend (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) said that the Government were not prepared to avow at this Table the real reason for objecting to his Amendment. My right hon. friend does not give right hon. Gentlemen opposite the credit due for the courage of their opinions. If I am not mistaken, the Chief Secretary for Ireland in the debate on the Second
  1598
  Reading said that the reason they clung to the idea of a Joint Committee for police purposes was the disturbed state of certain portions of the Highland counties. Now the hon. Members for Invernessshire and Forfarshire, who generally act with the Government, and who do not take the same view with regard to what is called law and order that many of us take, have united in saying that as far as they know there would be no danger in intrusting the control of the police in the Highland counties to the Council elected by the people. I have the honour to be closely connected with the County of Invernessshire, as with the county I represent, and I must add my testimony to that of the hon. Gentlemen I have named, that the Government would be perfectly safe in intrusting the care of the police in Invernessshire to the new County Councils they are about to set up. Let me put forward another reason. The Bill proposes to transfer the powers of the Committee of Supply to the new County Councils. By setting up a Joint Committee for police purposes and financial purposes, you are really transferring to the new council powers very much less than those which the present Committee of Supply now have. That is a very great mistake. We have a right to demand that the new County Councils shall have powers co-extensive with the present Committee of Supply, and I hope the Government will see their way to give this. We on this side will gratefully accept and acknowledge the concession, which I assure the Government will do much to make the Bill in other respects acceptable to the people of Scotland.
  SIR A. CAMPBELL: I trust the Government will stand firm on this question of the control of the police. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs complains of the great expense of the Committee of Supply. What is it? The only expense is that at statutory meetings—those wishing to be enrolled make a declaration to the Sheriff, and their names are then entered in a book. No great expense that. I am afraid he has very little idea what the Committee of Supply costs. Now I come to the question of the Joint Committee. Hon. Members have kept

  1599
  clear of the fact that, unless the County Councils chance to be exceedingly extravagant, the whole of the money will come from the owners of property, who are represented by the Commissioners of Supply; therefore it is right and just that those who have to pay all the expenses of the police, except the amount paid by Government, should have some voice in looking after the management of the police. It is said that County Councils should have the same control over the police that municipalities have, but I would remind hon. Members that burghs ore self-contained communities easily got at, and everything that happen to a citizen in a burgh very materially touches the interest of every person in that burgh, while in a county an outrage committed in an outlying part of the county, does not arouse the interest of other distant and perhaps more populous parts of the county where the inhabitants have not the slightest interest in, or anything to do with the occurrence. I do not think the Government of a county is quite analogous to the administration of affairs in a burgh. It is necessary, I think, to have this Committee to control police arrangements, and to see that they are properly carried out, in as admirable manner as they have been carried out hitherto. I do not believe there is a single Member sitting on that side of the House or on this who will say that the Commissioners of Supply have not, up to the present time, done their duty in regard to the police in the most impartial manner. I have heard no animadversions on the management by the Commissioners of Supply. These Commissioners are no distinct class, whose interests are apart from the rest of the community, they are well-known and experienced, and I think the people have the utmost confidence in them and it is a questionable thing to place control in such matters in the hands of men who have had no experience in the management. Under the circumstances I hope the Government will retain the Commissioners of Supply in the position they have hitherto occupied. It is said by some hon. Members that this is casting a slur upon the County Council, but can it be a slur to be associated with gentlemen so well known and respected? Many of them I trust will be chosen as County Councillors.
  DR. HUNTER: The origin of this clause is very singular, so curious, that it is well worthy the attention of the Committee for a moment. Every Scotch Representative on this side of the House agrees that nothing is more absurd, more ridiculous than keeping up Commissioners of Supply for the sole purpose of forming a Joint Committee for the management of the police. It is one of those things difficult to account for, but the real secret of the proposal is to be found in a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, on the Second Reading of the Bill, May 23rd, when he used the following words:—
  "The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think he had extracted from my right hon. Friend an admission of which he ought, it is suggested, to be ashamed, that this plan has been adopted because of the somewhat disorganized state of affairs in certain parts of Scotland, and he appeared to think that all that is necessary to set everything right in the Hebrides and the Western Isles is to give the people full control of the police. But if this were done, and the police were handed over to those who have not shown themselves over zealous for the law, serious consequences might ensue for which this House would then be practically responsible, I do not, however, deny that this was an argument which weighed largely with the Government when they were framing this Bill."
  It is a peculiar form of reasoning that, because two or three counties some years ago were the scene of conflicts between landlords and tenants, therefore the other counties of Scotland should be subject to this stigma, this insult, that they should be held incompetent to do that which every burgh in Scotland exceeding 7,000 inhabitants has done in the past and is doing at the present time. I have not had a long experience of the Highland Crofter question, but I have watched it closely as a Member of this House, and I can say that the only disturbance in these crofter counties of recent years was brought into existence when the right hon. Gentleman opposite was Secretary for. Scotland. That disturbance was created entirely by the action of the right hon. Gentleman himself, the right lion. Gentleman having conducted the Government of that part of the Highlands in a manner I had to characterize at the time, and further information has shown how he scandalously mismanaged the Government. Having so misconducted himself the right hon. Gentleman has sufficient

  1601
  influence with the Government to have this inserted in the Bill, as a sort of statutory fortification of his own policy, and he does not hesitate to insult all these counties by imputing to them a state of disorder that exists only in his own imagination. We know very well that in the Highlands, as in any part of Scotland, the law is observed to a degree that contrasts favourably with London and other parts of the kingdom. The disturbances, the breaches of law and opposition to the law, in those counties arose out of disputes between landlord and tenant, and it is generally known now, as it was known to those best acquainted with the circumstances then, that the landlords were demanding exorbitant rent from their tenants. Parliament at that time was too much occupied with other matters to pay heed to the grievances of the Highland crofters, but even the Crofters Act, introduced by the late Government, proved that, with the solitary exception when the right hon. Gentleman himself created a disturbance in certain part of the Highlands, peace and quiet has reigned throughout the whole of the Highlands. If the Government are prepared to stand by the history of this clause we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman, then the Government must be prepared for strong opposition from Scotch representatives, for neither as representing counties or towns will they be content to sit down quietly under this unfounded imputation on their country.
  MR. SHAW STEWART: I quite agree this is an important question of more than local interest; it is not only a Scotch question, it is a question the Government has to consider as involving the future peace of the country. I confess, when I first read the Bill, I was in favour of County Councils succeeding the Commissioners of Supply altogether, but on consideration I unhesitatingly made up my mind to support the Government proposal. I will not follow the hon. and learned Member for North Aberdeen in regard to the Chief Secretary, because it is not the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman, but a Bill introduced on the responsibility of the Government as a whole, but I will just refer shortly to the remarks of the hon. Member for North East Lanark, who said the clause would
  1602
  spoil and thwart the whole scheme of Local Government in Scotland. Now, does he really consider that this proposed joint Committee would be a bad Committee for Police administration? I do not think from his knowledge of past administration by the Commissioners of Supply, he will say that it is likely to be a bad Committee?
  Mr. D. CRAWFORD: Inferior to the County Council.
  MR. SHAW-STEWART: I do not know exactly how it will be inferior. It will not be inferior in its powers as regards the control of the police, it will have ample powers. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling admits that there have been disturbances in certain districts in Scotland, because he said that special temporary arrangements might be made for dealing with the police administration in those districts.
  MR. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: I said that if any difficulties arose from this cause they could be met by special arrangement.
  MR. SHAW-STEWART: Quite so. But are the Government to wait for disturbances to arise, and then deal with police administration in that part of the country? On the other hand, would it not be a most invidious thing for the Secretary of State or the Government to say, "We anticipate disturbance in this or that county, and so we must withdraw the control of the police from this or that County Council?" I think that any Member representing that particular county would make himself heard in this House with considerable effect. If I have had any doubts in making up my mind to support the Government proposal, I find consolation in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling. He tells us that if the clause is passed it can only exist for 10 or 12 years, and it is sure to be repealed at the end of that period. I am quite content to have the experiment tried for that period and then judge by the result if it is expedient to hand over the control to the County Council. It may be that then, if the right hon. Gentleman and myself have the honour of seats in the House, I may assist him in carrying out this suggestion.
  MR. R. W. DUFF: I notice that only two Scotch Members

  1603
  have spoken in favour of the Government proposal. Speaking as a Commissioner of Supply with some experience—I have acted in that capacity over a period of 28 years in three counties—I say at once that I thould not care to undertake this duty under the clause while the other functions of the Commissioners are discharged by the County Council, and this, I believe, is the feeling of Commissioners generally. In Forfar and Stirling the Commissioners have come to that decision unanimously. I can easily understand this. Many of the Commissioners will desire to become Councillors, and they do not want to he handicapped when they seek election by the prejudice in the minds of the electors against a dual representation. I would appeal to the Government to reconsider their determination and to simplify their Bill, getting rid of the finance difficulty by an equal division of rates between landlords and tenants, and, abolishing Commissioners of Supply altogether, have a popular representation. Any difficulties that are suggested to the present arrangement might be overcome, and existing leases, of course, might be exempted. The whole local taxation of Scotland is four millions, and the portion falling exclusively on landlords is only £150,000, and if this were equally divided between landlords and tenants there would be no financial excuse fox keeping up Commissioners of Supply Many hon. Members have spoken of the distrust of the Government who hesitate to entrust the control of the police to a popularly elected body, but if that is the reason, I am sure the Government are doing an injustice to the people of Scotland. That Commissioners of Supply have performed their duty well in the past I readily allow, but they cannot exist side by side with the new popularly elected body.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I should not have thought it necessary to intervene in this discussion were it not for the pointed references of the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) to myself and my supposed connection with this clause. The hon. Gentleman apparently regards me as the villain of the piece, and thinks it is due to my influence with my Colleagues that this provision has been introduced into the Bill. The hon. Member has twisted some sentences
  1604
  which fell from me on the Second Reading of the Bill into support of his assertion that I desired to insult all the counties in Scotland because I had been the author of certain disturbances in two of those counties. The hon. Gentleman is, however, very much at fault in his supposition. It is perfectly true that when I had the honour to hold the office of Secretary for Scotland I found it necessary to deal with a state of disturbance in the Western Highlands; but the hon. Member does me an injustice in supposing that I was the author of those disturbances. Whether any Government was the author of them or not I will not discuss; but I found them flourishing and in full swing when I came into office; and, therefore, if any Advisers of Her Majesty were responsible for this condition of things, they were the Friends of hon. Members who sit on the Front Bench opposite. But, as the hon. Gentleman is probably well aware, with the agrarian disturbances in the West of Scotland the Government of which I was a Member had nothing to do; and if any responsibility existed in regard to them it was for permitting them to go on unchecked so long that it became more difficult to deal effectually with them at a later stage of the proceedings. As regards the question before the Committee, let us approach it in a practical spirit. That question is, how far consistently with sound administration we can or ought to destroy the Joint Committee of the Commissioners of Supply and the County Council which the Bill proposes to set up. The clause divides itself into two parts. The matters to be dealt with are capital expenditure and the police; and the justification for giving control of capital expenditure to such a Joint Committee is obvious. The capital expenditure presses directly on the owners of land in Scotland. In England it may be that the increase of the rates falls, and continues to fall, on the person who first pays them; but that is not the case in Scotland, where the leases are revised every 19 years, or a less time; and in determining the amount of the new rents the rates and taxes are taken into account. Therefore it happens that any local expenditure which stretches over a long period falls on the owner rather than on the occupier of land. When, therefore, we are dealing with

  1605
  capital expenditure, the permanent and ultimate burden of which falls on the owner, ought he not to have some share in determining what that expenditure is to be? But under this provision we do not give him this power as logically we might; all we propose is to give the owner something less than half the joint management of this concern which is the owner's concern. The last speaker has admitted the force of that argument, because he has suggested the most violent alternative for getting rid of the difficulty. The hon. Gentleman says, let us divide the rates. Although that might be theoretically equitable it would have the effect of imposing a fine on the tenantry of Scotland for this Bill, and this the Government are not prepared to do. We do not think it would be expedient—whether it would be just or not I will not argue now—to adopt the suggestion thrown out by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Duff) and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) on the Second Reading, that as an alternative we should do anything so violent—to make such a violent alteration in the system of rating as to relieve the landlords of half the rates by imposing an additional burden on the tenants. With regard to the second function of the Joint Committee, no solid argument has been adduced against the proposal of the Government, only some speculative opinion that it is opposed to the abstract principle of representation. It has not been hinted by any opponents of our proposal that the police would be ill-managed by the Joint Committee; and no one has ventured to assert that if we give over the police in every county of Scotland simply to a popularly-elected representative body the police will be well-managed. Perhaps I ought to make an exception in the case of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Marjori-banks) who expressed serene confidence in the management of the police by the crofters. One hon. Member has suggested that a better plan than that of the Government would be to give to the Executive, to the Secretary for Scotland, or some other high officer of the Government, power to exclude certain parts of Scotland from the operation of the amended Bill in case the powers given by the amended Bill were abused. The alternative thus suggested is a violent
  1606
  one, and far worse than the proposal of the Government. As I object to halving the rates between the owner and the occupier in order to get rid of the injustice of throwing the whole capital expenditure into the hands of a popularly-elected body, so I object to the expedient of giving the Executive of Scotland the power of determining whether in this county or in that the Local Authorities should have the management of their police. There is no real resemblance between the conditions obtaining in a populous city and those of a county like Rossshire or Invernessshire. In a burgh everybody has so immediate and vital an interest in preserving peaoe and the law that we may and do with perfect safety intrust the management of the police to burghs in Scotland with over 7,000 inhabitants. But can any one but a doctrinaire say that the same principle can be applied to a scattered community in counties such as I have mentioned? I firmly believe that the ultimate interest of every man is bound up in the preservation of law and order. But what we have to consider is whether it is so bound up. Anyone who, apart from political considerations, considers how best to secure the proper maintenance of law in remote parts of Scotland must, I am sure, be convinced as the Government have been, that we should be running a very serious risk if we were to adopt the Amendment before the Committee. If this Bill is carried in its present shape, we are told that as soon as right hon. Gentleman opposite get into power they will modify the Bill in the way proposed. Let it be so, and let the responsibility rest upon them; but for my part I cannot be a party to a proposal which, while it would not conduce to better administration of the police in any part of Scotland, would in one or two parts of that country produce evils for which this House will, if it accepts the Amendment, make itself in part responsible.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: There is one argument the right hon. Gentleman used on the Second Reading of the Bill, which seems to me to require a word of notice. Arguing in favour of keeping up this combined Committee because the capital expenditure of the rates ultimately falls on the landlord in Scotland in a different way from that in which it falls

  1607
  elsewhere, he explained a process which appeared to me to be extraordinary at that time—so extraordinary that I doubted if I quite comprehended the right hon. Gentleman's meaning. He has repeated it to-day in the clearest manner. His argument is that in Scotland the capital expenditure of rates ultimately falls on the landlord, because rents are remodelled and revised every 19 years or less—and I am willing to take 19 years, although I think the period nowadays is not more than half that—whereas, in England, the tenancies being at yearly rents, they are not remodelled in consequence of a rise in rates. Landlords in Scotland who know something of landlords in England, and landlords in England who know something of landlords in Scotland will say that during the last few years the process has been exactly opposite to that described by the right hon. Gentleman. In the North of England, where long leases exist, it has been the universal practice not to claim the existence of these leases against the tenants, but to lower the tenant's rent exactly as if he was a yearly tenant when prices went down, and agricultural distress began, whereas in some places in Scotland bad landlords—I hope very few—have used the long lease for the purpose of draining the tenants of their money, which ought to have been their reserve for agricultural operations in the future. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that when a revision of rent is made in England the change in rates is taken into account, and there is much more freedom than in Scotland in the matter of lowering the rents. I cannot think what this argument of the right hon. Gentleman leads to. It is certain that in political economy, whatever may be the case of this estate or that, a change of rates ultimately falls on the landlords. Therefore, by using this argument the right hon. Gentleman cuts at the root of giving Local Government to the great body of the people all over the United Kingdom in his desire to keep up this most anomalous single Joint Committee in Scotland. I cannot understand how a political economist like the right hon. Gentleman can think he has used a sound argument on this question of capital expenditure. So much for one of the two reasons for the keeping up of this Joint Committee. But with regard
  1608
  to the other question of the police, I beg to remind the right hon. Gentleman that it is a perfectly fair construction of his argument to say that the course of action of the Government has insulted the great body of the Scotch people for the sake of a few communities, because it amounts to saying that they are in each county not fit to be trusted with the care of the morality and security of their own confines. I believe communities in the Highlands can be safely trusted with the taro of their own police, and that this substitute that the Government have introduced is the most unfortunate that could be devised, having regard to what we afro told as to the experience of one or two of the Welsh counties. Do the right hon. Gentleman and the Lord Advocate really think that by proposing a Committee, half of which is to be elected by the Commissioners of Supply and half by the great body of the people, who believe they are suffering under a grievous wrong, they have done away with the difficulties in the management of the police? The best of the Commissioners of Supply will have been elected on the County Councils, and those who remain will bring to bear on the business before them very little except what I am afraid I must describe as the prejudices of a class. Those men who are free from class prejudices are the hardworking practical men of business who will be elected. The other half will be elected from the representatives of the County Council, who will put forward—as the experience of England has already shown—no one who is a Commissioner of Supply. I am told that the only bone of contention in some of the English County Councils is in reference to this matter of the Police Committee, the declaration of the Councils being that they will not put on it a single Magistrate, however good a man he may be. In those counties where there is some ill-blood, dissensions will at once begin in the Police Committees; whereas, if the Government trust the people, as I hope they will, throughout the whole of Scotland, the people will be put upon their good behaviour, and if any difficulties occur, the Government can come to Parliament and get any exceptional powers they require. I am quite sure that, as a supplement to the admirable system of revision of rents

  1609
  which is beginning to give hope and a sense of justice to the people of the Highlands, the next measure ought to be to show confidence in them by calling upon them to perform the first duty of citizens by keeping the peace in the counties in which they live. The worst thing the Government can do is to inflict a great injury and a practical insult upon the rest of Scotland because they distrust a portion of its people.
  MR. FIRTH: If this Amendment is carried, the system of Joint Committees proposed in this Bill will net be created. Well, we have not yet had a very wide experience of the working of the Joint Committees as established by the Bill of last year. I confess I thought then, and I think still, that the creation of these Joint Committees was a peculiarly unhappy expedient. By the present Bill the Joint Committees are to be composed of seven members from the County Council and seven from the Commissioners of Supply. It is true the Government have given a casting vote to the Sheriff, and I think if this division of the committee is to obtain, they have acted wisely in so doing, for we recently had before us the spectacle of a meeting of a Joint Committee to which there was no such power given. Six members of the committee had been appointed by one authority and six by another; and when it came to voting, six voted one way and six the other, so that it was impossible for the Chairman to say what ought to be done next. In the present case, as the Sheriff will have a casting vote, such a difficulty as this will not arise. But there will be other difficulties. The County Council will be a popular body in the sense that it will be a body elected by the people. It will probably send seven men, holding very strong views on the subject of police, to the committee, and they will be met by seven others holding equally strong views on the other side. You will not, therefore, have that joint action on the part of the committee, which from its name you might expect. The Chief Secretary for Ireland said just now that it would involve serious risk to place the control of the police in the hands of the more popular body. Well, that serious risk seems to arise everywhere. In Ireland we have had it until we are tired of hearing about it; in London
  1610
  we have had it till we are tired of hearing about it, and now a new and serious risk is discovered in the Highlands of Scotland, where the population are most loyal and law-abiding. So far as the Joint Committee is concerned, I should be glad to see an end put to it; and I cannot understand why the Commissioners of Supply should be dealt with in this way. Why should they not all stand an election to the County Council, and exercise through that body the functions which their character and position amply justify them in exercising? It seems to me that, under the system proposed by the Government, the Commissioners will, practically, have nothing to do. They will have one annual meeting at which they will elect somebody else—about the worst system of double election which could be created. I think, therefore, that the system of Commissioners of Supply might very well not be continued. You cannot have a body that will deserve public respect unless you give it public functions to perform, and the functions you are going to give to the Commissioners of Supply will be extremely inadequate. In two or three respects, especially in the exceptions that are made in regard to the Joint Committees, there is in the proposals of the Government great violation of the principle of giving the public greater control over their own local affairs. Therefore, if the committee cannot itself come to the conclusion that this Amendment ought to, be carried. I hope that the Government will prove amenable to judicious pressure in the matter.
  MR. MARK STEWART: If hon. Members on the other side of the House were as familiar with the ordinary practice of the Commissioners of Supply as they are with the provisions of this Bill, they would, I think, modify their views in regard to the Amendment. Having myself had some 2.5 years' experience on Police Committees, I can say that the Commissioners of Supply have hitherto conducted that part of their duties in a very satisfactory manner. The amount of crime and the expense of the police in Scotland are alike small. How, therefore, can it be said that relegating to these men who have managed the police for the last 20 or 30 years is a blot upon this Bill? I am convinced that very few people in

  1611
  Scotland at the present moment know who the managers of the police are, and that the subject does not trouble the public mind. Therefore, the observations of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee in regard to popular election, are not of much force. I know that popular control over the police is a Party cry with Gentlemen opposite; but however loud the cry is, the committee should not be diverted from its purpose, which is to have a good Act passed. As to the long leases to which reference has been made, though I admit that some Scotch landlords—whose conduct in the matter I, for one, earnestly deprecate—have not made allowances to the tenants for the great losses they have incurred of late; yet, on the other hand, there are many landlords who have made allowances. To say, however, as the hon. Member for Dundee has done, that the clause as it stands is a stigma upon, and an insult to the people of Scotland, is unworthy of the hon. Member, and so illogical that I have felt compelled to rise in order to offer a strong protest. I shall certainly support the Government, as I believe they command the assent of the majority of the country who are thoroughly satisfied with the position they have taken up. The clause is a very satisfactory solution of the question; and believing that it is a rational and sensible view, and the only view that the Government could, under the circumstances, have come to, I shall support it.
  MR. A. ELLIOT: Before we go to a Division, I should like to give my reasons for the vote I am about to give, especially as there is great difference of opinion amongst us on this important question. To my mind, there is much in the Amendment that naturally commends itself to the House; but we have to deal with a difficult state of things, and the Government, on their responsibility, have put before us a proposal not as being in the abstract a proposal of unquestionable soundness, but as one to meet the particular difficulties of the time existing in particular districts. I was present during almost the whole of the discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I heard with some sympathy the statement of the late Lord Advocate and the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the effect that the state of affairs in certain counties in Scotland
  1612
  was unsatisfactory in the highest degree. As these gentlemen spoke as having occupied positions of great responsibility, it seems to me that the House should attend to their words. What they said was that it was extremely probable that certain provisions would be required. ["No, no!"] I understood them to say that what would be suitable to the ordinary counties of Scotland would not be suitable to particular parts. I have not heard that contradicted before. Now, the question of police is one essentially different from other questions of local administration. The Commissioners of Supply do not occupy the position that Local Authorities in burghs occupy as to the police. The central administrative authority in the counties is the Sheriff, and I should like to know whether the ultimate intention is to give to the elected members of the County Councils greater power over the police than that possessed by the present authorities. ["No, no!"] It is desired that they should have the same authority over the police that the County Councils of England possess—["No, no!"]. Well I am glad to hear that that is not to be the case. What are we to do with regard to what are called the crofter counties? Are the Government mistaken when they tell us that it would not be safe to trust the elected members in these counties with the control of the police? One of the great functions of the police is to enforce not merely local, but Imperial laws, such, for instance, as the decrees of the Court of Session in Scotland. Supposing the Government are right with regard to the crofter counties, and those counties refused to enforce the decrees of the Court of Session, what would be the condition of things? Until some responsible person says that that cannot take place, I think we ought, in the interests of peace and order, to give our support to the proposal of the Government. No doubt, so far as regards three-fourths of Scotland, it will matter very little how the committee is appointed. It is all very well for Gentlemen to get up and say they would be willing to entrust the County Authorities with these powers. I must say, Sir, from the language used on both sides of the House with reference to this subject on the occasion of the Second Reading, it will be the duty of

  1613
  Members on both sides to support the proposal made by Her Majesty's Government in the interests of law and order.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I should not have risen on this occasion had my hon. Friend quite accurately represented the tenour of my remarks on the Second Reading. While I fully recognize the importance of the subject, I gave reasons which I thought good for entrusting the control of the police to the County Councils throughout Scotland without the intervention of the Commissioners of Supply. I maintained then, and still maintain, that it was an unfortunate feature of the Bill that it should found elective bodies, and then proceed to withdraw from them powers certainly the most important, and which are entrusted to analogous bodies in towns. After we have had for so very long a period the control of the police in burghs entrusted to the elected Councillors, I apprehend that some very strong reason must be shown by those who decline to do the same thing for the counties of Scotland. I have scarcely heard any objection at all except that urged by my hon. Friend on the other side as regarded the manner in which they would execute their office. Reference has been made to the manner in which the Commissioners of Supply have discharged their duties. I do not think anyone complains of them. The question is whether the time has not arrived for establishing a great representative system throughout the whole of Scotland, and the very fact that there is a small amount of crime in Scotland is an argument of favour of the people of that country having control of the police, for it shows they can be trusted. The only remaining objection that has been stated to this part of our proposal is the difficulty which has arisen in the Highland counties. Undoubtedly, we have had experience of very painful troubles in a few of these counties, but I see no reason for altering the opinion I expressed on the Second Reading of this Bill—that even in these counties the County Councils—which would be elected by, and would represent the whole county, and not merely the disturbed parts—might safely be entrusted with the control of the police. But the scheme of this Bill is to leave the functions pertaining to the control of the police fulfilled
  1614
  by the Joint Committee, consisting in part of Commissioners of Supply. My hon. and learned Friend behind me seemed to be under the impression that I had intimated an opinion that the two counties in question would, or might, fail to allow the police force to be properly maintained or to be employed where their services were required.
  MR. A. ELLIOT: My impression was that the right hon. Gentleman said that special conditions would be required.
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: My hon. Friend has misapprehended me. What I said was this—that if our belief and expectation as to the Highlands turned out to be wrong, it would be perfectly easy to put into the Bill machinery which would deal with the case. I believe that exceptional provisions would not be required for these counties. If the Government, with the knowledge it possesses of the state of feeling in them, should think that such provisions probably would be required, it would be very easy to put them into the Bill. Ono suggestion was—that if a locality declined to maintain an adequate police force, the Secretary for Scotland should be authorized to intervene. I do not think it is probable that any County Council would decline to allow the executive officer of the law to put the police under its control into action. If they did, it appears to me that the powers of the Sheriff, as representing the Crown, were sufficient to entitle him to claim the services of the police. The question comes to be whether you, from an apprehension of that kind, are going to make a highly exceptional condition in a particular part of Scotland the basis of a general rule against the whole of the people of Scotland. I say it should be the other way. Exceptional circumstances should be met by exceptional provisions. There was another suggestion made in Committee about the propriety of leaving this in the hands of the Joint Committee, on the ground that the police rate had always fallen upon the owners of land. Whether the suggestion is accepted or not, I maintain that the rate should continue to be levied from those upon whom it has fomed a charge in time past. The rate has always been levied on the ownership of land, and for my part I do not see why it should cease to be so. What is called the county rate now

  1615
  is a mere fraction of the total rates paid in counties. So that I say it is not worth while to cut and carve upon a small rate like this. There is another function for which this Joint Committee is proposed to be appointed. I will not go into the question of political economy; but I do think the function is one which might very well be left to the County Council, and it relates to what is called capital expenditure. That capital expenditure involves matters of the greatest local importance—the construction of new roads and bridges, drainage works, water supply, and the like; but, according to the proposals of the Bill, sanitation—that which concerns the health of the community—is to be left not in the hands of the County Council, but in the hands of this Joint Committee. I submit that there is no reason for constituting an elective body, and then withholding from that body and give to some old body, the most important duties which the new body ought to perform. I hope that, on re-consideration, the Government, with whatever safeguards they may think necessary in respect of exceptional districts of Scotland, will see their way to accepting the Amendment of my right hon. Friend.
  DR. CLARK: Only two arguments have been used in favour of the course taken by the Government, and with reference to the political economy argument I do not require to say anything. Political economists in Scotland, from Adam Smith down to Mr. Arthur Balfour, have taught the doctrine that ultimately all rates fall on the landlord. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland thinks the law of economy operates differently in England to what it does in Scotland. I am not prepared to follow Mr. Arthur Balfour's political economy, and I scarcely think it worthy of the high reputation he has obtained in other walks than that of politics. I have put down an Amendment to the Supplementary Bill which will have some effect on this question, and its object is to carry out a proposal that was made to have the Western Highlands formed into a county. That proposal is that Skye, Lewes, and Uist shall form a county of themselves. You are going to have special and exceptional privileges in certain districts of Scotland, and I say that if you give those privi
  1616
  leges you ought to lay down some limitation as to self-government. If you give six counties special privileges, and deny them to the rest of Scotland—local self-government and the control of the police—I think you ought also to have some limitation. The matter could be arranged if the Government would agree to my Amendment. I think I know something of the Highlanders. My hon. Friend the Member for Banffshire has pointed out that there is only a small amount of crime in the Lowlands of Scotland; but we have three times less crime in the Highlands, or, practically, none at all. Nowhere in the world is there so law-abiding a people, and nowhere is there such a feeling of mutual sympathy between the police and the people as in the Western Highlands. Why a policeman in the Highlands is like a little king; the community make him Judge and Magistrate, and give him, by local consent, the position of general arbitrator. It is only when the rights of property are interfered with to an extent which inflicts actual wrong, that the scenes referred to occur. I think, however, that these occurrences will never be experienced again, because this House, if it makes the law just, will find that the people will support the law and the officers of the law. If these scenes should recur, there is no force of police in the Highlands to put them down, and the Forces of the Crown would consequently have to be called in. I do not think that the rest of Scotland should be deprived of its rights because of the special condition of the Highlands, and inasmuch as you are giving special privileges to particular districts, I say you ought to introduce some limitation as to local self-government.
  MR. FINLAY: I desire to say a few words on this question. I think the Committee will have listened with great interest to the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Clackmannan. The tone of that speech was very different from the tone of other speeches we have heard. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to recognize, as one who had experienced the responsibilities of office, that some exceptional treatment might be required. He showed the possibility of giving the Secretary for Scotland a controlling power over the Local Authority,

  1617
  but I apprehend that if the right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to put that suggestion into the clause ho would find great difficulty in working out any scheme that would be practical under the circumstances. This being so, and as there is no other proposal which appears to me to meet all the conditions of the case, I feel that I cannot do otherwise than support the Government on this question. There is another aspect of the case which has been referred to. The Commissioners of Supply are to continue in existence for certain purposes in respect of the rate which falls upon them. It has been suggested that a transference of the rate might be effected. I apprehend that that would be a matter of some difficulty, and that a good deal of discontent would be caused in the counties of Scotland if the endeavour were made to give practical effect to that proposal. It may be that, from an abstract point of view, a good deal might be said in favour of these proposals; but if they were carried out I believe there would be anything but satisfaction created in many of the Scotch counties. I rose also to say that I was very much struck with the observation made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banffshire with regard to the possible effect of the election of County Councils on the continuance of the Commissioners of Supply. I apprehend that every one in all parts of the House is agreed that it is must desirable that the County Councils to a considerable extent, at all events at first, should consist of those who have acted as Commissioners of Supply. It is very desirable that there should be a large element of that hind on the County Councils, at any rate when they take over the management of county affairs. But it has been suggested that the Commissioners of Supply might be very heavily handicapped in their candidature for seats on the County Councils, and that they might be met in many cases by other candidates who would come forward and say to the electors:—"Return me; do not return my opponent; he is a Commissioner of Supply. Are you going to put him into office as a County Councillor? It would be like returning to the House of Commons a Peer and giving him a double vote and double power." At present I see no proposal which we ought to adopt other than
  1618
  that of the Government, and, under the circumstances, I shall give my vote for it; but I should be glad if the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Banffshire were fully considered, and that some endeavour should be made to ascertain whether another plan which would obviate the serious difficulties I have referred to could not be devised.
  MR. A. SUTHERLAND: I attach very great importance to the Motion before the Committee. The whole question of Local Government in Scotland is contained in the 11th clause. In past times the Local Government of Scotland was centred in a body called the Commissioners of Supply, and it is now proposed to transfer some of their powers to the County Council. I think Clause 11 is far more important in its exceptions than in the rule it lays down, and that if the Government are very anxious to solve this question they would afford facilities for so doing. But it is of no use to disguise the fact that the whole principle underlying this clause is mistrust of the people. Because of certain occurrences in the Highlands the people in the rest of Scotland are to be deprived of the control of the police. On the Second Reading of this Bill I wont the length of stating that, so far as I knew, the people of the Highlands of Scotland would be willing to be excluded rather than the remaining portion of the inhabitants should be deprived of the control of the police. I should like to point out that the circumstances referred to instead of being an argument against granting the control of the police to the people of the Highlands might be used as an argument in favour of giving that control to the people. If the police had been under the control of the people the disturbances alluded to would never have taken place, and we should never have heard of anything of the kind. We know very well that it was the pushing of the rights of property on the part of the landlords to the extreme in the Highlands which caused those outbreaks. Since then the contentions of the people in the Highlands have been submitted to an impartial tribunal. Is it not the fact that that was the cause of the disturbance in the Island of Skye? The accredited representative of the Government stood up in this House and asserted that the people never had the right to cer-

  1619
  tain grazings. He said that because he trusted to official information on the spot; but the very man who supplied that official information to the Government was subsequently made to produce documents before the Court, which proved that the people had the right of grazing. I maintain that the very fact that these disturbances were justified in the Highlands is the very strongest argument that can be adduced in favour of handing the control of the police to the people. The Government profess to be in favour of taxation and representation going together. I, too, wish that they should. If the landlords of the Highlands pay the rates, then it is only right that they should have control over the expenditure; but the fact is, the rates come out of the pockets of the producers, who are therefore entitled to share in the representation.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Before the Committee divides I should like to make briefly a few observations upon this subject. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Inverness Burghs (Mr. Finlay) has addressed the House, and his arguments, as might be expected from his great talents and abilities, vary on different occasions, but his conclusion is the usual one. He falls into the stereotyped form whenever he reaches that portion of his speech in which it becomes his duty to announce his decision. He speaks as if in anticipation of the moment when he may take a distinguished seat upon the Treasury Bench, for which his abilities and principles appear alike to qualify him. To-day he has shown as much courage as on other occasions, and he has no difficulty in voting for the Government, although he admits that the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Stirling Burghs with respect to the Commissioners of Supply is of the utmost importance, and that he is unable to supply any answer to it. He overleaps these difficulties with an agility which I have never seen surpassed in this House. On the general question the position is rather singular. As has been observed by the hon. Member who last spoke, in this clause the exception is much more important than the rule. The House is about to constitute for the first time an elective system in the counties of Scotland, and that
  1620
  which the Committee is now invited to do is to exclude from that elective system what may almost be called the alpha and omega of local government. The care of the police, I might almost say, is itself local government. Why was local government established? It was established for the specific and originally the sole purpose of discharging locally the very duties that are now in the hands of an organized police. And it was given to the localities, because so direct was their interest and so superior were their advantages in point of knowledge for dealing with the case, that local government grew up in order that the business of the police—namely, the protection of life and property—might be under the direct superintendence of the inhabitants, and not dependent on the Central Authority of the country. It is literally true that now we are called upon for the first time to give the people of Scotland a great boon, we are asked to exclude from the operation of the new system that which should be its principal and capital object. This debate has made it obvious that the balance of Scotch opinion as represented in this House—and represented in a manner which some of us think is rather inadequate and which is likely to be modified—is largely in favour of the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Stirling Burghs, and if the proposal of the Government is carried it will be carried in defiance of Scotch opinion. I hope right hon. Gentlemen opposite will recollect this—that the effect of repeating and multiplying these denials to Scotland of what she wants in matters exclusively her own for the purpose of beating her into a sort of uniformity with England will have no influence in weakening any desires in Scotland for larger powers, but will be more likely to give a stimulus—perhaps even an unhealthy stimulus—to those desires; and if they wish to prevent that and get rid of the embarrassment likely to arise out of larger demands hereafter for the purpose of satisfying Scotch opinion, the best way of doing it is to take prudent precautions, and on occasions like this to allow Scotland to decide as to her own local affairs when we can do it without inflicting any injury on the rest of the kingdom. Reference has been made to the fact that in boroughs, both in Eng-

  1621
  land and Scotland, the care of the police is already in the hands of the Municipality; but the Secretary for Scotland seems to think that this is a very feeble argument when it is applied to the counties. But, in my judgment, and in the judgment of those who sit on this side of the House, the argument drawn on that question from the burghs is an extremely strong argument—an argument à fortiori. The most difficult portion of the population to be governed and I thank God that there are none that are really difficult to govern—is certainly not in the counties, but if anywhere, perhaps from some sporadic elements of disorder to be found in them, in the burghs; and considering that the population of the largest burgh in Scotland far exceeds the population in any of its counties, the argument to be derived from the fact that the burghs so successfully manage their own police is a very cogent and almost an irresistible one in favour of giving to the counties the control of their own police. Now, Sir, after listening to the speeches which have been made, I say it is quite evident that the present proposal of the Government is founded either on the supposed necessity of uniformity with England or else on the case of certain Highland counties. Reference has been made to the intimation by an hon. Member that if the proposal of the Government is adopted it will in a short time be repealed. I believe in that prediction, and I do not think it is disbelieved in on the opposite side of the House. The Minister who has spoken said—"Let it be done, and if it is it will be upon your responsibility." I think that this House has something better and more practical to do, and that its time is more valuable than to be occupied in building houses that they may be lightly thrown down. That is the only description I can apply to legislation of to-day, if we expect it to be destroyed to-morrow. It is not the first time it has been done. In 1867 we passed a Franchise Bill with all manner of limitations, intended to save the Constitution, by not allowing votes to men who had not paid rates personally out of their own trousers pockets; but all that was undone in 1869. Will the application of our time to legislation built up with the certainty of being soon
  1622
  pulled down again add to the dignity or the credit of the House? I am glad it is now understood that there is no admission on this side of the House that there will be a necessity in the Highland counties for special provisions. We are not here to legislate except for what is reasonably probable and likely. We have not to look to the extremely cases; if they should arise they can be dealt with hereafter. I say that, in our belief, there is no reasonable likelihood of such a necessity, and the burden ought not to be laid on us of now making provision for it. There might be many other ways of dealing with this matter. I will not discuss their respective merits; but the only reason assigned for the course taken by Her Majesty's Government is some supposed disorder in the Highlands which we on this side of the House think will not arise. We shall, however, be quite prepared to consider any reasonable proposition for dealing with such a matter; but no method could be so bad as to make the exception into the rule, and to establish over the whole of Scotland a system which has no shadow of justification, save in the state of things alleged to exist in a diminutive portion of that country.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 205; Noes 113.—(Div. List, No. 180.)
  MR. HOZIER: I beg to move to insert at the end of the sub-section—
  "And provided that nothing in this Act contained shall affect the powers and duties of the Commissioners of Supply with respect to the appointment of Commissioners for general purposes under the Property and Income-tax Acts, the assessing and levying of the Land Tax, and the division and allocation of old valued rent."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The duties referred to in the Amendment are of a very limited description. T he Government, however, have considered what can be done, and they propose to put down an Amendment in the second Bill by which the Sheriffs will be continued as Commissioners for the assessing and levying of the Land Tax. Under these circumstances I will ask for the Amendment to be withdrawn.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Amendment which I have to move is one of some importance, and it has for its object to put upon the new County Councils

  1623
  "The duty of maintaining and protecting all public rights of way over roads, drove roads, bridle-paths, footpaths, ferries, and foreshores."
  I think it is only right that this duty should be imposed upon a public body, especially as there is now a growing practice, especially in the Highlands, of debarring people of their rights. What is everybody's business is nobody's business, and there having been no public authority to preserve these rights of way, they have been lost. And it is worse in the Highlands, where the population is poor and scattered. Seeing that the County Councils are to be charged with all matters of county administration, I think they will be the best authorities to undertake the duty. When the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer represented one of the Divisions of Edinburgh, he himself remarked that this was one of the duties which should be undertaken by the new authorities to be constituted. The difficulty in England was by no means so great as it was in Scotland, for in the former country the people are much more able to protect themselves. I hope the learned Lord Advocate will agree to the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 11, page 3, line 22, insert—
  "The duty of maintaining and protecting all public rights of way over roads, drove roads, bridle-paths, footpaths, ferries, and foreshores.''—(Mr. Buchanan.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. MOIR T. STORMONTH DARLING,): We are engaged in setting up a new administrative body, and it strikes me as rather foreign to the purpose of such a body to impose upon it the duties which the hon. Member desires. What the hon. Member wishes to lay on the County Councils is the absolute obligation to maintain and protect all public rights of way. It must not be supposed for one moment that the Government have anything like an antipathy to, or jealousy of, the establishment of rights of way in Scotland. The position of matters at present is this:—The establishment of a right of way is a popular action which can be
  1624
  raised by anybody, and it often has been raised by the poorest of the population, for there has not been found the least difficulty in raising funds for the purpose. I do not think there is much disposition on the part of landowners in Scotland at the present day to resist the establishment of rights of way where they are reasonably exercised, and I am not aware that any extensive or serious grievance has arisen from the denial of those rights. It does seem to me that to impose on the County Council this new duty, which really involves the raising of law-suits, would not tend to promote its harmony and smooth working; and, therefore, for these reasons the Government are not prepared to accept the Amendment.
  MR. CHILDERS: I should like to say a word or two on this subject, and in support of the Amendment of my hon. Colleague. There is no doubt that whatever may have been the duties assigned to local bodies in past times there are two duties which at the present time are daily becoming more and more incumbent. One is the duty of protecting ancient monuments—about which this Amendment says nothing, and the other is the preservation of rights of way. What is the state of things now? It is quite true—as the Solicitor General has said—that there is a remedy. In many cases that remedy takes the form of a number of persons assembling together armed with weapons in order to break down the obstruction to a right of way, and this sometimes leads to actual riot. It is possible by such means, or by very expensive actions at law, to raise the question of the right of way; but the proposal contained in this Amendment is to substitute a regular and more simple process, to make a public authority responsible for protecting these rights, and to put an end to the disreputable scenes which have occurred in the past. I hope that the Government will not resist this proposal, in favour of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke very strongly not very long ago.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: "It's all very well to dissemble your love, but why did you kick me down stairs." It seems to me that the Solicitor General's argument is a lawyer's

  1625
  argument intended to defeat the Amendment. He almost reduces it to a matter of absurdity. There is a gradual usurpation of the rights of the public continually going on, and it is time that some proper public authority was established to deal with the matter. It is absurd to talk of any poor man establishing a right of way. The landlords are adopting many direct and indirect means to discourage the use of public rights of way. In the case of one road, which was once a main road from the Lowlands to the Highlands, a notice was posted which was certainly calculated to discourage the use of the road. It was in these terms:—"Persons coming this way are requested to communicate with the gamekeeper, in case they should be shot." By rejecting the proposal the Government will be going in the most pronounced way against the feeling of Scotland. I hope that they will accept it, even if they should think it necessary to modify its terms.
  MR. FINLAY: I wish the Government would adopt the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh. The Solicitor General for Scotland considers that there is no necessity for it, inasmuch as action can be taken by any one of Her Majesty's subjects. But to my mind one of the strongest arguments is to be found in the fact that these are popular actions in support of public rights; and what body is fitter to represent the public in this matter than the elective body we are setting up in every county in Scotland? The Solicitor General fears the granting of such powers in Scotland would tend to encourage litigation. In Scotland a great many rights of way have already gone, and there is therefore the greater necessity to protect those which are left. I believe that if the Amendment were carried, that very fact would tend to prevent the rights of way being interfered with. It might be that the County Council should be left some discretion in the matter; and if my hon. Friend will modify his Amendment in this sense—that the Council shall have the power, if they think proper, to take proceedings in respect of these rights of way, I will suggest to the Lord Advocate that it would be a right and reasonable thing to assent to it.
  DR. CLARK: I should like to see the Amendment amended by the inser-
  1626
  tion of the word "bridges." When the Roads and Bridges Act was passed there were a number of roads and bridges not included in the schedule. Those roads were not taken over by the new authority, nor did they continue to be maintained by the old body, and the result is, that although many of them were much needed they have fallen into disrepair. I think the present a favourable opportunity for remedying the mistake made in the former Act.
  MR. SHIRESS WILL: I submit that the answer given by the Solicitor General to the case made out on behalf of this Amendment is insufficient. In Scotland there is a very peculiar hardship in this matter. In England the process of defending these rights is an expensive one, although it is not so expensive as it is in Scotland. Actions in these cases can be, and frequently are, carried to the House of Lords, and very great cost is consequently incurred. I think some less expensive remedy should be devised, and I hold that the County Council is the proper body to undertake the duty of protecting the rights of way. They are the body to have control of the roads, and this duty cannot, therefore, be foreign to the purposes for which it was created. I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.
  SIR. C. DALRYMPLE: One result of the uncertainty prevailing in regard to rights of way in Scotland is that societies have been formed for protecting these rights, and in many cases do mischief. This would be avoided if there was a properly-constituted authority for vindicating rights of way, and there would be also less risk of attempts to establish ill-founded claims. I think that the Amendment in the modified form suggested by the hon. Member for the Inverness Burghs would be valuable in itself, and I do not see that any objection could be taken to it.
  MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I consider this a most important Amendment, and, speaking from my experience of those parts of the county with which I am most familiar, I say that unless some legislation of the kind proposed by the Amendment is adopted there will soon be no open roads in the Highlands at all. The Solicitor General for Scotland said that so far as he knew there was no disposition on the part of

  1627
  proprietors to deny rights which were reasonable; but, Sir, I take it that an inherent right of way requires no provision as to its reasonable exercise. Of course, I have no sympathy with the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Sir C. Dalrymple) as to the evil effects of societies for the vindication of rights of way. If the Solicitor General for Scotland asks for an instance of how reasonably this right is exercised, I will give him an instance which will astonish him. I have in my mind a forest ranging about 100,000 square acres. On the margin of the forest there is an hotel, and whenever a traveller goes there he sees a placard to this effect—
  "Lodgers in the hotel are warned not to trespass on the neighbouring deer forest for fear of disturbing the tenant's game."
  There is really more liberty of public right in the suburbs of London than there is in the Highlands of Scotland, and that that should be so is in my opinion shameful. In view of all these circumstances the Government ought to accept this Amendment especially seeing that there is a strong precedent in the Act of last Session.
  SIR A. ORR-EWING: Some estates have been let to foreigners who unfortunately stopped botanizing and prevented people ascending hills to see the country; and in this way violence was done to the traditions that had prevailed, and questions of right of way arose.
  MR. ASHER: I hope the Government will re-consider their decision with regard to this matter. My hon. Friend (Sir A. Orr-Ewing) has not, I am afraid, so much acquaintance with the disputes as to the rights of way in Scotland as he has of most other Scotch departments of business, because he seems to divide all question of rights of way into two classes, those cases in which the landlord admits that there is a right of way, and those cases in which the public are attempting to commit an illegal trespass. Now, there is a third and important class, namely, those cases in which the public have no intention whatever of committing an illegal trespass, but propose to assert a right of way over land the owner of which disputes the right. It is proposed to vest in the County Council the vindication of the alleged right of the public in such
  1628
  circumstances as make it appear to the County Council proper that that course should be taken. In this matter there are two interests to consider, the interests of the public and the interests of the landlord, and I confess I cannot understand how it can be suggested that either interest will be in the least prejudiced by the adoption of this Amendment. It is quite true as my hon. and learned Friend opposite says that at the present time the public right may be vindicated in the name of any individual. But my experience has taught me that that is not a satisfactory mode of vindicating these rights. What takes place is this. The public claim a right. They attempt to assert it and the landlord disputes it. Then there is in the first instance something very nearly approaching a breach of the peace. There is a great deal of local excitement, the hat is sent round, and after a considerable disturbance an action is brought for a vindication of the right of way, probably in the name of some person possibly not very well qualified to vindicate the right, being perhaps a poor man. What is now proposed is that the County Council, a body elected to represent the people, should have the power to consider whether the claim put forward by the public is primâ facie a sound one, and so well founded that it is proper they should, at the expense of the county, take proceedings to vindicate for the public the alleged right of way. It appears to me that is a very reasonable proposal as far as the public is concerned, and I do not understand what objection the landlords can have to it. At the present moment there is no doubt a very strong feeling in many parts of Scotland that old rights of way are being blocked up. It is not the function of any particular person to vindicate those rights, and there is consequently the greatest risk that they should be lost through lapse of time. It seems to me that we should have in every county a body able to look after the matter, and I believe one result of having such a body would be that the constant turmoil which questions of this sort usually cause, would be altogether obviated.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I should like to dispose of the suggestion that there is even the smallest reason for

  1629
  saying that there is anything of this kind in the English Act. The only clause which at all bears on the question provides that the County Council shall have the same power as a Highway Board to remove obstructions from land which serves the purpose of a roadside waste. The Amendment means nothing more or less than that the County Council are to uphold all rights of way. I strongly deprecate the proposal to impose on the County Councils duties of this description. It would be a standing menace to farmers, and there would be constant litigation. The hon. Member for Inverness seemed to think that was a most cheerful prospect. I say it is a very doubtful thing to entrust a County Council with the duty of promoting litigation against private proprietors. The rates, of course, will have to bear the expense, and see what will be the result. Is there a more popular claim at any time than a claim of right of way? A man would be sure of election if he based his claim to popular support upon a declared intention of levying war on some private owner. I think the granting of this power would interfere with the smooth working of the County Councils, by introducing duties which are totally alien to them, and I must oppose the Amendment.
  MR. BARCLAY: As showing the necessity for some provision of this kind, I may say that in my own county recently a very important highway was the subject of litigation. A gentleman wished to shut up an important highway through a deer forest, and he would have succeeded in doing so had it not been for the public spirited individuals who came forward to litigate the case. I think it would be well to put this power in the hands of the County Councils, because wealthy people owning deer forests are too fond of bullying individuals, and very few people are ready to enter into a litigation which, as in the case I have referred to, may be carried to the highest courts. If the Government, however, will consider the matter before Report, I think the Amendment might be withdrawn. But unless they give us some promise to confer a power of the kind on the County Councils it will be necessary to divide.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I must appeal to hon. Members to come to a decision upon this clause.
  MR. HUNTER: This is far too important a question to be disposed of in that cavalier way. It is a subject which interests the whole of the working classes of Scotland. One of my earliest recollections is of a most important right of public way in the vicinity of Aberdeen being stolen under our very noses, simply and solely because there was no public body in a position to defend the public rights. It is simply preposterous to suppose that any private person can be called upon to find the money necessary for a litigation of this kind. It is one of the most obvious truths that where the whole public enjoy the benefit of a right, the whole public ought to maintain and defend that right. In the establishment of the County Councils we have an admirable opportunity of appointing a public prosecutor for the protection of public rights. We know that in Scotland the landlords have to a degree far beyond what they have been able to do in England stolen the rights of the people to the land.
  It being ten minutes to seven o'clock the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday next.

  PALATINE COURT OF DURHAM BILL. [LORDS]. (No. 283.)
  As amended, considered.
  Read the Third Time, and passed, with an Amendment.

  TRAMWAYS (STREET AND ROAD).
  Copy ordered, "of Return of Street and Road Tramways authorised by Parliament, showing the amount of Capital authorized, paid up, and expended; the length of Tramway authorized, and the length open for the public conveyance of passengers, down to the 30th day of June, 1889; the gross receipts, working expenditure, and net receipts; the number of passengers conveyed, and the number of miles run by cars during the year ended the 30th day of June, 1889; together with the number of horses, engines, and cars at that date (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 347 of Session 1888."—(Sir Michael Hicks Beach.)
  Return presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 238.]

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Sir John Mowbray reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged Sir Walter Barttelot from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping and Manufactures, and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Round.
  Ordered, that the Report do lie upon the Table.

  CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
  Sir John Mowbray reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson from the Chairmen's Panel, and had appointed in substitution: Sir Walter Barttelot.
  Ordered, that the Report do lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  Order for Committee, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  THE HOP INDUSTRY.
  MR. BROOKFIELD: In introducing to the House the Motion of which I have given Notice, I am painfully conscious of one main difficulty under which I labour—namely, that it may be the opinion of many hon. Members that the hop industry is a matter of only limited importance and only local interest. But I shall endeavour to show that it is really, and in the fullest sense of the term, a national industry, the extinction of which would be no less than a national misfortune, the preservation of which is no more than a national duty. Hon. Members—and I venture to address myself more especially to those who do not represent agricultural constituencies (though I am bound to say I do not see many of them present) must have heard from time to time accounts of agricultural distress and depression, and I think that they must be aware that those accounts are at all events founded on fact, and in putting it that way I make a very moderate statement of the position of affairs, a position that I might describe in much warmer language. Now the
  1632
  reasons why representations as to this agricultural distress do not assume a more vigorous and perhaps more embarrassing form, are in the first place, perhaps, owing to the nature of the case, rural communities being scattered, and agriculturists, moreover, not being great adepts in the art of political agitation. This may partly explain why agriculturalists have been content to bear with so little murmuring a state of things which yet deserves the attention of the House of Commons and the country. But there is another reason, one with which this Motion is more directly concerned, and one which I believe to be highly creditable to the courage, ingenuity, and perseverance of the British farmer, and that is that when he has found by painful experience that the operation of growing corn, and afterwards selling it at 30s. or 35s. a quarter, is only a snare and a delusion, he has boldly turned his attention to other channels of agricultural enterprise, and, in the case of the hop, with results highly beneficial to himself. I lay stress on this phase of the question, because those gentlemen who are good enough from time to time to recommend remedies for agricultural depression are never tired of their stock suggestion that if one crop does not pay we should "try something else." In the subject I am bringing before the House it will be seen how farmers have tried "something else," and I hope the debate will enable the House to judge of the value of such experiments. The counties in which the hop is cultivated are, first and foremost, the county of Kent, which has the largest acreage under hop cultivation, and produces perhaps two-thirds of the entire cultivation of this country. Next to Kent comes Sussex, the county with which I have the honour to be connected, then the counties of Hereford, Hampshire, Worcester, and Surrey. Then to a very much smaller extent Shropshire, and five or six other counties. It will be seen from this that the cultivation is confined to a few counties only. Even they are not all especially adapted for raising this particular crop. Speaking for my own county with which I am more intimately acquainted, I would say that Sussex is particularly adapted by soil and situation for the cultivation of wheat. But notwithstanding this, the farmers of Sussex have for many years past turned

  1633
  their attention to this alternative; they have given special attention to the cultivation of hops with results, until quite lately, highly remunerative to themselves and of almost incalculable advantage to the surrounding community. I use that phrase advisedly, and I would lay particular stress upon the diversity of interests that depend more or less on hop cultivation. I think the House might be surprised to learn how many interests stand or fall by the success or otherwise of this special industry. There are, of course, the planters themselves, with the largest interest, who have to invest a large capital, and with very considerable risk as to the crop. With the growers, the hop factors are closely connected, then come the hop merchants, country bankers, and a long list of other interests, wood merchants who have a very large interest in the industry, manure merchants, implement makers, ironmongers, twine and sacking merchants, and chemical manufacturers. I might trespass on the patience of the House by dealing with each of these interests, but I will confine myself to the terms of my Motion and call more especial attention to the effect of the industry upon agricultural labour. In no branch of agriculture with which I am acquainted in England, and so far as I know throughout the world, is the proportion of labour employed so large as in this exceptional crop. For 100 acres of pasture in this country it is not necessary to find employment for even one man; on 100 acres of arable land employment is found for only four men; but for the same acreage under hop cultivation employment is found all the year round for 35 or 40 labouring men. I venture to say, these are important facts to lay before the House. This employment does not cease with the work given to men on the spot. Work is provided for the wives and children of the men, and even the small children can contribute to the family earnings. Besides the regular work provided for the people on the spot, during the picking season, work is found for ten times the number of people who migrate from tie East End of London, and elsewhere, to the hop districts with results highly beneficial to themselves, from a social, sanitary, and pecuniary point of view. An ordi-
  1634
  nary single labouring man employed on the spot by ordinary day work can earn from £30 to £40 a year. The same man with piece work, which is nearly always open to him, will earn from £40 to £50. An able-bodied man employed as a "dryer," as he is termed, can make up his earnings to £50 or £60, and probably more, and the dryers employed in "pocketting" or packing can earn £5 or £6 a year in addition. The wife and family can earn from £5 to £10 more, and a woman who can move about and is disposed to work can, I estimate, get from 12 to 16 weeks' work in the hop districts, and add this to the earnings of the family. These facts, of course, have an important effect on the earnings of the agricultural labouring classes. As to the earnings of the hop-pickers who migrate annually from the Metropolis, and elsewhere, they are paid in our county by the dozen—that is the dozen bushels—at fifteen pence and upwards according to circumstances. Under exceptional circumstances payment has risen as high as 6s. per dozen, but taking the average rate 2s. the dozen bushels is the payment, and at this rate a labouring man can earn 2s. 6d. a day at picking time. A woman with two or three children may be reckoned I as two pickers, or with a larger family as four pickers. Au average small family can usually earn 6s. a day at picking time, besides which they are provided with lodging and firing. I might dilate on this aspect of the question, upon which I have touched to show the importance of hop cultivation as a means of employing labour. I spoke just now of 100 acres, and I take that as a convenient unit of comparison. I take the specific case of a farm with which I am acquainted, growing exactly 100 acres of hops. On that farm 40 men are employed all the year round in attending to the hops, and no less than 450 are employed at picking time, with the earnings I have mentioned. If there is any hon. Member present who is what is called a philanthropist, and has turned his attention to the subject of the social and sanitary condition of the poor in the East End of London, he will admit the usefulness of these annual outings for hop-picking. They are looked forward to with as much zest by the poor as that

  1635
  with which hon. Members look forward to their annual expedition to the moors of Scotland or elsewhere. And now I come to the second important branch of my subject, the extent to which this exceptionally profitable and labour-giving industry prevails in the country, and what is befalling it. If I were speaking like a counsel who held a brief in this case, I might make out a much more deplorable case than I am prepared to prove; but the only figures I will submit are those from the Agricultural Returns, though it is worthy of notice, in passing, that when these Returns were first compiled, and down to 1867, no Returns were published of hop gardens under five acres in extent; hence it is that some acreage is omitted which might otherwise raise the total acreage of cultivation to 75 000. But as regards the Agricultural Returns, and only to these do I draw attention, and taking the year 1885—not because it shows the highest return; a much larger acreage is shown in 1878—but taking 1885 as the period when the descending scale of acreage and prices, and the general misfortunes which have overtaken the industry commenced, I find that in that year there were 71,327 acres under cultivation, in the following year the acreage was 70,127, in 1887, 63,506, in 1888, 58,500; and this year it is estimated the crop will be little over 52,000 acres, or, to put myself quite within the mark, I will take it as 53,000 acres. Well, these figures are—to use a common expression—very significant, significant of a great deal of wasted capital and disappointed energy, and significant of a great deal of employment of which the working classes have been deprived. To be literal, I will attempt to calculate what the loss to the labouring classes is. In 1885, when there was 71,327 acres under hop cultivation, there must have been regular employment for 28,000 labouring men all the year round, and casual annual employment for 320,000 more. At the present time, with the cultivation fallen to 53,000 acres, there is regular employment for 21,200 men, and casual employment for a little over 230,000 men. In other words, 7,000 men in the villages in the hop-growing districts have been deprived of work, or have to avail themselves of whatever other means of employment
  1636
  the districts afford, and no less than 90,000 of the dwellers in town have been deprived of their annual migration, and the means of earning in a few weeks as much as ordinarily their class would earn in the same number of months. I think I may claim to have described a serious condition of affairs, and to have established my point, that the steady decline which has taken place in the non-cultivation means serious displacement of labour, and is a matter of national concern. Now, the next point I have to discuss is far more difficult, the causes that have led to the decrease of cultivation. Of course there are natural causes which we recognise in every agricultural industry; blight, which may affect the crop at a moment's notice, and bring loss and sometimes ruin to the capitalist, though even this danger has been mitigated by the practice of washing, sulphuring, and other mechanical means. But I need not discuss these natural causes, what I have to represent to the House are the causes with which we believe legislation may deal. The primary cause of this steady fall in cultivation and consequent displacement of labour is to be found in the fact that prices have become unremunerative and the conditions of carrying on the industry too onerous and one-sided. Well, as to prices, we certainly can tell a most melancholy tale, and though I do not deny that many other industries can do the same, I doubt whether many of them could show such a persistent and steady fall in profits as the hop growing industry can report. I take the year which may represent the real piping time for successful hop-growers—1882—when the price of Kentish hops was no less than 345s. a cwt., and Sussex hops were at the same time 305s. a cwt.; the next year Kents' had fallen to 124s., and Sussex to 110s.; in 1884 Kents were 115s., and Sussex 101s. Then we have to take into consideration the price of foreign hops in the same period. In the year first mentioned—1882—foreign hops were 294s. a cwt.—that is considerably cheaper than the English hops. In 1883, they were 120s.; in 1884, 100s. Then came the most serious drop in prices. It is notorious that, below a certain point, the price is unremunerative; they are simply pro-

  1637
  duced at a loss; there is nothing to compensate for this. Hon. Members having special knowledge of different parts of the country may form a somewhat different estimate; but my calculation is that anything below £3 cwt. is unremunerative. Well, in 1885, Kent hops sank from 115s. in the previous year to 56s., and Sussex hops from 101s. to 41s. In the following year (1886) Kents fell to 44s., and Sussex to 33s.; and, in the same years, foreign hops were 50s. and 30s. The next two years—1887 and 1888—have certainly shown a slight improvement in prices; but side by side with that is the very significant fact that the acreage has diminished to the large extent I have mentioned, from 71,000 odd to 53,000, and the importation of foreign hops which, since 1882, from 319,620 cwts. had fallen to 145,122 cwts. in 1887. Again I do not think it is a matter for congratulation when prices are slightly improved if there is no prospect of this improvement continuing, and the increased prices of foreign imports are at the expense of our own cultivation. In former times, when the acreage in Kent and Sussex, Worcester and Hereford diminished, those growers who had capital and resources at all events reaped some benefit for themselves, but now, when there is less cultivation in England there is more cultivation abroad in countries which, for all practical purposes, are as near our doors as the two counties with which I have been principally dealing. There is much more which might be said on the subject of foreign imports, but I ask hon. Members to note that I do not wish to exaggerate and lay too much stress on that particular evil. I have my own opinion on the subject with which I need not trouble the House unnecessarily. Now, it is not only the danger and the loss to us that foreign hops cause by their presence in the market, from which our growers suffer. They also suffer largely from the knowledge that at any moment these hops can be poured in any quantity into the market. Formerly, when we had a great glut of English hops in the market, a grower was able to hold them until the next year, when the scarcity for which he devoutly prayed from his point of view might come, and then he realized his price as people do
  1638
  in other speculations. But speculation of that kind is completely paralyzed, because the holder of hops knows that when the scarcity for which in his commercial spirit he is hoping comes, it will at once be met by the market being flooded with foreign hops. On this subject, that is if I consulted my own feelings, I should certainly like to make some observations which it would be more for the good of the hop industry and of my present purpose if I did not make. I have long held the opinion that the unrestricted importation of foreign articles into our markets is not an universal benefit, and I would even go the length of saying it is a great evil. I am not so impractical as to ask the Government and the House of Commons to adopt, at a moment's notice, what may be called my extreme views, which, however, I am prepared to justify when the proper time comes. I would only observe that the objections which ordinarily exist as to the imposition of duties on imported articles do not apply to the case of hops. What is the spirit of Free Trade—the spirit which I hope we shall observe in this discussion? I believe the spirit of Free Trade to be that you should not on any account seek to benefit the producer at the expense of the poor consumer. That is a very plausible maxim, and is found especially applicable at election times. But let me ask, who is the poor consumer in the case of hops? Ho is the poor man who drinks a glass of beer. Does he ever pay one farthing more for his beer when the price of hops is raised? or does he ever pay a farthing less when the price of hops is lowered? Why, Sir, the price of hops has risen as high as £30 per cwt. and has gone as low as 21s., and yet the price of the poor man's glass of beer has never varied a single fraction. The case we are arguing is not like that of wheat, or bread, as to which it might be said the consumer would be called on to pay a higher price because of the duty imposed, even if at the same time he was deriving advantage from it. In this case we are able to say that supposing the House of Commons were wise enough to impose an import duty on hops, that duty would not make a fraction of a farthing's difference in the price of the beer consumed, while, on the other hand, it would be the means of giving

  1639
  extra employment by putting into cultivation extensive fields, which are now going to waste, and upon which an exceptionally large amount of agricultural labour might be usefully engaged. It will, I think, be seen that this argument is, at all events, a strong one, and that a good deal is to be said in justification of it. Now the history of Hop Duties is an instructive one, and leads us into another branch of the subject. The old system was to impose duties on foreign hops, simultaneously with an Excise Duty on English hops. The Customs Duties on foreign hops was, with some variations, about 45s. per cwt., and upon native hops, also with some variations, about 20s. per cwt., or 19s. 16–20ths. That was for the usual purposes of Imperial taxation. The hop growers naturally wanted to get rid of the Excise Duty, just as in recent years they-have been wanting to get rid of the extraordinary tithe. This, of course, is only human nature. They wished to pay as little and get as much as possible, and they got up an agitation for the purpose of getting rid of the Excise Duty, an agitation which had the effect of floating some hon. Members to their seats in this House. But, Sir, the farmers and hop growers got a great deal more than they bargained for, because when the Excise Duty of 20s. was taken off—and I am aware of the operation which took place in the interim, by which the duties were equalized—the Customs Duty of 45s. was also taken off foreign hops. That inflicted a very serious blow on the farmers of this country. A Select Committee was appointed and sat to consider the subject as far hack as 1857, and I should not refer to such a remote authority as that, were it not for the very remarkable prophecy they made which events, as they have happened, have proved to have been true. That Committee, which was called a "Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the excise and Customs Duties on hops," had for its chairman Lord Monk Bretton, who was then Mr. Dodson, sitting in this House as Member for East Sussex, and amongst other Member of the Committee were Mr. Bass, the celebrated brewer, Sir Edmund Daring, Mr. Wykeham Martin, and others, the majority of them being decided free-traders, and I
  1640
  would remind the House that this was some time after the repeal of the Corn Laws, and a general change of fiscal policy. That Committee, in the Report they presented, made two very remarkable statements. One statement was that in their opinion "it was impossible to look on the equalisation or repeal of the Customs' Duty on hops as a question of free trade." The other statement was, "That if the Customs and Excise Duties were equalized and abolished, the consequences must before long be fatal to the cultivation of hops in England." Well, the duties were equalized, temporarily, and then were finally abolished, and I believe that this latter step, among others, is leading to and will eventually result in the final collapse of the cultivation of hops in this country. Therefore, Sir, I think we have some justification for arguing that this matter might be looked on by Her Majesty's Government with a more lenient eye, than as a mere proposal for an import duty on foreign hops. We believe that the proposal for an Import Duty, accompanied by something in the nature of an Excise Duty, would be perfectly in consonance with the policy which has been recently pursued.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): In what proportion?
  MR. BROOKFIELD: Well, Sir, I shall leave details of that description to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If I had to arrange them myself I should make the Excise Duty as small as possible, and, if possible, would dispense with it altogether, while I would make the Customs Duty as large as I could. I look, however, on that matter as a detail of finance which a responsible Government is better capable of deciding than I. Well, Sir, it has been the custom to make beer, for some purpose or upon some high moral principle, the victim of all sorts of experiments in revenue taxation. When the Hop Duty was said to be repealed, it was not altogether taken off, because it was added on to the duty on malt. Then the agricultural Members interested in the removal of this burden agitated for the repeal of the Malt Tax, and after a great deal of trouble, succeeded amid great jubilation, in getting that duty

  1641
  taken off; but at the present moment the duty so removed is included in the Beer Duty, which now embraces both the old Malt Tax and the old Hop Duty. Surely a fit subject for inquiry would be the possibility of the readjustment of these duties so as to bring them more into harmony with the wants and desires of the English hop-growers. In hop-growing circles an impression prevails that this view has not been entirely scouted by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been credited with maintaining a benevolent attitude in this matter, but I am bound to say of my right hon. Friend that I have his own authority for stating that this is not really the case, but that his attitude on the subject has been misunderstood. But at least we may refer to certain words that were uttered by the Primo Minister on the occasion of our bringing the matter before him in May, 1888, when the noble Marquess said—
  "I should not be representing to you fairly my own impressions as to the balance of opinion, or as to the state of things in the constituencies, in the community, and in the House of Commons, if I represented any hope that a duty on foreign hops, unaccompanied by a duty on native hops, was likely to be adopted in Parliament."
  Now, words used on occasions of that sort are generally well weighed. Their import is widely scanned, and the natural interpretation of this language would be that if a duty on foreign hops were accompanied by a duty on native hops, it would have a better chance of receiving the sanction of Parliament. At all events, it was so interpreted by those who heard the words uttered. But I am anxious to leave this thorny part of the subject, and to refer to other matters, as to which I desire that there should be an inquiry or investigation on the part of the House. Now, there are various disadvantages to which we find ourselves exposed in comparison with foreign nations which have nothing to do with the fiscal policy of this country. Let us take the case of branding, as it is observed at the present time. Every English hop-planter who produces and sells hops is obliged to brand upon his goods the name of the parish and county in which the hops have been grown. Like all hard-and-fast rules,
  1642
  this is fraught with occasional disadvantages and hardships. For example, I know of a case in which a hop-grower, whose farm is on the borders of two counties, has his hop gardens intersected by the "Kent Ditch." The result is that he derives as much as a pound per cwt. less from the hops grown on one side of the ditch than he receives for those grown on the other side; but, of course, it might be put the other way—namely, that he derives a pound more from the hops on one side than from those grown on the other, and this is a law of which we do not complain. But contrast the law with regard to the English hop-growers with the law as it affects the foreign hop-grower. I suppose the effect of the Merchandise Act is that the foreign grower must state that the hops he sends here are of foreign growth, but that is a very broad kind of announcement, and as a matter of fact it does not prevent the foreigner from practising many frauds; marking—for example—inferior altmarks as Hallertans or Wohnzachs. The "Spalt" hops are specially distinguished, but unfortunately these are of really high quality. As it is, I have known of a German merchant pointing to some bales of hops which were awaiting exportation, and saying, when asked what they were, that he had not yet decided what to label them. Foreign growers, and the Jews who go about collecting their samples, do not find it profitable to label their goods truly, but they find it more profitable to give their bales of hops the designation which will best suit the condition of the market at the time. Then there is the system of returning hops. I refer to foreign hops which are kept in this country for some time, and after they have kept down prices and checked speculation, are returned to their own country. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that some of the tariffs on the exportation of English hops are almost prohibitive. In the case of France the duty is 5s. 6d.; of Germany and Austria 10s. 2d.; and in the United States, to which we export British hops, because there is a demand there for the stronger kind of ales, the Import Duty is 37s. 4d. per cwt. I think it unreasonable that American hops should lie in our warehouses, and go back in the same ships with the

  1643
  English hops and be admitted free, while ours are subjected to this almost prohibitive duty of 37s. 4d. I do not think it is reasonable that foreign hops, after doing mischief in this country, should be permitted to leave our shores without contributing their share to the various expenses which we have to contribute. The question of railway rates perhaps I should not touch upon, as an Act has lately been passed from which it is hoped that home-growers will derive some benefit in company with other trades. But I am bound to say that there is a deeply-rooted suspicion among hop-planters that preferential rates exist at the present moment as much as ever. A hop-factor the other day told me that he knew of hops coming from Burgundy to this country by through rate of which the proportion paid from Dover to London was so small that it was obvious that there was a preference in favour of the foreigner. I hope, if that is the case, the law will be so amended as to do away with a great injustice. The hop growers again used to suffer great loss by the method of classification. Hops came under the heading "all other things." But if they are to be specially classified, no doubt considerable relief will be experienced. The national beverage, as we call beer, is supposed to be brewed from malt and hops. Of course, if this House of Commons was composed of hop-growers, we should not be long in requiring the brewers to use as many hops as possible. In former years there was a law on the Statute Book that only hops should be used, and the Committee of 1857 gave a list of various prosecutions of brewers who did not use hops. It is the law at the present moment in the United States that brewers shall be required to use malt and hops only. But, Sir, I venture to suggest an inquiry into a less drastic improvement, and one thoroughly in accordance with the spirit of legislation in the present day. I do not object to the brewer putting into his beer anything he chooses—tannin, quassia, or gypsum, or any other of those ingredients which, to some people, may be very palatable—but I should insist on his specifying in a legible manner the composition of his barrel
  1644
  of beer. That is done with respect to other commodities, as it is, to which labels have to be affixed. Some brewers have already anticipated legislation of this kind. Messrs. Leney, of the Phœnix Brewery, Dover, label their barrels with a guarantee that the beer they contain is brewed from malt and hops only. But I know of a case in Norwich where a brewer stated that he did not care a rap about the prices of hops, and that he never used them unless they were very cheap, but generally used tannin. He has a perfect right to do so, but it is only reasonable that he should be made to state what he uses. It is notorious that infinitely less hops are used now than formerly. There is a process known in the trade as "hopping down." This consists of collecting the hops left at the bottom of the barrel, and getting a drawback from the brewer for the space they occupied. In a 64-gallon barrel the publican has received as many as four and five gallons for collected hops. Now, he could hold in his two hands all the hops he could collect. Let brewers be compelled to state what they use; and I believe there is such a wholesome prejudice in favour of the old-fashioned ingredients of malt and hops, that a restriction of this kind would have a very beneficial effect on the hop-growing industry. There is another subject, that of extraordinary tithes. The Act was passed in panic, and I believe the agitation in favour of it was to a great extent disingenuous. As to the poor clergyman, a charge which was only incidental is now permanent and invariable. The tenants have derived some benefit, though landlords evade in some cases the responsibility imposed on them by the Act of 1886. I suppose it would be unpopular to say much on his behalf. He has had the pleasure and privilege of finding the difference by which the tenant has been mainly benefitted. We who represent this special industry have used what Constitutional means we could to draw attention to our grievances, including the presentation of Petitions, which we know are placed in that receptacle behind the Chair, and are forgotten. Two or three years ago we presented a great number of Petitions from the hop-growing districts. These

  1645
  Petitions were eagerly signed, and those who signed perfectly understood what they were signing, which cannot be said of every Petition sent to this House. I suppose we presented about 100 Petitions from Kent and Sussex. I leave others to speak of other counties, which I have refrained from mentioning. But the Petitions have had no more effect than we expected them to have. We had recourse to deputations. I will say upon that subject, that the Prime Minister, who received two deputations, one in March, 1887, and the other in November, 1888—two deputations remarkable for their influential character, large numbers, and unanimous representations—used these words which conveyed hope to us, though nothing has been done:—
  "Certainly the important statements you have laid before me deal with what was one of the most flourishing industries in the country, an industry which we can singularly ill afford to lose. It has been well pointed out that this industry has the more claims upon the goodwill and consideration of all who are in a position to benefit it, that the displacement of it inflicts a more serious injury on the labour market than that of any other industry you can mention."
  Well, Sir, after that, though nothing was done, we certainly did get some indirect encouragement from the First Lord of the Treasury; who, in reply to an oft-repeated request that he would grant a Select Committee, said that, in the opinion of the Government, it would be impossible to grant such a Committee until a case could be stated on a Motion made in the ordinary course on a Tuesday or a Friday. And, almost immediately afterwards, by what must have been the direct interposition of Providence, I secured a Friday for the purpose. I think I have stated a case. I have endeavoured to do so clearly and temperately; and I do earnestly trust that the hop industry will receive, if not all the attention that we think it deserves, at all events the moderate favour which we ask the House to concede. I beg to move my Motion.
  SIR E. LECHMERE: I beg to second the Motion; but after the very able and ample manner in which my hon. Friend has introduced the subject I do not think it necessary to add much, especially as I see around me
  1646
  many hon. Members who are interested in the matter. It is not our object to urge the protection of the landlords, or of the farmers—we wish simply to urge on the Government that a fair opportunity should be given to the House and the country to learn the great importance of the national industry of hop-growing, to realize that it is at present in a very serious condition, and to take counsel as to the manner in which the falling off in production can be remedied. One of the most serious results of the decay of the industry has been the very considerable reduction of the acreage under cultivation. My hon. Friend has given the House figures showing that in four years there has been a diminution of the acreage under cultivation of no less than 18,000 acres. It has been clearly proved, over and over again, that to cultivate an acre of hops no less than £40 is required, and out of that at least 75 per cent is laid out on manual labour. It may easily be supposed what the result must be to the labourers of the country when 18,000 acres are taken out of cultivation in so short a period. There is no doubt that the decay which has taken place in the hop industry is, to a great extent, the result of the competition of the foreigner with the English hop-grower. There is no doubt whatever that the fiscal arrangements of this country, by which our markets are opened to all the world without any reciprocity, are more injurious to the hop industry than anything else which can be conceived. As a proof that the foreigner does not reciprocate our open-handed liberality I may state that a duty equal to £37 for every ton of hops is imposed. In 1885 we had a very bad crop of hops, and a very large quantity of foreign hops were imported into this country, rendering our own hops practically unsaleable. In 1886 we had a good year for hops, and the foreigners had a bad year; but the foreigners purchased their own hops and took them back into America, instead of taking ours. Their own hops were, of course, free, whilst ours had to pay a duty. As regards the imposition of a duty, that subject has been lightly touched upon; and my own opinion is that if a duty were imposed on foreign hops English growers would be perfectly willing—at any rate, I believe they would

  1647
  be willing in the part of the country I represent—to pay an acreage duty. In some parts of England this has been a moot question, and I believe that one of the objects of the proposed Committee should be to ascertain to what extent the feeling on the subject prevailed. I believe the hop-growers would rather submit to an acreage duty than allow that great industry to still further decay. It is, no doubt, a fact that no branch of agriculture gives so general an employment to the labourers of this country as the hop industry. It was mentioned by the hon. Member for the Medway Division (Mr. J. S. Gathorne Hardy), when a deputation waited upon the Prime Minister in 1888, that within his knowledge no less than 30 or 40 cottages in a prosperous village with which he was acquainted had become vacant in consequence of the serious change that had taken place in this industry. If the existing state of things is to last, very grave injury must ensue, not only to the moral and social condition of the people, but, I believe, in great measure, to the interests of the farmers.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House, viewing with concern the steady decrease in the acreage of land under Hop cultivation, and the serious displacement of labour occasioned thereby, is of opinion that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into the causes which have produced this state of things, and to report as to the best means of providing a remedy,"—(Mr. Brookfield,)—
  instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. H. T. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: As I represent a constituency very largely interested in the hop industry, I should not like to give a silent vote upon the present occasion. I think the hop-growing interests generally ought to be grateful to my hon. Friend (Mr. Brookfield) for the labour he has expended on this question. I myself feel absolutely certain that if something be not done in the direction of aiding the hop-growing industry, it will be absolutely crippled, if not entirely ruined. I wish to call
  1648
  attention to what I think is hardly realized by the House and the country—namely, what the ruin of such an industry as this really means. It means the ruin not only of the hop-growers, but of thousands whose daily bread depends on the success of the industry. If a hop garden is closed it means a cessation of employment for the whole of the neighbouring villages, as well as to some extent in the nearest towns. This employment is not, like many others, one that only exists for a certain period of the year, but it lasts for nearly the whole of the year, winter not excepted. In the winter the men are employed in digging the ground, or cutting the poles, and women and children shave the poles for use in the spring. In the spring there is employment in cutting the hops and laddering them, and there are many things to do throughout the year. The position of the hop-grower is as difficult and dangerous a one as exists in any department of agriculture. His is the most difficult and uncertain of crops, and it is one that is never safe from the first moment that the spade or plough is put in the hop garden until the hops are sold in the market. The hops are exposed to the ravages of insects, which appear to me to get worse year by year. A rhyme that is familiar to all Sussex men accurately expresses the facts of the case. We say—
  "First the flea and then the fly,
  Then the lice and then they die."
  I have always felt very much that in agriculture there is an extraordinary tendency in everyone without practical experience to give us farmers who have spent our lives on the land advice as to what we have to do. They think they will help us by calling old things by new names. They do not even call fleas by the old name, but they call them aphidæ. A scientific man, visiting a farmer not long ago, asked him—" Have you any aphidæ in the hops?" and the man replied—"Well, Sir, I don't know, but there are an extraordinary amount of fleas." I cannot help thinking that if this Committee he granted, one of the things it will recommend will be a return to the old methods of cultivation. There is an old maxim which says—"Cut early, pick late, manure well, and cultivate." The reason why hops should be

  1649
  picked late is that they should be allowed to get to maturity before they are picked. I firmly believe that the reason why we cannot pick late now is due to the use of expensive manures, which necessitate picking the moment the hop gets a bit bright. I believe that if we were to return to the good, old-fashioned plan of cultivation, we should get better hops and better prices, and be able to compete better with the foreigners. The difficulties of the hop-grower are not at an end when he has successfully surmounted those I have named to the House. When he gets to market his difficulties only then begin. Amongst the factor, and the merchant, and the foreign grower, and perhaps the brewer, he is in a very unenviable position. Just imagine the poor fellow making his one visit a year to London. He meets a factor or a merchant, and does not know whether ho is on his head or his heels, and he accepts exactly what is given to him. We want some means of bringing the farmer into immediate communication with the brewer. Why the middleman should exist in the hop industry I do not know. Now, Sir, we do not indicate to the Government any particular measure of relief. We are not now asking for a duty upon hops, or for any particular remedy; but we do ask that there should be a complete and impartial inquiry into the question, in the hope that the result may be something which will avert the ruin which, unless something is done, appears to be almost inevitable. I would like to appeal to my hon. Friends on both sides of the House. I believe that some of the hon. Members opposite, if they were in their usual places, would not be on that side of the House at all. I would not only appeal to agricultural Members of this House, but to Members representing mercantile and mining constituencies. I would remind Representatives of mining constituencies that we agricultural Members, who know, I suppose, as much about mines as they know about hop gardens, have been ready to help them with the measures they deem necessary for the mining and working classes. I hope they, in return, will assist us now. And I would make an appeal to the Metropolitan Members from the East End, to lend a hand to preserve an industry which not
  1650
  only provides opportunities for enjoying fresh air to many of their poorer constituents, but also the means of subsistence for the families of these people during the winter. And, lastly, I would appeal to the Government not to turn a deaf ear to our representations. I believe some hon. Members are afraid of giving us the inquiry we ask for, as it might lead to a recommendation that an import duty should be levied on foreign hops. But I do not ask for such a. duty. I only ask that the subject should be inquired into, though, at the same time, I say do not refrain from doing an act of justice because it might lead to such a recommendation.
  MR. NORTON: I ask to be allowed to say a few words on this subject as representing a division in which, perhaps, a larger quantity of hops are grown than in any other in Kent. The hon. Gentleman who introduced the subject has gone deeply into the general question of the depression of the hop industry; but I should like to supplement what he has said by mentioning that a considerable number of labourers and their families (in one parish near my own, as many as from 25 to 30) have been obliged to emigrate, in consequence of the large reduction in the acreage of hops. There is no doubt that this depression has arisen from several causes—amongst others, over-production at home and abroad, the fraudulent marking of foreign hops, and the use of hop substitutes. It has been often alleged that we have suffered in consequence of some brewers resorting to other materials than hops for bittering their beer—and I myself, in introducing a deputation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year on this question, produced some very startling facts. I pointed out that in the year 1883, when the hops wore visited with a black blight, the price of quassia went up from £5 to £40 a ton, camomile and other bitters similarly advanced in price (in some instances 300 per cent.) in the month of October of that year. The large brewers, I am told, have set their faces against the use of hop substitutes; but if it is the fact that when hops are dear these substitutes are used by the small brewers that is sufficient to account for the fall in the price of hops. I think that one remedy for the depression in

  1651
  the hop industry would be to require the Excise officers, when testing beer for water, to declare whether the beer is bittered with hops or other bitters. We are in a position now to supply a test that is absolutely reliable—the President of the College of Public Analysts having undertaken to test any number of samples of beer submitted to him, and to declare positively whether they are bittered with hops or not.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. NORTON: I was endeavouring to indicate a method by which I think Her Majesty's Government might help us. The application of the test I recommend would have an excellent effect, as it would result in "showing up" the brewers who use hop substitutes to the public. The subject of the marking of foreign hops has been alluded to. I have taken a great deal of interest in this question, because of the representations I have had made to me by those who are concerned in the hop industry. I was informed that in the year 1883 old hops were actually taken from the beds and pillows of German cottagers, and sent over to England and sold at high prices. While the English grower is under a heavy penalty if he fails to mark the parish and the year of growth on his pockets, the foreign producer may send his in unmarked. I wish most cordially to support the Resolution of my hon. Friend, and I hope the Government will grant the inquiry asked for.
  MR. W. J. BEADEL: I think it is a noteworthy fact that there are only four Members on the Benches opposite, and that shows that, so far as anything connected with agriculture is concerned, the Opposition are absolutely and positively indifferent. Now, I feel, some difficulty in supporting the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and for this reason—that quite recently the House has discussed the appointment of a Minister for Agriculture, and if we should have such a Minister it appears to me that if his opinion should be sought in any questions it would be questions relating to the hop and the wheat industries. One or two of the hon. Members who have spoken have hesita-
  1652
  tingly suggested that the success of the industry is affected by foreign competition, and that for the welfare of the country and of agricultural landowners, tenants, and labourers, some amount of protection is necessary. I hold a like opinion. I say the sooner the Government give us that protection the better it will be for all of us. I am not afraid to propound those doctrines, if my hon. Friends are. But I think my hon. Friend would do well to wait until a Minister of Agriculture has been appointed, and take an early opportunity of placing his views before him. Of course, I should be gratified beyond measure to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer say he realized the fact that the agricultural industry had been severely tried, and will do his utmost to try and find a remedy for the distress which 'prevails in every portion of it.
  MR. H. CHAPLIN: I do not altogether disagree with the hon. Member who last spoke when he urges the hon. and gallant Member to postpone the demand for an inquiry which he is now making. Those who are interested in the hop industry are to be congratulated on the clear, able, and effective exposition which has been given of their views tonight. But it would be an entire mistake for anyone to suppose that in the appointment of a Minister of Agriculture is to be found any specific remedy for the agricultural depression throughout the country. Undoubtedly, it is desirable such a Minister should be appointed; but no one should be induced to believe that the creation of an Agricultural Department is likely to be a specific for that depression from which agriculture has suffered for so many years. Now, Sir, the hon. and gallant Member spoke with great knowledge on the subject on which he addressed the House—with a knowledge which, perhaps, few hon. Members possess in the same degree. We are all aware, I think, of the great importance of the hop industry; and, for my own part, I confess I should regard anything like the probable extinction of the hop industry as lamentable in the last degree. The vast amount of labour employed in hop-growing, the remarkable decline since 1885 in the acreage under

  1653
  cultivation, and the equally remarkable decline in prices since 1883, have al] been made abundantly clear. Nothing appears to me to be more remarkable in the hon. Member's speech than the statement as to the amount of labour employed per acre in the cultivation of hops; and that being so, we may appreciate the indifference shown on the subject by hen Members who usually occupy the Benches opposite. When complaint is made of the difficulty of pursuing agriculture with success, hon. Gentlemen who usually sit opposite are fond of recommending that something else should be tried. They have advocated a large extension of the system of small holdings, on the ground that by that means many more people would be employed on the land. I, for one, should be very glad indeed if it were possible to have a large extension of small holdings, but whether it would answer all the expectations of hon. Members opposite is at least an arguable matter; but it is beyond all dispute that in hop cultivation the labour employed per acre is quite remarkable, and I suppose that no other expedient could be resorted to which would give so much employment on the land of this country. It is noticeable, therefore, that so few of the hon. Members belonging to the Opposition are present, and that their only contribution to the evening's proceedings has been a most uncalled-for attempt to count the House. It would be a source of great satisfaction to those interested in agriculture if the Government could see their way to granting the request for a Committee of Inquiry.
  MR. GOSCHEN: An hon. Member sitting behind me stated that he and those who were acting with him in this matter had been practically challenged by the First Lord of the Treasury to make out a case for an inquiry; and had been promised that if they did that the Government would grant the demand for one. Now, Sir, it is my duty to examine the speeches which have been made, and to see to what extent a case has been made out. A suggestion has been made that the Government perhaps does not realize the importance of this industry, but I assure the House that no one could more entirely realize the importance of the hop
  1654
  industry from many points of view than the Government; and though there are certain matters connected with it on which, through lack of personal knowledge, I should hesitate to speak, yet it does so happen that, living myself in a hop county, I am generally familiar with the course of prices and the production of hops, and no one could live in such a county without knowing what extensive employment the industry provides. In my neighbourhood there is hardly a family which is not in some way interested in the cultivation of hops. I do not absolutely accept as correct the estimate given of the amount spent in the cultivation of hops. Hon. Members put it at £40 per acre. I should rather put it at £30 or £35. But, at any rate, the figure is large; and there is no doubt that the industry is a healthy and wholesome one, and that it touches many interests—such, for instance, as the growth of underwood. My hon. and gallant Friend also referred to the interest of the hop factors and merchants in the Borough. I think they, at any rate, may well be left to take care of themselves, for I have not learned that the extraordinary cheapness of hops has materially affected their profits. It is true, however, that hop cultivation is a large and important interest, and the Government have every sympathy with it; but I am not sure that my hon. Friend has strengthened his case by pointing out the precarious nature of investments in hop cultivation. I think the arguments he puts forward on that point may be pushed too far. No doubt the industry is of an extremely risky character; but I doubt, if taken over a long average of years, it is so risky as some hon. Members have suggested in their anxiety to prove that something ought to be done. There have been violent fluctuations in the prices of hops. Various Members have assigned different causes for the depression during the last six or seven years. I am inclined to refer it to what took place in the year 1882, when hops went up to an extraordinary price—£22 per cwt. being in some cases obtainable. The hon. Member put the price in that year at £15, and then showed how in the following year it fell to a very much lower figure. But he did not inform the House that 1882 was a year in which the average yield was not more than two

  1655
  or three cwt. per acre, and even supposing the hops were sold at £20 per cwt. the return would be only £40 per acre, or the exact cost of cultivation. These extraordinary high prices in 1882 were therefore due to the smallness of the yield. What was the result? Why, in Germany, California, Australia, and many other countries there was an enormous increase of cultivation during the next few years, and over-production led to the usual result—a fall in prices. These high prices in 1882 had another result. They led the brewers to endeavour, as far as they could, to avoid the use of hops by having recourse to substitutes, some of which turned out to be very satisfactory, and proved to be more economical than hops, oven when the prices of hops considerably fell. This, indeed, is a very instructive instance of how nature revolts against excessive prices, and finds some substitute to avoid them. Tam not sure whether we are not still suffering from over-production, although I doubt very much whether the prices which have prevailed during the last two years have been such as to enable foreigners to continue the competition. My hon. Friend in quoting the figures said the prices fell by more than half between 1882 and 1883. But if he will look at the prices which ruled in 1879, 1880, and 1881, he will find that they were about the same as in 183 and 1884, and since then prices have been much higher.
  MR. BROOKFIELD: I acknowledged that in the years 1887 and 1888 there was an improvement in prices, but I endeavoured to account for it by pointing out that the importation of foreign hops diminished in those years, while there had also been a diminution in our own acreage.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, we have begun again to bold our own, and evidently the case of the hop-growers is not so hopeless as some hon. Members seem to think. While, however, I, on the one hand, deprecate any panic, I desire, on the other, to be perfectly explicit in what I say with regard to some of the proposals that have been made. It would be cruel kindness to hold out any hope that Parliament (an give the hop-growers any assistance by legislation
  1656
  which would impose an import duty or a differential duty on foreign hops. I cannot give any encouragement to such an idea as that, for I do not think that the time will ever come when this House will consent to any legislation of that kind. The hon. Member deprecated the suggestion that he was proposing anything in the way of protection; but there was an undercurrent of protection running through a great portion of his speech. The effect of any such legislation would ultimately have to be borne by the general public, for the brewers would indemnify themselves by brewing lighter beer. So long as we hold to the doctrine that no restraint should be placed on the importation of food for the people we cannot make an exception in the case of hops any more than in the case of corn. The hon. Member says that, if this House were composed of Members who were hop-growers, they would certainly impose either import or differential duties. But this House is mainly composed of the representatives of the consumers of beer, and not of hop-growers, and such a proposal would not commend itself to this House nor to the country generally. Even the producers of barley might have something to say on the question; and I must point out to my hon. and gallant Friend that if a Committee is granted it would be unwise for the hop-growers to infer that there was any possibility of a duty being placed on foreign hops. I think it far better to be explicit on this point and not to raise hopes which may not be fulfilled. Then, said the hon. and gallant Member, there was a time when a duty of 40s. was charged on foreign hops, while only 20s. was charged by the Excise on English hops; and he told us that the repeal of this duty was a fatal step. But does he wish us to revert to the system of differential duties? When I put that question to him he was good enough to say, he left that to be decided by Her Majesty's Government. I do not think that a proposal to put a higher duty on foreign hops would commend itself to the country, and I would not advise any of my friends in the hop-growing districts to rely on that being done. In regard to railways, it is no doubt the

  1657
  intention of Parliament that there should be no preference given to foreign over English hops. If there remains any kind of preference or privilege, I hope the matter will be brought by the hop-growers and the leading persons in the trade to the attention of the Commissioners, who are bound to rectify any grievances which exist, and to see that the remedy is applied that Parliament intended. Parliament distinctly contemplated that no such privilege should be given. With regard to the system of middlemen, I do not see how any remedy can possibly be applied by Parliament. I know how grievously the system is supposed to operate upon a great many of the growers of hops, but this is a matter which the hop industry has in its own hands. I doubt whether the interposition of Parliament could be effectual in a matter of this kind, although, by means of a Committee, some light might be thrown on the matter by indicating means of which the members of the industry could avail themselves. I now come to the question of branding. English hop-growers are bound to brand their hop-pockets according to the district from which they come; and the hon. Member instanced a case of a friend whose property was divided by a bridge, and who got 10s. a pocket more for the hops grown on the one side than for those grown on the other. I do not know whether my hon. Friend alluded to myself, but that is precisely my case. Through the recent change in the boundaries, they have put the greater portion of my hops into Sussex, depriving me thereby of 10s. a pocket, although the hops are precisely the same as those grown in the Kentish part of the garden. Well, if the obligation to brand hops be imposed upon the English growers, it is a perfectly fair subject for consideration whether foreign hop-growers should not equally be compelled to give the place of the origin of their hops. As to whether we should be enabled to exact penalties and to control the matter in the same way as in England I will not give an opinion. Then there comes a further point to which my hon. Friends attach considerable importance. They maintain that the national beverage should be composed of malt
  1658
  and hops. Well, are we to legislate so that the consumer of every article is to be informed specifically of the materials of which the article he consumes is composed? No doubt it is a fit subject for inquiry whether any of the ingredients put into the beer are deleterious, and contrary to the health of those who drink it. My hon. and gallant Friend has recognized that if quassia ho not deleterious it will be difficult for Parliament to enact that it should not be used, but he contends that people should know that they are drinking beer made of quassia and not hops. If ingredients are used which are positively deleterious it will doubtless be right for Parliament to interfere. Still, I am bound to say that the brewers have always made out a strong primâ facie case that the substances they used were not deleterious However, I do not see that there can be any objection to have an inquiry into the point. I think I have now dwelt upon most of the subjects referred to in the course of this debate, and explained the attitude of the Government towards the question. We recognize the great importance of the industry, and we recognize also that a certain depression has taken place, although I have better hopes as to the future of the trade than some of my hon. Friends around me. At the same time I cannot hold out any hopes that the existing state of things can be remedied by a course of either open or veiled protection. I do not wish Members to be led into the opinion that the Government, because they grant a Committee, may possibly be led to assent to measures to which they cannot consent. But many other suggestions, short of protection, have been made, into which it would be advantageous that inquiry should be made. I shall be glad of an inquiry because it will clear the air and satisfy those who are engaged in the industry. By careful examination every grievance may be sifted, and the Government may be able to decide on measures which will remove just grievances. I should accordingly be prepared to accept the motion if after the word "means" the words "if any" were inserted, and I hope my hon. Friend will accept that small modification of his Motion.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT (Sussex, N.W.): I hope the answer of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will satisfy my hon. Friend (Mr. Brookfield). The question to which my right hon. Friend referred, as to whether deleterious substances are introduced into beer, is one which deserves consideration. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has even indicated that there is a better future for hops than many of us think; and the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of preferential rates on railways are of the most valuable character, and even stronger than those of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. He has stated as clearly as we could wish to hear from any Government that the Government will do everything in their power to prevent railways charging a farthing more for home produce than they charge for foreign produce. My right hon. Friend has admitted that the hop industry is very much depressed, and he might also have admitted that there are other industries which are much depressed in this country. It is a general complaint now that whenever any branch of the agricultural interest fails, the whole of the persons who have been employed in carrying it on go to the towns to swell the number of people who require employment there. If the Committee that is to be appointed can point out how employment can be obtained in this country so as to prevent a rush to the colonies it will do a good thing fox the country. My right hon. Friend referred to underwoods. He knows that the underwoods of this country have deteriorated 50 per cent. My own have deteriorated more, if anything, than 50 per cent. Why is this? It is simply because we have been pressed very severely by foreign competition. I am glad my right hon. Friend has been able to grant this inquiry, and I think that before long he will have to grant an inquiry of a much larger character, that is to say into the question of why we cannot grow wheat at a profit. I venture
  1660
  to say that such an inquiry would be of vast importance to a nation like ours.
  MR. C. W. GRAY: I hope my hon. Friend (Mr. Brookfield) will accept the offer of the Government, although I must confess I was rather sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer made one or two remarks as to the perfect hopelessness of the remedy that is asked for being granted; at the same time, all of us who have a certain amount of sympathy for that remedy know perfectly well that the present Parliament is not likely to deal with the subject in any practical way. I think we are indebted to my hon. Friend (Mr. Brookfield) for the clear way in which he has brought the subject before the House, and to the Government for consenting to the appointment of a Committee. Before we can expect a remedy we must lay our grievances before the House and the country. The hop industry has become very much depressed, and I for one shall be very curious to know what remedies the Committee may propose. In Essex we used to be considerable hop-growers, but we have now lost the business altogether and no hops whatever were grown in the county in 1888, although by a printer's error one acre of hops is returned in the Government returns as having been grown in that year. It is of great importance that if respectable employment can be found for the women and children in our villages it should be found. Though I do not think a remedy can be found without trespassing on forbidden ground, as a first step. I thank the Government for having consented to the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry.
  MR. CORNWALLIS: We are all extremely grateful to the Government for having accepted the Motion of the hon. Member (Mr. Brookfield), but I sincerely hope the Committee will in no way limit its inquiry. If I read the Motion aright, the serious displacement of labour that has taken place, owing to the decrease of the acreage of cultivation stands in the

  1661
  forefront, and situated as I am, being a large landowner in Kent, having perhaps a more direct interest in the cultivation of hops than any other hon. Member of the House, I hope I may be allowed to impress on the Chancellor of the Exchequer the serious nature of the disease from which the hop cultivation is now suffering from. As the Representative of a town to which unfortunately, a great many of the unemployed flock from time to time, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman there is good ground for the Motion made this evening. In a neighbouring village to my own there is a farm on which, but a short time ago, there were 100 acres of hops. That acreage has been reduced within the last two years to 30, entailing thereby a loss in wages to the people of the village 'of no loss than £1,500 per annum at the very least. A similar state of things has occurred all round in the hop-growing district. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says he has hopes that this will right itself. I am not as sanguine as the right hon. Gentleman, for we have now come to this pass, that our hop acreage is lower than it has been for 20 years. We see no sign of improvement. I can only sincerely hope I am wrong, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right. In conclusion, let me assure the House that there is really good cause for the Motion of my hon. Friend.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Another Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words—
  "A Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the causes which have produced the steady decrease in the acreage of land under hop cultivation, and the serious displacement of labour occastoned thereby, and to report as to the best means, if any, of providing a remedy."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR W. LAWSON: No one expected there would be a house to-night ["No, no"]but the making of a House shows there is great interest taken in the question by the hop-growers. It is a good thing
  1662
  there has been a House because we have heard a very excellent speech from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But the right hon. Gentleman's conclusion was not so satisfactory as his speech. He consented to the appointment of a Committee, but I think we may say "his poverty and not his will consents"—his poverty of voters. It seems to me there is no more reason why we should have a Select Committee to inquire into the misfortunes and sorrows of the hop-growers than there is to have a Select Committee to inquire into the condition of other interests of which we have lately heard so much. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says very properly he will not give any sanction to any idea of protection. But the whole aim of the supporters of the Motion is protection. You cannot keep protection out of the Committee. The inquiry will all go to spread that fallacious nonsense. I look upon this as a very absurd proposition, and if no one else votes against it I shall.
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: I do not know whether the hon. Baronet is aware of the fact, but there are a great many people who depend upon the growing of hops for their daily bread. If the hon. Barenet will go down and enjoy the hospitality of his friends in the hop counties, he will find that the hop harvest is looked forward to by the poor people as a means of paying their rents. I think the Government have acted wisely in accepting the Motion. It is not the landowners only who are interested in this question, but the tenant farmers and the labouring classes are all affected. Nor is this all. The annual ingathering of the hops is looked forward to with great interest by a large number of the poor of the Metropolis. I do not to-night see those Representatives of East London constituencies who on other occasions have been so ready to tell us what the people desire, and are so jealous of any police interference with their liberty of action. If they were here they could tell us how in great numbers the poorest from the most congested districts flock to the hop grounds and find in a few weeks' employment the means of adding to their scanty resources. When the hop industry is depressed, that depression

  1663
  affects the poorest in the East End of London also. Anyone who calls attention to the state of this industry and secures a hearing for its claims, as my hon. Friend has done, and any Government that gives an opportunity for the suggestion of remedies for the depression of this industry, does benefit to the agricultural community and to the poorest class in our towns. It is right that the attention of Parliament should be called to such matters. I do not know whether a remedy can be found, but I do not think it is becoming for those who claim to be working class Representatives to sneer at proposals for the improvement of an industry in which all classes of the community are interested.
  MR. CHANNING: I think the hon. Gentleman is very unjust to the hon. Baronet. I do not understand that my hon. Friend has expressed opposition to the discussion of any practical suggestion to remedy agricultural distress. Reasonable proposals with that object in view will have our heartiest sympathy and support. I have not had the advantage of hearing the debate through, and I hope the House will not quarrel with me if I make an observation or two which must, by necessity, be of a hypothetical nature, but I gather from what has fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it has been suggested during the debate that a means of relief might be found in the imposition of a duty upon foreign hops. Now it seems to me that any suggestion of that kind is entirely beside the mark. I have taken the opportunity of referring to the Statistical Abstract and the figures in relation to hop importation, and they are of such a startling nature, that really to try and found upon them a case for the imposition of a duty would be simply ridiculous. According to the figures in the Statistical Abstract the quantity of hops imported into this country has diminished to half what it was 5 or 6 years ago. In 1879 the importation was nearly double, and in 1882 it was more than double what it was in 1887.
  1664
  And as to the value, the value of hops imported in 1887 was actually less than one-seventh of that for 1882. If there is any suggestion to remedy distress by the imposition of protective duties I will only say it is a course not warranted by the actual condition of the hop trade.
  MR. C. J. DARLING: It will have surprised Members who have followed this debate while the Benches opposite were absolutely empty, that the hon. Member should come in now at this late hour, and, having supplied himself with a few statistics which relate to nothing said in the course of the debate, a debate which he ingenuously admits he has not heard a word of, should come to the rescue of the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Lawson), who, of course, we knew, if he came here in time, would oppose this inquiry. The hon. Baronet professed himself surprised that a House should have been made to discuss this subject; but ho takes his measure of the interest taken by the House in the industries of the country and questions that affect the working classes from his Friends who sit around him, every ono of whom, having absented himself, the hon. Member is surprised that there are others interested in the discussion. Of course, if it had been a question as to how somebody had been hurt or even rubbed against by the police in Ireland in the course of a public disturbance, those Benches would have been crowded from end to end.
  An Hon. MEMBER: Quarter Sessions.
  MR. C. J. DARLING: At Quarter Sessions they would find themselves very much at home. Of course, we know that, if the hon. Baronet had got here in time, he would have opposed this Motion. He comes here as the professed and inveterate enemy of the hop. He would not have this Committee granted; he objects to the hop industry being in a flourishing condition; his opinion is that there should not be a hop in the country; and, so long as he can get rid of the hop, he is quite content to sacrifice everybody who gets his living by growing, packing, or selling hops. There is this excuse to be made for the

  1665
  hon. Baronet. He takes his place among the other minute enemies of the hop mentioned by my hon. Friend. But the hop has survived—I will not repeat the rhyme again—the four enemies that have been mentioned, and it will survive the fifth added to the number of its enemies, but whose name for poetical purposes it is difficult to introduce into the rhyme quoted. It is only in the interests of the insects that the hon. Baronet has taken part in this debate; it has been left to Members on this side of the House to speak in favour of those who get their living out of the hop; it has been left to hon. Members opposite to attempt at once to destroy the hop and those who live by the cultivation of it.
  MR. JAMES ELLIS: It is an extraordinary thing that complaint should be made that we have taken no part in the Debate, for it is notorious that time after time Motions in which we are interested are simply voted down by hon. Members, who hoar nothing of the discussion. We have other remedies for the distress of the poorer classes in this country, to which hon. Members on that side will not listen. We want to marry the people to the land, and we believe that by securing the people on the land, there would be much more benefit to them and to the nation than by the growing of hops. If we want hops we have a right to get them were we like, but the people can grow more useful crops; something that will help to feed the people. The land hunger is strong among the people, and we think we can find means to satisfy it, and cure the evils complained of. No one expected there would be a debate to-night, or we should have been present to listen or take part in it. I am glad that some of us are here to vote against a Motion that seems to me to be absurd and ridiculous.
  MR. M'CARTAN: If there is anything likely to provoke hostility to the Motion, it is a speech such as that of the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Darling). For my own part it was my duty some time ago to call attention to the fact that there were not 40 Members in the
  1666
  House, and it comes with bad taste from the hon. and learned Member to taunt us with not being in attendance. I think it is the duty of Members at all times to vote for inquiry when a grievance of the industrial classes is shown to exist. From those Benches we have often had to complain that appeals made by us on matters of importance to the Irish people have been refused without a hearing, but I merely wish to say that when a demand for inquiry is made by any portion of the kingdom it is our duty to grant it, and so I shall give my vote for the Motion.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Words added.
  Ordered—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the causes which have produced the steady decrease in the acreage of land under hop cultivation, and the serious displacement of labour occasioned thereby, and to report as to the best means, if any, of providing a remedy."
  SUPPLY—Committee upon Monday next.

  TRUST FUNDS INVESTMENT (RECOMMITTED) BILL. (No. 280.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3.
  MR. TOMLINSON: The Amendment I have to propose is one that I moved in the Committee upstairs. The class of investments involved in the Amendment comprises a speculative element, and though in another part of the clause we have excluded the ordinary stock of English railways, it is here proposed to include the guaranteed ordinary stock of Indian railways, and it is this ordinary stock which my Amendment proposes to exclude. It is true that this Indian stock has a guaranteed interest, but the interest guaranteed by the Indian Government is only a minimum dividend, and there are railways the ordinary guaranteed stock of which is quoted in the market at rates far beyond what would arise from the guaranteed interest, the difference representing the value of the excess of

  1667
  income earned above the guaranteed minimum. Whatever reasons exist for the exclusion of the ordinary stock of English railways on the ground of its speculative character apply to Indian stock, and, therefore, I move my Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, page 2, line 20, leave out from the first "In," to "India," in line 22, inclusive.
  Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out, stands part of the Question."
  MR. COZENS-HARDY: I hope the hon. Member will not think it necessary to press this. The matter was most carefully considered in Committee upstairs, when the hon. Member found himself in a minority of one. It was considered that railway stock guaranteed by the Government of India was fit for trustees to invest in.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Belfast (Sir William Ewart). The Standing Committee unanimously recommended that trustees, unless forbidden by the terms of the trust, should be allowed to invest in the normal stocks of Muncipal Corporations, and we claim that the stock of Commissioners established for the purposes of water supply stands in precisely the same position when secured by Parliamentary authority for the levying of rates. I mention this with particular reference to the Corporation of Belfast, whose stock is open for investment by trustees, but the stock of the Commissioners for water supply resting on the same security, the local rate is excluded. I am not aware of any reason for this unless it is that the power of levying rates is limited, and it may be that the full power is exercised without profit to the undertaking. To meet this the Amendment provides that this stock shall not be included unless for ten years before the investment, the rates levied shall be within 80 per cent of the authorized limit of rating. In such a case I think with 20 per cent of the
  1668
  authority not exercised the margin of security cannot be questioned, and public policy justifies the suggestion made.
  Amendment proposed, page 2, line 29, after "stock," insert—
  "Or in the mortgages or stock of any Board of Commissioners or Corporation established by Act of Parliament for the purpose of supplying water, and having a compulsory power of levying rates, provided that for ten years past before the date of investment the rates levied shall not have exceeded eighty per centum of the amount authorized by Law to be levied."
  Questioned proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE SECRETARY of STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): This point was not raised before the Committee upstairs. The Committee examined closely into all these questions of investment in the stock of water companies, but this goes outside those questions. We are not, however, prepared to accept it without more consideration. I admit, on the face of it the Amendment suggests a new form of investment that does not seem open to any special objection in itself. It certainly is worthy of consideration, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should give this opportunity for consideration by withdrawing the Amendment now raising it again on Report. We will consider whether we can, consistently with the other parts of the Clause, incorporate this proposal, though perhaps not exactly in these words.
  MR. SEXTON: I accept that suggestion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clauses agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses and Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment.
  To be read the Third Time upon Monday next.
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present—
  House adjourned at Twelve o'clock till Monday next.

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—Consolidated Fund (No. 3); Secretary for Scotland.
The Earl of Harrington—took the oath.

NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY BILL,
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 144.)
COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
Report from, That the Committee have added the Earl of Minto to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c., for the consideration of the Bribery (Public Bodies) Prevention Bill, read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS PRINCE ALBERT VICTOR.

  HER ROYAL HIGHNESS PRINCESS LOUISE OF WALES.
  Her Majesty's Most Gracious Messages of yesterday considered (according to order).
  EARL CADOGAN, in rising to move, "That humble Addresses of Thanks and Concurrence be presented to Her Majesty upon the said Addresses" said:—My Lords, in the absence of the Prime Minister, who is in attendance on Her Majesty at Windsor, it has devolved upon me to invite your Lord-
  1546
  ships to agree to humble Addresses to be presented to Her Majesty, assuring Her Majesty that this House will cheerfully concur in any measures which may be proposed for giving effect to Her Majesty's wishes as expressed in the Gracious Messages which have just been read. On previous occasions of a similar nature your Lordships have shown an anxiety to take any opportunity which may offer itself of giving further proof of that loyalty to the Throne and that attachment to the person of the Queen and Her family of which Her Majesty has made Gracious mention. My Lords, the Gracious Messages now under consideration deal with two subjects distinct in themselves, but identical in their connection with the welfare and prosperity of the Royal Family, and I venture also to say identical in the interest which they have excited in every one of your Lordships. With reference to the first Message, it cannot be doubted that this House will readily assent to any proposal for enabling the eldest son of the Heir Apparent to the Throne adequately to maintain the exalted position to which he is called, and to prepare himself for the performance of those great and important duties which lie before him. The second Gracious Message refers to an auspicious event, the announcement of which has evoked the strongest expressions of satisfaction from all classes of Her Majesty's subjects. We rejoice to think that the projected marriage of Her Royal Highness the Princess Louise of Wales with the Earl of Fife—prompted, as we have been informed that it is, by the strong and enduring tie of mutual affection—offers the brightest promise for the future of Her Royal Highness and her consort; and I think I may venture, on behalf of this

  1547
  House, to express the confident hope that the alliance, contracted under such favourable auspices, may prove a continual blessing and a source of lasting happiness to Her Majesty and Her family. I beg, therefore, to move that a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, assuring Her Majesty that your Lordships will cheerfully concur in the measures which may be proposed for the consideration of the House.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I ask permission of your Lordships to second the Motion of the noble Earl, and I will follow his example in saying the very few words I have to say with reference to both Messages at once. With regard to the making of due provision for Prince Albert Victor, I do not think there will be the slightest hesitation on your Lordships' part. The Prince has arrived at an age when due provision ought to be made for him. I think for the first time, by the liberality of the Queen, he will be enabled to live under his own roof. He has already travelled much. He has not only mixed in society, but he has taken his part—a becoming part—in the public functions of this country. He has done meritorious service in the profession to which he belongs. With regard to the other Address, referring to the marriage of the Princess Louise, it has been, partly from my age and partly from other circumstances, my good fortune to move or second many Addresses of a like character. I cannot help remembering that I had the honour 26 years ago of moving such an Address with regard to the illustrious parents of the Princess Louise. On that occasion I referred to what my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal has also mentioned, the sanction which these marriages have always received from the personal affection and esteem of the contracting parties. I believe this is eminently the case in the present instance. There is not only a union of hearts and feelings, but the marriage has been brought about by long personal knowledge, which is the best augury for the future. The question of Supply rests mainly with the other House, and we look to the Government for guidance in the matter. I have no doubt whatever that if a proper allowance is made your Lordships will most cordially concur in it. At the same time, on behalf of the noble Lords
  1548
  behind me, I may say that we thoroughly join with the Lord Privy Seal in his wishes for every possible happiness to the illustrious personages concerned.
  Resolutions agreed to nemine dissentiente; the said Addresses to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (LINLITHGOW WATER) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867, and Acts amending the same, relating to Linlithgow Water—Was presented by the Lord Ker (M. Lothian).
  Moved, That the Sessional Order of the 5th of March last,
  "That no Bill originating in this House confirming any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall be read a first time after Friday the 10th day of May next"
  be dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Ker, M. Lothian).
  THE EARL OF MORLEYobserved that the Bill should, according to the Sessional Order, have been read a first time on May 10. It was now July 5. The Bill was introduced into the House of Lords, and it was of great importance that the Sessional Order should be complied with, so that opponents, if there were any, could have ample opportunity of being heard. Last year two Bills, emanating from the Scotch Office, had been introduced long after the date fixed by the Sessional Order. The noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland must make out a strong case to induce the House to dispense with the Order. The Bill, he was informed, had been settled and sent to the Scotch Office on June 1, and he should he glad to know what had caused the subsequent delay. The Office must have their Bills ready in time. If they did not have them ready, it was not fair to place upon the House the responsibility for any evils which might result from the failure of the Bill to pass; whereas the responsibility rested entirely with them who had not got the Bill ready for introduction at the time fixed by the House.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANthought it would be time for the noble Earl to repudiate responsibility when he (Lord Lothian) attempted to saddle it upon

  1549
  him. He was as anxious as the noble Earl that the Forms of the House should be maintained. The object of the Provisional Orders was to enable districts to put in force the provisions of the Land Clauses Acts with respect to the purchase and taking of land, and there were statutory forms which had to be gone through in this case. The question was a somewhat complicated one. There were questions of compensation for land taken, and there had been some difficulty in adjudicating. The petition had been before the Sheriff for six weeks, and he did not suppose their Lordships would consider that too long a period, In his opinion, there had been no unnecessary delay on the part of the Sheriff. As to the delay which the noble Earl suggested had taken place at the Scottish Office, the question of compensation was finally adjusted, and came before the Scottish Office on the 1st of June. On the 3rd it was referred to the Lord Advocate in order that the Provisional Order should be adjusted. On the 17th of June, the Provisional Order was received back from the Lord Advocate. On the 20th it was signed by himself (the Secretary for Scotland), and on the 1st of July it was laid upon the Table of this House, and read a first time. Owing, however, to an informant it was not entered upon the Minutes, and the Notice of Motion for the suspension of the Standing Order was given yesterday. He thought he had said enough to show that there had been no unnecessary delay in his Department. As to the necessity for passing the Provisional Order, the Board of Supervision had summoned the Local Authority of Linlithgow before the Court of Session to compel them to provide a sufficient water supply, and they had only consented to suspend further action on the understanding that the Local Authorities should apply for a Provisional Order. It was absolutely necessary, in the interests of the public health, that the water supply of Linlithgow should be improved this year, and he, therefore, hoped their Lordships would agree to the Motion.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I think that the noble Earl is perfectly right in calling attention to this matter. As a rule, no doubt, the Standing Orders that have been passed by the House
  1550
  should be adhered to. It is most important that the opinion should not get abroad that it really does not signify at what date these Bills are brought up because the Standing Orders can be dispensed with. Therefore, I should be inclined on principle to vote with my noble Friend (the Earl of Morley) if he thought it necessary to go to a Division. But after the statement we have heard from the noble Lord as to the importance of this Bill, and considering that all parties concerned are in agreement in desiring it to become law, it is probable that your Lordships may consent without a Division to allowing the suspension of the Standing Order in this instance, on the very clear understanding that it is not to be taken as a precedent for the needless disregard of the Standing Orders of the House.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that after hearing the noble Lord he would not divide the House against the Bill; but the noble Lord must not take this as a precedent, and he trusted that in future years the noble Marquess would instruct the Scotch Office to have their Bills ready in proper time.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 1a accordingly; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners. (No. 145.)

  LAND TRANSFER BILL. (No. 8,)
  Order of the Day for further proceeding, read.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, the object of the first Amendment, which stands in my name, is to remove from the Bill that portion of it which enforces compulsory registration in cases other than of pure and bonâ fide sales. The Bill as it stands imposes not, perhaps, registration, but registration fees in every case of succession to property. The Amendment which I propose limits the operation of the Bill to those cases where a sale, as we ordinarily understand that transaction, is carried out. Referring, as I suppose I am in order in referring, to what took place last week, it was attempted to show that I was objecting to a cheap transfer of land. My Lords, I was not objecting to the cheap transfer of land; I was objecting to the very great cost which, as it seems to me, would be imposed by the machinery provided in this Bill; and I venture to think that whatever may be said upon

  1551
  this subject, no one who has thought how the Bill would work can be satisfied that the Bill will be one which can be cheaply put into motion. The insurance fees may be small; the office fees may be small; but behind those there lie the expenses which, unhappily, attend all transactions of this description. I admit that recent legislation has done much to diminish the cost of those transactions—to diminish, or endeavour to diminish, the charges of solicitors, and to that no one can object; but what I, for one, object to, is imposing upon the succession to property the same trouble and expense (be it little or great, it seems to me, does not really affect the question) as that which attends the case of bonâ fide sale. A great deal of the land of this country never comes into the market at all. No doubt there are cases in which land exchanges hands more than once in the course of a single generation, but that represents but a small part of the landed property of this country. The greater part of that landed property is not made the subject of sale, and I do not see why when it passes from one member of a family to another, either by will or by settlement, the person inheriting should be forced to bear his share of the cost of a general registration scheme. What I, therefore, propose is to omit from the operation of this Bill all persons who may succeed by descent or by settlement. I think your Lordships will be of opinion that if the scheme is one which is wise and good, the public at large will not be slow to avail themselves of it in future when it works satisfactorily. If any advantage is to be gained by the owners of land by putting their titles on the register, they will be eager to do so. If the scheme is so advantageous as its authors represent, the landed interest of this country are not so insensible to their own interests as to refrain from availing themselves of the machinery so provided. But I cannot understand (and I ventured the other day to quote the opinion of Lord Thring as supporting that view) why owners should be compelled to deal with their property in a way which they do not desire. If any great public advantage were to be gained from it something might be said, but then the cost should fall on the public, and not on these
  1552
  unhappy victims of experimental legislation. I do not want to repeat anything I said last week; but I think very few will deny that the sale and transfer of land is an operation not unattended with expense, and it would be quite proper to impose on those who engage in such transactions the cost of placing their land upon the register. But I do not see why land held from generation to generation which does not come into the market at all should be subjected to the harassing visits of registration officials, or why the owner should be called upon the moment he succeeds to produce his title. That seems to me to be utterly at variance with the principles of justice. It was said the other night that, after all, the cost would be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. That is an argument which is hardly worth seriously combating, because anybody who knowns the principles on which our finance is administered knows that all our Law Courts are practically self-supporting, and, though the salaries of these officials will be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, care will be taken that the fees bear the proper proportion to the salaries and expenses. Individual transactions may, no doubt, be carried on with light fees, but the expenses taken as a whole will be considerable. Lord Cairns estimated the cost of each transaction at between £3 and £4, and taking into account the enormous number of transactions, I think your Lordships will see that that will place a very considerable tax upon the landed interest. I would remind their Lordships of the words of Lord Cairns in 1875 on this subject, when he said he for one was afraid of forcing on the people of tins country a system which might excite intense dissatisfaction and lead to a sweeping away altogether of the new system of registration. I ask your Lordships to limit the operation of the Bill to cases of bonâ fide sale and transfer, and not to make the whole landed interest the subject of so serious an experiment. These are not times when the landed interest can bear any additional burden. I think as a matter of common sense and justice we ought to be quite sure that this system is for the general public good before we force it upon landed proprietors. Are you afraid that your system itself will not be accepted voluntarily? If so, what right

  1553
  have you to impose it on the country? If you are satisfied that the scheme is a good one and will be accepted, then why compel people to do that which their own interests will prompt them to do?
  Amendment moved, Clause 3, page 1, line 23, to insert after "conveyance" the words "not being a settlement."—(The Earl Beauchamp.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I trust your Lordships will not accept this Amendment. The discussion affords an illustration of the inconvenience of discussing at this stage what is really a question of detail. If this Amendment had been discussed at an earlier period there would have been no difficulty in giving the noble Earl every information as to what the exact amount of the charge and the machinery that would be adopted and the intervention of the officials would be—things which he seems to assume would be harassing and inconvenient. The noble Earl introduced, once or twice, words which I understand have been used with great effect in speaking to noble Lords outside the House, but which have not been distinctly formulated in the House—I mean the necessity which it appears noble Lords have been assured they would be under of placing their titles on the register. That is an entire mistake. There is no such necessity under the Bill. A mere possessory title will simply prove that a person is in possession, and the machinery by which that can be accomplished is of the simplest possible character. Of course, if each of the Amendments is accepted, the Bill will ultimately be reduced to nothing, which probably is what the noble Earl desires, but it is hardly fair, after the Third Reading, to introduce Amendments which really go the whole usefulness of the Bill. Of course, I do not mean to say that the Bill might not go on if the present Amendments were adopted, but the effect and value of a system of registration of land is that it should be exhaustive, and if your Lordships exclude everything except what has passed by actual sale and transfer, a great part of the usefulness of a register would be gone because a great deal of land does not go into the market at all. So that you would be really legislating for a part of the country, and not for
  1554
  the whole. I do not wish my Lords to discuss this matter at great length. It seems to me that the objections of the noble Earl are really aimed at the Bill itself, and not merely at this part of it.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack one question with regard to a remark which fell from him. He said that under this Bill placing a title on the register would entail no considerable expense.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord will forgive me, but I did not say so.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I understood the noble Lord to say that the costs, whatever they were, which were entailed by settlement, would not be excessive. But am I not right in assuming that those costs, whatever they would be, would be tantamount to the expenses which would be gone to by an owner who wished to get out a bill of sale or advertisements with regard to putting up the property for auction.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should say certainly not. The noble Duke has quite misunderstood what I did say. I said that so far from placing his title upon the register, it was not in the smallest degree necessary for a land-owner to do so. There would simply be the fact of possession.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I would like to point out to the noble Lord opposite one effect of his Amendment which I do not think he at present contemplates. His Amendment would not only apply to the first putting of land into a settlement after registration had been made compulsory, but would apply always hereafter to all cases of settlement. I can hardly think that the noble Lord would contend, when once land has been put upon the Register, that, if afterwards in respect of that land a settlement were made, that settlement could not take effect by putting the new owner on the register in place of the person at the time on the register. That is a matter that could not involve any expense in its working, and if you have merely the limitation proposed by the noble Earl, you would have persons, claiming through somebody not on the register at all, who yet would be compelled themselves to register. I think the noble Lord must mean his Amendment to refer to the first putting upon the

  1555
  register, and not to subsequent dealings with land.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: I think that, strictly speaking, I am not entitled to reply to the noble Lord, but I would like to point out that if everybody would gain by registering, there is no need of compulsion.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I do not think the noble Earl follows my point, which is this:—That when the land is once on the register you ought to compel the registration of all subsequent dispositions with the land, otherwise you destroy the value of any system of registration altogether.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATH: What I understand the noble and learned Lord to argue is this:—That if the Amendment of my noble Friend is passed land once on the register can be transferred otherwise than by the register. But it is perfectly clear that if land is on the register there is no objection to its being transferred on the register, and my noble Friend's Amendment will not affect that, unless it is proved that it is more expensive to transfer land on the register than to transfer it by the ordinary system of conveyance. If the land is on the register already, there is nothing in my noble Friend's Amendment to prevent its being transferred on the register, nor would anybody wish to transfer it otherwise than on the register. All that we complain of is the compulsory registration, in the first instance, on the register. Then, the noble and learned Lord said that it was not contemplated to compel persons to place their titles on the register, but that all that they were required to register was a possessory title. Well, even for the registration of a possessory title you must have maps and descriptions, which would entail a very heavy expense upon the present owners. Of course it does not fall distinctly upon the present owner, but it falls on the successor to the present owner, succeeding by a will or by a settlement which he is compelled to register. Then the noble and learned Lord says you are only compelled to register a possessory title. That is perfectly true, but supposing a sale is contemplated and the only advantage in registering is to get a good title, you really must go in for an absolute title, because the purchaser, knowing that
  1556
  you had to register a title of some kind, would insist on your registering an absolute title. To go back to the Amendment of my noble Friend, I do not see the difficulty that my noble and learned Friend anticipates. If the property is on the register and it is transferred it will be transferred on the register, and there is nothing in my noble Friend's Amendment to prevent that. The whole point of the Amendment is that it precludes the necessity of registering in the first instance.
  On Question their Lordships divided:—Contents 93; Not Contents 119.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I have to move another Amendment, the object of which is the omission of Clause 33. I do not know whether your Lordships are anxious that the discussion should be prolonged upon this question, but I think it is important that the view of the House should be expressed upon this and the other clauses relating to real property. By retaining this clause your Lordships will be in considerable difficulty upon this part of the question of land transfer. This matter is one purely within the law of real property, and, therefore, I should ask your Lordships to omit this clause in the Bill on the ground that it alters the law of real property. The alterations of the law of real property are so wide, so exhaustive, and so entirely outside the proper object of the Bill, that a provision like this ought really to form no part whatever of the measure. When the Bill was originally framed, this Clause 33, as far as I remember, formed part of Part 4 of the Bill. Whether that was so or not, I think the noble and learned Lord will confirm my view that this is a grave alteration of the law of real property, and, therefore, I ask your Lordships to say that, being an alteration of the law of real property, it ought to form no part of a Bill dealing with the transfer of land.
  Moved, "To leave out Clause 33."—(The Earl Beauchamp.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am unable to adopt this Amendment. If every part of the Bill is to be expunged which deals with the law of real property, I need not tell your Lordships that a very considerable part of it will be taken away. Although,

  1557
  in a certain sense I should not dispute that if the registration be established there will be alteration in the law of real property, yet some alteration is essential in order to facilitate the carrying out of what is proposed, and it is for that purpose of facility only that this clause is introduced. I quite understand the objection to the law of real property being substantially altered, and I accept the issue in that sense. I cannot adopt the Amendment for the omission of the clause.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I cannot agree that this in any way alters the law of real property. I think it is a very useful clause. It is a matter strictly in conjunction with the other provisions of the Bill, and it only implies this, that where you have what is called a base fee, the owner may apply to have his title confirmed. It is a most inconvenient form of title, which is only in existence as long as the heirs of the tenant in tail are in existence. When those heirs fail the title comes to an end. This clause only provides that the person who is the owner of the base fee and is on the register may apply to have his title confirmed, and may have his estate in fee simple entered if no objection is taken by any person entitled in remainder or reversion. That seems to be an extremely convenient thing for an owner of a base fee. Of course he cannot touch anybody's rights. That is all that this clause provides, and it really does not at all substantially alter the law of real property. I cannot help thinking that this is an unfortunate occasion on which to raise the issue, because it could be taken directly on the alterations made in the fourth part of the Bill. But if your Lordships will think out the whole of the fourth part of the Bill, you will see that this clause might be made to serve a very useful purpose.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: Under these circumstances I will ask your Lordships to permit the Amendment to be withdrawn.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I rise to move an Amendment, the object of which is provide that where a person has been improperly registered with a possessory title anyone entitled
  1558
  to the possession or to the receipt of the rents of the property may apply for the correction of the register. The clauses on the subject of rectification, as they now stand, do not apply to merely possessory titles. It is necessary to do this; because, although the mere fact of a possessory title being registered would not by itself operate to defeat or prejudice any prior unregistered right, it might do so in the course of time, by the currency of the Statute of Limitations in favour of the registered title; and a wrong registration, if it could not be rectified, might in the meantime be a serious cloud upon the true owner's title.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: gladly accept the noble Earl's Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATH: My Lords, the next Amendment stands in my name. I propose to ask your Lordships to omit Clauses 74 to 82 inclusive.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Would my noble Friend allow me to ask whether he would be satisfied to confine his Amendment to Clause 74, as in case of its rejection I have an Amendment to move on Clause 75.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I may inform the noble Marquess that there are Amendments upon some of these clauses.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATH: The noble Marquess invites me to limit the Amendment to Clause 74, and I will adopt the suggestion. But in moving the omission of Clause 74, I have to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that the three following clauses are bound up with it, and therefore the omission of the clause will, of course, involve the omission of Clauses 76, 77, and 78, which are all dependent upon it. While the earlier part of the Bill deals with land in the case of intestacy, Clause 74 deals with land left by will and vests it in executors. These clauses, from 74 to 83, constitute Part 4 of the Bill, with regard to alterations of the law of real property. They have nothing whatever to do with alterations in the law with respect to the registration of land, except so far as those who have drawn the Bill have chosen to work as it were one question into the other. The alterations of the law of real property are of two descriptions. First, this part of the

  1559
  Bill deals with land in the case of intestacy, and next it vests real estate left by will in the hands of the executors of the last owner. Then Clause 75 involves the distribution among all the heirs if there is an intestacy the same as with regard to personalty; and I think Clauses 81 and 82 involve the substitution of an estate in fee-simple for an estate in tail. The clause which I am now asking your Lordships to reject is Clause 74, which vests real property left by will in the executors of the last owner. Your Lordships' attention ought to be called to this essential difference between this clause and the succeeding part of the measure to which we, I think, equally object—that whereas the others are dealing practically with cases of land where there is an intestacy this deals with land where there is a will. As the law stands at the present moment, the person who has inherited landed estate under a will comes into possession immediately the breath has left the body of the previous owner; but if this Bill passes the property will rest in the hands of executors, and the successors may be kept out of it for a year or more while they are proving the will, and he will be unable to exercise any control over his own property. That is the law now with regard to personalty, and, of course, with regard to personalty it is perfectly unobjectionable; but your Lordships are acquainted with the operation of the law with regard to landed property, and the difficulties in connection with its management. The management of landed property is an onerous task; and I would ask your Lordships to consider how it is possible for executors to satisfactorily discharge the work of managing real estate for twelve months? They could not manage it for any length of time in a satisfactory manner. A noble Lord has brought in a clause giving power to the rightful owner to compel the executors to hand over the property to him after the lapse of a year. But, during a year, many questions may arise which executors could not well decide with regard to labour in keeping the place up, receiving notices from tenants renewing leases, repairs of farms, &c. All those matters are to be left in the hands of executors possibly hostile to the new owner, and whose sole care may possibly have been to do nothing, at any rate, which might
  1560
  compromise themselves. My Lords, I do not wish to trouble the House unnecessarily, but I think this is a subject which requires to be fully considered. I would, however, refer to one matter, and that is Sub-section 3 of Clause 74, which provides that probate and letters of administration may be granted in respect of real estate only, although there is no personal estate. If your Lordships will read Clause 80 you will see it states that land is not to be made the subject of Probate Duty or Legacy Duty; but I would ask what chance there is at the present day of land remaining long free from Probate Duty if probate has to be taken out. This is not merely the thin end of the wedge towards placing a Probate Duty on land; it is half the wedge. There is already a disposition to tax land upon succession in every manner possible. Of all the burdensome forms of taxation with reference to succession, a duty upon land in these days of agricultural depression is the most onerous. Your Lordships will agree that that form of taxation is certainly the most burdensome, and if you allow this clause to pass you will have opened the door to still greater difficulties. I ask your Lordships, on those grounds, whether you are not placing landed property in a position which will make it impossible for it to be properly managed during the period that executors may hold it, and I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will reject the clause.
  Amendment moved, page 35, to leave out Clause 74.—(The Marquess of Bath.)
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, I confess I have not an absolute knowledge of the bearing and scope of the whole of this Bill; but it seems to me that Clauses 81 and 82 will involve a great change in the settlement of land. By those clauses the son of a tenant for life would have the right to sell the land and heirlooms of an estate, because he would have an absolute reversion of both. As your Lordships are aware, with regard to what are called heirlooms, if a father makes a settlement with his son, upon that son coming to the title on his father's death he gets a life interest in the property only. That property would be of a twofold description: it is land and it is heirlooms. When the successor has a

  1561
  son in turn, and that son comes of age, he has a remainder under the settlement which was created by the father and grandfather. As your Lordships are aware, that son, when he comes of age, becomes absolute possessor of the heirlooms subject to his father's life interest in them. But that is not the case with regard to land; the son has to live beyond his father in order to succeed. With regard to the heirlooms, the son can sell those heirlooms to anybody the day he comes of age, whether his father likes it or not, subject, of course, to his father's enjoyment of them during his life. But he cannot do so with regard to land. Your Lordships are aware that one of the customs most observed is that when the son comes of age, in consideration of the income given to him, he concedes his right, being given a life interest as entailed heir. Now, the operation of this Bill is to put land in exactly the same position as heirlooms, so that when the son comes of ago, after this Bill has passed, he would, in the natural course of things, succeed absolutely not only to the reversion of the heirlooms, but to the absolute reversion of the land. A son will not be in a position to make terms with his son. There will be nothing to offer him, and the son will naturally say—"Why should I settle this property? I have got this property. I can sell it to A, B, C, or D to-morrow, subject only to your life interest in it." Therefore, in the nature of things he is not going to settle it. My Lords, we should be clear in our minds whether we desire that that should be the state of things, because I think your Lordships will see we are embarking on a change, and one which I regard as of great magnitude. Then, with regard to another point, your Lordships are aware that by Lord Cairns' Act of 1882 a tenant for life was given absolute power to sell the land—that is to say, he was practically made sole trustee of the property, and in him was placed a discretion as to sale, as to price, and, in fact, generally under the wording of the Act; but a power was reserved, and that power was with regard to the sale of the mansion-house. If my proposition is right with regard to the position of the heirlooms, and after the passing of this Bill of the land, the position
  1562
  will be very different to what it is now, when the owner cannot sell the house. The son, when he comes of age, if he does not like to oblige his father will say—"It is all very well, but I can sell the property, and I will sell it." This may not be au arrangement which will do any harm, but it is a change which will entail very great difficulties. I venture to suggest that it is sowing seeds of difficulties which I cannot see my way out of.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think the noble Marquess has wandered somewhat from the particular matter now under discussion. No doubt it is the object and intention of this Bill by subsequent clauses, which are not at present under discussion, to make personalty and realty subject to the same laws, so that you may do with regard to realty what you can do with personalty, and vice versâ. That is the whole object of the Bill. With regard to the clause under discussion, the noble Marquess has drawn a picture of evil consequences which will result from it, and has suggested that the person entitled may be kept out of possession by the acts of ill conditioned executors or representatives. I cannot agree with him. It is all very well for the noble Marquess to use the phrase he did as to the persons inheriting coming into possession; but it is not accurate, because the landed estate passes to the executors. I do not think the evil consequences anticipated by the noble Marquess are likely to arise. Difficulties have arisen in cases where the land is held under lease. Has the noble Marquess not experienced those difficulties when land happens to be so held? There is a provision here intended to deal with those difficulties. The executors may assent instantly to possession being taken, and may allow the person entitled to go into his own house. These difficulties are familiar to those connected with the law. Ever since I have known the profession everybody has been craving for a real representative at the time of death by which the difficulty might be met, while determining who is really entitled under such testamentary dispositions. Recent legislation has done much to diminish these difficulties, and in that respect, my Lords, I think this will be a valuable

  1563
  alteration of the law as regards a very large portion of the land in this country held under lease.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: The whole policy of Parliament for many years has been to extinguish leaseholds and qualified interests in land, to which the noble and learned Lord now points as an example to be imitated. It is my belief that the difficulty intended to be met by the sweeping changes of this clause has been very much diminished by the beneficial operation of the recent alterations in the law of real property to which I have referred. I have a question to put to those who are responsible for this Bill. The point was not raised before the Select Committee, because my attention was not then called to it. The question I want to put is—how, in future, estates are to be carried on until probate is granted? You are now admitting that landed property is to be subject to the same law as personalty. Suppose a person succeeds to a large estate in the funds, the money accumulates and no great harm is done in case of delay in granting probate. But the case is different with respect to landed property if the successor is kept out. Landed property is subject to waste, mismanagement, and a variety of incidents; and the question I want to put is this—suppose a will is litigated, how is a landed estate to be carried on for any considerable time until probate is granted? You are to vest freehold landed property in future in the representatives. The executors are to become representatives of the realty. I want to know, in case of difficulties arising which may involve litigation, what is to be the position of the real estate during that period? Certainly the estate would be subject to very great injury. The heir would probably be kept out of the estate, and I do not myself see how it could be properly carried on. Recent legislation, as the Lord Chancellor has said, has done much to diminish the difficulties of dealing with these estates; so as to avoid serious risk of maladministration. The administration of real property has really nothing whatever to do with the question of land transfer, which is the subject of this Bill, and this clause is not necessary. I would ask the authors of the Bill to consider what would happen in the case of a will being litigated, perhaps for
  1564
  years, the estate being tied up, and the persons responsible being prevented from doing things absolutely indispensable for the proper management of the estate.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, so far from there being any new difficulty created in the case of a will of doubtful construction, there will be less difficulty under this Bill than in the present state of the law. If there be disputed questions as to the succession to real estate, and the matter is sharply litigated, it may remain open for years; the difficulty which the noble Earl has mentioned, is, therefore, inherent in the present state of the law. It might be possible, no doubt, by the exercise of the powers of the Court in which the litigation took place to appoint a receiver or to adopt other measures to provide for the management of the estate during the litigation. All that would happen upon this Bill coming into operation would be that the proper Court would grant probate or letters of administration. It might, in the case which the noble Earl supposes, grant temporary administration with the same powers as belong to an executor or to a general administrator. Having said that in answer to the noble Earl's difficulty, I should like to give your Lordships any assistance that I can in regard to the operation of the clause in question, and that the more impartially, because I have never individually been so strongly impressed as some others with the necessity for such a change. As this has been done by the Select Committee, I think it ought to be considered in another place; and I, for one, cannot undertake the responsibility of wrecking the Bill, in this last stage, for the sake of any opinion which I may entertain upon this point; especially as I think there is no sufficient reason for feeling great alarm regarding the effect of the Bill as it stands. The effect of the Bill as it stands is simply this: Upon the death, it is proposed to vest the property in the executor or the administrator. That seems at first sight to be open to two objections—that you may keep the real owner out of his property, and that you may impose upon the executor or the administrator a new responsibility which may deter him from accepting that office. I will take the last objection first, because that would

  1565
  be a very serious objection, indeed, if nothing were done by the Bill to provide against it; but the 77th clause provides that from the very beginning, from the moment of the death, the executors or administrators, if they prefer devolving the duties and burdens and whole management of the property upon the person beneficially entitled to it, may do so. They need not undertake the trust or the responsibilities, as to the real estate, unless they choose, but if they find that the beneficial owner is willing to take possession of the estate, subject to the legal burdens affecting it, the 77th clause enables them to put him on the Register from the very beginning. Therefore, from these duties, which at first sight seem so onerous, they can relieve themselves whenever they please. Then there is provision made for winding up their administration, in the case of their accepting the duty, and being registered, in the first instance. At the end of the first year, the persons beneficially entitled may claim to be put upon the Register instead of the executors, and they are permitted, if necessary, to go to the Courts for that purpose. Unless some good reason can be shown to the contrary, an order for that purpose will be made. Then the question is asked, where the property is not sooner transferred, what is to become of it during the year, or the period while the estate may be held in trust? The 76th section says that personal representatives are to hold as trustees for the persons by law beneficially entitled. Nobody ever yet, I suppose, heard of an executor saying to the person beneficially entitled to a leasehold house, or other property, you shall not go into the house, you shall not manage the property, you shall not deal with it by letting, and so on, if he were certainly entitled. If it were really necessary or justifiable for the executor to insist on remaining in possession, he would himself be obliged to discharge all duties in relation to the property, and to act as owner like any other trustee in possession. There is really very much less reason for alarm about this clause than the noble Earl supposes: though I do not myself take the same view of its importance that some others may do.
  On Question, "That Clause 74 stand part of the Bill," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 113; Not-contents, 122.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, as this clause is connected with enactments that are vital to the Bill, I do not think that in the circumstances it is advisable to proceed further with the measure.
  Bill, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

THE STANDING COMMITTEES.

  QUESTIONS—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MINTO: My Lords, in pursuance of the Notice which I have given, I have to ask the Chairman of Committees why it is that the Standing Committees, contrary to the established practice as to the sittings of other Committees of the House, are habitually appointed to meet at the same hour as is appointed for the House itself to meet for public business?
  EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, in the absence of my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees, perhaps I may be allowed to inform the noble Lord that at the last sitting of the Standing Committee for General Bills it was agreed that they should meet at 3 o'clock.
  LORD HERSCHELL: It has been determined that the meetings of Committees should be at the hour which might, on the whole, be best under the circumstances. The reason why the Committee on Law meets at 4 o'clock is that the legal members of that Committee are generally engaged till that hour in their judicial duties.

BETHNAL GREEN POOR'S LAND.

  QUESTIONS—OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I rise to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in contravention of the words of the trust deed forbidding the erection of any building on the land amounting to 6½ acres known as Bethnal Green Poor's Land, the Charity Commissioners intend to sanction the erection of a free library and townhall and an infirmary thereon?
  THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, when the Legislature gave powers to the Charity Commissioners for the management of these trusts, and to carry them

  1567
  out in such a manner as they thought would be best for the interests of the population of the Metropolis, those powers were given with the view that they should carry them out, taking into consideration the particular condition of the population of London. This land was purchased in 1690 for the purpose of being continually kept open for the people, and I would ask your Lordships whether the population is not much more numerous and crowded to a very much greater extent in the district now than it was 200 years ago. How, then, can the Charity Commissioners think they are carrying out the wishes of the Legislature if they erect buildings on this land? If they think fit to allow building upon it are they not going in distinct contravention of the intentions of the Legislature that the charity trusts should be used with duo regard to the public requirements. Can it be said that open spaces are less needed now in that neighbourhood than they were 200 years ago? Can it be said that the population is less numerous now than it was 290 years ago? The Charity Commissioners cannot believe that they are carrying out the wishes of the Legislature unless they believe that is so. How strong the feeling is upon the subject is shown by the petition signed by some 400 people in the parish expressing the hope that this open space will be preserved. On the other hand, there is a petition signed by only 130 persons. That shows that public opinion is somewhat divided upon the matter. If these buildings be erected there will be very little land left to be devoted to the purpose for which it was originally intended. I hope an expression of opinion will be given which will show your Lordships' feelings in this matter, and which will intimate to the Charity Commissioners that if they allow buildings to be erected on this land they are not doing as was contemplated by the Legislature.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lords do not seem to be aware that the Charity Commissioners are pursuing the course laid down by Act of Parliament. They have not yet presented a scheme, though no doubt a draft scheme has been arranged for the management of the charity on the recommendation of a majority of the trustees. There are two branches of the charity—the object of
  1568
  one is to make provision for the poor and the other is in reference to dealing with the land. When the scheme is presented, the Commissioners are bound by statute to hear and consider all the objections made to it, and if they should decide wrongly the statute provides a remedy by appeal to the Court of Chancery. The matter is in due course of law arranged by the proper authorities, and I think I have said enough to show that any expression of opinion on the subject by Her Majesty's Government would be entirely out of place.

  EDUCATION (LUTON).
  "Recent correspondence between the managers of the National School, Luton, Beds., and the Education Department, in reference to a proposed loan to be raised by the Luton School Board upon the security of the rates."—(The Earl of Beauchamp.)
  Ordered to be laid before the House.

  MASTER AND SERVANT BILL (No. 111).
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I may state that its object is to repeal a number of obsolete provisions—all provisions which have remained unrepealed by other legislation—in relation to the law of master and servant. A number of Bills were passed at different times relating to particular industries and particular places. Many of them are covered by general legislation passed since. Some of the Labour Acts have been repealed as regards England, and left unrepealed for some undiscoverable reason as regards Scotland and Ireland. None of those provisions ought to be in existence at the present time. I may give one illustration as an example. An Act was passed forbidding journeymen shoemakers to sell, exchange, or pawn hoots, shoes, or slippers, or materials for making boots, shoes, or slippers. There is no necessity nowadays for having any special legislation with regard to journeymen shoemakers, or other legislation than that which applies to all other workmen under all circumstances. There is this, also, to be added with regard to that particular Act—that it does not apply to all journeymen shoemakers, but only to those within the bills of mortality for the Metropolis. That is an instance of the kind of legislation upon this subject now remaining on the Statute Book, and which only encum-

  1569
  bers it for no useful purpose. I hog, therefore, to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order) and committed to the Standing Committee of Bills relating to Law, &c.

COAL DUTIES (LONDON) ABOLITION BILL (No. 143).

  SECOND READING.
  LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I may say that the measure is extremely simple. There is a somewhat longer preamble than usual, but that preamble consists simply of the recital of various Charters which have been granted from time to time, and Acts of Parliament which have been passed with regard to the Coal Duties leviable within the Port of London. Upon page 7, a recital is given of the terms of their extension from 1872 down to 1882, and then down to the present year. Then comes a statement in the Preamble that it is expedient those duties should cease. In the next paragraph there is a recital of the terms of the Acts of Parliament of 1869 and 1874 which give power to the Corporation to pledge the proceeds of these dues for the purpose of raising money for the freeing of Kew Bridge and other bridges over the Thames. The next paragraph recites that Parliament reserves to itself the power to deal with the surplus arising from that fund. The enacting part of the Bill consists of two clauses. The first clause enacts a general repeal of those duties, but there is added to that a proviso that to the extent of 4d. the duties are to continue in force for one year from the present date. I need hardly tell your Lordships that this matter has been the subject of controversy in another place. Two Bills were introduced in the other House, one for the continuance and the other for the abolition of these duties. They were introduced early in the Session, and the First Reading of the Bill which has now come up to this House was taken as long ago as the 22nd February. The Second Reading was taken on the 22nd May, and on the 27th of that month it was referred to a very strong Committee. That Committee was what is known as a hybrid Committee, two Members being chosen from
  1570
  each side of the House by the House itself, and three added by the Committee of Selection. That Committee carefully considered this Bill and the other Bill, and the proposals made with regard to them. They took evidence at some length upon them, and on the 3rd July they made a Report to the other House of Parliament the purport of which has been embodied in the Bill. A clause which they drew up was added to the Bill and received the sanction of the other House of Parliament. Under these circumstances, I think I am entitled to say that the matter has been very fully and carefully considered, and that I may now ask your Lordships to read the Bill a second time. I will only make this further remark in explanation—that the effect of the proviso which has received the approval of the other House will be that a very large amount of debt for the Holborn Valley Improvement, which it may fairly be said is really a Metropolitan and not a City improvement, will have to be discharged by the City of London. There is a considerable sum remaining under the Bridge Acts, and that sum has been devoted under the arrangement which has been made to payments in respect of the debt due for the Holborn Valley Improvement. If, as some contend, a large portion of that money belongs to the City, the City agrees to dealing with it in this way. If, on the other hand, it is to be dealt with by Parliament, then the Committee, the history of which I have given to your Lordships, has resolved that it can fairly be applied to that purpose. The balance of the debt for the Holborn Valley Improvement, is considerable, and in order to discharge that debt the duty of 4d., with the surplus remaining from Kew Bridge, is to be applied. Under those circumstances, I now move the Second Reading of the Bill. I do not desire unduly to take up your Lordships' time, though if any further information is desired I shall be glad to give it to the best of my ability.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Balfour.)
  LORD LINGEN: My Lords, as Chairman of the Finance Committee of the London County Council, I naturally take a very great interest in this Bill. It is entitled a Bill for the abolition of the Coal Duties leviable in London,

  1571
  subject to their renewal for one year. But that is not an entire representation of the present state of the case, as shown by the debates referred to which have taken place in the House of Commons. The really serious question involved in the Bill is the beginning of the adjustment of charges between the City of London and the new County Council. I think I ought to state to your Lordships that the County Council do regard the course taken upon this Bill, and the history of its introduction, with considerable dissatisfaction. Be they right or be they wrong in that view, their feeling upon the matter as that of a new representative body will, I have no doubt, receive consideration from your Lordships. They are inclined to think that this Bill in the Committee stage, being an extremely complicated Bill, as the recitals are sufficient to show, and involving considerations of very great difficulty, has received very short, and, as yet, insufficient attention. It has this peculiarity about it—that the Committee has reported no evidence, and that the City Authorities have produced no accounts upon which this Bill has been founded. Under those circumstances, the County Council do regard it with dissatisfaction. I think that is an important consideration for your Lordships to bear in mind, and for this reason:—There is no doubt that at some distant day very delicate questions will have to be adjusted between the Corporation of the City and the County Council; and it is surely of great importance that that settlement should be approached in a spirit of moderation and conciliation, not in a spirit of attack and defence, and not in a spirit of vindictiveness. The consideration which this Bill may receive in your Lordships' House, and the language which may be used about it, may have a considerable effect upon the issue. I have had no opportunity of ascertaining the bearing of this Bill, otherwise than has appeared in the public papers. The most important part of it, I think, is really the last section (Section 2) which appropriates certain surpluses; but looking to the speech and the figures quoted by Sir Lyon Playfair and some other Members of the other House, the object of this Bill would appear to be the beginning of a settlement of Metropolitan debts, taking the Holborn Valley
  1572
  Improvements as the first to be dealt with. I need not say that the question of the Holborn Valley Improvements is only one of the matters which will arise. As far as I can make out from the figures given in the public papers, there is a debt upon the City funds for the Holborn Valley Improvements at present undischarged of £744,000, and the proposal is to begin by dividing this debt of £744,000 into halves, each of which will amount to £372,000, and it is proposed that one of these moieties shall fall to the City and the other to the County Council. By the last section of this Bill is dealt with a surplus over certain funds which were applied to the freeing of the London bridges. I estimate that amount at £100,000, which is set aside by the City, and a further sum of £160,000, representing what is called a drawback for the purpose of discharging its liabilities. Then the Quarterly Dues are received for one year; it is estimated that they will produce about £142,000. Of that, one-half is to be given to the City, and one-half is to be given to the County Council for London. That is not in the Bill, but it appears from the speeches of those who support the Bill, and therefore I think it is absolutely necessary that this proposal should be considered along with the Bill. The result of those figures is that in discharging those two moieties of £372,000 each, the City will have to pay £141,000; and when everything has been taken into account the county will have to find £320,000 as its share. Thus, it is evident that this is the beginning of very serious considerations between the City and the County Council. My Lords, I have only risen for the purpose of bringing to the notice of the House this part of the case—how far this Bill involves the beginning of a settlement of Metropolitan debt; and also for the purpose of bringing before your Lordships the state of feeling in the County Council, which is certainly one of considerable irritation.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: My Lords, I happen for once to be in entire unison with the London County Council, though not for the same reasons, in objecting to this Bill. It appears to me to be a tax the remission of which will be absolutely thrown away. Can your Lordships imagine for one moment that

  1573
  a single citizen of London will get his coal one penny the cheaper as the result of throwing away these Dues?
  THE EARL OF LEITRIM: I think the noble Lord is not in order.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: The noble Earl does not say why I am not in order. I say, my Lords, that the inevitable result of this will be that we shall have to face an additional taxation of at least 4d. in the £1.
  THE EARL OF RAVENSWORTH: My Lords, I wish to point out to the House that any doubt cast on the passing of this Bill would tend to dislocate the enormous interests represented by the coal trade of London. On the faith of previous Acts of Parliament, which have been renewed from time to time, the City has expended for the benefit of the whole Metropolis a vast sum representing a debt of £750,000 upon the Holborn Valley Improvements. It is now asked that the Coal Dues shall be renewed for one year to the extent of 4d. in the £1, the proceeds to be used for paying off that debt. It is very important to bear in mind that the continuing Act expires this day, and any doubt as to the passing of this Bill will seriously affect the London coal trade, and the enormous interests affected by it. I will endeavour to give the House an idea of their magnitude. I say, my Lords, that the tendency of throwing any doubt upon the passing of this Bill, which has received the strong sanction of the other House of Paaliament, would be to dislocate the coal trade to an extent that can hardly be estimated. I know, indeed, that at present many ships are lying in the Port of London, and will not discharge their cargoes in consequence of the uncertainty which overlies this question. The coal imports amount to 12,000,000 tons a year in round numbers, about 7,000,000 coming by railway, and 5,000,000 by sea. Another effect of suspending for any length of time the settlement of this matter would be to upset certain arrangements which some noble Lords are aware of as existing with regard to some of the principal lines. Those arrangements are of a complicated character, and at least five of the principal lines are under the liability of paying those dues. I only allude to these matters to show the House the extraordinary laxity with which this question
  1574
  has been dealt with by some, the danger of allowing it to remain unsettled, and how mischievous it would be. The injury done would vastly exceed the sum represented by a tax of 4d. per ton on the coal. I trust your Lordships will not reject a Bill of this kind which has been passed by an overwhelming majority in the other House of Parliament, and which, if passed now, will effect, at any rate, something like a temporary settlement of this matter.
  LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, I will first answer the point in reference to the apportionment of the debt between the City and the County Council. The noble Lord who referred to it had the courtesy to inform mo that he was going to raise that question, and I have taken the opportunity to look at the speeches he has mentioned. I did not think it right to raise the question myself; but I confess I have not been able to gather from those speeches the same construction which the noble Lord has done. I think if that construction is drawn from either the speeches of Sir Lyon Playfair or of the other Members it is erroneous. The reports are, on the face of them, extremely condensed, and on that account, being also complicated with so many figures, and dealing with such large sums of money, a mere abstract is very likely to be (quite innocently) entirely erroneous and misleading, and it is to be regretted if they have conveyed that construction to the mind of the noble Lord. I will state the exact position of the matter. There is a debt on the Holborn Valley Improvements of £744,000. Against that has to be put £160,000 from the savings referred to, and other sources. There are also the Dues at 4d. per ton, which may be estimated at about £140,000. This estimate does not materially differ from that of the noble Lord. Those sums together amount to £300,000. There is nothing in the Bill whatever regarding the debt of £744,000. I wish to state distinctly that the City of London will remain responsible for the whole balance of that debt of £744,000. I hope I have made that quite distinct. As regards the other point, that this Bill has not been adequately discussed. If that be the case I regret that it should be so; but I do not think that those who have brought

  1575
  in the Bill are in any way responsible for it. There was a block upon it in the other House of Parliament for three months, and the proposal to refer it to a Committee could not be carried out. If that had not been the case it would have been possible to discuss it with much greater deliberation than is now possible. This is the day on which the dues expire; and it is of the utmost importance, if trade is not to be dislocated, as the noble Lord (Lord Ravens-worth) has said, that this Bill should be passed into law with the utmost possible speed. I entirely reciprocate the expression of hope, which the noble Lord opposite expressed at the beginning of his speech, that nothing will be said in this House which will tend in any way to embitter the relations between the Corporation of the City and the London County Council, One can easily understand that there are many delicate financial matters to be discussed between those two Bodies, and it is certainly not my intention to say anything which could complicate their position. I am quite sure that it is the wish of your Lordships that those discussions should be carried on as comfortably as possible.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly.
  LORD BALFOUR: I have to ask your Lordships to remit this Bill to a Committee of the Whole House, and I further give notice that I shall ask for a suspension on Monday of the Standing Order, with a view to the remaining stages of the measure being taken on that day. I think I am justified in doing so, as this Bill partakes so much of the nature of a Money Bill.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next; and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.

  PASSENGERS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 100.)
  House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order): Bill reported without amendment and to be read 3a on Monday next.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Monday next, at a quarter past Four o'clock.