Sitting of 18 July 1889

YORKSHIRE PROVIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY (SPECIAL REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON FRIENDLY SOCIETIES).
The Select Committee appointed to inquire into the affairs of the Yorkshire Provident Insurance Company, to consider the Special Report of the Select Committee on Friendly Societies, and to report to the House what action should be taken thereon, have considered the matters to them referred,
696
and have agreed to the following Report:—
Your Committee have had before them for examination the shorthand notes of the evidence given by Mr. Richard Martin before the Friendly Societies Committee, with respect to the Yorkshire Provident Insurance Company, and the books and papers produced by him, and also a Letter addressed to Sir Herbert Maxwell by Mr. Richard Martin, and certain books forwarded by Mr. Richard Martin to the Clerk to your Committee.
The Committee, having considered the Special Report of the Friendly Societies Committee, and the evidence and other materials mentioned, are of opinion that such evidence, books, papers, and documents should be placed in the hands of the Public Prosecutor, in order that criminal proceedings may be instituted against the persons responsible for the management of the Yorkshire Provident Insurance Company.
Your Committee, having found in the materials before them sufficient ground for this recommendation, have not thought it right to summon and examine Mr. Richard Martin.
In view of the conclusion at which your Committee have arrived, they do not think it necessary to make any Report upon the question of Privilege referred to in the Report of the Select Committee on Friendly Societies.
Ordered, That the Minutes of the Proceedings be printed. [No. 262.]
Ordered, That the Report be considered upon Monday next, and be printed. [No. 262.]

QUESTION'S.

  IMPORTATION OF CATTLE.
  MR. KNOWLES: I beg to ask the vice chamberlain if the statement has been brought to his notice that, in 1878, 16,250 German sheep, in 1879, 5,000 Spanish cattle, and, in 1880, 1,120 Spanish cattle were sold in the Salford Cattle Market; if he is aware that, in consequence of the prohibition on the landing of Foreign animals in the United Kingdom, especially at Birkenhead, which is now in force, the market has been greatly injured; and, whether he will take steps to remove or

  697
  relax the restrictions upon the importation of cattle and sheep from countries such as the United States, Spain, and Belgium, where, according to good information, cattle disease does not now prevail?
  THE VICE CHAMBERLAIN (Viscount LEWISHAM,): The statement is not correct as to German sheep. German sheep have been landed for slaughter only, or totally prohibited since January, 1877. Cattle from Spain were not subject to slaughter at the ports until June 19, 1881, consequently there was nothing to prevent the sale of Spanish cattle in Salford Market up to that date. With regard to Belgium and the United States of America, the information in the possession of the Privy Council shows that cattle disease does exist in both these countries. And with reference to Spain, the Privy Council are not satisfied as to the laws regulating the importation of animals into that country. Under all these circumstances, the Privy Council do not propose at present to make any alteration respecting the landing of animals from the countries named in the hon Gentleman's question.
  MR. KNOWLES: Is it the fact that the importation of cattle to this country from foreign countries where the cattle disease does not prevail is prohibited because there is no prohibition of importation into these countries from countries where the disease does prevail?
  VISCOUNT LEWISHAM: I must ask the hon. Member to give notice of that question.

  THE BELFAST WORKHOUSE.
  MR. BIGGAR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the irregularities in the management of the Belfast Workhouse had become so numerous and complicated within the past eight months that the Guardians felt obliged to invoke the aid of the Local Government Board to elucidate matters by means of a sworn inquiry, which was duly held in accordance with their expressed wish; is he aware that, as the result of this inquiry, the Local Government Board, in a communication to the Belfast Board of Guardians, dated 24th June, 1889, stated that the master of the Belfast Workhouse
  698
  "Neglected to look after the issue of food for the inmates, which is a very important part of his duty; that he certified the storekeeper's accounts without any examination as to their correctness;"
  and that, having regard to the master's disobedience to the orders of the Board of Guardians, general inefficiency, and neglect, the Local Government Board had no longer confidence in him, and requested the Guardians to call upon the master to resign his position; is it true that the Guardians have failed to comply with this request from the Local Government Board, although the Guardians do not appear to disagree with the finding; and what steps, if any, will be taken to give effect to the wishes of the Local Government Board; and is such delay, as is herein shown, usual in dealing with an official who has been declared incompetent?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): It is the case that, in compliance with a Resolution of the Board of Guardians, the Local Government Board instructed an Inspector to make an inquiry into certain irregularities in the management of the Belfast Workhouse. The result of the inquiry was communicated to the Guardians on the 24th of June, and the letter of the Board contained the statement quoted in the second paragraph of the letter. The Board Local Government Board have the matter now under their consideration, and there will be no delay in dealing with it.

  CASE OF MICHAEL LARKIN.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has lately been called to the case of Michael Larkin, of Deal Street, Salford, on whose behalf a Petition was presented to the House of Commons in June 1888, from which it appears that Michael Larkin was convicted at the Limerick Quarter Sessions in January, 1862, on a charge of having uttered a base half-crown, and also on a charge of having been previously convicted of a similar offence at Cork in 1858, and was sentenced to penal servitude for life; but it having afterwards transpired that Larkin was not the man convicted at Cork, and that the evidence against him in the Limerick case was

  699
  much discredited, Larkin received a free pardon, after having been more than 15 years in prison, but got no compensation for these lost years of his life; and, whether, under all the circumstances, he will endeavour to obtain some compensation for Larkin?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUE: Michael Larkin and one McMahon were on 7 th January, 1862, convicted at Limerick Quarter Sessions on the charge of uttering base coin, and this having been the second conviction for this class of offence of Larkin he was sentenced to penal servitude for life. He did not subsequently receive a free pardon on the ground alleged in this question. There was no doubt entertained in regard to his previous conviction, nor in regard to his guilt on the second occasion. But it appearing that the Chairman of Quarter Sessions, when passing the sentence of penal servitude for life, thought that according to the Prison Rules this man would after a period of years be released, the Government of the day decided that as he had served 15 years in penal servitude the remainder of the sentence should in substance be remitted, and he was freed from the obligations of conforming to the conditions of his licence. The man was properly convicted. That conviction was reviewed by successive Governments on memorials submitted by the convict while in prison, the decision invariably being that the law should take its course. And there is no ground whatever for considering the question of compensation in the matter.

  WESTERN AUSTRALIA.
  MR. KING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the attention of the Secretary of State has been given to the Return presented to the House purporting to be a Return of sales and grants of land in Western Australia during the past ten years, and in particular to certain discrepancies of statement on the face of the Return; whether he has observed that, while the hon. John Forrest, Commissioner of Crown Lands, who makes the Return, states that the total number of acres "alienated" was 1,877,045 up to the end of 1877, and during the past ten years only 285,044, he gives a record of over 130,000,000 acres granted under the head of
  700
  "Leases, licences, &c., of Crown lands, showing rents or instalments of purchase money due for 1889," but without indicating how many of the annual payments are rents and how many instalments of purchase money; whether the Colonial Office has any information as to how many of the holdings are leases and how many acres have been purchased on payment by annual instalments, and whether he can explain the exact meaning in the Returns of the word "alienation;" whether the Secretary of State has observed that "leases" or "licenses, &c.," have been granted to individuals or syndicates or banks of blocks of land amounting to many millions of acres, and whether any persons or officials who have been in the service of the Government are directly or indirectly interested, in any of these grants; whether any of the Forrests to whom certain of these, grants have been made are relatives of the Commissioner of Crown Lands; if so, if he will explain the circumstances under which these grants have been, made; whether it is correct, as stated in the Colonial Office List, that while the entire area of Western Australia at present under cultivation is 105,582 acres, and only 2,895 square miles have been "alienated," 201,904 square miles are "leased, licensed, &c.," while 853,203 square miles remain still unoccupied; and whether, in view of these facts, he will order an inquiry into the manner in which the Government of Western Australia has dealt with the Crown lands, and in the meantime consider the propriety of withdrawing the Bill for the Government of Western Australia until these matters have been, investigated?
  THE UNDER SECEETAEY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): The Return as to sales and grants of land in Western Australia has been examined, and does not appear to contain any discrepancies of statement. If my hon. Friend will refer to the land regulations printed in C. 5743, he will find, information explanatory of the Return, and of the mode in which the Crown, lands are dealt with. As regards the second and third paragraphs of his question, although the sales on deferred payment are not distinguished from the pastoral leases in this Return, it is,

  701
  apparent that the small holdings are cases of purchase under deferred payment, and the large acreages are pastoral leases. It is not understood why, for present purposes, it is material to have the information in greater detail. "Alienation" is shown in the land regulations to be used, as elsewhere in Australia, in its natural sense to indicate land sold, or conditionally sold, in fee, as distinguished from lands leased and resumable by the Crown. With respect to the fourth paragraph, it is well-known that in Western Australia, as in the other Australian colonies, immense tracts are leased by persons or companies to be used for grazing until required for sale in fee, when they are resumed without compensation. It is not known whether, or how far, official persons in Western Australia have been or are interested in these leases. They are obtained by the first applicant, without favour; and in the other colonies Government officers have not been precluded from having shares in pastoral leases. As regards the fifth paragraph, some at least of the Forrests mentioned are relatives of the Commissioner of Crown Lands. One is a well-known explorer and land agent, and he has the same right as any other person to apply for a lease. As regards the sixth paragraph, probably the statement in the Colonial Office List was correct up to date. In regard to lands alienated, it is closely in accordance with the Return lately presented to the House. There is no ground for ordering an inquiry into the matter in which the Colonial Government has dealt with the Crown lands, which are managed with the utmost publicity, in exact accordance with the regulations approved by Her Majesty's Government. There are no indications of any abuses or mistakes such as should be investigated before the Responsible Government Bill is passed.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Perhaps it will be convenient for the right hon. Gentleman to answer now the further question on the same subject which appears on the Paper in my name—namely, whether he can state under what circumstances large blocks of land in Western Australia have been given over to single individuals or firms, often amounting to several millions of acres in each case; whether there has been
  702
  anything to prevent banks and individuals accumulating in their own hands hundreds of separate grants; under what rule were lands leased or sold previous to the recently promulgated rules, and whether some of the large grants were made outside of rules with the sanction of the Legislative Council under Mr. Forrest's Memorandum, paragraph 6; for what terms leases previous to the new rules are held, and when they terminate; and, whether there is any truth in the assertion that West Australian land leases are renewable and practically perpetual?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: In reply to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question, I have to say that these large blocks of land are not granted or given over, but leased for pastoral purposes under the Land Regulations (No. 56 and following), printed at page 98 of Blue Book C. 5743. The answer to the second paragraph is in the negative. The practice throughout Australia has been to allow the holding of numerous pastoral leases by an individual or company. The lands held by the banks have no doubt passed into their hands through the failure of lessees to repay advances. As regards the third paragraph, such lands were dealt with under the previous regulations of October 11, 1882, which did not differ materially in principle from the present regulations. All the large areas of land mentioned in the Return are under pastoral leases. Grants made under Regulation 115 (printed at page 107 of C. 5743) have rarely been large. As regards the fourth paragraph, leases issued previous to the new rules expire on December 31, 1893; that is, for the most part they were for about 11 years. The assertion referred to in the fifth paragraph is unfounded. The form of lease printed at page 113 of C. 5743 contains no provision for renewal, and it expressly stipulates that during the term of the lease the Government may sell to any person all or any part of the leased lands, and may grant or sell all or any part for public purposes.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to give notice that in moving the rejection of the Western Australia Constitution Bill I will call attention to this subject.
  MR. CHILDERS: In reference to the answer to the second question of the hon. Gentleman opposite

  703
  (Mr. King), may I ask if there is any objection to give a supplemental Return to show what are and what are not Crown lands?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: I will endeavour to do so.

  DIRECTOR GENERAL OF TELEGRAPHS IN INDIA.
  MR. KING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether any arrangement has yet been made for filling up the post of Director General of Telegraphs in India, vacated by the retirement of Sir a Cappell; and whether, in view of the long delay in promotion in the Indian Telegraph Department, and the consequent dissatisfaction in the service, care will be taken in filling up the post to promote to it a member of the Indian Telegraph Department?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): Not yet; as Sir A. Cappel, who is in this country, only sent in his resignation on the 1st of this month. There is reason to believe that the Acting Director General will succeed him.

  THE OLD RIVER LEA—THE POWDER WORKS AT WALTHAM ABBEY.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the serious losses the farmers at Waltham Abbey, in Essex, have sustained from the frequent flooding of the land caused by the silting up of the Old River Lea which forms a part of the Waltham Abbey Powder Works property; and, whether the War Office are proposed to dredge Or straiten the river so as to prevent the recurrence of these losses?
  MR. BRADLAUGH: As I have been in the habit of fishing at King's Weir for the last 30 years, may I ask whether it is not the fact that the river has been entirely neglected by the Government, that it has remained entirely undredged, and that the weeds are never cut so that whenever there is an extra flood the water rises nearly to the level of the weir and renders fishing impossible?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): Complaints as to the floods
  704
  have been received, but the liability to keep the River Lea dredged is a part of matters which have been for many years in dispute, and the War Department does not admit that the onus lies upon it to do so, although it would benefit equally with other riparian owners if joint action to prevent floods could be taken. Legislation is probably called for; but the Floods Prevention Bill of 1881 having failed to become law, the Conservators appear to be unable to cope with existing difficulties.
  Mr. BRADLAUGH: The Conservancy cannot touch this water, because it is in the hands of the Government, and as the Government do not touch it, it has gone to the bad.
  SIR H. SELWIN-IBBETSON: Arising out of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask if he is not aware that the flooding affects the Government works almost to the same extent as these of the other riparian owners?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I have already said so, but I dispute that the Government should have the sole liability in the matter.

  PIGEON PLYING ON SUNDAYS.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to a statement that the railway companies in the Black Country lend facilities to the sport of pigeon flying on Sundays; that boxes, containing pigeons, are sent by the trains which the stationmaster has to open on arrival, liberate the pigeon, enter the time on the label, and return the box by next train; whether such a course is legal; and, whether he can devise any means for suppressing this unnecessary Sunday labour?
  MR. S. BUXTON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, I should like to ask him whether any harm or cruelty results from this sport, and if it would not be a great mistake to interfere with it?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): My attention has not been drawn to this matter, and the Board of Trade also inform me that they have no cognizance of it. I am not aware of any Statute which would

  705
  make such a practice illegal. I presume that this Sunday labour is voluntarily undertaken by the stationmasters. I do not think that it is so oppressive in its nature that the Government would be justified in legislating for its suppression.

  INDIA—DISTRESS IN DIAMOND HAR- BOUR SUB-DIVISION OF PEGUNNAHS— COLLECTION OF TAXES.
  MR. BEADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, in the Diamond Harbour sub-division of the 24 Pegunnahs, Bengal, where the collector, Mr. Bolton, declares there is no acute distress, the Municipal Commissioners of Joynugger have resolved that the collection of taxes up to next December shall be realized without the pressure of distress warrants upon the people who are actually in distress, and are unable to pay; and, whether the Secretary of State will instruct the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal to institute a special inquiry, in order to ascertain whether the Joynugger Commissioners were justified, in view of the collector's statement, in taking so extreme a course?
  SIR J. GORST: No information has been received from India on the subject. There do not appear to the Secretary of State to be grounds for instituting an inquiry. The matter is one which may safely be left in the hands of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal.
  MR. BEADLAUGH: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the same opinion prevailed in reference to the North Western Provinces some years ago, and that a large number of persons died in consequence of no inquiry being made?
  SIR J. GORST: I should like to remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that there are in India regulations which have been settled after great care and consideration, and that any rash interference with them would be very likely to lead to disaster.

  DISTRESS IN GANJAM—REMISSION OF REVENUE.
  MR. BEADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Madras Government has granted any remission of Land Revenue in Ganjam to help the ryots to tide over the period of scarcity; if so, to what extent; and, if not, whether he is aware
  706
  that the principle of remissions have always been recognised and acted upon in Madras during a scarcity?
  SIR J. GORST: The Madras Revenue system provides for remission of Land Revenue in case of drought. The rule will, no doubt be, acted on in Ganjam; but it is too early yet to obtain reliable information as to the amount of remission granted.

  HOMELESS CATS IN THE METROPOLIS
  MR. H. R. FAEQUHAESON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is aware that there are usually in London a large number of homeless cats; if he has any information whether the bite or scratch of a cat can convey hydrophobia; and, whether, if such is the case, he will take care that the muzzling order is extended to cats, and that the police have instructions to arrest and, if necessary, to destroy all unmuzzled cats?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I believe, after the best inquiry I have been able to make, that there are a large number of homeless cats in London. I understand that the bite or scratch of a rabid cat can convey hydrophobia, but happily cases of rabies in cats are comparatively rare. In the opinion of the authorities it is not practicable to muzzle cats, so as to prevent them from using their claws as well as their teeth. If I gave the police instructions to "arrest" cats I am doubtful if they would find it easy or possible to obey my instructions.

  BUILDING SOCIETIES.
  MR. SEALE HAYNE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the statistics of building societies and the comments thereon given in this year's "Whitaker's Almanack;" whether certain building societies continue to grant appropriations by lottery-ballot, and to re-purchase them, at the expense of their members, at about £12 per cent; whether he is aware that this practice has been characterized as "pure gambling" by the Assistant Registrar in March 1886, and strongly deprecated by the Chief Registrar in his Report for 1885; whether it is true that 199 Starr-Bow-kett societies are insolvent, and that 72 societies mentioned in Mr. Starr's work

  707
  on Starr-Bowkettism (April 1883) are not to be found in the Government Return to the end of 1886; and, whether, having regard to the large income of these societies (over £700,000), he will take any steps to stop the serious evil of gambling in appropriations in them by putting in force the Lotteries Acts?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The answer to the first three paragraphs is in the affirmative. With regard to the fourth paragraph, the annual Return for the present year is now being prepared, and the precise figures cannot yet be verified; but it is true that a large number of Starr-Bowkett Societies show a balance deficit in their accounts, especially when the amounts expended in the purchase of appropriations are excluded as the Act of Parliament requires. Many have been dissolved, and are, therefore, not now included in the Return. I am informed by the Registrar of Friendly Societies that the practice extends far beyond the Starr-Bowkett Societies, who are not by any means the worst offenders in this respect. I am advised that it is doubtful whether the practice of balloting for appropriations falls within the Lotteries Acts. It is a practice of very old standing; and I should not think it advisable to institute prosecutions against these societies, especially as no representation has reached me as to any necessity for any such interference of the Government.

  THE NAVAL MANŒUVRES.
  MR. MARK STEWART: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will give instructions to Officers commanding ships in the forthcoming Naval Manœuvres, that, subject to the exigencies of warfare, as little disturbance as possible should be made on Sundays?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. Hamilton,): Naval operations cannot be summarily suspended on the Sunday and recommenced next day; but every care will be taken to disturb as little as is possible the sanctity of the Sabbath.

  WOOLWICH ARSENAL.
  COLONEL HUGHES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what action he proposes to take on the Report of the Select Committee on
  708
  workmen in Woolwich Arsenal and other Government establishments, entered from 1861 to 1870, being entitled to superannuation; and, whether, if legislation be required to carry out the recommendation of the Committee, such legislation will be proposed this Session?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I am sorry not to be able as yet to answer the question of my hon. Friend. The matter is one of considerable importance, and it is still under consideration.

  CONTRABAND GOODS.
  MR. COZENS-HARDY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is a fact that Custom House officers have instruction to pierce with a sharp instrument reels of paper imported from abroad on the chance of their containing contraband goods; whether he is aware that such piercing seriously damages the paper itself, and renders it useless for the purpose for which it is imported; and, whether, in any case in which no contraband goods are found concealed in the paper, the Treasury will undertake to make good the loss sustained by the importer?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I have to inform the hon. and learned Member that reels of paper, in common with all other goods, are subject, for Revenue purposes, to Customs examination on importation. By the Customs Consolidation Act of 1876, the duty of unpacking goods for the purposes of such examination devolves upon the importer; but where, as in goods of the kind in question (the unrolling of reels of paper at this stage being virtually impracticable) he does, not choose to unpack the goods, the examination is made by passing a very fine spit between the rolls of paper after the outer bands of the package have been loosened. Not more, however, than one package probably in each consignment is subject to such examination, and every precaution is taken by officers of Customs to cause the least possible damage. Attempts have been made to introduce contraband goods into this country in packages of goods of a like nature to reels of paper, and it is therefore absolutely necessary that a sufficient examination should be made to satisfy

  709
  the officers of Customs. In two instances in which application was made, the paper was sent in charge to the newspaper office for which it was intended, and there unrolled in the presence of the Customs officers. From the absence of complaint the Board of Customs have no reason to suppose that serious damage has been caused by the examination of reels of paper on importation. The Crown is not liable to make compensation for any damage necessarily caused to goods on importation by Customs examination.

  BURIAL BY MISTAKE.
  MR. MONTAGU: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the following facts: Mrs. Toop, an inmate of the White chapel Infirmary, died there on Tuesday last, and her friends forthwith made arrangements for the funeral; but when the undertaker called at the infirmary, a body, which was not that of Mrs. Toop, was offered to him; and the friends of the latter, in spite of repeated applications, have not been able to obtain delivery of her body, which, it is understood, has been buried by mistake; and, whether he will point out to the Guardians of the White chapel Union that it is their duty to recover the body of Mrs. Toop, and hand it over to her friends?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG,): I have made inquiry as to the case of Mrs. Toop. It appears that the deceased died in the infirmary of the White chapel Union on the 9th instant, and the body was the same day removed to the mortuary and placed in a coffin for interment in ordinary course. On the 10th instant, the relatives of the deceased notified their desire to inter the body at their own expense, and it was intended that the body should be retained in the mortuary for removal by them. There were four bodies awaiting removal in the mortuary, and of these, three were for removal by the contractor to the guardians. In the removal of the three bodies on the 11th instant, the officer in charge made the unfortunate mistake of causing the removal of the body of Mrs. Toop, in place of that of one Emily Preston, No notification was received by the in-
  710
  firmary authorities of the mistake, and it was not discovered until the friends applied for the body. The guardians deeply regret the occurrence, and steps are being taken by them with the view of the exhumation of the body for re-interment.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Is it not the fact that the authorities of the Ilford Cemetery received an order to inter the body of Annie Preston, and under that order buried a coffin with a plate having a totally different name upon it—namely, Emma Toop?
  MR. LONG: I believe that was so, but steps have been taken to remedy the mistake, as far as possible.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary cause inquiries to be made as to the negligence, or apparent negligence, of the authorities at the Ilford Cemetery?
  MR. MATTHEWS: My attention has not been called to the matter, which is within the Department of the Local Government Board.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I presume that the regulations under the Burials Act come under the authority of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. MATTHEWS: If I have any authority in the matter I will cause inquiry to be made.

  USIBEPU,
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether General Smyth, while in command of the British forces in Zululand in 1888, presented Usibepu with 30,000 rounds of ammunition from the stores of the Coast Column; whether Usibepu thereupon raided his neighbours living in Ngandawe, on the Bongo, and also two tribes of Amatongas, who were subject to the Queen of Amatongaland, and in no sense concerned in Zululand affairs; and, whether this present of ammunition to Usibepu was made with the consent of the Zululand civil authorities?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Lieutenant-General Smyth issued 2,880 (not 30,000) rounds of ammunition to Usibepu in August, 1888, for purposes of self-defence. Usibepu did subsequently make a raid upon the two Chiefs referred to in retaliation for some alleged acts of

  711
  aggression on the part of their people. The Chiefs in question, although Tongas in race, are regarded as British subjects and belonging to the political system of Zululand. The ammunition was issued to Usibepu by the General on his own responsibility at a time when he was beyond the reach of communications from the civil authorities.
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: Does the hon. Gentleman approve of the action of General Smyth?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Yes, Sir.
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: I wish also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, at the end of last may, Usibepu, though charged with murder, was allowed to return to his home contrary to the advice of Europeans in Zululand well acquainted with the state of the country; and, whether he can state at whose recommendation and upon whose responsibility this step was taken?
  BARON H. DE WOEMS: As I intimated to the hon. Member in replying to him on the 11th instant, our information is that Usibepu remains at Etchowe; but inquiries will be made.

  IRELAND—MR. GILL AND MR. COX.
  MR. ARTHUE WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the statement made by Mr. Hamilton, the Resident Magistrate at the trial of Mr. Gill, M.P., and Mr. Cox, M.P., at Drogheda, that—
  "He saw nothing in Police Constable Robinson's evidence to justify the imputation of perjury,"
  was not made at the outset of his cross examination, before Mr. Bodkin, the defendant's counsel, had subjected the witness to tests the result of which was that the magistrates dismissed the charge, because they considered the evidence of this witness unreliable; and, whether a searching inquiry will be instituted into the circumstances under which this unreliable evidence was put forward; and, if so, what will be the nature of the inquiry?
  MR. A. J. BALEOUR: I understand that the facts are substantially as stated in the first paragraph, though I may add that it appears that after the constable's evidence had terminated, and other witnesses had been examined, Mr. Bodkin, the defendant's counsel, renewed the charge of perjury, and the
  712
  Resident Magistrate told him that he thought he should not make that observation. The Inspector General will make careful inquiry into the matter.

  REGISTRATION OF JOINT STOCK LIMITED COMPANIES.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there is any precedent for charging two Stamp Duties in connection with the Registration of Joint Stock Limited Companies; and, whether he can state the amount of duty collected during the first six months of the current financial year from the new tax in excess of his estimate of £110,000 for the year?
  MR. GOSCHEN: In reply I have to inform the hon. Member that there were two duties already so charged before the new duty was imposed on the nominal capital of a company—namely, a Fee Duty upon registration, and a 10s. Stamp Duty on the Memorandum of Association. During ten months in the last financial year, the new duty brought in about £160,000, as against the Estimate of £110,000. The first six months of the current financial year have not yet expired, but the yield for the first quarter has been (approximately) £70,000. I fear, however, that I cannot look upon this as giving me a hope that the total yield for the year will be four times that amount, because there has been an extraordinary activity during the last three months in the promotion of companies. No one can say that it will be continuous.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—SUPPLE- MENTAL ESTIMATES.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether there are yet any Supplemental Estimates to be presented this Session; when they may be expected; and whether sufficient time will be given for their consideration before the House is asked to vote them; why the Estimates for compensation to men accused of the Edlingham burglary, which was understood to have been paid last year, has not yet been presented; whether there will be an Estimate for sums required for special works in Ireland, or how money is to be raised for that purpose; whether the House has heard the amount of demands in aid of Cyprus;

  713
  and, whether it is true that the Government have agreed to pay three-fourths of the subsidy for a line of steamers between the Canadian Dominion and Japan and China; and, if so, when that will be presented for sanction?
  THE SECRETAEY TO THE TREASUEY (Mr. JACKSON,): There are a few Supplemental Estimates which it will be necessary to present this Session. The details of one or two of them are not yet finally settled; but they will be presented in sufficient time to give hon. Members a full opportunity of considering them. The payment made in respect of the Edlingham burglary will be included in the Vote for repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund, which will form one of the Supplemental Estimates. I have not heard of any Supplemental Estimates that will be required for special works in Ireland, or as an addition to the grant in aid for Cyprus. The Government has agreed to the payment of three-fourths of a subsidy to the Canadian Pacific Railway for a service to China and Japan viâ Vancouver. The Treasury Minute respecting the contract, and the contract itself, will be laid on the Table either to-night or tomorrow.

  CHITTAGONG AND ASSAM RAILWAY.
  MR. BEADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State has received a Despatch from the Government of India on the Chittagong and Assam Railway scheme, recommending the granting of a concession of land and mining rights to a syndicate, such concession granting 10 square miles of land for every mile of railway constructed; whether he will lay a Copy of the Despatch in question, and all Papers connected with the subject, upon the Table of the House; and, whether, before any binding engagements in connection with the proposed new policy are entered into, the House will be afforded an opportunity of discussing the subject?
  SIR J. GOEST: The Despatch has been received very recently; and the Secretary of State is unable at present to make any statement on the subject.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that there has been a new departure of policy in reference
  714
  to Indian Railways, and that huge tracts of land are to be handed over to concessionaires in future without any expression of opinion on the part of this House?
  [No answer was returned.]

  MAIL FROM DUBLIN TO WATER- FORD.
  MR. RICHARD POWER: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether it is the case that, within the seven months ending 30th June, 1889, the day mail from Dublin to Waterford, by which the greater part of the English letters are conveyed, has been delayed for some hours on 12 different occasions owing to the Dublin train being late at Kilkenny; whether he is aware that these repeated delays cause very serious inconvenience to the citizens of Waterford; whether it is the case that in March last a deputation, consisting of the Mayor of Waterford and several citizens, came to London specially to present a memorial to him on this subject, and to point out that there is an alternative route viâ Mary-borough, by which, at very trifling expense to the Post Office, these delays might be almost wholly avoided, and the mails otherwise accelerated; and, whether he can hold out any hope of the prayer of this memorial being acceded to?
  THE POSTMASTEE GENEEAL (Mr. RAIKES,): Since the 21st February last, when letters were addressed by my direction, to the Waterford Chamber of Commerce and the Harbour Commissioners on this subject, the day mail from Dublin to Waterford has, I understand, been delayed only three times. On each of these occasions, the English mails were late in arriving in Dublin owing to stress of weather, aud though the Great Southern and Western Railway Company used every effort to make up time on the journey viâ Carlow to Kilkenny, they were unable to secure a connection at that station with the train to Waterford. I am quite alive to the importance of securing an uninterrupted communication between Dublin and Waterford, but when the subject was last brought under the notice of the Waterford and Central Ireland Railway Company, who are the owners of the line between Mary borough and Kilkenny,

  715
  they were unable to afford the necessary facilities, except at an expenditure which was held not to be warranted. I will, however, cause further inquiries to be made, with a view, if possible, of securing an arrangement on reasonable terms.

  DELAGOA BAY RAILWAY.
  DR. CLAEK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he is aware that the concession to make the Delagoa Bay Railway was given to an American named Edward M'Murdo, in 1883, by the Portuguese Government, on the condition that the concessionaire should complete the Railway within four years; that renewed extensions of time having been granted, as the concessionaire was unable to complete his contract during the time fixed by the concession, the Portuguese Government began the construction of the line; that the concessionaire took over the line from the Portuguese Government, but has not yet completed it according to the terms of the concession; whether he is aware that less than £300,000 has been spent in making the Railway by the Company, and that the contractor employed by the Company has lately had a decision in his favour by the Court of Appeal for a balance of about £40,000 spent by him in constructing the Railway; whether he is aware that the Company is practically bankrupt, and the Portuguese Government, who began the construction of the Railway, are now taking possession to finish it in accordance with the terms of the concession; and whether under these circumstances, the Government are remonstrating with the Portuguese Government for their action?
  THE UNDER SECEETAEY OF STATE FOR FOEEIGN AFFAIES (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): Much of the hon. Member's question is argumentative. I am not prepared to give an opinion on the details referred to in it.

  DOVER PIER FORT.
  MR. CHILDERS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the case, as stated in the standard of 12th July, that nearly £40,000 is about to be spent in connection with the fort on Dover Pier; and if he has any
  716
  objection to state generally the object of this expenditure?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: It is true that a large sum is to be spent for the purpose of strengthening the sub-structure of the Dover Pier turret and magazine. It is undesirable to enter publicly into further particulars, but if the right hon. Gentleman will communicate with me he shall have detailed information on the subject.

  STATE DIRECTED COLONIZATION.
  MR. CHILDERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has observed that in some of the replies to Lord Knutsford's Circular of the 31st May, 1888, on the subject of a scheme for State-directed Colonization, it is apparently assumed that the scheme has been framed by a Joint Committee appointed by the two Houses of Parliament, whereas, in point of fact, it was framed by a body of Peers and Members of the House of Commons, not appointed by, and having no authority from, Parliament itself; and, whether the Secretary of State will take steps to remove this misapprehension?
  BARON H DE WORMS: The Secretary of State has no reason to think that the misapprehension has led any Colonial Government to consider the scheme as having the special authority of Parliament; but in any case the right hon. Gentleman by calling attention to the subject will probably have done all that is necessary to remove any misapprehension.

  IRELAND—MAIMING CATTLE.
  MR. MACAETNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it it true that the cattle belonging to Florence Sullivan, J. Keane, and Timothy Connihan, were injured by stabbing recently; whether these men are tenants of Lord Kenmare; whether they had paid their rent; and, whether any arrests have been made?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that it is the case that two cows the property of Florence Sullivan, four the property of John Keane, and one the property of Timothy Connihan were stabbed on the night of the 30th of June, two of the cows dying from the effects of the

  717
  injuries inflicted. The three persons named are tenants of Lord Kenmare's who had paid their rents, which appears to have been the motive for the outrages. No arrests have so far been made.
  MR. SEXTON: How long a time is it since all associations deemed to be dangerous have been suppressed by the Irish Government?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Member thinks that we claim to have succeeded in putting down all outrages, I may state that no such claim has ever been made by the Irish Government.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: Upon what information does the right hon. Gentleman found his statement that these cattle were stabbed owing to the fact that the tenants to whom they belonged had paid their rent?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Upon the best information I can obtain.

  MR. CONYBEARE.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is a fact that the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare), being a Protestant, had himself registered as a Roman Catholic, and attended Mass in Derry Gaol; and, whether the prison regulations permit any prisoner to choose the religious denomination under which he shall be registered, or whether this is an indulgence extended to political prisoners? I wish to say that I wrote "so-called political prisoners." There are no political prisoners in Ireland.
  MR. SEXTON: Before the question is answered, I wish to ask whether the hon. Gentleman is entitled, in putting a question, to assume as a fact that which is a matter of argument?
  MR. SPEAKER: As a matter of fact, I directed that that question should be omitted, and it appears on the Paper by inadvertence. Seeing it on the Paper, I have allowed it to be put for this reason—that the latter part of it seems to be a matter of public importance.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In accordance with the Speaker's ruling, I will confine my answer to the last paragraph of the question. It is open to any prisoner to name on reception the religious
  718
  denomination under which he is to be registered.

  IRISH JURIES.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that at the Mary borough Summer Assizes, on Monday the 8tth instant, when two men named respectively Lawrence Hickey and Denis Connell were indicted for the wilful murder of Denis Daly, 27 special jurors, 24 of whom were Roman Catholics, were ordered by the Crown to stand by, and that several of the gentlemen so ordered entered a strong protest; whether the report is true that, after a jury had been sworn, consisting of eleven Protestants and one Catholic, one of the jury, Mr. Smellie, a Protestant, who had neither been challenged or ordered to stand by, said, in open Court, "I object to try a man for life on a packed jury;" and, whether he will take steps to secure that Roman Catholics shall be more adequately represented on juries in criminal cases in Ireland?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that it is the case that, at the trial referred to, 27 special jurors were ordered by the Crown to stand aside and that 20 were challenged on behalf of the prisoners. I have no knowledge as to the religion of the jurors. I understand that some few men protested. The explanation of their conduct may perhaps be found in a circular addressed to all the special jurors of Queen's County, calling upon them to protest in such a manner as would, in the language of the circular, "most strike the public mind, not only in Ireland but in England." The member of the jury named seems to have made the observation attributed to him, though it is manifest that he subsequently, on hearing the evidence, had no doubt as to the guilt of the prisoner, seeing that he found a verdict-convicting him. No juror will be asked to "standby" by reason merely of his religious persuasion.

  THE ALLEGED DESERTER THEMPSON.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, under the Law of England, a free British Subject can be arrested, carried through several

  719
  counties, and extradited to a Man-of-War, and to martial jurisdiction, without being brought before a Magistrate or subjected to any judicial inquiry; whether the police actually did extradite the young man Thompson in that way; whether they received any reward for doing so, and from what source; and, in case their conduct was contrary to law and regulation, whether he has taken any steps to obtain the punishment of the men concerned?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Thompson was not extradited by the police nor was he in their custody. A policeman received from the Admiralty a reward of £1 under 10 and 11 Vic, c 62, s. 9, for having given information which led to the arrest of Thompson on the charge of an offence under the Militia Act, for having enlisted while he was a deserter from the Navy. As he confessed that he was a deserter, he was sent under military escort to Portsmouth to be tried by the Naval Authorities, the wishes of the Admiralty having been previously ascertained by the commanding officer in accordance with the regulation under the Militia Act. The police did nothing contrary to law.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there are any Regulations regarding the procedure to be followed in summary trials under the Naval Discipline Act beyond the general instruction, in paragraph 678 of the Queen's Regulations, that—
  "All complaints are to be fully investigated on the quarter-deck in the presence of the accuser and the accused, who, as well as their witnesses, are to be heard fully and with impartiality."
  And whether naval trials are subject to such formalities as military trials; who was the accuser of the young man Thompson sentenced by Captain Woodward; whether there was any formal trial on the quarter-deck, in accordance with the Regulation above quoted; whether any witnesses were examined to prove the charge of desertion, and who they were, or whether the only evidence was an alleged mark on the arm; and, whether, if it appears that Captain Woodward did not conduct the trial in accordance with the spirit of the latest Regulation, the Admiralty proposes to take any steps in the matter?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: There are no regulations beyond these named in the question which, if properly carried out, would appear to be amply sufficient. The accuser of Thompson was in this case the circumstantial evidence against him, confirmed by his own statement and action. A formal trial, as required by the instructions, was strictly carried out in this case by the captain of the Duke of Wellington. No witnesses for the defence were examined, but had the prisoner wished to call any they would certainly have been sent for.
  MR. BRADLATUGH: Was not the trial of this young man before Captain Woodward; and was it not the fact that no evidence was taken or recorded in any way on that occasion?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Captain Woodward complied with the regulations. Any man who declares himself to be a deserter, or who gives out that he is a deserter, not being such, is liable to imprisonment for 90 days, with hard labour. This case, as I have previously stated, is a very exceptional one, because the boy had chosen deliberately to personate a deserter, and that, coupled with the fact of his remarkable resemblance to the deserter, misled the authorities.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: At the trial on the quarter-deck was there any evidence taken to prove that the accused was a deserter?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: There were documents—a letter from the War Office and the statement of the commanding officer, together with the statement from the police at Derby, to the effect that the young man had admitted himself to be a deserter.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: May I ask whether a letter from one Department to another is evidence at a naval trial on which a man can be sent to prison for 90 days; and, whether it is not the fact that the moment Thompson was taken before the captain he stated that he was not a deserter, and gave two addresses which were never inquired into at the time?
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: Was any evidence taken on oath on the quarter-deck?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: What led Captain Woodward into an undoubted mistake was the statement of the prisoner that he was a deserter, coupled

  721
  with his remarkable resemblance to the description of the actual deserter.

  POST CARDS.
  MR. COOHEANE-BAILLTE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether cards conforming in all respects to the regulations cannot be issued and sold by the Post Office, and to which it shall be permissible that a halfpenny stamp should be affixed when transmitted through the post?
  MR. RAIKES: The hon. Member asked on a former occasion whether the public might not be allowed to send through the post with a half-penny stamp affixed cards for correspondence with which they were to supply themselves, on condition that such cards conformed in weight, size, &c., to the regulations laid down for post-cards; and in my reply I alluded to the great difficulty and friction which would arise in enforcing an observance of the condition. I understand he now asks whether the Post Office will not itself issue and sell such cards, so that any departure from the regulation size and weight may be guarded against. But the convenience to the public contemplated by the former suggestion would scarcely be met by the latter, because if persons desirous to use such cards must go to a post office to obtain them, they may just as well, in the great majority of cases, purchase and use the ordinary post-card?

  INDIAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION —INDIAN OFFICE REPORT UPON RECOMMENDATIONS.
  SIR ROPER LETHBEIDGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the India Office Departmental Report on the Public Service Commission's recommendations has yet been presented; and, if so, if it can be laid upon the Table of the House; and, whether any, and what steps have been taken by the Government of India to carry out the recommendations of the Indian Finance Committee in regard to the Simla exodus, and to other portions of the State expenditure?
  SIR JOHN GORST: The recommendations of the Public Service Commission are still under the consideration of the Secretary of State in Council.
  722
  No further Papers can be given at present. The recommendations of the Finance Committee are being dealt with by the Government of India, who are framing regulations, under the Secretary of State's instructions, in regard to the Simla exodus
  SIR R. LETHBRIDGE: Arising out of the answer, I should like to ask whether the Papers will be laid on the Table of the House in due course before action is taken on this Report?
  SIR J. GORST: I cannot promise that no action will be taken until the Papers are laid on the Table of the House; but I am sure the Secretary of State will desire to give them to the House with all speed.

  SUNDAY DELIVERY OF LETTERS IN LIMERICK.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, having regard to repeated complaints, if he would direct that the same number of men should be employed to deliver letters on Sunday mornings as on ordinary week mornings in the City of Limerick, in order to ensure similar early delivery; and, if he would have additional hands engaged to relieve the town postmen, as is done at present for same service on alternate Sundays in the Limerick postal rural district?
  MR. RAIKES: I will inquire respecting the Sunday delivery arrangements at Limerick, and communicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as I am in a position to do so. The general rules of the service should, of course, be followed at Limerick as elsewhere, and if it is found that these have been departed from either as regards the time of completing the delivery, or as to relieving the postmen from Sunday duty, the necessary instructions shall be given for placing the arrangements upon a proper footing.

  DISUSED ARMY CLOTHING.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what was the total sum realised by the sale of disused Army clothing during the three years from 1st June, 1885, to 1st June, 1888, the period of the latest completed contract; what was the total number of individual articles so sold; whether out of 350 classes of articles of clothing already contracted for in advance for the

  723
  three years now current, from 1st June, 1888, to 1st June, 1891, in 116 classes alone the following quantities are estimated by the War Office as likely to become disused should the contract as hitherto be allowed to run out, namely, 13,890 forage capes; 173,940 tunics; 62,760 jackets; 58,530 pantaloons; 737,424 trousers; 513,630 frocks; 90,000 leather leggings; 239,550 great coats, cloaks, and capes; whether the clothing similarly sold in advance in 1885 included a similar number of articles, and whether it was all sold in one or at most two lots; and, if so, what was the amount realised by each; whether, if there were two contracts, both were given to the same firm; whether, in addition to any real competition being practically precluded by the magnitude of the contract, this enormous quantity of clothing was also sold on speculation, tenders being asked for and sent in in 1884, and the things tendered for being clothing which would only actually become disused during the long period of the three years subsequent to 1st June, 1885; whether neither the actual things sold themselves nor their condition being known to either vendor or purchaser at the time of contract a fair price is obtained, or adequate security taken that serviceable and even new clothing is not fraudulently disposed of as old or bad; whether, moreover, out of 350 classes of clothing specified in the War Office form of tender, some 230 have not even the quantity for sale even estimated by the War Office; and, whether he will use his right to terminate such an arrangement by giving six months' notice, and afford Volunteers, bands, and working men, who now buy these things at third or fourth hand, an opportunity of purchasing direct in their own localities and in small lots, and of purchasing not on speculation but articles already actually disused and capable of being inspected.
  THE FINANCIAL SECEETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,): Accounts are made up to the 31st of March, and the sum realized for the three years to the 31st of March, 1888, was £136,205, including boots. The total classes to be disposed of are 354, of which Mr. Moses can claim 298 under his contract. The remainder refer to articles of value not exceeding 3d., which can be disposed of at the discretion of commanding
  724
  officers. The numbers of the several articles as estimated for sale are substantially as stated in the question. The sales in 1885 were in one contract. Every effort was made to secure competition, and the contract cannot be described as speculative, seeing that the condition of time-worn clothing is well known and every possible precaution is taken to get as much wear as possible out of the clothing before it is sold, commanding officers being held responsible that this condition is complied with. Special regulations have recently been issued on this subject to commanding officers which I shall be happy to show my hon. Friend. The quantities are not estimated for 136 of the classes, but the quantities are very small. My hon. Friend must remember that the special object of these transactions is to obtain for the benefit of the Army Estimates as large a sum of money as possible; and as I have reason to think that money would be lost to a considerable amount by terminating the present contract I am not prepared to take such a step. When, however, the question of a new contract has to be considered we shall call for tenders for one contract as now, and, as an alternative, for a divided contract, either by districts or in some other way.

  STATE-AIDED EDUCATION IN THE PARISH OE LLANGAR,
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the number of children of school age in the parish of Llangar, County of Merioneth, is 193; and that, although five-sixths of these are children of Nonconformists, the only State-aided school in the parish is owned and managed by the society for teaching the children of the poor in the principles of the Church of England, which, up to April 1887, was maintained by the voluntary rate; is he aware that, on 30th May 1887, 60 children of parents who refused to pay the voluntary rate were expelled from the school, and that, since June 1887, the average attendance at this school has been about 30; can he explain why the Education Department has refused to sanction the use of the only room in the village for a temporary school for the expelled children, or to allow the School Board elected in August

  725
  1887 to levy any rate for providing a new school; and, whether the Education Department has yet sanctioned the new school built by voluntary subscription, and according to plans submitted to, and approved by, the Department.
  THE VICE PEESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATION (Sir W. HART DYKE,): The facts as to elementary education in this parish are not accurately stated in the question. Sufficient accommodation is provided in the Cynwyd National School, which is in the parish, and in other schools in adjoining districts. Cynwyd National School is conducted as a public elementary school, in accordance with the provisions of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, and with the requirements of the code. The resolution of the managers under which certain children are excluded from Cynwyd National School on 30th May, 1877, was rescinded within a month of that date. The Education Department refuse to sanction the use of a room in Llangar for a temporary school on the ground that such room was quite unfit for the purpose. The refusal to sanction a loan for a new board school was the necessary consequence of the inability of the school board to prove that additional accommodation was required for the district. The Department have approved plans for the erection of a new school by voluntary effort; but, in accordance with their invariable practice, they cannot promise annual grants to such school until it is actually open under a certificated teacher.
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: Is it correct that the average attendance at this school within the last two years has been about thirty, and even after deducting the twenty-four who go to other parishes because the school is sectarian, are there not 148 children to be provided for in this parish?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: What the Department has to deal with is the school accommodation in the district. From inquiries they have found that the accommodation is sufficient for the district. About the actual number attending this particular school I do not know.
  MR. MUNDELLA: May I ask whether a public elementary school is mot bound to receive children without any conditions?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I have already stated that this resolution was passed and rescinded within a month.
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: Is it not a fact that the only notification of the rescinding came from the Education Department itself seven months after wards?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: According to my information the unfortunate resolution was rescinded within a month.

  THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any complaints have been made of French interference with the fisheries of Newfoundland; and, whether representations have been made to the Colonial Office on this subject by both Houses of the Newfoundland Legislature?
  BARON DE WORMS: I answered that question on Tuesday.

  THE SCOTCH EDUCATION CODE.
  DR. CLARK: I wish to ask the Lord Advocate why the grant under Article 32 (a) has been withdrawn from Caithness and Sutherland?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): No grant is paid under Article 32 (a) of the Scotch Code, which, on the contrary, contains a limitation upon the possible amount of grant. I presume that the hon. Member's question relates to a minute of the Scotch Education Department which was submitted to Parliament removing that limitation so far as Caithness and Sutherland were concerned. The legality of that minute has been questioned by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and all payments to schools in these counties in excess of the limit imposed by that article have accordingly been suspended until the opinion of the law officers has been obtained on the point.

  THE DOG MUZZLE.
  LORD H. BRUCE: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the German wire muzzle is being largely used in London in consequence of the order that all dogs are to be muzzled, and that this muzzle is exceedingly liable to slip, when it causes great pain to the dog; whether he

  727
  observed in the scare of 1887 that most of these wire muzzles did not fit; that some were so loose that they got jammed over the dogs' eyes, and that others were so tight that these dumb animals were prevented from either eating or lapping; and whether he will appoint a committee of sportsmen to investigate the matter?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that he has no information whether the facts suggested by my noble Friend are accurate. He will, however, make inquiry. It would be beyond the province of Government to appoint a committee of sportsmen to do what every man, whether a sportsman or not, has a right under the Privy Council order to do for himself—namely, to select the form of muzzle which may best suit his dog, provided always that it is one which will prevent the dog from biting and will not interfere with its breathing or lapping water. There is nothing to prevent such an inquiry from being made by gentlemen acting in their private capacity, and I have no doubt that the public would gladly avail themselves of any suggestions they might offer if these suggestions are valuable.

  COOLIE MARRIAGES IN TRINIDAD.
  SIR ROBERT POWLER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government is aware that in Trinidad, in the case of numerous marriages between Coolie residents, celebrated according to the religious rites of the people, but for the validity of which it is necessary that they should be registered by the civil authorities, the registrars have refused or neglected thus to make them valid, and that in consequence much social disorder, often leading to crime, has resulted; and whether the Government will call for a Report on this subject, unless it is already sufficiently informed, and will in any case insist on a due observance of the law as regards Coolie marriages by the Local Authorities?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Her Majesty's Government is not aware that there has been any failure of the Local Authorities in Trinidad to observe the law relating to coolie marriages, but they will call for a Report on the subject.

  NATIVE CULTIVATORS IN TRINIDAD.
  SIR ROBERT POWLER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government is aware that in Trinidad it is the custom in the cocoa plantations for the Native Authorities to be engaged under six years' contracts, which entitle them to payment only at the end of the six years' when the trees have reached maturity, the payment then being for the number of trees that bear fruit, and that this arrangement resolves itself into a form of slavery, causing unnecessary hardship to the cultivators if they remain on the estates where they have taken service, and serious loss to them if they go elsewhere before their term of six years is concluded; and, whether the Government will call for a Report on the subject, and direct the introduction in the Trinidad Legislature of such proposals for a change in the law as will protect the native cultivators from extortion and injustice in this respect?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: A custom has prevailed for many years in Trinidad for contracts to be made for the plantation of land with cocoa, in consideration of the contractor occupying the land for six years, and being paid by the owner at the end of the term a certain sum for every tree planted by him which is in full bearing. Complaints have been recently made that this system has, in some instances, caused hardship to the contractors; but it does not appear to be in any sense a form of slavery. A Bill to amend the law on the subject has been recently introduced in the Colonial Legislature with the approval of the Secretary of State.

  GRANTS OF LAND IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA.
  MR. CALEB WRIGHT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to an article in the Daily News of the 12th instant, which states that in "Western Australia 1,877,015 acres of land have been sold, the average price being 10s. per acre," and that "one man has leased 3,614,325 acres, and the payment of one of his lots of 1,000,00 acres for the year is £250, and for

  729
  another of 700,000 £170; whether he will inform the House on what terms these leases were granted, and whether individuals or companies are allowed to purchase unlimited quantities of land in the Colony; and, whether the mines and minerals are included in the land sold?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: I have seen that article, and am not aware that it is incorrect. The official Report prefixed to the Parliamentary Paper [C—5753], lately circulated, gives the amount of land sold as 1,877,045 acres, generally at the price of 10s. per acre. With regard to the land leased—as the whole can be resumed whenever required for sale or any public purpose—it is a great advantage to the Colonial Revenue to receive for its temporary use the rents mentioned, which represent the full value of the land under the conditions of its tenure. The second paragraph of the question has been fully answered in my reply to hon. Member for Kirkcaldy. As regards the third paragraph, gold, silver, and precious medals are reserved to the Crown in the grants of land sold. See page 107 of [C—5743].
  MR. CALEB WRIGHT: Are there any conditions on the granting of leases for the erection of homesteads on any part of the land?
  BARON H.DE WORMS: All the conditions with regard to letting and sale of land are found fully set out in the paper to which I have referred.

  HALFPENNY POSTCARDS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether it is the practice to charge the public for impressing halfpenny stamps on their own sheets of cardboard; whether the fee for doing this work was 1s. 6d. for every quire six months ago; whether the rate has now been raised to 2s. 6d.; whether the former rate defrayed the expenses of the work done; whether there is any objection to the public putting halfpenny stamps on their own postcards, as is the practice in France, Germany, and Italy; whether he is aware that no evidence beyond the mere statement of the Secretary of the Post Office was given before the Select Committee on the Revenue Estimates last year that there is a loss on the halfpenny postage business; and, whether he has any
  730
  documentary evidence to show there is a loss on the halfpenny postal business of the British Post Office?
  MR. RAIKES: If the hon. Member will refer to the Reports of the answers to questions in this House he will find that my hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury, on the 9th inst., answered the first four of the questions which he has now addressed to me, and I beg to refer him to that answer. As regards question No. 5, that also has been answered by me on the 27th ult., and I would refer the hon. Member to that answer as well as to the answer which I have just given. As regards the remaining questions, I would remind the hon. Member that the Select Committee to which he alludes adopted the opinion that there is a loss on the halfpenny business of the Post Office, and embodied it in paragraph 34 of the draft Report which was passed unchallenged by the hon. Member himself, who sat on the Committee. I am not prepared to depart from that opinion, in which I also concurred.

  THE METROPOLITAN POLICE REPORT.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is by intention that the annual Reports of the Superintendents have been omitted from the Metropolitan Police Report this year?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Commissioner that the omission of the Reports of the Superintendents from his annual Report was intentional, and under his orders. It appeared to the Commissioner desirable to omit these Reports, because they are merely the suggestions of subordinate officers, the printing of which involves considerable expense, while the Report should contain the conclusions of the Chief Commissioner himself, based upon all the information he receives, and issued on his responsibility.

  THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERS.
  MR. MONTAGU: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will offer a substantial reward, accompanied by a free pardon, to anyone not in the police force and not the actual perpetrator of the recent

  731
  crime in Whitechapel who will give such information as will lead to the conviction of the murderer; and whether he will sufficiently increase the number of detectives so as to prevent, if possible, further atrocities in East London?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have consulted the Commissioner of Police, and he informs me that he has no reason to believe that the offer of a reward now would be productive of any good result, and he does not recommend any departure from the policy resolved on last year, and fully explained by me to the House. Since the occurrence of the outrages in the East End, a large number of men in plain clothes have been employed there, and I yesterday sanctioned an arrangement for still further increasing the number of detectives available for duty in Whitechapel.

  SALE OF DISUSED ADMIRALTY STORES.
  MR. HANBUBY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty why, at the periodical sales by auction of disused Admiralty stores at Deptford, "the garments sold are in many instances nearly new," and "in excellent condition," as stated by the Army Director of Contracts in a recent Departmental Report?
  MR. FORWOOD: No garments are sold at the periodical auction sales of disused Admiralty stores that can be described as in many cases nearly new. All the articles are, before being offered at auction, carefully examined and condemned by a competent board of survey, and the auctioneers inform me none of them could be deemed as being in excellent condition.

  THE GOVERNOR OF IPSWICH GAOL.
  MR. PICKEESGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by whom the Treasury Solicitor was directed to defend an action brought against the Governor of Ipswich Gaol in respect of indignities inflicted on an untried prisoner, in which action, at Suffolk Assizes on Friday last, the jury awarded the plaintiff £75 damages; and, what is the total amount which will have to be paid out of public money in respect of this action?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The Treasury Solicitor was directed to defend this
  732
  action by me on the recommendation of the Prison Commissioners in accordance with the usual practice when an action is brought against a public servant for acts done in the execution of his office. The question whether any public money will be paid in respect of this action depends upon the decision which the Treasury may come to, upon the advice of the Home Office, after considering the evidence and all the circumstances of the case.

  CIVIL SERVICE WRITERS.
  MR. TUITE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the exact number of Civil Service writers who were registered prior to the 12th February, 1876, at present on the register of the Civil Service Commission?
  MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member has, I think, forgotten that this question appeared in the hon. Member's name on the 20th May last, and was then answered.

  NATURALIZED BRITISH SUBJECTS.
  SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWOETH: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General if it is the case that, while a British subject can hold landed property in Gibraltar, a naturalized British subject, if naturalized in the United Kingdom, is debarred from this privilege; and, if so, whether there is any good reason for the distinction?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir E. Webster,): In Gibraltar and many other Colonies aliens are precluded by the local law from holding land, and they are not relieved from this desirability by being naturalized in the United Kingdom. There are in many cases good reasons why this distinction should be maintained.

  TRANSFERRED DISTRICTS IN WALES.
  SIR JOSEPH BAILEY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General, with reference to portions of the parishes of Llangattock and Llangunnidr which have been hitherto within the geographical county of Brecknock, but which, under Section 50 of the "The Local Government Act, 1888," have been transferred to the administrative County of Monmouth as being within the urban sanitary districts of Ebbw Vale, Rhym-

  733
  ney, and Tredegar, in that county, and which in consequence have been since April last under the care of the Monmouthshire police, whether for the purposes of magisterial jurisdiction these districts so transferred are still to be considered as forming part of the petty sessional division of Bryn-mawr, to which they formerly belonged, in the County of Brecknock, or whether they have now become part of the petty sessional division to which they are adjacent in the County of Monmouth?
  SIR E. WEBSTER: I am informed that prior to the passing of the Local Government Act, 1888, the urban sanitary districts referred to were situate in more than one county, and that as the larger part of the population of each was in the County of Monmouth, under the provisions of Sections 50 (2) and 59 (2) of the Act of 1888, the whole of each district became part of the County of Monmouth for the purposes of the Act. There is nothing in the Act as I read it to annex them to any particular petty sessional division, but as it is desirable that this should be done as soon as possible, the justices can make arrangements under 9 George IV., c. 43, 6 and 7 William IV., c. 121, and 22 and 23 Vict, c. 65.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. H J. WILSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state when the remaining Votes in Class II. will be taken.
  THE FIEST LOED OF THE TEEASUEY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I am not in a position to say when these Votes will be taken; but there is an understanding that due notice will be given for those interested in the discussion of them.
  MR. SEXTON: I would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered the inconvenience that will be caused to Irish Members if the Votes are put off until the fag end of the Session.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: We have no wish to do that; but I cannot now state on what day they will be taken next week.

  BURGH POLICE AND HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I wish to ask the First Lord of the
  734
  Treasury whether the Government intend to re-introduce the Burgh Police and Health (Scotland) Bill next Session; and if so, whether they have any intention to proceed with it as a Government measure?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I cannot enter into engagements for next Session.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: The right hon. Gentleman has made several statements about the Bill this Session and last.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: If I have done so, it is a sufficient reason for not doing so again.

  THE COMMITTEE ON ROYAL GRANTS.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the report of the proceedings of the Select Committee on Royal Grants in the Times of yesterday was authorized and accurate; and, if not, whether, in view of the inconvenience arising from these surreptitious disclosures, care will be taken that an authorized and accurate record of the proceedings of the Committee is preserved and laid before the House with the Report?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Gentleman must be quite aware that the Report he refers to is not authorized, and cannot be accurate. I regret that a report of the proceedings of a Committee, to which the Press are not admitted, should by any accident in any way get into the newspapers. It is obvious that no authority whatever can be attached to such a report. As to the proceedings of the Committee, the usual course will be followed. The Committee will decide on the Report which they desire to present to the House, but there is no precedent whatever for a record of the proceedings of the Committee being given to the House. And it would be an exceedingly inconvenient course if any departure from precedent were made in the publication of the Report of this Committee or any other. I believe that it is of the greatest importance that hon. Members in Committees should be able to express their opinions with perfect freedom and confidence, such as has hitherto prevailed in Committees of this House.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: When may we expect the Report of the Committee?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Committee has not yet completed its deliberations, but I hope it may finish its labours to-

  735
  morrow. In that case the Report will be brought up to-morrow and considered on Monday.

  REPORTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.
  SIR RICHAED PAGET: I wish to ask the Vice Chamberlain whether his attention has been called to the fact that, in the United States of America, the practice prevails of circulating gratuitously a large number of copies of the Scientific Reports presented from time to time by the Department of Agriculture; whether he has observed that the Annual Report of the Agricultural Department (Privy Council Office) on the Contagious Diseases of Animals for the year 1888, containing an unusual amount of scientific information, is priced at 7s. 9d.; and, whether, in view of the prohibitory price above mentioned, as well as of the evident advantages which would ensue from making this Annual Report generally known, he will be good enough to state to the House if arrangements can be made to ensure its gratuitous circulation to all the Veterinary Inspectors of the various Local Authorities in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland?
  VISCOUNT LEWISHAM: The Privy Council already distribute a large number of copies of the Annual Report gratuitously—namely, to all the Local Authorities in the country, to all the Inspectors of the Privy Council, to several scientific institutions, and to some of the well-known scientists at home and abroad. To send copies to all the Veterinary Inspectors in Great Britain and Ireland would entail a considerable cost, which would require the special sanction of the Treasury.

  THE WEST LONDON COMMERCIAL BANK.
  MR. WHITMORE: I beg to ask Mr. Solicitor General whether his attention has been called to the action of the Liquidator of the West London Commercial Bank in instituting civil proceedings against the Directors of that Bank; and, whether there is any means of preventing the cost of such proceedings being borne by those who have already suffered heavily by the failure of the Bank?
  SIR R. WEBSTEE: The Solicitor General has communicated with the liquidator of the "West London Commercial Bank upon the subject referred to in the question of my hon. and learned Friend, and finds that a dividend of 14s. 6d. in the £1 has already been paid on the admitted claims, and that there is reason to believe that proceedings against the Directors will result in a further substantial payment being made to the creditors. Those proceedings were authorized by the Court, which was satisfied, upon evidence produced before it, that there was good ground for their institution, and that they would probably be of advantage to those whose interests my hon. and learned Friend desires to serve.

  SCHEMES OF THE CHARITY COM- MISSION.
  MR. BEYCE: I beg to ask the honourable Member for Pen-rith, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether the Charity Commissioners expect to be able to complete the preparation and publication of the schemes to be prepared by them under "The City of London Parochial Charities Act, 1883," before the 31st of December in the present year, when their powers under that Act expire; or, if not, whether they propose to request Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill for prolonging their powers for another year; and, when the principal scheme or schemes to be issued under the Act are likely to be published by the Commissioners?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHEE: The Charity Commissioners expect to be able to complete the preparation and publication of most of the schemes under the Act before December 31 in the present year, but the procedure prescribed by the Act in connection with the establishment of schemes after publication will require the continuance of their powers for a limited time, and the Commissioners therefore propose to request the Government to prolong their powers. It is hoped that the principal scheme may be published within the next two months.
  MR. BRYCE: Does the First Lord of the Treasury intend to bring in a Bill for prolonging the powers of the Commissioners?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: We shall take such steps as are necessary for the purpose. Probably an additional schedule to the Expiring Laws Continuance Act will be sufficient.

  THE ADVANCE OF THE DERVISHES.
  MR. CHILDERS: The House would feel much obliged if the Secretary of State for War would say if he has received any further information to-day or recently from Egypt.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Sir Francis Grenfell telegraphed on the 16th that he had that morning sent a proclamation to the Dervish camp, addressed to N'jumi and three principal Emirs, calling on them to surrender. The proclamation was read to the people, and this morning N'jumi's answer has been received. After the usual salutations, he says: —
  "Your force is nothing to me, and my goal is not Bimban, as you think, hut the world which I am to convert. All who surrender to me I can protect. Your letters have been sent to the Khalifah to answer. I cannot stop now. Take my advice and surrender. Remember Hicks and Gordon, and what little good their armies availed them."
  The Sirdar also adds that—
  "Distress in the Dervish camp is exaggerated, fighting men taken being apparently well fed, but camp followers, women, and slaves come in exhausted and emaciated. There is no suffering after they join us. There are complete arrangements for rationing, which are working well."

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR W. HAECOURT: Will the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury inform the House what is to be the business to-morrow, and what will be the probable business on Monday?
MR. W. H. SMITH: We hope to take the second reading of the Tithe Kent Charge Bill this evening, and I am afraid there will be no time then for proceeding with the Universities (Scotland) Bill. We shall proceed with that Bill therefore to-morrow; and with the other Orders which stand on the Paper for to-day. In the event of any time remaining to-morrow we shall proceed with Class III. of Supply. On Monday the consideration of the Scotch Local Government Bill stands on the Paper, and I hope the House will be able to proceed with it.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he his aware that the Scotch Local Government Bill has been greatly altered in substance and in form in Committee, so much so as to be almost indistinguishable? The reprinted Bill has not yet been delivered, and so there will be no time for obtaining the views of Scotch people interested in the Bill before Monday.
MR. W. H. SMITH: I am informed by my right hon. Friend that copies of the Bill will be in the Bill Office this afternoon.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANThey are not there yet.
MR. RITCHIE: They are there now.

THE MANŒUVRES BEFORE THE EMPEROR OF GERMANY.
SIR R. LETHBRIDGE: I desire to ask the Secretary of State for War a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether it will be possible to afford any facilities to Members of Parliament for witnessing the review at Aldershot which is to take place before the Emperor of Germany?
MR. E. STANHOPE: It is proposed that the operations which are to take place at Aldershot on August 7, in the presence of the Emperor of Germany, should partake of the nature of manœuvres rather than of an ordinary review. Any Member of the House who desires to witness these will probably find that the best means of doing will be in carriages or on horseback. From the nature of the operations, it is obvious that it will not be possible to erect stands or enclosures. But I shall be glad to give very shortly all necessary information as to time and place.

THE PARACHUTE ACCIDENT.
MR. LAWSON: I desire to put a question to the Home Secretary of which I have not been able to give him notice—whether his attention has been called' to the fact that a man named Lennox was killed at Alexandra Park, Manchester, in a balloon ascent made for the purpose of a parachute exhibition; whether no inquiry is to be made into the circumstances, and whether he s still determined that no action shall be taken by the Home Department in regard to these performances?
MR. MATTHEWS: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to give notice of the question.

THE CONSIDERATION OF THE REPORT OF THE ROYAL GRANTS COMMITTEE.
MR. STOREY MR. STOREY: Is the programme the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury mapped out subject to the consideration of the Report of the Committee on Royal Grants, or does the right hon. Gentleman mean to take the consideration of the measures he has named first?
MR. W. H. SMITH: The Report of the Committee and the action the House may take on it will undoubtedly have precedence over other business.
MR. HUNTER: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a considerable number of Scottish Members have made arrangements to leave London to-morrow to take part in an interesting ceremony in Edinburgh? In those circumstances, and in order to prevent the greatest possible inconvenience to Members on this side of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of not taking the Universities Bill as the first Order on Monday, especially as it ought not to be impossible on that day to take both the Universities Bill and the Local Government Bill?
MR. W. H. SMITH: I think it would be necessary to take the Local Government Bill on Monday; but I accept the suggestion of the hon. Member, that there appears to be a prospect of the early disposal of those two important measures; and, therefore, to meet the convenience of Scottish Members, the Universities Bill will be placed second on Monday.
MR. CHILDERS: What are the intentions of the Government with respect to the Sugar Convention Bill?
MR. W. H. SMITH: I have already stated that I do not think it necessary to make arrangements at this period of the Session in order to give time before 12 o'clock for the Sugar Convention Bill. But if the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends think it necessary that any discussion should take place on the Motion that the Order be discharged, I will postpone the Bill to a future day.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Will Supply be the first Order for to-morrow?
MR. W. H. SMITH: There are several Orders on the Paper which the Government are anxious to advance. For instance, there are the Factors Bill, the Light Railways (Ireland) Bill, Lunacy Acts (Amendment) Bill, Coinage (Light Gold) Bill, and one or two other measures which ought to take precedence.
MR. STOREY: Is the Light Railways (Ireland) Bill now to take precedence of the Drainage Bills?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir.
SIR R. LETHBRIDGE: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take the Council of India Bill which has been placed on the Paper for this evening?
MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope it may be possible to take the Bill either tonight or to-morrow.
MR. SEXTON: Have the Government got rid of all desire to advance the Merchant Shipping (Tonnage) Bill?
MR. W. H. SMITH: Certainly not.
MR. T. E. ELLIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow the Committee to make further Progress with the Welsh Education Bill to-night?
MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope we may be able to do so.
MR. BRADLAUGH: Will the Under Secretary for India consent to give the Return I propose to move for in reference to distress in East India, Patna, &c, as an unopposed Return?
SIR J. GORST: I am sorry that I cannot undertake to give the Return asked for; but in the Recess I will obtain full information from India, and lay it on the Table next Session.
MR. J. E. ELLIS: When may we expect the Report of the Royal Grants Committee?
MR. W. H. SMITH: The Committee has not yet completed its deliberations; but I hope it may finish its labours tomorrow. In that case the Report will be brought up to-morrow and considered on Monday.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to enable Her Majesty to assent to a Bill for conferring a Constitution on Western Australia." [Western Australia Constitution Bill [Lords].
MOTION.

  POOR LAW BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Ritchie, Bill to amend the Law respecting children in workhouses, and respecting the borrowing of Money by Guardians and Managers of District Schools, and respecting the Managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Long.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 338.]

REVENUE [ALLOWANCES AND STAMP DUTY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Resolved, That it is expedient to impose, by way of composition, a Stamp Duty, at the rate of Five Pounds per centum, upon the premiums on policies of insurance against accident under the provisions of the said Act.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  TITHE RENT-CHARGE RECOVERY BILL (No. 272.)

    SECOND BEADING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Matthews,): In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I do not think it will be necessary to detain the House with any lengthened remarks. It is, in reality, a small measure, but notwithstanding this the Government hope it will prove to be a useful one. During the present Session, time is wanting to introduce and carry through the House a measure of a large and far-reaching character; and therefore the Government on consideration have determined to attempt to pass this small Bill, which they are very sensible is not one which can be regarded as dealing with the whole of the tithe question. The measure deals with a single point, not unimportant in itself, in regard to the means and method of recovery of tithe rent-charge. Until 1836 the mode of recovery of tithe in arrears was by judicial process. A person might, either by suit in the Ecclesiastical Court, or by suit in a Court of Equity, recover any arrears of tithe. But after the Tithe Commutation Act was passed the only remedy left for the
    742
    recovery of new tithe rent-charge was the remedy by distres. Whatever may be said for that remedy there is this broad objection to it—it is the act of a party only. By his own personally selected agent the party proceeds to recover rent-charge by the machinery of distress. Such a proceeding as that has necessarily led to some personal conflict between the tithe owner and the tithe-payer. It has involved in the late painful circumstances in Wales the employment at no small expense of what some hon. Members called emergency men, engaged by the tithe owner himself, chosen by himself, and employed by him to make seizure on goods. In the view of the Government that is a somewhat antiquated remedy which is certainly likely to lead to breaches of the peace and to personal conflicts between the parties. It is a remedy which is peculiarly distasteful to a large class of tithe owners—namely, those parochial clergy with whom it is a question not only of importance, but almost of professional duty, to be on friendly terms with their parishioners. It appears to the Government, therefore, that it would be better on all grounds that instead of this remedy by the act of a party there should be remedy by judicial decision. It is better that the tithe owner himself should not be judge in his own case, and be put to the assertion of his rights without any judicial decision. It is better in the public interest also that the payment of tithe should be enforced, as all other taxes are enforced—by the judgment and action of a Court. The Act effects nothing else than this. The liabilities of owners and occupiers are not disturbed in the least by the Bill. The limit of two years, as the period within which recovery must be made, is retained; and exactly the same property will be liable for seizure as before. Nothing in the Act will alter the priority of any tithe rent-charge in relation to any other charges upon lands, or alter the liability of any occupier or owner of lands as between themselves; and every occupier will have the same right of deducting from the rent payable by him the amount levied on an execution in pursuance of this Act as he would have if the amount had been levied by distress. The only change made is the substitution of the judicial process for the action of the party. The

    743
    hon. Member for the Saffron Walden Division (Mr. Herbert Gardner) has an Amendment on the Paper for the rejection of the Bill, and I would point out to him that, as I have said, the Government do not consider this a complete measure. With regard to the other hon. Members who have given notice to move the rejection of the Bill, I will wait until they have stated their objections before I deal with them. I wish, however, to make an appeal to the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), who has given notice of an Amendment to the effect—
    "That no measure dealing with the recovery of tithes in Wales will be satisfactory which does not recognize the devotion of that impost to purposes generally acceptable to the Welsh people."
    For the sake of argument I will assume that the hon. Member is perfectly right in his view that it would be more acceptable if tithe were diverted from the purposes to which it has been applied for many centuries; but surely the hon. Gentleman must feel that his Amendment is totally irrelevant to the measure, which does not profess to affect the disposal of tithe at all, but deals with the simple question of making more rational and less arbitrary the manner in which tithe is collected. Assuming that tithe may be devoted to other purposes, a good, a safe, and a rational mode of recovering it now would be equally good and safe and rational in the future. I trust, therefore, interesting as the subject-matter of the Amendment may be, and relevant as it may be when another measure is before the House, that the question will not be discussed at length on the present occasion. As far as I can ascertain from Returns which have been placed in my hands, the amount of tithe for the whole of Wales is £274,490; of that sum no less than £61,168 belongs to lay impropriators. That is their private property, and it deserves the protection of the law as much as any other private property. Then £8,159 belongs to schools and colleges; £137,500 to parochial endowments; and to clerical impropriators, that is to the Ecclesiastical Commission, £67,600. Out of the recipients of tithe no less than £70,000 in round figures goes entirely for the purposes of education and national improvement and to private persons
    744
    who have bought their tithes for hard cash and are entitled to have their property protected. As to parochial incumbents, I have received letters from Welsh clergymen which will be of interest to many Members. Clergymen, because they are unwilling to enter into personal conflict with their parishioners, have seen themselves deprived of small and very often inadequate incomes, and their letters indicate a most lamentable condition of things. Their children are deprived of the means of education, and they themselves are stinted of the very necessaries of life owing to the unhappy differences which prevail in Wales. It is very difficult for a clergyman who desires to remain on a footing of friendly relations with his parishioners to assert by his own act the rights which the law gives him; and I hope that the Bill will confer some benefit upon this class, as well as upon other tithe-owners. I beg now to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. H. GARDNER: I think we have some right to complain of the speech of the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman has tried to show that the Bill is a small and insignificant one; but it is certainly, as the House will probably see, neither small nor insignificant We have also some right to complain of the Government for the manner in which this Bill has been brought forward. If common rumour is to be believed it would appear that the Government merely wish to take the sense of the House upon the Second Reading. If that is their intention and they are going to wilfully waste the time of the House at a period of the Session when time is all-important, if they contemplate sacrificing this evening to a merely academic and sterile discussion, I hope we shall hear no more charges of obstruction hurled at our heads either in this House or on platforms out of doors by right hon. Gentlemen who are directly responsible for the present loss of time. The opponents of the Tithe Bill may be divided into several classes. First of all, there is a large and increasing number who object to tithe on the ground that they wished to have a free Church,

    745
    who wish for what I may call free trade in religion, and who believe that protection in Church as in commercial matters may materially increase the cost with heightening the intrinsic value of the article; who maintain that it is inconsistent, if not unjust, to ask the majority to pay for the Church of the minority, a Church, moreover, whose services they do not accept, and whose spiritual comforts they pay for but do not enjoy. There is a a second class, who think that the tithes have been very much diverted from their original intention, which was to contribute something to education to assist the poor, and might, therefore, well be applied at the present day to relieve the increasing burdens on land. And there is a third class of opponents of tithe, on whose behalf I venture very humbly to speak, who look upon the question mainly from an agricultural point of view. They maintain that there has been a vast and unforeseen change in agriculture since the passing of the Tithe Commutation Act, 1836. They refer to the fact that land is actually passing out of cultivation because it is not able to pay the tithe levied upon it. Nor could it ever have been anticipated that the tithe rent-charge would amount to something like 50 per cent of the value of the land. I do not think they ever foresaw the poverty which has fallen upon the wheat-growing counties of this country. Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex, roughly speaking, pay tithe rent-charge to the amount of something like £700,000 per annum —the whole charge being about £4,000,000. Therefore, these counties are paying at the present moment nearly one-fifth of the whole charge in this country. These counties, at the time this burden was put upon them, were the richest in the whole kingdom, because they produced the greatest amount of wheat in the country; but at the present moment they are suffering I more severely than any other from agricultural depression. Now, what is the attitude of the Government in this matter? In the earlier measures which they have brought forward, they seemed to recognize that there was some kind of grievance on the part of the tithe payer, who was the occupier, because they brought before the Houses of Parliament a Bill in which they proposed that the incidence of
    746
    the tithe should be transferred from the occupier to the owner. That Bill has been dropped. They hinted, moreover, something about a redemption of the tithe, which seemed to be a sort of recognition of some claim on the part of the tithe payer. But the Government's interest in the tithe payer seems to have gone smaller by degrees, and beautifully less, until the Bill, which they now present to the House, is neither more nor less than one conceived entirely in the interest of the tithe owner, and of no one else. I shall ask the House to reject this Bill for four reasons. First, because it is no use dealing with a question of this sort by peddling legislation; if you touch it at all, you must bring in a large and complete measure. Secondly, I object to this small and inoffensive Bill (as the Home Secretary would call it), because it goes behind the compact of the Tithe Commutation Act of 1836, in the interest of one party—namely, the tithe owner. Thirdly, I object to this Bill, be-cause it is so vaguely drawn in some of its most important provisions, that it would no doubt lead to confusion among the County Court Judges when they come to decide cases arising under it. Fourthly—and this is a most important point—I object to the Bill, because it for the first time introduces, for the benefit of the tithe owner, a system of fine and imprisonment against the tithe payer. I think hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House will agree with me that these objections to the Bill are sufficient. When I first had the honour to represent my present constituency, my constituents and those living in the same part of England as I do, took this subject up, and pressed it upon me. I attended a deputation to the Prime Minister at the Foreign Office with regard to the original Bills which were brought forward by the Government. The Marquess of Salisbury, in reply, remarked upon the great intricacies of the question, and admitted then how very difficult it was for anyone to understand it. The remarks which the noble Marquess subsequently made proved to me and several Members present that the most eminent and distinguished of statesmen find it difficult to grasp even the elementary difficulties of this question. My own constituents pressed upon me the desirability of bringing

    747
    forward some Motion with regard to the readjustment of the tithe question; but, entertaining as I do a strong opinion on the difficulties of the question, I pressed the Government two years ago, and on several occasions, to grant a Commission to inquire into this matter; and had they listened to what was then said, the Government might now have been in possession of valuable evidence, which would have been most material in respect of the Measure which is adumbrated by the Home Secretary to-night. I think it is to be regretted that the Government did not see their way to granting such a Commission, but what was their reason for refusing it? All who take an interest in this subject have heard it maintained in private and on the platform that no inquiry could be made into this subject because the Tithe Commutation Act of 1836 was a "sacred covenant" for all time, and to attempt to go behind which would be dishonest, and that was the reason I was refused the Commission for which I asked. I do not know whether that is the opinion of the Government now; but if that be their opinion, I want to know on what possible principle they can justify the production of this Bill. If it is illegal and unjust to go behind this compact under the Tithe Commutation Act of 1836 in the interests of the tithe-payer, surely it is equally illegal and unjust and against principle to go behind this "sacred covenant" of 1836 in the interests of the tithe-owner, as you propose to do by this Bill. With regard to my second objection, I object to this Bill because it is so vaguely drawn that I have not the slightest doubt when it comes before the various County Court Judges, there will possibly be as many decisions as there are Judges in the kingdom. I would ask the attention of the House to Section 2 of Clause 1, by which the tithe-owner, if if he obtains judgment, may have it executed against all personal property. I maintain that that clause is capable of two interpretations. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary is aware that the distress for tithe can only be levied under Section 85 of the Tithe Commutation Act, 1836, upon the land on which the tithe is charged, and on no other land. The right hon. Gentleman also knows that in those parts of the country where what is called "Field ap-
    748
    portionment" exists, the tithe can only be levied on the particular field apportioned in respect of which the tithe is charged. I maintain that there is no right of distraint on personal property, which is a very different thing from property distrainable under the Commutation Act. It may be that in one county, the County Court Judge will decide that you can distrain on personal property, and in another county the Judge might decide that you can only distrain on what is distrainable under the Tithe Commutation Act. I consider this a very serious blot upon the Bill, and if it become law and comes before the County Court Judges, must cause serious inconvenience. My fourth is, perhaps, one of the most serious objections to the Bill. It appears to me that if the Bill became law, the tithe-owner might inflict, or threaten to inflict, a very heavy fine upon the tithe-payer. Under the Commutation Act if the tithe is not paid within 21 days, the tithe owner may issue the statutory ten days' notice to the tithe-payer, and if it is not then paid, he may levy a distress upon the land, which is subject to the tithe in dispute. Now, the costs are exactly 2s. 6d., no matter how much the tithe is. But by this Bill the costs of recovering before the County Court is rather a serious matter. There is the judgment summons, the County Court fees, the solicitor's fees, and it may turn out that for a debt of £20 or upwards the costs will amount to £10 or £12. That does not seem to me a very small matter, but it is not the worst consequence of this power. As I understand, the Bill is merely permissive, and therefore the tithe owner has two alternatives. He may proceed under the present Act or under this Bill. In connection with this subject of tithe, there are inconvenient meetings held after the distress has been levied, in which political doctrines are brought forward, and which are obnoxious to the authorities, and lead sometimes to disturbances which I am sure we all very much regret. But if this Bill were passed, the tithe owner can go to the tithe payer, and say, "You can have your distress levied for half-a-crown, but if you insist on having a meeting, I shall go the County Court and fine you £10 or £12." I do not think that is such an innocent and insignificant measure as the Home Secretary supposes. On the contrary, I think it a most dangerous one, which

    749
    my hon. Friends from Wales will do well to take notice of. I really should not be surprised if my hon. Friends regarded this Bill as a sort of Coercion Bill for Wales. Then for the first time we have imprisonment introduced as a penalty on the tithe payer. Under the Commutation Act, recovery is ad rem; under this Bill it is ad personam—one meaning a recovery on the man's goods, and another a recovery on his person. Supposing a man has the means to pay, but does not choose to do so because of conscientious motives; by an order of the County Court that man may be imprisoned for six weeks. That, I think, is a very startling innovation to bring forward in what is supposed to be a small Bill. I think the House will admit that I have made out my indictment against this Bill. First, I have demonstrated that it is partial and incomplete, and lopsided. It breaks the contract or "sacred covenant" of 1836, in the interest of the tithe owner, and the tithe owner only. Secondly, I have shown that the Bill is inartistically drafted, and that it must inevitably lead to confusion when it has to be interpreted by the County Court Judges. Thirdly, I have shown that there are very serious innovations introduced, such as fine and imprisonment, and that you have given the tithe owner opportunity to intimidate and coerce the tithe payer with regard to his political and other opinions. I contend that, if I have proved one of these propositions, I have made out a strong case for the rejection of this Bill. And I go further. I maintain that I have proved every one of them. In a conversation the other day between the Front Benches, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said he was anxious for a settlement of this question. I am sure no one is more anxious than I am for a settlement; but this Bill, incomplete and undjust as it is, is in no way a settlement, but rather a further unsettlement of this most difficult and intricate question. What do the Government propose to do? They have refused the tithe payer even the contemplation of the Commission which I asked for two years ago, yet they come down to this House with an innocent little measure which goes behind the Act of 1836, in the interest of the tithe owner, and the tithe owner only. I cannot but think this will be unsatisfactory to every
    750
    tithe payer in the kingdom, but the consequences to Wales—against which country this Act is specially directed—may be even more serious. In Wales there are gentlemen who rightly, or wrongly, conscientiously object to pay the tithe; and if this Bill is passed, I cannot but fear there may be consequences in the Principality which will not only be disadvantageous, but even disastrous to the best principles of order and the best principles of law. It is for these reasons I ask the House to reject the Bill, and should the Government persevere, I shall deem it my duty to oppose it at every stage. I move "That the Bill be read this day three months."
    MR. DILLWYN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to second the proposition of my hon. Friend, who has so ably and lucidly put the question before the House that I need not address it at any great length. I am very glad indeed to see a gentleman connected with English tithes state his objection to this most objectionable measure—specially objectionable to Wales. Tithes were originally a voluntary impost; by degrees the Church has, more and more, laid her grasp upon them; and the Home Secretary by this Bill proposes an arbitrary and easy mode for collecting this impost, which is felt to be oppressive in England and still more so in Wales. It is an easy and arbitrary measure in the interests of the tithe owner only. It enables him, by a short and easy process, to recover by fine—a process rendered more objectionable in Wales by the employment of soldiery and police to assist in the collection. It has been found so very objectionable as to lead the people of Wales to the conclusion that this cannot go on much longer. My right hon. Friend has alluded to the-Welsh objections to the payment of the tithes, and he has frankly admitted that the Bill is really directed at the Welsh tithe-payers. Of course, this is due to the fact that in England the payment of the tithes has not been enforced with so much vigour as in Wales; neither has the resistance been so strong. Now, the Welsh objection to these tithes is very great, and it arises not so much from an unwillingness to pay a fair and legal impost as from the feeling that this is an unfair and illegal tax. The object of an impost is that a Government

    751
    should have power to put its hands into the pockets of the ratepayers, and in return that there should be a quid pro quo—that some benefit should be conferred on the payers of the impost. But the Welsh people feel that no benefit is conferred upon them out of this tithe. They do not belong to the Church for the benefit of which the tithes are collected. They would willingly pay the impost if it was for their own interest. Hon. Members opposite laugh when I use the words "their own interest." Let me explain that the Welsh would have no objection to paying the impost were the proceeds spent on the education of the people. But they do not hold that it is to their own interest when the money is spent in maintaining a Church to which they do not belong, and which they do not attend. It has been said that the Church is gaining strength in Wales. I should like to refer hon. Members to an election which took place only yesterday. That does not look as if the Church were gaining strength. No doubt the election was fought very much on the Irish question, but the Church question was also raised in connection with it, and the overwhelming majority accorded to one candidate showed, at any rate, that the Welsh people have not altered in their dislike to the Church. I beg to second the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Herbert Gardner.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. SWETENHAM: I have risen at the earliest possible moment in this debate to say a few words in reply to the objections which have been urged by hon. Members opposite against this Bill. In some remarks I agree with the hon. Member for Saffron Walden. I confess I could have wished that a considerably larger measure had been brought forward. I feel that the Government have been in labour for somewhere about three long years, and have succeeded in bringing forth a mouse. But, at the same time, that mouse is a little animal deserving, at the present time, of very great care indeed, and it
    752
    shall be my care to try and bring it to maturity, so as to make it a useful animal, not only in England, but also in Wales. Now, I quite agree with hon. Friends sitting on this side of the House, who hold the opinion that this question ought to have been dealt with in a much larger and more comprehensive manner. Still, I feel that this measure is only an instalment, of which more is to come; and I believe that if the Government upon this present occasion find themselves supported, as I am sure they will be, by all those who are the advocates of honour and justice, they will in turn, as soon as possible, bring forward a measure which will deal with such questions of burning importance as those relating to the redemption of the tithe—as to whether the averages shall be taken as now Septennially, or every three years, and as to whether or not there shall be some measure for the adjustment of tithe so as to make its incidence comparatively equal, instead of uncertain as at present. For instance, in Wales on some of the best lands the charge is only 6d. per acre, while it is as much as 8s. or 9s. per acre on some of the most impoverished lands. These are questions with which, on a future occasion, we hope to deal. What we have to deal with now is the present Bill. The hon. Member for Swansea, who has just spoken, has alluded to the soldiery and police who have, most unfortunately, frequently had to be imported into the Welsh parishes for the purpose of collecting the tithes. No one regrets that more than I do. No one has seen much more of the effects of that than I have; and it is in consequence of these proceedings, which ought never to have been allowed to be introduced into the tithe question—it is in consequence of them, that we are obliged to ask the Government to bring forward a measure of this nature. The hon. Member also told us that the real objection to the tithes was that in Wales the persons who paid them frequently did not belong to the Church to which the tithe is paid. In some cases, no doubt, it is so; but you must recollect that the tithe was left originally to the Church to which the payers may belong if they choose—it was left as an endowment to that Church—and you have no more right to take away that endowment than

    753
    you have to rob a merchant of that which is justly his due. The hon. Member for Saffron Walden made use of words practically to the same effect. He said that the tithes were being used to provide for the church of the minority. He also said the Welsh people wanted a Free Church. Yes, Sir; a Free Church is a nice sounding term, but there is an antithesis of that. It carries with it a suggestion that you are to despoil the existing Church, and I say you have no more right to despoil a Church of that which is justly its due than you have to rob a person of that which is justly his. If I remember aright, the heathen Town Clerk of Ephesus placed robbers of Churches in the same category as blasphemers. You may depend upon it that no Church will ever prosper if it is to be built up on that which is robbed from other people. And now as to the hon. Member's contention that the tithes are being used to provide for the Church of the minority. I do not know why he should say that, because, so far as England is concerned, most unquestionably, taking one particular denomination and comparing it with the Church of England, the latter Church, instead of being in a minority, is in a large majority, and I believe in an increasing majority. I trust it will ever remain an increasing majority. I have the very greatest sympathy with Nonconformists; there are many of them whom I respect in the very highest degree—many of them whom I can work with most sympathetically. They do an immensity of good in the country. But there are, unfortunately, Nonconformists and Nonconformists. I will tell you what I mean. I mean that there are political Nonconformists—preachers who edit newspapers, and who try to keep— and, I fear, effectually succeed in keeping—back religion and everything else that is sacred. Now, the hon. Member said that the tithe had been diverted by the Church from its original purpose; and that, at the outset, the tithes were devoted to education and the relief of the poor. I should like to know what research the hon. Member has made. Where has he found any authority, that is worth one penny piece, for such a doctrine? I maintain that nowhere can he find in any place deserving of consideration
    754
    any proof that the tithe was originally given for educational purposes, or that it was intended to be absolutely or directly devoted to the relief of the poor. Unquestionably it was so spent before the Poor Laws gave us a system of relieving the poor by the law, for until that time the clergy who received these tithes were almost the only persons who had the charge of the poor, and they, of course with the assistance of their richer neighbours, practically educated them and relieved their necessities. But it is only in that way that the tithe was ever devoted to the relief of the poor, or to the purposes of education. Therefore, you are not in any way by this Bill diverting these tithes from the purposes for which they were originally given. Now, there was another observation made by the hon. Member, and I wish to see how far I agree and how far I disagree with him. He made allusion to the agricultural changes that have been taking place since 1836. I know very well that there have been great changes. I know very well how, in some of the counties to which he has alluded, the land produces scarcely sufficient to supply the tithe. But there are greater anomalies which he did not refer to. I mentioned just now that in Wales, at the present time, some very excellent meadow land pays only 6d., 1s., or 2s. per acre, while land which is very poor indeed has to pay 8s. or 9s. per acre. I will tell you how that arises. When the Enclosure Act was passed a lot of new land, of virgin soil, was brought into cultivation; the farmer immediately plunged his plough into it, and it produced excellent crops of corn. When the Tithe Commutation Act was passed, this land was treated as being capable of continuing to produce these abundant crops, and a heavy tithe was put upon it, while the meadow land, which, as a fact, was better and richer, but which did not grow corn, practically came off scot free. What was the result? When wheat began to get so exceedingly cheap, the higher lands— to which the cartage of manure was difficult and expensive—were thrown out of corn cultivation in an impoverished condition. Now these are matters which must, in course of time, be looked into. I agree in that with the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment. But let us see what is his real

    755
    objection to this Bill. He complained that it does not deal with the whole question. May I remind the House, however, that the Government are pledged to deal with the whole question, and that there is to be a Joint Committee of the Houses of Lords and Commons to inquire into the question of redemption of tithe. That is a very important matter for our consideration, and does away, to a great extent, with the complaint as to the limited character of the Bill. The hon. Member said that the Bill goes behind the compact of 1836, and that it is framed solely in the interests of the tithe owners. But he failed to give the House any ovidence in support of that suggestion. I think his remarks were founded upon a misapprehension. The Bill does not, as far as I know, go in any shape or way behind the Act of 1836. It is said that there was in 1836 a compact with the tithe owners that they should receive certain proportions of the crops—a third, I believe, of the yield of wheat, barley, and oats. But there was a tacit compact—an understanding that this arrangement depended on the maintenances of the prices of corn then ruling, and if the compact is to be broken, as it has been, on one side, surely the others have an equal right to break it. Then the hon. Member complained that the Bill was badly drawn and would cause litigation. Now, in regard to Section 1, Sub-section 1, which deals with the manner in which the distraint is to be executed. I was at first inclined to take a similar view; I thought it open to the interpretation by the County Court Judges that chattels would be liable to be seized for tithe. But now I cannot help thinking that that is a mistake, and I am perfectly certain it never was the intention of those who drafted the Bill that this should be the case. I have however, determined to propose an Amendment—and I hope and believe the Government will accept it—which will make it clear that nothing can be distrained on under the provisions of this Bill except what was distrainable under the Act of 1836. Then the hon. Gentleman went on to make a further statement; he went on to say that persons put into the County Court under this Bill would, if after that they continue to refuse to pay the tithe, be liable to imprisonment for something like six weeks. But there is nothing of
    756
    the kind in the Bill either directly or indirectly; indeed, the clause already referred to provides that the execution, shall not be levied "in any other manner" than that permitted under former Tithe Acts, and those words entirely protect a tithe payer from the liability of being sent to prison.
    MR. H. GAEDNEE: May I give a brief explanation? The expression referred to has nothing to do with the recovery of the tithe—an order by the Court for imprisonment will have nothing to do with the exaction of the tithe. The order for imprisonment will be for contempt of Court for not obeying the order of the County Court Judge.
    MR. SWETENHAM: I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong in his conclusions. I do not believe it will be in the power of the County Court Judge to order a person to be imprisoned if lie does not pay the tithe, because the clause provides that the execution shall only be upon such goods as could be taken in distress for tithe under the Tithes Act. I really think there is absolutely nothing in the objections which have been urged against this Bill. Fault has been found with it on the ground that it is permissive, but all it does is to enable persons to levy under the Act of 1836, or, if they prefer it, to adopt the more simple and convenient remedy provided in this Bill. Reference has been made to the conscientious objections of persons to pay the tithe. Living as I have done for over 40 years in Wales, and having been considerably connected with tenant farmers in Wales, especially in the two parishes where first the disturbances occurred, I think I know the ins and outs of this matter as well as any Member of this House, and I am perfectly certain that conscientious objections to the payment of tithes form no element in this dispute. There may have been such cases possibly; but they have not come under my notice, and I am sure that conscience has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the anti-tithe disturbances. Let us look this matter in the face, for I always like to meet my enemies in the open. The fact is the Nonconformists think, rightly or wrongly, that if they can create and keep up an agitation against the payment of tithes it will assist them very much indeed in getting

    757
    the disestablishment of the Church. They do not hesitate to say so, and I do not think hon. Gentlemen will say that I am wrong in making this assertion. But are they right in enforcing these principles by objecting to this Bill? Next Session, when the Government bring forward their larger measure, will be the time to raise these objections. I allege that the Nonconformists foster these disturbances; if they do not do 80 in words they do so by their silence; and I wish with all my heart that I could see Gentlemen with whom I am daily in friendly intercourse standing boldly in the gap, and telling their fellow countrymen not to be misled by agitators who trade upon their ignorance. After all it is the landlord and not the tenant who really pays the tithes, for although the tenant hands over the money, that very fact is considered in fixing the amount of rent. I hope that if there is a renewal of disturbance hon. Gentlemen opposite will go manfully to the people and beg of them not to be deluded by agitators who tell them that which they know is not true. I have now gone very feebly through some of the objections raised to the Bill. I trust that in the end the Bill will pass a second reading by a very large majority.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: We have just heard a defence of the Bill from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Swetenham). I can hardly congratulate the Government on their first champion of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman commenced by saying there were a good many grievances connected with tithe. He thought it was inequitably levied upon various classes of property, and then he proceeded to describe the Bill as a little mouse—a little mouse which was fed on Welsh cheese—and, having so described it, the hon. Member went on to anatomize the little animal, and said that the moment he saw the only material clause in the Bill he found that it would be so objectionable that he straightway devised an Amendment, which changed its character. He said the Government, not understanding their business, had put in a clause which would have a most mischievous effect to the tithe-payer. Then the hon. Member made a good many discursive remarks upon Nonconformists, and upon their consciences, which he
    758
    professes to understand. He said there were Nonconformists and Nonconformists; but that he objected to political Nonconformists. That is a criticism which is applicable to other classes, but you ought to extend the criticism. Supposing it is said that there are parsons and parsons, and that what you object to are political parsons. Suppose we said there are squires and squires, but what we object to are political squires. I think that would not be considered a fair observation either to parsons or to squires. In this country people are expected to be political, and I cannot see why political Nonconformists are to be condemned on account of their opinions. The hon. Member also said that the tithe-payers do not object to tithe on conscientious grounds, but because they object to the Church Establishment. But they object to both; they desire to see some other system than that of the tithe system established. It is perfectly plain that this question of tithe is indissolubly connected with the question of the Establishment. To endeavour to separate the two and say one is conscientious objection and the other is not, seems to me to misapprehend the character of the whole question. I object to this Bill on the very ground which seemed to commend the Bill to the hon. Gentleman. A small Bill dealing with a very great subject is a considerable evil. If I might a little change two well-known lines, I would say that in the view of the hon. Member—
    "This Bill is good because it is so small,
    But it were better if t'were not at all."
    If you are going to touch the tithe question at all you ought to deal with it as a whole. I do not think hon. Gentlemen opposite are wise in touching it at all from their point of view. It is a very ancient building and it is not safe to meddle with it; and I would not advise hon. Members to begin taking bricks out of it. When I was at the Home Office, I constantly had visits from the Bishops who wished to have Bills introduced in the House of Commons with respect to the Church, and I took the liberty of giving them this advice—"My Lords, I think the less you trouble with the House of Commons the better from your point of view, because I don't think you are likely to derive any special advantage from that

    759
    course." But this question of tithe is eminently one which has two sides to it-As my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron "Walden (Mr. H. Gardner), in his extremely clear and able speech, showed to the House, when the arrangement of 1836 was made the prices of agricultural produce were very nearly as low as they are now, and that, too, under the highest system of Protection.
    MR. SWETENHAM: Not wheat on the Septennial valuation.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Yes, wheat. I venture to say you will find wheat in 1835 was below 40s. I remember very well Mr. Henry, a respected Member of this House, telling me that in 1835 a large number of farms in Oxfordshire went out of cultivation, because they could not pay the rates. The Reports of agricultural distress at that time show that there were quite as loud complaints as now in reference to the condition of agriculture. For a good many years after the Tithe Commutation Act was passed the Church had immense advantages, because the average price was very much above par for many years. But the case does not depend upon that question. It depends upon whether you are going to touch the settlement of 1836. My hon. Friend (Mr. H. Gardner) has said quite truly hat if you are going to touch the settlement of 1836 you cannot touch it on one side and leave the other side undealt with. If the tithe owner has complaints to make so has the tithe payer, and the Government have no right to deal with the question by considering the interests of one party and not those of the other party. The poor clergy are not the only tithe owners. A great portion, of the tithes in this country are in the hands of rich laymen, and the persons fortunate enough to become representatives of the despoiled monasteries of the time of Henry VIII. The principal revenues of Trinity College, Cambridge, are derived from tithe. Speaking of monasteries reminds me of another remark of the hon. Member. He says that a church cannot be prosperous that is founded on spoliation of other denominations. Whether spoliation of other denominations forms that sound foundation of the Established Church of this country which the hon. Member advocates I do not know; but I thought his remark was a little argu-
    760
    ment for such Friends of his as the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. DeLisle). Well, now the real question is, is it a fair way of dealing with the tithe question to deal with it in this piecemeal manner in the interest of one-side alone? I think it is not. It is said that the tithe is due, and that this Bill only provides a cumulative remedy. But what right have the Government to-give this cumulative remedy? What has taken place to alter the situation as provided in the remedies set forth in the-contract of 1836? It is absurd to say that the cumulative remedy is not altering the situation, because the Government are giving to one party a remedy which it does not possess without, considering the situation of the other party at all. It is unfair to deal with the question in this one-sided manner. If we are to have a remedy of this kind we ought to have done away with distress altogether, because the operation of distraint is always an odious operation, which belongs to ancient and feudal rather than to modern times. My objection is that you have no right to-attack or to change the settlement of 1836 without reviewing the interests of both parties to the transaction, and it is upon that ground I shall vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The right hon. Gentleman has entirely ignored the special circumstances which, in the opinion of the Government, rendered it necessary, in the interests of the public peace and order, and for the proper execution of the law, that some measure such as we now propose should be brought under the consideration of Parliament. No one who listened to his speech would suppose that the right hon. Gentleman has the slightest knowledge of those painful circumstances which have arisen in connection with the collection of tithe in Wales; of the resistance which has-been offered to the bailiffs employed to-carry out the distraints; of the breaches of the peace in cases where, I venture to say, nothing whatever could be pleaded as to the incapacity of the tithe payer to pay tithe legally due. This state of things the Government thought it impossible to allow to continue without an attempt to find a remedy. I admit that the measure does not effect a complete

    761
    settlement of the tithe question; but it is an important measure from the point of view of the protection of those whose rights the law ought to be able to protect. This is not a question of large tithe owners dealing with small tithe payers. The real difficulty, the terrible part of the question, is the position of many a poor clergyman of a parish, who is dependent solely on his tithes for his maintenance, and is unable to go to the expense which a distraint necessarily involves in order, to collect tithes from those who are able to pay them and who are bound by law to pay them, but who decline to pay them for reasons stated in the speech of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn.) I hold in my hand a letter which is a bonâ fide representation of the class of cases which ought to be brought forcibly before the attention of the House. The letter is from a vicar of a parish in North Wales, and after stating the difficulties with which he has to contend in obtaining his tithes he says:—
    "During the last 18 months I and my family have lived on a little bread, oatmeal, and bacon. Fresh meat is out of the question. If I were to put the present law into force it would cost me more than my tithes. The rector of an adjoining parish put the sheriff in two small farms for £7 each, and this cost £32 in expenses. I am drifting into debt to such an extent that I shall never be able to recover myself unless we should have some change shortly. I have been compelled to withdraw my children from school."
    That is but a sample of many cases in Wales, where through the lawlessness, for it is nothing else, of the tithe payers, the clergy are reduced to the state so pathetically described in the letter which I have read. And yet the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, knowing of the existence of this state of things, ignores it altogether, and practically charges the Government with bringing before Parliament, for no reason whatever, a change in the law to the disadvantage of the tithe payer. I am as much opposed as any one to a change in the settlement of the Act of 1836, which would give an advantage to one side without any consideration of the position of the other. I think there is a great deal to be said for the position which the hon. Member for Essex (Mr. H. Gardner) took up in one part of his speech. I am connected with a part of England in which the tithes are as
    762
    heavy as in Essex, and in which the value of land has diminished as much as in Essex. The whole question of tithe is one which unquestionably deserves the early consideration of the House; but it is not a matter which it is possible for the Government to bring under the consideration of the House during the present Session. It is a question of the greatest difficulty and complication. The settlement affected by the Act of 1836 was a settlement of great complexity, and it was carried out with the greatest possible care. I do not feel absolutely certain that there is any such general desire on the part of tithe owners and tithe payers in England to re-open that settlement as would be necessary to give a sufficient impetus to any measure to pass it through Parliament. But, however that may be, there is no doubt whatever that a short or simple measure cannot effectually deal with the question. The Tithe Act of 1836 dealt separately with the varying circumstances of every parish in the country. In some parishes there are many tithe payers, in other parishes there are only one or two; in some parishes the tithes are very light, in others they are very heavy. Owing to the alterations in the value of land, tithe on building land, for instance, will be a very small burden indeed, while tithe on arable land may be an insupportable burden. In any complete settlement the separate circumstances of every parish in the kingdom must be considered. I devoted this year very considerable time to the preparation of a Bill dealing with this question. I had it in a shape in which it was practically ready for presentation. The Government, however, were unable to introduce it, though they hope to do so as soon as opportunity offers. In the meantime, we ask the House to alter the law, not so as to give the tithe-owner more than he can now claim, but solely to that extent which in our judgment is necessary to enable the tithe owner to enforce the rights which the law gives him. The hon. Members who have moved and seconded the rejection of the Bill were equally ready with their opposition to the Bills of last year, and will be equally ready with, their opposition to Bills of any kind dealing with tithe. Why is this? The hon. Member for Swansea said that

    763
    tithe is objected to in Wales as an unfair and illegal impost, because it is devoted to the maintenance of a Church to which the Welsh do not belong. [Mr. DILLWYN: I do not think I said "illegal."] The hon. Member went on to tell the House, much to my astonishment, that the Welsh would not object to pay tithe if it was devoted, not to the Church, but to educational purposes. Are not hon. Members aware that Christ Church, Oxford, is an educational institution? [Mr. T. E. ELLIS: For Wales?] Certainly, if the Welsh choose to go there. Is no educational establishment of value to Welshmen that does not happen to be in the Principality itself? The hon. Gentleman is himself an example of the advantages Welshmen derive from education elsewhere than in Wales. He was educated at Oxford, and Christchurch is in possession of a considerable tithe in Wales, and in no case has resistance to the payment of tithe bean greater than in the instance of the tithes due to Christchurch. Do hon. Members who object to the payment of tithes bear sufficiently in mind the harvest they may be preparing for themselves in the future? They desire—I suppose they anticipate—that some day the revenues of the Church in Wales, and possibly of other tithe owners, will be handed over to the community for some local purpose; but surely, in the meantime, the property must be kept intact. There will be no tithe left if the collection of it is allowed to become difficult or impossible. From their own point of view they are running the risk of depriving the nation of the reversion of a valuable property which, to whatever purpose it ought to be devoted, ought, at any rate, not to go into the pockets of the owners and occupiers of the land. This is what we desire. We do not touch the vexed question of whether the tithes should continue to be devoted to their present purposes or not; we simply ask Parliament to take care that proper facilities are given for the collection of tithes from those who are bound by law to pay them. I deny that this Bill involves any unsettlement of the settlement of 1836. I do not wish to enter further into that. My right hon. Friend has dealt with the second objection of the hon. Member for Essex, that the
    764
    Bill renders liable to County Court judgment other classes of property belonging to the occupier besides that which is liable to tithe, but I do not think the hon. Member heard my right hon. Friend's denial of that allegation.
    MR. HERBERT GARDNER: The explanation of the Home Secretary, however distinguished he may be as a lawyer, does not make the law of this country.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: Really I can only state what the intentions of Her Majesty's Government are. I can assure the hon. Member that is what we intend by the provisions of the Bill to which he took exception. The words, of course, are the words of the draftsman, and if they are not sufficiently clear we shall be perfectly prepared to accept Amendment to make them so. The third objection was that the tithe payer might be rendered liable to considerable costs by the working of the Bill and to imprisonment. I am informed that it is an entire mistake to suppose that the Bill will render the tithe payer liable to imprisonment; but if costs are incurred it can only be by resistance to the payment of the tithe due and to prolonged resistance to the judgment of the County Court. I think that a person who voluntarily places himself in this position of opposition should be mulcted in costs. These were the only objections raised to the provisions of the Bill. I do not think I need detain the House any longer. I have stated shortly, and, I hope, plainly, the intentions of the Government in introducing the measure and the necessity in their opinion for it. I leave the Bill to the judgment of the House, merely adding, as I stated at the commencement of my remarks, that we do not consider this in any way a settlement of the tithe question: that we are quite aware there is much to be said on behalf of tithe payers as well as tithe owners, in framing any general and complete scheme; and at the earliest opportunity we will endeavour to submit such a complete scheme to the judgment of the House.
    MR. T. E. ELLIS: It is very clear from the speeches of the Home Secretary and the President of the Board of Trade that this little Bill is aimed directly at Wales. The Home Secretary tried to make out that the Bill

    765
    will bring relief to the tithe payers in England and Wales; but now that is put aside, and it is confessed and admitted that the Bill is directed solely at the Welsh people. Now, from that point of view it is not merely a small Bill, but it is a dishonest Bill, for it tries by heaping up costs against the peasantry of Wales to evade this tithe question in Wales instead of settling it. Therefore, the representatives of the Welsh people look upon this as a dishonest Bill. It is a small Bill, but it touches the most thorny of all the questions, and raises the most conflicting passions and interests. It is no use to try and shirk those great issues that are raised whenever tithes are touched upon. We have heard on both sides of the interests of tithe payers, tithe receivers, and of landlords. Tithe payers grumble in England as much or more than we do in Wales, there is more complaint in England of taking the corn averages; but so far as Wales is concerned we care nothing about corn averages, we look upon this as a great political and national question, and not a question of corn averages and whether the tax is heavy or light. There are some in England and there are a few people in Wales who say this is a tax on industry that ought to be abolished, but with this the bulk of the Welsh people have no sympathy. They are not such infants in politics and economics as to think that the abolition of the tithe would do any good to anybody except the landlords. Some say the tithes are heavy, others that they are light. Now, this due to a large number of conditions, due to some extent to the suppression of the monasteries and the fact that the vast estates of the monasteries were entirely free, and at the dissolution of the monasteries that freedom of the land was secured by the Act of Parliament decreeing their dissolution. Another cause of inequality was the allotment, in many Enclosure Acts, of a certain number of acres to the Church in lieu of tithe. Now, no attempt on the part of the Government to equalize tithes will be satisfactory, so far as the tithe payers of Wales are concerned, and I think the same might be said of the majority in England. This Bill deals only with the tithe receivers, and they have very different interests. I think the
    766
    lay impropriator has an interest, not very honourable, certainly not very creditable to the history of this country. No sacredness should attach to the claims of lay impropriators, which are the worst burdens upon land, because whilst landlords do put buildings upon it, impropriators do nothing but exact the last halfpenny. Bishops and clergy of the Established Church look upon tithe as a peculiar property sent by Heaven in which they have a life interest, and the law has provided a peculiar mode of collection, allowing the receiver to go straight to the farmer and distrain. The touching of this property, the Welsh people have been taught, is robbery of God. It is blasphemous and impious, say the clergy, to touch this property; but we in Wales do not look upon the matter in this light. New methods of collection have been adopted, not by the clergy alone, but by some of the wealthier corporations in the kingdom. Not content with the method of distraint, they have brought in emergency men and dragoons to enforce these claims. But this was not sufficient to get the tithe, and now we have the assistance of the County Court invoked. The interests of payer, receiver, and landlord are all subordinate to the interest of the nation itself. This first charge upon the land we maintain—and I believe that jurists and statesmen maintain—this first charge is the property of the nation. This is the view held by my countrymen, and the charge that Welsh farmers are animated by greed in resistance to tithe is answered by the Report of the Special Commission sent to the disturbed Welsh districts two years ago. That Commission reported that there had existed in Wales for a long time a strong feeling that tithes were improperly applied, and the desire had grown up, not that tithe should be abolished, but that it should be applied to some lay purpose for the benefit of the nation. The hon. Member for Carnarvon, for the thousandth time, has brought in the dreadful agitator as the cause of all the difficulty; but this Commission reports that this feeling of the Welsh people has arisen from causes partly religious, partly social, partly political, and partly national. The people of Wales do not wish for any paltry settlement or tinker-

    767
    ing with this question; they desire that the property of the nation should revert to the nation and that it should be utilized, not for the sect of the minority, but to promote the good of the whole population. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks Beach) read a very pathetic letter from a Welsh clergyman, with the object of proving that in the interest of the poor clergy the collection of tithe was to be enforced; but in the latter part of his speech he seemed to be shocked and surprised that there should be resistance to the payment of tithe due to the great Corporation of Christ-church, Oxford. He need not have been surprised. Take the tithe endowments of Wales from one end of the Principality to the other, and you find the history is one long record of spoliation. Many Ecclesiastical Corporations have some time or other dipped their hands into Welsh tithe. At the Reformation, for instance, tithes from one county were taken to found the bishopric of Lichfield, and from another to swell the property of the great Corporation of Christchurch, Oxford. It is not for me now to plead the necessities of Wales in educational matters, they are patent to all men, and yet the Nonconformist people of Wales are asked to pay willingly, spontaneously, and joyfully from their educational poverty to keep up the largest and richest and most aristocratic of the colleges of Oxford. Not alone is it for the purposes of education. According to the Tithe Return of 1887, the Dean and Chapter of Christchurch are the clerical appropriators of tithes of several parishes in Montgomeryshire, so that they are even here used to maintain the English Church Establishment. Some of the very best friends of the Church in Wales have seen for half a century and more that the continued existence of these abuses would inevitably arouse the strong feelings of the Welsh people against the Church. The people silently suffered for generations because they had no voice in political matters, but the best friends of the Church saw the prospect of a great uprising of the people against this system long ago, and you may find this clearly indicated in Mr. Jones' remarkable book, "The Rise of Dissent in Wales." The references there showing how Welsh
    768
    tithe is devoted to the support of Deans and Chapters and Bishoprics and other Church purposes in various parts of England will explain that resistance to the payment of the Christchurch College tithe which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade thinks so unnatural. There is a great corporation represented in this House by an hon. Baronet whom we all greatly respect. I mean the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I have no great complaint to make against the management of the estates of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; but the fact is that very many of the clergymen in Wales showed their sympathy four or five years ago with the farmers in their distress and gave small reductions of 5 and 7½ per cent.; and those who evinced a sympathetic spirit are able to get their tithes without any difficulty. But the Commissioners exact the uttermost farthing. No doubt there are parishes in which the payment of tithes to the clergy is stoutly refused; but in those parishes there exist the memories of great wrong and of the tithes having formerly been paid year after year either to immoral clergymen or to absentees who never came near the parishes. Throughout a vast number of parishes in Wales the history of the tithe is a record of its application to absentee tithe owners. For instance, I could point out a parish in Montgomeryshire, where some half a century ago tithes to the amount of £750 went to absentee clergymen, while the religious care of souls in that parish was entrusted to a poor curate with £90 a year. In these Tithe Commutation Returns you may see how the tithes are diverted to ecclesiastical purposes in England, as, for instance, part of the tithe collected in Brecon being devoted to the support of the Dean and Chapter of Gloucester and the Dean and Chapter of Windsor. Can the House seriously expect that at any time, now or in the future, the people of Brecon will be content to have this first charge upon their industry devoted to such purposes? Whatever pains and penalties you impose on the Welsh Nonconformist peasantry, you will not get one inch nearer to your goal. The Welsh people are hard to drive, and this is shown by the history of this tithe agitation. With police, bailiffs, and military, the attempt to collect the

    769
    tithes was a failure, for week by week the resistance of the people grew more stubborn. But then the Chief Constable of Montgomeryshire bethought him of a more peaceful method of collection, and he adopted the policy of consulting the people and conciliating them, and now tithes in Montgomeryshire are collected as easily as rent. This peaceful policy was jeered at by the Chief Constables of adjoining counties, but they have come round to the opinion that Major Godfrey was right, and they have followed his example. Now, the Home Secretary has told us that in the distribution of the tithes education gets a large share. Only a mere trifle of the Welsh tithes goes to the schools and educational institutions of Wales, the bulk of them going to All Souls College, and Christchurch, Oxford, the London Grocers' Company, Tewkesbury, Clare Hospital, and other bodies outside the Principality. Even the exceptions, and where schools and colleges in Wales get a share of the tithe, though well managed from an educational point of view, they do not give satisfaction to the Welsh people, as they are managed almost wholly by Churchmen. The chief of the arguments of the right hon. Member for Bristol was the pathetic letter which he read from a clergyman. I will not ask the right hon. Gentleman to which parish or county that letter related; but I imagine that in that parish, as in every other, there must be rich men and squires who draw the rent. I admit that to some extent it is a hard fate that a man should have to live on bread, oatmeal, and bacon, and seldom to get fresh meat; but, after all, that is the fate of nine-tenths of my countrymen in the rural districts. Although I am quite willing to admit that many of the clergy have suffered, what a scathing criticism this is upon the tithe system. Here is a poor people, without any of the advantage of a tithe endowment, though robbed and despoiled for generations, yet who have by their own efforts in their poverty built up a system of religious and educational institutions that all over Wales, in lonely valleys, on bleak hillsides, in busy industrial centres, and on the quiet country side, make provision for their religious and social advancement. What remains of the Established Church in
    770
    Wales is the rent receivers, large land owners, and capitalists of Wales, and yet your chief argument amounts to this, that the clergy are starved because those who receive their ministrations do not come forward in their support. We are often told that the clergy in Wales do their utmost to come into contact with their tenants. That is certainly a revelation. It is very desirable that the parson and his flock should know each other; and it may be, as a witness before the Richmond. Commission said, the payment of tithes is an opportunity of communication. It is desirable that the clergyman and his people should know each other, but there is the sad fact that the past history of the Church, its present condition, and, more than that, its present spirit in Wales make that well-nigh impossible. It may be said that in times gone by the state of the Church in Wales was sad and deplorable; half of the tithes in the various counties were enjoyed by absentee clergymen, but that now things are altogether changed. But the change is only in method, there are the same difficulties, the same estrangement now as there were a hundred years ago. It many cases—such, for instance, as that I referred to by question to-day—the clergyman is the owner and manager of the only public elementary and State-aided school in the parish, and no-Nonconformist in the parish can ever become a teacher in the school, or have a voice in its management. After long years of trouble and endeavour the Nonconformists of Wales obtained from Parliament relief in the matter of burials, and even the Archbishops and Bishops in the House of Lords thought it was expedient to make the settlement; but the Welsh clergy have set themselves deliberately to frustrate, as far as they possibly can, the working of the Burial Act. I have a further charge against many of the clergy, the most serious of all, that so strong is their antagonism to the Nonconformist peasantry that they have gone out of their way to make it difficult for the Nonconformist peasantry to remain at peace with their landlords. While such a state of feeling exists it is difficult, if not impossible, for the clergy to come into close or friendly religious relations with their parishioners. I am satisfied that any attempt on the part of the House to make the collection

    771
    of tithes more easy, by heaping costs on the peasantry, will only open again the bitter and lamentable controversy which raged some time ago, before the Chief Constable of Montgomeryshire intended a more peaceful policy in regard to tithe collection. The people of Wales were supported by the hope that at last the House of Commons would provide them some relief, but if you declare war against them instead of proposing a peaceful settlement of the controversy, then there will be a repetition of the regretable scene that took place in Wales some three years ago. The unanimous feeling of Nonconformists and of the feeling among many Churchmen too is that the Government should not have brought forward this peddling and tinkering Bill, but some scheme which would be a great and final settlement in accordance with the wishes of the people. Wales does not want this Bill, and as far as I can make out England does not want it. The only people who want it are corporations and the present tithe receivers in Wales. It is simply a piece of class legislation of the worst kind. The Bill may be a small Bill, but it is a Bill which will create great irritation, and inevitably disturb social order. Legal authorities declare that the Bill as drafted will inevitably result in imprisonment of people who refuse to obey the order of the County Court; and such a proceeding will make it more difficult for clergymen to collect these tithes. Does a Tory Ministry believe that because the debt is asked for by a County Court that the sturdy peasantry will immediately and spontaneously pay the tithe? No, the resistance will be still more stubborn, you will make the work of the Church in Wales still more difficult, and what, perhaps, hon. Gentlemen on the other side may think even more serious, it will lose you seats at the next General Election. I feel I have taken up too much of the time of the' House. I desire in this matter to be perfectly frank. So far as Wales is concerned, we do not be live in tithe redemption schemes, in tithe equalisation schemes, or in tithe-collection-made-easy schemes, which are all schemes for evading the question, or bringing relief to receivers, or landlords. What we want in Wales, and what the Welsh people have declared over and
    772
    over again, is that there will be no final and satisfactory settlement of the question until tithes are devoted to national purposes. The first charge on the industry and toil of the Welsh people must not be an engine used for keeping up religious inequality and the dissemination of bitterness and strife in Wales, but a great instrument for the common good and welfare of the people.
    SIR J. MOWBRAY: I will not attempt to follow the somewhat discursive remarks of the hon. Member, but as representing the Ecclesiastical Commission, I feel bound to take notice of some of the references to that body. At the conclusion of his speech the hon. Member expressed his desire to be frank, and I wish he had been equally frank at the beginning. He mentioned the Ecclesiastical Commission in connection with other Corporations who had, he said, dipped into the tithes of Wales.
    MR. T. E. ELLIS: I mentioned several instances in which Corporations had diverted the tithes to such purposes as the Bishopric of Gloucester and the Deanery of Windsor. I did not specially mention the Ecclesiastical Commission except as a large Corporation, which, with others, collected tithes in Wales.
    SIR J. MOWBRAY: The hon. Member spoke of Corporations generally, and said that many of the great ecclesiastical corporations dipped into the tithes of Wales; but the hon. Gentleman seemed to have forgotten his own Return, laid before the House in April last, with respect to the income which the Ecclesiastical Commission received last year from Wales and the expenditure undertaken by it in Wales. That great Corporation received in the last year as annual income from property in Wales £28,799, and they paid away in Wales, to bishops, chapters, archdeacons, and to the Lampeter College, £32,023. In addition to that they paid in grants for the augmentation of benefices, £35,611. So that this Corporation paid away £7,000 more than they received in Wales, besides providing for the Welsh people such luxuries as bishops, chapters, archdeacons, and so on. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have dipped into Welsh tithes for other than Welsh purposes. I will not dwell at length upon the Bill,

    773
    but I think this Debate will probably convince the Government of the difficulty of dealing with large questions by small Bills,—but the Bill, so far as it goes, will have my hearty support. It is no less in the interest of the tithepayer than in the interest of the titheowner that the present antiquated and distasteful method of recovering tithes should be abolished. It has been urged that a County Court process of recovery would subject the tithepayer to imprisonment for resistance. But the Government have declared, and the Homo Secretary is an eminent lawyer entitled to speak with authority, that they have no intention of involving such consequences, and if there be any doubt as to the purport of the Bill an Amendment will remedy the difficulty.
    MR. BANDELL: The Home Secretary has described the Bill as small, and the hon. Member for Carnarvon has added to the description "inoffensive, "but I cannot admit that this last description applies, I am sure that the Welsh people will consider it an obnoxious Bill, and I think it will only aggravate existing evils and double the cost of procedure for the recovery of tithes. My objections are directed against the Bill as aimed, as it assuredly is, at the Principality of Wales. Our objection is aimed not at the recovery but at the present application of the tithes. If you apply those tithes to uses which will meet with the general acceptance of the Welsh people you will have no difficulty as to their recovery. As to the present mode of levying distraint, the Home Secretary has described it as a cumbersome machinery. No doubt it is cumbersome; but I think it is less expensive and less objectionable than the method now proposed in substitution for it. It is less expensive because the present cost amounts merely to a few shillings, whereas the cost of County Court proceedings will certainly amount to a larger sum. When the tithe owner shall have gone into the County Court and obtained his Judgment and "no effects "are returned he will have to go to the County Court for his judgment summons.
    MR. MATTHEWS: No, no.
    MR. RANDELL: I am glad to hear that denial from the right hon. Gentleman, but under the Bill as at present drawn up the judgment creditor has a
    774
    right to apply for a judgment summons. The Bill is objectionable also because the consequence will be the imprisonment of the tithe payer if he resists the bailiff of the County Court when he levies execution and there are no goods distrainable upon. I should be glad if the Home Secretary would rise in his place and tell us there will be no imprisonment under the Bill.
    MR. MATTHEWS: As the hon. Gentleman challenges me I will at once declare that in my belief it is quite sufficient to tie down the execution to only such distrainable goods as are either upon the tithable land or upon land within the same parish and in the same occupation as the tithable land. Furthermore, the Bill prevents a judgment from being executed in any other manner than upon the seizure of such goods, and therefore judgment cannot be executed with the machinery of a judgment summons, which is such a bugbear to hon. Gentlemen opposite. That is the intention of the Bill, and if it be not carried out by the words I shall be prepared to strengthen and alter the words. I hope, therefore, that imaginary difficulties and obstacles will not again be raised on this point.
    MR. RANDELL: I am glad to receive that explanation from the right hon. Gentleman, but as the Bill is drawn that is not so. The money is treated as a debt.
    MR. MATTHEWS: The judgment recovered by the debt is to be treated only against certain defined property, and in no other manner whatever.
    MR. RANDELL: Then I take it that the Government do not intend to give the tithe owner the power of applying: for a judgment summons. Well, if that be so, I say it is a perfect waste of time to discuss the Bill. The bailiff who will levy the execution of the County Court is very much the same person who distrains now for tithes. If the goods are removed the distraint will be an abortive instrument. I am sure the promoters of the Bill behind the Government will be very much surprised that the Government do not intend to give the power of imprisonment. I hope the Home Secretary will, for the sake of the landowners, provide that where there are sufficient assets to meet the execution the proceedings will be confined to the

    775
    County Court, and that the High Court will not be invoked, because the costs in the High Court in proceedings of thiskind are really a very serious matter to the landlord, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as the tithe is a first charge on the premises, he will introduce a clause into the Bill making the wages of the agricultural labourer and the workmen a preferential charge before the tithe in the event of the bankruptcy of the landlord. I myself desire to express sympathy with those clergymen who find difficulty in the collection of tithes; but I say that the Government have it in their own power to remove that difficulty by disestablishing the English Church in Wales.
    MR. JEFPEEYS: I must confess I am sorry the Government have brought in such a trivial Bill. I had hoped to see a more comprehensive measure than this, and one which would have settled the question and prevented discussion arising in future years. I have an Amendment on the Paper to the effect that no scheme will be satisfactory without a provision for redemption, but, in deference to the opinions of my friends, I have withdrawn it. Although it may with some justice be said that this is a tithe-owners' Bill, I think, at the same time, it will not do much harm to the tithe-payers. I think that tithe is a just charge on the land to be paid by the owners, and I should like to see a clause introduced into the Bill compelling owners to pay it still. I doubt whether the distress clause will be effective, because there is no doubt that the occupiers refuse to pay tithe, not because they cannot pay, but because they do not wish to pay; they desire to make a demonstration against the whole system of tithe. The occupiers will make the same demonstration when distress takes place under this Bill, and therefore I am afraid that the measure will not do much good. I do not wish altogether to oppose it, especially as we have heard from the Government that they will undertake next Session to bring in a Bill to deal with the collection of tithes. With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) said about the prices of cereals at the present time as compared with the prices in 1835, I think his statements show he is not an agricul-
    776
    turist, because although wheat was at a low price in 1835 it was nothing like what it is at the present moment, and in 1835, when the Tithe Commutation Act was passed, the average in price during the seven preceding years was no less than 56s.,whereasat the present time it is about 28s, a quarter, or just half what it was then. There is no doubt that the tithe payers have had a considerable decrease in the payments they have made. Every hundred pounds worth of tithe in 1836 has now come down to a little over £80. If the corn inspectors did their duty properly, and calculated the averages of the corn, the tithe would be still further decreased, and I doubt whether there would be any necessity for a Tithe Bill at all. It appears, however, there is some difficulty in the way of the corn inspectors calculating the averages; and I can only hope that when we get a Board of Agriculture the work will be carried out in a more effective manner. In conclusion, I will merely say that if this Tithe Bill does no good, at any rate it does no harm.
    SIR J. SWINBURNE: One point has not been mentioned, and that is that the Bill really means a Bill for facilitating the collection of tithes. I have been informed by land agents and others that it will increase the intrinsic value of the tithe 20 to 30 per cent. We have been informed that next year a Joint Committee of the two Houses will meet to discuss the matter, and that a larger measure will then be brought in. Any Redemption Clause will have to be based on the then value of the tithe. The Government say this is a very small Act; but, at all events, it raises the value of the tithe some 20 or 30 per cent, and when we have to pay a capital sum for doing away with the tithes, what will then have to be dealt with will be the value of the tithe at that time. Speaking as a tithe owner, as well as a tithe payer, I say the tithe owners have never paid one farthing towards improving the land. I know that in some cold clay soils, if it had not been for the enormous amount of money spent by the owners and occupiers in improving the land, it would not now be producing even the value of the tithe. We have heard a very pathetic story from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks Beach).Let me tell a

    777
    very pathetic story, too. It has come under my personal observation that a clergyman of the Church of England, in receipt of £600 or £700 a year, has gone away and left his parish in charge of a poor man with a large family at a guinea a week. I have known the family to be very near starvation. I say that whether the minister of the parish is a priest of the Church of Home, or a Nonconformist minister, if he has the confidence of his congregation, they will keep him in a moderate degree of comfort. One would almost imagine that from what has been said that there were no Nonconformists except in Wales. I speak from experience when I say that a very large proportion of the people in the North of England are Nonconformists, and the same thing can be said of the miners of Cornwall. Though the Nonconformists have no revenue from the State, a large proportion of the country is covered with their chapels; stipends are paid, preachers are supported, and not only minister to the ordinary congregations, but travel about at their own expense, and Sunday after Sunday preach to people who would otherwise receive no attention, owing to the neglect of the Church of England clergy, who are dependent on the State and not on their own conduct for their maintenance. It seems to be altogether out of the question that the Government should bring into Parliament such a onesided Bill as increases the value of these tithes from 20 to 30 per cent, and brings no corresponding advantage to the tithe-payer. I am a lay proprietor myself. I hope I may be forgiven by the hon. Member for Wales who sits behind me. My ancestors purchased certain tithes, and I have consequently had experience not only as a tithe payer, but also as a tithe owner. I have heard that certain of the clergy of Wales have made reductions in the tithes; but I have not heard from Gentlemen opposite that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have made any reduction, although their tithes have in some instances brought the tenants to ruin. This Bill will raise the value of the tithe without giving any corresponding advantage whatever to the tithe-payer. I think it would be well for the Government to re-consider the whole question.
    MR. CORNWALLIS WEST: As this question of tithes
    778
    has been much under the attention of my constituents for some time past, I may be allowed to say a few words. I regret very much that I am unable to support the Bill. I consider it at the present juncture quite an unnecessary Bill. We are settling down in Wales to a conviction that it is better to wait until the question of the tithe is dealt with in a large and comprehensive manner, and I believe that such a Bill as this will only exasperate the Welsh people and make them more determined than they ever were in their opposition to the payment of tithes. If the Bill or some similar measure had been proposed some months ago, there would have been some reason for it; but it is unquestionable that matters are now settling down, and there is very little likelihood of any disturbance arising in the Principality. My hon. Friend the Member for Merionethshire (Mr. T. Ellis) stated that the clergy and the landlords of Wales were, if I mistake not, in a sort of conspiracy against the Nonconformists; that it was very much in consequence of the line of action which those two bodies take that there is so strong an opposition to the payment of tithes to the Church. But my hon. Friend seemed to forget that the tithes are paid not only to the Church, but to the charitable and educational institutions of the country. In my own district people have absolutely refused to pay tithes for the maintenance of a school. I entirely object to anything like a systematic agitation against the payment of tithes; but, at the same time, I do not deny that in the Principality there is a sentimental grievance which must be overcome. If the Government will give a pledge that in the next Session this whole question will be dealt with in a broad and liberal spirit, that will be quite enough to prevent any further outbreak of tithe riots, and such a Bill as we are now discussing is unnecessary and uncalled for.
    MR. FARQUHARSON: I wish to express my regret that the Government have brought forward this Bill at all. Possibly it may be necessary that greater power should be given to titheowners to assert their rights in Wales, but there is scarcely a tenant-farmer in England who will not consider the Bill a reflection upon his honour. In no instance has it been proved that

    779
    the opposition to tithe in England has been founded on anything else but inability to pay tithe. At the present time, when the farmers are scarcely able to pay their rent or their tithe, it is most impolitic to bring in a measure which will encourage titheowners to recover in an arbitrary and hasty manner. I had certainly hoped that when a measure of this sort was brought forward, not only the interests of tithe-owners, but also the interests of the tithepayers would have been considered. It does not seem right that we should have a Bill carried through Parliament which will largely increase the value of the property of the tithe owners, and considerably decrease the resisting power of the tithepayers. As far as I am concerned, I may say that I shall support the Government in the Lobby, not because I approve of the Bill, but because they have given a distinct assurance that the sting of the measure is withdrawn, and that the power of imprisonment will not be enforced. On these terms, and these alone, will I vote for the measure.
    MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS: I confess that since the Bill has been in my hands, and especially since this discussion commenced, I have been at a loss to understand why the Government have brought this proposal forward. What can they expect to gain by introducing such a measure? In the first place, it is clear that, instead of introducing peace into the Principality, the Bill will increase the distraction which reigns there on the tithe question; it will renew the feeling of irritation which happier councils had allayed and dissipated, and one hon. Member, who represents a district in which the feelings between the people and the police have been most strained, has assured the House that if the measure is passed it will do a great deal of harm. And yet, at this late stage of the Session, when we have so much need for every spare moment for more important business, the House is called upon to spend a night in considering a weak and futile Bill—a Bill introducing a new method of procedure which is not wanted, and which will entirely fail in its effect. It is admitted on all hands—even by the supporters of the Government who have spoken and who have damned the Bill with faint praise
    780
    —that the Government proposal fails to deal with the great question of the adjustment of the tithe, which has been raised during the late years of agricultural depression. It will fail completely to relieve the tenant-farmer in periods of difficulty, and it leaves untouched the practical questions which ought to be dealt with. Now, I propose to deal with the matter from the point of view of a Welsh Member. It seems to me that the Bill is a most unfortunate one—it is a feeble attempt to suppress by a new mode of procedure what the Welsh people believe to be a great Constitutional right, i.e., the power to make a public yet peaceful protest against what they consider to be an unjust law; and1 nothing that the Home Secretary can say will persuade the people of the Principality that the Bill, if passed, will not rob them of a Constitutional right. They have a conscientious feeling that the tithe is not properly due to the people to whom it is now legally payable. They believe— and they have reason to bslieve—that the proceeds of the first charge upon the land should be applied in other ways. They recognize the existence of a law which compels them to pay the tithe; but they also hold that if the law is enforced, they have a right to use the occasion of its enforcement as an opportunity for a Constitutional protest against the application of the tithes in Wales. If this Bill passes into law, the whole of the Welsh people will resent it and resist if. They desire to make this known. What is the attitude they have taken up? It is that of protesting, as our forefathers have protested from time to time during the whole of our history. It is the old, old story; it is a repetition of what took place 50 years ago in Ireland, where, in 1831, there were 7,000,000 of people, of whom 830,000 belonged to the Protestant minority, the rest being Roman Catholics, and mostly poor peasants. Over 6,000,000 of a poor, wretched, half-starved peasantry had to pay tithes in Ireland for the support of an alien Church—the Church of those few who owned almost all the land and almost all the realisable property in the country. But that was not all. In times off terrible depression they found it impossible not only to pay the tithe, but also to pay the exorbitant rents which were

    781
    being extorted from them, and so they resisted. What happened then was infinitely more terrible than anything that has happened in Wales. The ascendant minority in Ireland made use of the armed forces of the Crown, as unhappily now, in violation of our Constitutional rights, they make use of those forces in compelling civil process. The result was dreadful slaughter, which lasted for years. There was no occasion on which tithes were attempted to be levied that the soldiers did not come into collision with the peasants; fierce bloodshed followed, and there was dreadful loss of life until one man—Thomas Drummond—appeared in Ireland, and refused to lend the forces of the Crown for the purpose of enforcing civil process. Directly he declared that the military and police should only be called out to suppress riot, the whole aspect of affairs changed, and from that moment peace took the place of disorder, although the contest over the tithe question did not cease until the year 1870. As long as Mr. Drummond was Under Secretary for Ireland the people had faith in him. Well, in Wales the authorities have been weak, foolish, and wicked enough to call out the police and soldiery to assist in these distraints. Can you conceive anything more irritating and more exasperating—more likely to bring about a collision—than this calling out of policemen and soldiers in order to intimidate the most law-abiding people in the world? Of course, they would not stand it; and I am not surprised at it. I will give the House an illustration of what has taken place. I happened last January twelvemonth to be down in Pembrokeshire, and I was told there was going to be some terrible business. I took an early train and alighted at a little village station, the platform of which was occupied by a body of policemen drawn up in military array. I overheard a conversation between two policemen. One asked—" Well, what are we going to do to-day?" "Aye," replied the other, "we'll show them we're as good as the redcoats. "I at once went to the Chief Constable, told him what I had heard, and suggested to him it was a serious thing to take men in this temper among a peaceful people. He was wise enough to realize the gravity of the situation. I accompanied the force, and
    782
    I told the people that I was a Welsh Magistrate and a Welsh Member. I assured them they were entitled to express their opinions in an open and public manner. Well, they did nothing which could even provoke a breach of the peace; the greatest good humour prevailed throughout the whole proceeding. The people are naturally angry when they see that they are being dragooned; they will not stand it; they will obey the law within the limits of the Constitution, but they have a right to protest against an unjust law, and they should be allowed to do so without being intimidated. It is not necessary we should have these new Acts relating to County Court procedure, and I do hope that the Government will relieve itself of the grave responsibility of pressing forward this measure. Just think for a moment of the position with which we now stand. We are approaching the end of a long Session; surely, we have already had enough time needlessly occupied in futile business without spending two or three nights over this Bill. The feeling in the Principality is so deep, and the idea is so thoroughly rooted in the mind of the Welsh people that the Bill is intended to be a Coercion Bill, that it will be the duty of the Welsh Members—and I hope that in this we shall be assisted by other Members of the House—to do everything in our power to prevent the Bill passing into law. I hope the Government will recognize the fact that their supporters are indifferent as to the fate of this measure. Last Session you tried a very much more comprehensive scheme; you tried, in fact, to imitate the experiment of Irish legislation in 1836. But you did not do it effectually. You bribed the landlords in Ireland to pay the tithe by giving them 25 per cent of the value, but after all you did for them they are now complaining bitterly of the fixed charge upon their estates. You had to withdraw your Bill last year, and I venture to tell you that you will never settle the tithe question unless you, or somebody else, deal with it in a broader and more comprehensive manner. In Wales it will never be settled until the tithes are applied to national purposes. It is perfectly idle to urge—as the right hon. Baronet did—that the Welsh people are receiving a much larger contribution

    783
    than is derived by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners from Wales itself. We were told that while Wales pays £30,000 in tithes, the Principality gets back £64,000. But that is one of the things of which Welshmen bitterly complain, and which they resent most deeply. The money does not come back to the Welsh peasantry or the Welsh farmers. It goes into the pockets of the Bishops and the clergy, into the pockets of the very people whom the Welsh regard as intruders, and as being in the Principality to perform no legitimate or useful functions, because the Welsh people have provided themselves with their own places of worship and their own ministers, and the £60,000 a year goes to the support of a comparatively small body of clergymen who minister to the wants of a small minority of the people—a minority mainly composed of Englishmen. These things provoke bitter animosity; why seek to continue it by pressing forward this needless measure? What does the Bill really mean? When I first read it, I came to the conclusion that as it was drawn it meant that a failure of a levy for tithe under the County Court procedure would be followed by personal liability. However that may be, I am quite willing to accept the assurance of the Home Secretary that this is not the intention of the Government, and that it will be safeguarded against. Therefore, we get rid of any chance of putting into prison a farmer who refuses to pay tithes. Then what is the advantage to be gained from this Bill? Instead of going on to the premises and levying a distress by a |special bailiff, you must appeal to the County Court, go through an expensive procedure, time and money are wasted, and, after all, in the end the same sort of distraint will have to belevied, and very likely by the same bailiff. What is the use of inventing this perfectly fatuous new procedure when the present system of distress will answer all purposes? Let me, in conclusion, ask do you think that if you spend two or three days in passing this Bill into law, you will be expending the time of the Session usefully? I venture to think you will not, and I warn the Government that a grave responsibility will rest upon them if they persist in pressing forward this measure.
    BARON DIMSDALE: I wish the Government had dealt with this matter in a more complete and comprehensive manner. This is a question which seriously affects the position of the Church, and the difficulty is rapidly extending to the Eastern counties. It will be remembered by those who have studied the past history of the tithe question, that in the year 1881 the Richmond Commission reported that the time would come when the payment of the tithe would have to be placed compulsorily on the land owners. That, indeed, was the intention of the settlement of 1836, and I think it is very much to be regretted that an opportunity has not been taken to solve the tithe question upon that basis. I think, however, that in addition to such a measure it would be wise to have some complete and well-considered system of tithe redemption, because although it may be true that you make the payment of the tithe by the landowner compulsory there are other persons who are affected, such as the small freeholders, who would consider it a great hardship to pay the tithe, and therefore this question could not be adequately settled unless you couple with the payment of the tithe by the land owner a judicious measure of tithe redemption. I own I am one of those who think that this Bill does not go far enough, because it deals merely with the fringe of the question; but, at the same time, I think we shall not be acting inconsistently in adopting it. It is desirable that we should pass some such measure as this, because it wilt pave the way for that complete and final settlement which I think most persons are anxious should be carried out. The object of the Bill is to improve the present procedure, and to substitute a County Court process for the unreasonable and antiquated system of distress; and I believe that if you make this change you will get rid of a good deal of the irritation which is now caused by the enforcement of the payment of the tithe. I cannot quite understand why the power of distraint is retained in the Bill. I think it desirable that we should have only the new and the simpler remedy provided by the County Court procedure, and that we should take the opportunity of getting rid of that old-fashioned weapon of distraint. I hope that the Government will pass this Bill as rapidly as

    785
    possible, because by so doing they will pave the way to a complete and final settlement of this question, which I trust will be secured at no very distant date. I believe that by a judicious measure of commutation we may relieve agriculture of a burden at once heavy and injurious to its interests, and at the same time improve the position of the receivers of the tithe.
    SIR T. GROVE: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken seemed to be a victim to the fallacy that by passing this Bill he would do away with the principle of distraint.
    BARON DIMSDALE: Pardon me. I did not say that. What I want is to have the power of distraint taken away, and to have substituted for it the County Court process.
    SIR T. GROVE: What I contend is, that if you do away with the power now exercised by the tithe owner, he will still be unable to get the money except by distraint. The process will be this: the person who refuses to pay the tithe will be put into the County Court, the debtor possibly will refuse to pay, and the bailiff will then go on to the premises and seize, if necessary, not only the stock and crops on the farm, but any personal property he may find in the debtor's house. You do not get rid of the law of distraint; you simply adopt a more cumbrous process of doing exactly the same thing as you do now. A great many hon. Members seem to think that by this new process you will avoid the friction which now exists between a clergyman who distrains and his tenants. Do you think that the tenants will have a bit more good feeling towards the clergyman who distrains under this Bill than he has towards the clergyman who uses the present process of distraint? We are wilfully wasting a great deal of time, and if the Government carry their Bill they will be in exactly the same position as they are now. In my own county the clergy have in many cases made reductions of tithe, and showed sympathy with the tenants under agricultural depression; and what has been the result? The tenants have tried to meet them in every possible way; and there is no occasion for such a coercive measure as that now proposed by the Government. If the Government proceed with, the Bill, contrary to the advice of hon. Members on both sides of the
    786
    House, the measure will never get through Committee, but will be challenged on every point. No measure in regard to the tithe question will be satisfactory unless it includes a plan of redemption, and any Government which undertakes to deal with this great subject ought to include the question of redemption in its scheme. The present Bill will no doubt increase the value of the tithes; and, therefore, if a plan of redemption be brought forward on a future occasion, it will put the tithe owner in a much better position than that which he now occupies. Even if the Bill gets through a second reading, I hope the Government will be wise in time and not endeavour to pass it through Committee, because if they do it will cause them, both now and hereafter, more trouble than they have any idea of.
    SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: If this Bill is likely to be so futile and inoperative a measure as is represented by the last speaker, and by other hon. Members opposite, I do not quite see how it can increase the value of the tithe as they contend it will do. Surely the two statements are contradictory. As a supporter of the Bill, I quite admit that a very strong and very reasonable objection to the Bill is taken by those who complain of its being an incomplete measure. Sir, it is avowedly and admittedly an incomplete measure. It is perfectly obvious to those who have carefully followed the history of the tithe question of late years that no measure will be ultimately satisfactory as a solution of the question which does not provide an equitable system for the redemption of the tithe. It is equally obvious that there must be some scheme for the more regular adjustment of the tithe to the quality and producing power of the land on which it is levied. There are, undoubtedly, many other points that will have to be settled before this great and important question can be regarded as ultimately disposed of. Only a short time ago I myself came to know of a parish where the land was going out of cultivation, and the place was becoming almost depopulated, owing to the agricultural depression and to the fact that the tithe was really larger than the rent-producing power of the land. Therefore, I

    787
    must entirely sympathize with my hon. Friend the Member for the Maldon Division (Mr. C. Gray), who complains of similar circumstances; but I appeal to my hon. Friend to remember that half a loaf is better than no bread, and especially in regard to this particular Bill, which deals with that part of the question that is of the first and most pressing importance. And my hon. Friend will surely remember what has been the pressure on the time of the Government, and will bear in mind that Ministers cannot accomplish impossibilities. They cannot drive four coaches abreast through a narrow place like old Temple Bar, and I do trust my hon. Friend will see his way cordially to support the Bill. Surely the measure does deal with the most pressing point. The objection taken by the hon. Member for the Saffron Walden Division (Mr. H. Gardner), that it will not be operative, is entirely baseless, inasmuch as it does all that can be done at present to put an end to the crying scandal of the scenes we have all witnessed with so much pain in connection with the levying of distress for tithe in Wales. The evils of the present system will at any rate be greatly modified by substituting for the present process the more reasonable one of the County Court. That alone, in my opinion, is ample reason why the Government should press this Bill through Parliament, and I sincerely hope they will do it. The hon. Member for the Saffron Walden Division admits himself that the present system of levying tithe is objectionable. The hon. Member does not tell us, at any rate in terms, that he repudiates the legally binding nature of tithes. He does not deny that, as the law stands at present, they are payments legally due to the tithe owners. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down spoke euphemistically about resistance to the payment of tithes in Wales. He said he thought people did not actually resist the tithes, but allowed them to be enforced. But the allowing them to be enforced produces such scenes as those which we deplore, and such scenes as the hon. Member who spoke last specially deprecated as the result of the employment of police and military in support of the civil powers. These things are greatly to be deprecated; but, under the present circumstances, they are absolutely
    788
    inevitable. The hon. Member for the Saffron Walden Division objects to the Bill because it provides a reasonable method of recovering what he does not deny is a just and reasonable debt. Some hon. Members have spoken of the Welsh tithe payers having conscientious objections to the payment of the tithe in support of a Church of whose teaching they do not approve, as if that fact were reasonable excuse for their refusing to pay. Well, Sir, in the first place, I would ask the hon. Member to say what he thinks about the lay owners of tithes. Their rights surely ought to be considered. I could understand a man saying—" I have a conscientious objection to pay tithes, and I will suffer a loss rather than violate my conscience; I will sever my connection with the land; I will retire from an occupation that forces me to violate my conscience. "I should think such a proceeding a highly Quixotic one, but at any rate it would be a moral one. When, however, a man says he has a conscientious objection to paying tithes, and therefore puts the money in his own pocket, keeps that which he knows to belong to somebody else, and allows the law to be enforced before he pays, all I can says is I do not understand the morality of such a proceeding. It reminds me of what I think I may call the famous remark sometimes attributed to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), when he said of a certain celebrated statesman," I do not object to the right hon. Gentleman always finding he has got an ace up his sleeve, but I do object to his saying that a Divine Providence placed it there. "In my opinion, the mere fact that this Bill will provide a rational method for recovering just payments, and will do away—to the utmost extent compatible with legality and justice—with those painful scenes which have recently been witnessed in Wales, is quite sufficient justification for the passing of the measure, and I hope the Government will persevere with it.
    MR. F. S. STEVENSON: It is perfectly consistent on the part of hon. Gentlemen who oppose this Bill to say that while they think it will be futile and useless as far as remedying the grievances of the tithe payers is concerned, it will yet be pernicious in its operation, inasmuch as it

    789
    establishes a new principle not only as to the practice of collecting tithes, but also as to the theory on which tithes are based, because, instead of effecting a permanent settlement of the present difficulty in Wales, it has a tendency to aggravate and intensify the existing discontent against the payment of tithes as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill defended it on the ground that it was a little Bill. It is a little Bill, in the sense that it is short, but it is by no means little in its application. It will apply not only to Wales, but to the Eastern Counties of England, three of which, as has been said by a previous speaker, pay no less than one-fifth of the whole amount of tithe payable. The President of the Board of Trade made use of one very pregnant sentence in the course of his remarks—a sentence which will be remembered and quoted hereafter when the rest of this Debate is forgotten—when he referred to the possible reversionary interest which the people have in this great national property. In making that admission, he made one with which most Members on this side of the House will be disposed to agree. The right hon. Gentleman used the admission for the purpose of showing that hon. Gentlemen who, in opposing the Bill, do anything to diminish the actual amount of the tithes paid, are, by so doing, diminishing the ultimate amount of what may come to be the property of the nation itself. The question, whether the nation has a moral right to this property at the present time, is an abstract question, and the question of whether it will eventually have an actual right to it is a question of prophecy. There is one question which is an actual question at the present time, and that is, who is it who pays the tithe, and upon whom does this burden ultimately fall? I think I shall be able to show that the burden ultimately falls upon the nation as a whole. In the first place, it will be generally admitted it cannot fall on the tenant, because, if tithes were abolished tomorrow, that would be a present to the landlord. It cannot fall on the labourer, because the fluctuations in the wages of labourers are due to well ascertainable and well ascertained causes. It cannot fall on the landlord, because the landlord, or his
    790
    father, or his ancestors bought the land subject to a certain payment. Upon whom, then, does the burden fall? I think we can judge from this analogy that in all counties in which tithes have been abolished there exists a very heavy taxation upon land—a taxation more than equivalent, in some cases, to the tithes paid here; and if tithes were abolished it would probably follow that there would be imposed upon land an additional taxation about equal to the tithe paid at the present time. The money that would, under these circumstances, go into the pocket of the nation as a whole now goes into the pocket of a limited number of individuals; and, therefore, I say that the burden of payment ultimately falls on the nation as a whole. The fact, however, that the nation may have an ultimate right to the tithe, and that the burden falls upon it now seems to me no reason whatever why, when there is an admitted grievance, as in the present case, Parliament should not deal with that grievance. This Bill provides an entirely partial and onesided settlement of the difficulty. It does nothing with regard to the question of re-adjustment. An hon. Member on this side of the House spoke of the corn averages question. That is a subject on which a rather keen interest is felt in some quarters. Some fifty years ago, when the price of corn was high, the farmers sent all their corn to market, and, therefore, the calculation was made on all the corn. At the present time, when the price is very low, they only send their best corn to market, and, therefore, the calculation is now made only on the best quality, and to that extent is unfair to the tenant. As to the question, whether tithe should be paid directly by the owner, it has twice been pointed out in this House—once in the Debate on the Agricultural Holdings' Bill and again by the former Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers)—that there is a certain lever in the hands of the landlords at the present time owing to the loss incurred by the tenant in giving up his holding. To that extent I contend we must make a certain allowance and a certain qualification in saying it is a matter of in difference whether the tithes are paid by the tenant or by the landlord, because the burden must, to a certain extent, fall more heavily on

    791
    the tenant than on the landlord. These are some of the grievances with regard to the payment of tithes on which that Bill does absolutely nothing, and such a measure, it seems to me, is likely to do much more harm than good with regard not only to Wales, but to England also. No doubt we must all sympathize with cases of distress on the part of clerygmen in Wales, but there are similar cases of distress in England also. It is, however, a matter of common notoriety that the gravest cases of distress are those of clergymen who depend not upon tithe alone for their income, but upon their glebes. Therefore this Bill only slightly benefits the owners of tithes, although at the same time it introduces a dangerous principle, and, on the other hand, it is absolutely useless with regard to remedying the grievances of the tenant, and points to a prospect of still further discontent and yet further disturbance.
    MR. J. G. TALBOT: It is made a complaint against the Bill that it is not a Bill for the relief of the tithe payers, but I do not know why it should be. The Bill does what it professes to do—namely, to enable the tithe owners more readily to receive their dues. The tithe rent-charge is a charge upon land, and ought to be paid like any other charge; but in many cases it has not been paid, not because those who ought to pay it could not do so, but because they have conceived a desire not to pay it, and because they had been led not to pay it by persons who ought to know better. The result is, that in many parts of the kingdom, and especially in Wales, tithe owners are at present in a state of abject distress. Gentlemen opposite say in a perfunctory manner that they are very sorry for the distress of the clergy, but they will not lift a finger to relieve them. We do not come cap in hand and ask for contributions for the relief of the clergy, but we call upon the House to assist the clergy in obtaining their just rights. I will take the liberty of reading to the House two letters, showing the distress to which the Welsh clergy have been reduced, owing to the non-payment of tithes. One of these letters was put into my hand to-day; it comes from a gentleman who has taken an active part
    792
    in relieving the distress caused by this anti-tithe agitation. The writer says:—
    "A letter was forwarded to me about a fortnight ago which had been addressed to a person well known for his generous support of the distressed Welsh clergy. It contained the following statement, which, I have every reason to believe, is absolutely correct:—'A large number of my tithe payers have not paid any tithes for upwards of three years. I held my audit a few days ago and received only £12, not sufficient to pay the premium now due on my insurance, by which I had hoped to make some little provision for my family in the event of my death. I have a wife and eight children entirely dependent upon me. I have incurred large liabilities in the abortive attempt to recover my dues. The insurance premium must remain unpaid, and the insurance must consequently lapse."
    My correspondent goes on to say—
    "This is not an isolated case. I know of many others of the same kind. I may say that I myself should never have been able to keep up my own insurance had it not been for the assistance of some members of my family, who I may observe are by no means able to afford to assist me without inconvenience. The sufferings of the Welsh clergy have been intense, and they have been endured with wonderful patience. Every economy has been practised, and many bitter privations submitted to. They have now reached the breaking-down point, and unless the Legislature intervenes I shudder to contemplate the prospect that awaits us in the immediate future."
    Here is another letter received from an Anglesea rector, who said:—
    "I sincerely hope that the Government will pass the Tithe Bill this Session. It becomes very serious for the clergy to get their tithes. I am 68 years of age. I am not able to stand the excitement of distraint. Seven tithe payers owe me their tithe for the last two years and six months. The sum altogether is £150. In fact I have been robbed of my money to a great extent for the last two and a half years by abatement and everything, and there are many in the same situation. We would rather lose almost anything than sell them up."
    These are the only cases I will trouble the House with. These are by no means isolated cases, but if there were no other cases than these to which I have referred, they would be ample justification for the Government coming forward at the present time and doing something to settle this question. I admit it is not a complete settlement of the question, but it is a Bill brought in with an honest endeavour to enable these gentlemen whose right to their property is just as good as the right of hon. Members to their own private property—[An hon. MEMBER:

    793
    "No"]—to get what was due to them. I charge hon. Gentlemen who have obstructed this Bill in a most contemptuous way to-night!—[Cries of "Order."] I think I know the rules of order—I charge upon hon. Gentlemen, if they obstruct and object to this Bill, to bring forward some remedy of their own; because to say the clergy are not entitled to these dues is to say that which is not capable of being proved. One statement was made by an hon. Member opposite (Sir John Swinburne), who spoke of a poor curate, who had undertaken the duties of an absentee for a guinea a week, but, at least, it can be said that the curate got what he contracted for, miserably small though it be, but those who are affected by the anti-tithe movement do not receive the stipends to which they are entitled by the terms of the benefices which they bold. We have heard something about the way in which the tithe rent charge is met, and upon this I have some information in a letter from a firm in Carnarvon. The writer says:—
    "On Friday and Saturday last we conducted 16 sales for tithes in the parishes of Llanfihangel-Glyn-Myfyr and Llanfor, in the counties of Denbigh and Merioneth respectively. We had applied to the Chief Constable of both these counties for police protection, but upon their representation that they had come to an arrangement with the leaders of the people that the sales should be carried out peaceably, we consented to attempt to carry them out supported by only one policeman. We think it only right to inform you, in justice to Mr. Stevens, the auctioneers of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and fearing you may have been misled by the newspapers, also by statements made by certain Members in the House of Commons as to other sales carried out by us in Carnarvonshire, what is really meant by these sales being carried out peaceably. In the latter of the two parishes (Llanfor) mentioned, immediately upon our arrival we were surrounded by a large mob, amongst whom were the so-called leaders of the people, who at once told us we were expected to join in a procession after the sales were over into the neighbouring town of Bala, about six or seven miles distant. Upon our demurring to this we were informed that if we resisted we should be forcibly dragged by the crowd. The sales then proceeded amidst wild excitement, blowing of horns, &c. At every farm terms were dictated to us—if we did not accept which we were told we should be left to the mercy of the crowd. One man whom we brought with us was objected to and violently beaten with sticks, and his life only saved by the great courage displayed by the one inspector with us and by our consenting to have him sent back to Bala. We were ourselves
    794
    threatened with violence over and over again if we did not accept terms proposed by the crowd; and finally, the only way in which the so-called leaders could protect us was by hurrying us into the different farmhouses we arrived at and themselves guarding off the people. We were also forced to march into Bala behind two effigies of the clergyman amidst a yelling mob hooting and jeering the whole way. We simply write this to you to show what is meant by the statements made by certain Members, that if no police are employed in these distraints they can be carried out peaceably."
    If that is a description of the way in which the law is being enforced and assisted in Wales, a case is made out for the interference of the Government. It is perfectly idle to raise upon this Bill the question of Welsh disestablishment. This is simply a question of protecting those who have a right to their property, and it is because I believe this Bill is an honest attempt to enforce that right without violence, but with firmness and decision, that I give it my cordial and earnest support.
    MR. WASHINGTON: One is a little anxious in rising in opposition to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, because as I understand the matter any opposition to this Bill is to be deemed obstruction, and any difference between the views we may entertain and those held by himself and his friends will be considered as an attack upon the rights of property. Notwithstanding, however, the great dread I may have of the hon. Member's censure, I venture to say that I do draw a distinction between property in tithes and property generally. There can be no doubt, and anyone who has taken the trouble to ascertain the origin of property in tithes will at once acknowledge it, that this property stands on a totally different basis from ordinary property, from land or personal property. There is no property I know of more closely associated with public and local duties than property in tithes, and there is no property in respect to which public and local duties are less observed. The consequence is that there has grown up in the Principality for whose special behoof this Bill is brought in—according to hon. Members opposite—there has grown up a very great disinclination to pay these tithes upon principle. Not upon the principle to which the hon. Member who has just sat down alludes to in such a complimentary manner, not, as he hinted,

    795
    to avoid just obligations. This principle is one that I hope even the hon. Member will recognise, namely the principle that by paying tithes without a solemn and earnest protest the Welsh people would be maintaining a system which their consciences condemn as inimical to the public welfare. Now these tithes, at any rate throughout the Principality, have been associated with the support of the Church. I am very much surprised to find the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks Beach) coming to us with a letter from a distressed clergyman in Wales. We sympathise with the distressed clergymen very much, but I am bound to say that I think the reply to that letter should have been something to this effect—"I am very much surprised that you, a member of the wealthiest religious association in the world, should have been obliged to write such a letter as that to me. If you only look outside the walls of your own church you will see dotted about the neighbourhood three or four chapels, the ministers of which have no tithe provided for their support, and whose congregations are not drawn from the richer classes and are not of high social position such as those who attend your own church, and I am surprised that you should have been obliged because of the default of those to whom you administer to write such a letter of complaint." It is a scandal, we admit that it is a scandal, that such a letter should be written. But the scandal does not rest on those who refuse to pay tithes so much as it does on those who are ready, rich though they may be, persons of position though they may be, persons of high character though they may be, to take religious services at the expense of other people. It would have been very much to the point if the right hon. Gentleman had said this—"Those wealthy persons to whom you have very properly administered religious services should pay for what they receive themselves. "There has been, no doubt, a considerable amount of disturbance in connection with the collection of tithes. It is said that this measure is promoted as a measure of police, that is the last justification we have had of it. But I can find nothing in the Bill which answers to the description of it as a measure of
    796
    police. Tithe owners have now the right to levy tithes by distraint, and if this Bill is passed they will actually have the same right as they have now, only that it will not be called distraints, it will be called execution, and between the time of application for payment and the levy of distraint the tithe owner will be able to add some 30 per cent to the amount of his claim. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General, who always takes a great interest in Welsh subjects, and answers for the Government on such subjects, for which class it is the Bill is brought in. Surely not for the tenants, who will pay; that would be absurd. Then will it be said it is brought in for those who are willing to pay. What foundation is there for the argument that they will be more willing to pay the larger sum; the sum increased by the addition of costs than they are to pay the smaller sum which now can be demanded. What warrant is there for saying that they will be more ready to pay when the claim is made by the County Court? There is no suggestion or warrant for such a supposition. The only difference will be that you are removing the opposition of the tenants from opposition directed against the agent of the tithe owner to opposition directed against the Ministers of the law; and herein lies the reason why the Bill is introduced. By this Bill, the persons who collect tithes will be able to stand in a different position from a mere bailiff of the tithe owner. It is because Her Majesty's Government are anxious to give the tithe owners some new, some additional right, that they are desirous that this Bill should pass. They are anxious that tithes should be collected by persons who if resisted, or who if they make an arrest and are met with an attempt at rescue, could at once take those who oppose them before a Justice of the Peace. The Government are anxious to move the distraints which now exist into a different category; into the category of an execution under the County Court, which can be protected by criminal proceedings. That is why the Government are so anxious for this measure. Again it is said that this is a substitution for the present method. It is not a substitution at all. Do the Government propose to substitute for the cumbrous method of raising the

    797
    tithe an easy, inexpensive one? On the contrary, they leave the cumbrous expensive method where it was. They do not in the least abridge the rights of tithe owners as they now exist. All the Act will do will be to give a remedy of a very serious character. If a man owes tithes to the extent of £10 he will be ticketed up and down the country throughout every trade circular as a defaulter, and his credit thereby will be very much affected. That I suppose is a desirable thing in the view of Her Majesty's Government that they should be able to affect the credit of those men, who, speaking from my own knowledge, are conscientious in their opposition to these tithes. Upon these the Government are anxious to impose a discredit which does not now attach to them. More than that, this remedy is a much more costly one than the remedy which now exists. I am not speaking of professional costs. Apart altogether from these there are certain necessary fees attendant on County Court proceedings; five per cent as soon as the plaint is entered, and then 10 per cent for hearing fees. 4s. 6d. in the £1 must go before you can arrive at the point at which the Act says you may levy and take in execution. The costs very much add to the burden of the tithe. And for what purpose? Can Her Majesty's Government believe that those who, rightly or wrongly, object to the tithe of £10 will not object to the addition of 4s. 6d. in the £1 to that £10? Can it be the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that the man who objects to pay the lesser sum will readily pay the greater. That seems to me utterly absurd. I cannot help thinking the Government have brought in this measure in order to strengthen the hold of the tithe owner if they can. This tithe property has, as we know, for years been in a perilous condition, and the Government by this Bill are attempting to give it new strength, new life; so that when a comprehensive Bill is introduced the present Bill may be quoted as giving a Parliamentary sanction to the property, thus enabling it to be redeemed at a higher rate.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I wonder whether the hon. Member who talks about tithe-rent charge being given a new Parliamentary sanction by this Bill is aware that it
    798
    has possessed that sanction for many hundred years?
    MR. WARMINGTON: Yes, certainly.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: The tithe was sanctioned centuries ago, and was commuted into tithe-rent charge more than 50 years old by Act of Parliament. The tithe is national property says the hon. Member, then would it not be a good thing to give the nation the means of getting it collected? The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill summarised his objections under four heads—(1) it was too short; (2) it was too long; (3) that he could not understand it, which he amply proved by complaining (4) that it involved fine and imprisonment. How can hon. Members talk of being taken by surprise by this Bill, when for the last three years promises have been made to deal with this matter; at length we have got a Bill which, though not a very large measure, does deal with the question in a practical way. It is not at all necessary to go into the origin of tithe, or to discuss whether the property belongs to the nation or to this or that individual—tithe ceased to be exclusively ecclesiastical property at the time of Henry VIII., and hon. Members who have spoken on the subject seem to forget that some tithe rent charge forms part of the endowment of Nonconformist chapels. This Bill is essentially a measure for the promotion of social order. It is a police Bill. It is a Bill intended to remove a legal difficulty, and the ground on which we ought to support it is that social order has already been very gravely disturbed. There have been riots; the military have been called out; emergency men have been brought on the scene; special commissions have been appointed; police have been sent from one county to another to assist in the enforcement of the law, all because of the unpopularity of the method provided by law for recovering just debts. By this Bill we hope to get rid of the "man in possession, "the bailiff is always a most unpopular person. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has said, the present method of collecting tithe rent charge is a relic of barbarism. This old system of asserting one's individual rights, by personal instead of judicial agency, ought to be got rid of. Why, I ask

    799
    do not hon. Gentlemen opposite, who on all other matters affect to be so eager for reform, assist in ridding us of this barbarous anomaly? I should like to read to the House a few statements, showing what is going on in Wales at the present time. One gentleman, a clergyman in Pembrokeshire, says—
    "It will be quite useless to have another sale here without the military. Matters are getting very serious. Our lives are not safe. The roughs in the neighbourhood use threatening language. My hedge, close by the Vicarage, On which were growing some nice firs, was set on fire about 10 o'clock this day week (20th Feb.). Fortunately, the neighbours saw it before going to bed, or I do not know what would have been the result … Deacons were seen throwing rotten eggs, old hoots, and clods at the police, who were doing their duty. The parishioners, with few exceptions, about a dozen, behaved well. Others came from the surrounding neighbourhood, engaged to create a disturbance. I must apply to the Chief Constable for protection, or take lodgings at Newport."
    That is a grave state of things to be going on at this time of day, and gives a different complexion to the question from that presented by an hon. Gentleman opposite, who told us that everything was perfectly quiet now. Why, not six weeks ago, in South Wales, people were so treated that they declared they could not move without the military, and in North Wales the same difficulties have occurred within the last fortnight. If this Bill does not pass, the Principality will be in a state very much like that of some of the worst parts of Ireland during the winter months. It is stated in the document I hold in my hand that—
    "The church windows have been broken, and the church gate unhinged and thrown into the middle of the adjoining highway."
    I wish to impress on the House that almost exactly the same methods are being adopted in Wales by the Anti-tithe League—that being the name by which, I think, the Association is called—as are used in Ireland. Let us take the case of boycotting. I have here an extract from a letter written by the wife of a Welsh clergyman, and she says—
    "The boycotting continues of Church people. The last is our blacksmith, who has always been in the habit of giving his arm to my husband on dark nights coming home from church. It appears he was seen doing so last Sunday, and consequently he got well abused by some anti-tithe farmers, and told that if he went to church
    800
    again they would take every scrap of work from him. Having a family, of course he must give in to them. He told me this himself yesterday."
    That is an example of what is going on in many other places. I now turn to the threatening letters. This system, I may inform the House, has been going on since 1885, and is still in force. Here is an example—
    "This note is a warning to you that if you do not make a deduction of 25 per cent, in the tithe of your parish, your home, yourself, and all you possess will be dynamited and blown up. What will a man give in exchange for his life. Take this warning. Justice for "Wales."
    Inside was a small wooden coffin. Here is another sample. It was sent to an innkeeper—
    "Notis. Sir, I understand that you are the parson agent; but whoever will pay this next tithe without the reduction of 20 p. c. will be boycotted. I am Home Rulers Determined."
    Then we have the fact that payment of the tithe-rent charge is being made in secret. I have letters which say—
    "Some of those that have paid came stealthily for fear of their neighbours."
    And, again—
    "People have sent their tithes to me by night, and have begged me earnestly not to make the fact of their having paid known, lest they might in consequence be injured."
    The result of all this has been a most dreadful social disturbance all over the country. Some of the unfortunate clergy, have been reduced to a state of great distress. Here is a case in point—
    "I have been obliged to dismiss my servant and recall my son from Oxford. We live in one room for the sake of saving coals, and, also, have been obliged to forego the use of butcher's meat for the last six weeks."
    Then, again—
    "Looking to the tithe-payers I can see no hope of having my just dues at present, and unless your association will kindly step forward to help me I see no chance of relief from any human quarter."
    Well, Sir, it has been said that the objection to pay tithe-rent charge is based in a conscientious objection to the uses to which it is applied; in truth, there is no conscience in it at all. The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Merioneth, said if the tithe-rent charge were only given to some public or national purpose there would be no objection to it at all; for instance, there would be no objection if it

    801
    were only used for educational purposes. Well, Sir, I find that the Ruthin grammar school, which is under joint nonconformist and church management, cannot collect its endowment in tithe-rent charge, and is endeavouring to recover what is due to it by distraint under serious difficulties. The people do not pay their just debts, simply because it is rendered easy not to pay. But hon. Members must not suppose that the unfortunate farmers of Wales are in full sympathy with the anti-tithe movement. The fact is that they are very tired of it, and they would gladly welcome any means of getting rid of their subscriptions to the League, and at the same time of being emancipated from the tyranny of that organization. I can assure the House, that the tenant farmers of Wales, taken as a whole, would be only too glad to see this Bill passed into law. Of course, no Radical Welsh Member would say so, they are not free men; and it is left to men, who, like myself, know North Wales and are conversant with what is going on, to inform the House on these matters. I can assure the House that the state of feeling I have indicated is general, and that but for the influence of a few persons, many who are heartily tired of this business would have paid their tithe rent charge in full long since. It is the weakness of the law which enables the Anti-Tithe League to thrive. In cases of resistance recovery by distraint is well-nigh impossible, so an immense amount of tithe-rent charge remains unrecovered. I will give a few instances. In one case the net value of the tithe rent charge is £163, and the amount received was £38; in case number two, the net value is £330, and the receipts £59; in another case the value is £186, and the receipts £22; and in another case the value is£681, and the amount received £171. In each of these cases large allowances were promised by the incumbents. It would seem that those incumbents who are most liberal are in reality the worst treated, because the people think they can play with them more securely. I hope I have been enabled to prove that, after all, those who want to apply the tithe-rent charge to other objects than those to which it is now applied would do much better not to allow it to be lost
    802
    in this way, and I am quite sure that the farmers of Wales as well as the tithe owners will be thankful to Her Majesty's Government that for the sake of law and order, and for the general contentment of the Welsh people, they have introduced this Bill.
    MR. P. MORGAN: I do not think I have ever heard such attacks as have been made on Her Majesty's Government for the Bill they have now brought forward. We are told that the remedy of those who complain of this tithe system is that they can leave the land on which the charge is levied. We have also been told by one hon. Member that he entirely disbelieves in the statement that the general voice of the Welsh people is opposed to the present system, but that he considers it his duty to support Her Majesty's Government in passing this Bill. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Carnarvon boroughs (Mr. Swetenham) did not compliment the Government when he referred to their alliance with the Liberal Unionist party as having resulted after two years in nothing more than wha he called "this mouse. "The fact is that those of us who have the honour of representing Wales and of living in the Principality feel that the Welsh people are almost unanimous in their opposition to the tithes, not so much on the ground of personal liability, as because they consider it an insult to their intelligence on the ground that although they do not believe in the Church, they have to subscribe to its maintenance by means of the tithe. The people of Wales have for years been clamouring for legislation in regard to educational matters and for the disestablishment of the Church, and now the Government are offering legislation, which is intended to assist the tithe owner in going to the County Court to obtain his tithe and costs; the very same remedy as that which he has at present being placed in his hands the moment he has obtained judgment, because it is notorious that the bailiffs of the Court are the men employed to enforce its decrees by means of distress. Therefore, the passage of this Bill will give the tithe owner no advantage he does not now possess. It is an insult to the Welsh people to pass a Bill that is merely intended to facilitate the carrying out of an existing system which they

    803
    declare to be offensive and obnoxious. I hope the House will seriously consider this point before it agrees to read this Bill a second time. There is not one representative of the Principality of Wales who can get up in his place and assert that the Welsh people are in favour of this sort of legislation.
    MR. C. GRAY: I am bound to say that in my opinion it is a mistake that a Bill of this nature should be the first measure which this House is asked to pass during the present Parliament on this vexed question. I know that in saying this I may be open to criticism on the part of hon. Members on this side of the House who stand up for the interests of the Church. But I will say to those hon. Members that I am just as jealous as they of the protection of the property, either of Church or Chapel. I have always understood that the property in tithe rent is a very difficult one to describe, and when there are such contrary ideas with regard to the character of this charge, there is the more reason that the question should be thoroughly gone into. I think the time has come when this question should be fairly faced, and I believe that it will be in the interests of those who are attached to the Church, that it should be faced in a bold, a manly, and a straightforward manner. It would, in my opinion, be better in the interests of the Church and of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that this question should be firmly dealt with by a Parliament constituted as the present Parliament is, rather than it should be left to the tender mercies of some Parliament which may, at a future day, succeed it. We are told that farmers who object to the tithe are spoliators, but I do not think they object to the principle of the tithe itself so much as they do to the amount of the charge. There has always been something peculiar about this tithe rent property. If we go back to the passage of the Commutation Acts in 1835 and 1836, we shall see that the legislation was rendered necessary by the reasons closely allied to those which render it necessary now. Fifty years or more ago it was found that the altered conditions of agriculture rendered the whole system of levying tithes quite inapplicable to the then exist-
    804
    ing state of things. It was argued that the improving farmer who was going in for modern agriculture was not only giving his quota to the tithe owner, but that he was also giving him a direct interest in the improvements the farmer was then effecting. That was considered a reason for asking Parliament for a re-adjustment of the whole question; and it was supposed that by raising the tithe on the prices of wheat, barley, and oats, the question would be fairly settled for a long time to come. I believe it did settle the question for a long time, and no one who took part in the passing of those Acts could have hoped for more. May I ask the House to consider the great changes that have taken place in agriculture since 1836. Then we had Protection. We are told that Protection is dead, and can never be resuscitated; but we know that railway and steamship enterprises have turned the agricultural industry topsy turvey. Is it not fair, then, that we should ask that this tithe system should be overhauled. The Government do not deny the necessity for opening up the whole question, but I am told that this Bill merely attempts to deal with just one little branch of the question. The English farmers have waited patiently year after year for 10 or 12 long years of agricultural ruin, and they have been told over and over again that this vital question will be threshed out in Parliament; they have continued to pay their tithe as long as they have had the necessary cash to meet the debt, and as long as the law stands as it does they will pursue the same course; but having been so law-abiding they ought to have been treated with more consideration than they have experienced. I know perfectly well, or I think I know, that the present Government have some very good intentions in connection with this matter, and I am addressing these remarks more to the power behind the Government that is pushing them on, and that originated this measure, than to the Government itself. I am addressing myself to the Church party, and, if they would allow me to say so, I would observe that they have made a very great mistake in pressing a measure of this sort to the front before they have stated what they will do with regard to the whole question. It is all very well

    805
    for us to he told that this Bill is only the fringe of the question, and that a great Bill dealing with the whole question will be introduced later on. Yes; but when will that be? We have come to the end of the Session, or very nearly 80, and I hope we shall not have to come here again until late in next February. How do we know what may not crop up in the meantime, and how do we know that we long suffering farmers of East Anglia may not have to go on suffering for years to come without redress? If I voted for this Bill instead of standing up for the British farmers in an independent way, those who sent me here would say that I had shown too much loyalty to my party. Expressions of approval at my observations have come from the other side, and though I am thankful for them I am sorry to gain those expressions at the expense of any one on this side. I am thankful to hon. Members on my own side for the very lenient way in which they have allowed me to give my views on this question. With regard to what has fallen from the hon. Member for Merioneth and the hon. Member for the Eye Division of Suffolk as to the tithe being devoted to national purposes, I must say I think it would be a great mistake from an agricultural point of view if their desires were to be realized. I would ask the hon. Member for Eye what the farmers of a Suffolk parish would think of the arrangement if the £400, £500, or £600 they pay in the shape of tithes were to go away from their parish and be taken to London—to some central office at Whitehall—to be spent all over the country, in Manchester, Birmingham, London, and other large towns? How much would the hon. Member be able to tell his constituents they would be likely to see returned to the parish from which it was taken?
    MR. E. S. STEVENSON: I did not advocate anything of the kind. I pointed out that if tithes were to be abolished to-morrow in England, as in other countries, a tax would be imposed upon land very much corresponding to the amount now levied in tithes.
    MR. C. GRAY: I am glad the hon. Member does not advocate the application of the tithe to national purposes, but several hon. Members sitting on that side of the House most decidedly did so, and if they will regard the remarks
    806
    which, perhaps, too personally I have addressed to the hon. Member for Eye, as addressed to them my purpose will be serve I. I should be very sorry to see the money going away from the country parishes and passing through a London office. It is bad enough when we are short of money to have to pay the last penny to the clergyman—who is not always very generous—but we do sometimes get a little deduction from him. From the gentleman who would come down to us with a black bag from London we should never get a penny back. Though I hope soon to return to my old allegiance, on this occasion I shall be obliged to walk out of the Lobby without voting.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: Although this question must he looked at from an English as well as from a Welsh point of view, after the speeches we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade and the hon. Member for Merioneth it is idle to shut our eyes to the fact that the Bill has a peculiar bearing upon Welsh interests, and any alteration that may be made must have special reference to Wales. With reference to these two speeches to which I refer they suggest two observations which I should like to make to the House before touching on the general question. The first is this: I cordially concur with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that it cannot be the desire of any section of the House to destroy the property which is represented by tithes. I have no desire to make a present to the land owners of Wales of the tithes chargable on their land, and any weakening or destruction of property in tithe would not benefit the tenants, but would put money into the pockets of the landlords. Whatever our views may be as to the appropriation of tithes, we are bound as trustees for the public to preserve that property in its present state. We ought not to sanction any legislation that would tend to destroy the value of that property, and I am sure that those of my hon. Friends who desire to see this question dealt with on a broad and national principle will support that view of the case. I deplore the sneers which have been levelled at the Welsh Nonconformists in the course of this Debate.

    807
    It has been suggested that the Welsh farmers have resisted payment of tithes, not because of their religious scruples, but because they wish to save their pockets. It is the fashion now-a-days not to believe anyone who claims to have a conscience. If a man says, here or elsewhere, that he does a thing from conscientious motives, an opinion unfortunately prevails that he is not only stating what is untrue but is doing an improper act under the specious pretext of being influenced by a good motive. I think, and I hope the Church of England Members opposite will endorse what I say, that when we bear in mind the history of Nonconformity in Wales—its splendid self-sacrifice, quenchless hearty enthusiasm, and magnificent generosity. Welsh Nonconformity is not only one of the most precious inheritances of the Welsh people but a principle which we, as a nation, ought to value; and we ought to give some credit to those who profess it for being actuated by conscientious motives. Coming back to the speech of the Home Secretary, as to what is really the legal position in reference to this tithe rent charge and its recovery. It has been assumed throughout the Debate that the person liable to pay the tithe is the occupier, but Lord Salisbury said last year in the House of Lords—
    "The occupier is not the" debtor, and, he has to suffer the inconvenience of a distress for a debt which is not his own."
    Now, I want to start my argument with that. It is Lord Salisbury's declaration that the obligation to pay tithe is one which does not legally rest on the occupier, and that if the occupier is subjected to distress he is subjected to an inconvenience for a debt which is not his own. A fortiori that would apply to a judgment of the County Court. The Home Secretary glided over the great change he is going to make in the procedure for the recovery of tithe— and I must remind the House what is the law as to the recovery of tithe at present. It is no debt of the tenant, according to Lord Salisbury. Neither is it a debt of the landlord. It is a charge on the produce of the land, and nothing else. The law does not recognise it as a debt at all, but merely as a charge upon the land which must be levied out of the land. The Act of 1836 provided that—
    808
    "Nothing herein contained shall be taken to render any person whomsoever personally liable to the payment of the rent charge."
    I take my stand on that. That was the fundamental condition of the Act of 1836, that no person should be personally liable for the payment of tithe rent-charge. What is now proposed is an alteration of the law. It is proposed for the first time to render some persons personally liable, and to change what is a charge upon the land into a debt, recoverable from the person who, according to Lord Salisbury, is not the debtor. The excuse put forward for that change is that it is in the interest of law and order. Is that so? The Welsh tenant who now declines on conscientious grounds to pay tithes will continue to decline to pay on the same ground, and there is not a pin to choose between the present method of levying distress and the execution which will take its place. I understand the President of the Board of Trade to say it is not intended to levy execution upon anything which cannot be now taken under a distress. That is not expressed in the Bill. If a clause to that effect is introduced, the effect will be to give us a new Bill, and I must confess that a great deal of my objection will be removed; but assuming it will be altered in that sense, the charge will still be a debt recoverable under a judgment. That involves the introduction of the power, which is possessed by the County Court Judges, of sending the debtor to prison under an order made upon a judgment summons for contempt of Court in not paying the debt. The President of the Board of Trade says the settlement of 1836 was one of great complexity, which could not easily be described, and he doubted whether any Government would have sufficient public sentiment behind it to enable it to carry a measure disturbing that settlement. I agree with that statement, and that is my answer to the last speaker. The question undoubtedly is one of great complexity. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is of opinion that there are a great many points on which the settlement of 1836 should be re-opened. If there were no other question to be settled, the farmers contend that there should be a re-valuation. It is not a question of what the temporary price of corn may have been in 1836, or in

    809
    the seven years preceding, or the seven years succeeding; but, as a matter of fact, the annual rental value of land in this country has seriously depreciated. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will not deny that. In the Committee on Woods and Forests, now sitting, they have ascertained that the depreciation in the value of Crown land since 1836 is something like 33 per cent; and I think my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford will say, as to the Ecclesiastical Commission, that the depreciation with other property has been the same. Very well, then, have not both the landowner and the tenant the right to say—"If you are going to reconsider the settlement of 1836, let us consider the basis on which that settlement was made. If rents have gone down why should not tithes also go down? "And not only has the value of land decreased something like 33 per cent., but there is a question raised as to the number of years over which the average is taken. There is, I think, a consensus of opinion that seven years is too long a period to settle prices by average. And there is a question as to the mode in which averages are calculated. If you re-open this settlement you must re-open it on the side both of the tithe payer and of the tithe receiver. But this is simply a Bill for re-opening the settlement in order to impose what was not imposed in 1836, and what has not been imposed by any Government since then. It is proposed for the first time to impose personal liability upon the tenant; a liability which he was never subjected to before, and it is also proposed to enforce that liability by all the consequences of a County Court judgment. Last year the Government proposed to deal with this question by transferring the liability from the tenant to the landlord, but they were unable to carry that proposal through. This Bill is an attempt to prejudge the question, and I should like to know why a settlement which has been accepted as the truest and best—namely, the placing of the burden on the shoulders of the landowner, should be discarded and put on one side. Why not deal with this matter in the same way as the Income Tax is dealt with? A tenant is not allowed to contract himself out of that, and the landlord is bound to allow the deduction; but in the case of the tithe
    810
    rent-charge, the landlord can compel the tenant to contract himself out of the deduction. I do not wish to go into the details as to what is the best and true mode of settling the tithe question. I do not wish to raise the question of the terms of redemption. I fully appreciate the statements which were contained in the letter read by the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, but I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks that there are not other teachers of religion who are perhaps in the same unfortunate position as the writer of the letter which he read to the House. Though I feel the most sincere sympathy with the case of the writer of the letter, I should like to make one remark in reference to it. About a month ago, in reply to a Motion by my hon. Friend, the Member for Swansea, it was pointed out on the other side of the House that there were not two Churches in England and Wales, but that the Church of Wales was essentially a part of the Church of England." And, if so, we must remember that this clergyman is a clergyman of the wealthiest church in Christendom. Is not that a bitter condemnation of the system? I do not wish to mix that up with the case which my hon. Friend, the Member for Merionethshire, put as to what he considered to be the unfair appropriation of the funds. I put that on one side. There are clergymen for whom I feel the sincerest sympathy, and who, I admit, are deprived of their fair and legitimate income under the operation of this law. But I put it to the House that these facts show what a deep-rooted feeling there is in Wales upon this question, and how necessary it is that statesmen should at once approach the settlement of it. I rest my opposition to the Bill neither on the demerits of the present tithe system nor on the sufferings of the present tithe owner, but I submit that the legislation of 1836, with the consent of both the great political parties, made a settlement of the tithe question. That settlement has been in force half a century. I believe the time has arrived when it is necessary to reconsider it, and we have no right to prejudice that reconsideration by a partial dealing with the subject as against the tithe payer and in favour of the tithe owner. On these grounds

    811
    shall feel it my duty lo vote against this Bill.
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): I do not think the right, hon. Gentleman could have been in the House when the Home Secretary explained his view of the meaning of the clause to which the right hon. Gentleman has taken particular exception, and I therefore wish to repeat the Home Secretary's statement that no liability to the person is intended to attach to the Judgment of the County Court. My right hon. Friend has ingeniously enough evolved that liability as incident to County Court procedure, but that is a matter which can easily be dealt with in Committee, and again I repeat that it is no part of the intention of the Government that any such personal Liability should attach to the judgment of the County Court in this matter. "With regard to Clause 1, I cannot see how the intention of the Government could have been more clearly expressed than by enacting that the execution of a judgment is to be confined strictly to that particular class and description of property upon which a distress can at the present time be levied, for the clause expressly provides it shall not be executed "in any other manner. "And if the right hon. Gentleman could suggest any language which will more expressly exclude from the operation of this Bill any other goods, I am sure the Government would be very grateful. It is not intended to give any new remedy, but simply to alter the machinery by which the remedy is obtained. In pointing out the complexity of the settlement of 1836, and the difficulty of dealing with all the various points involved, the right hon. Gentleman has very sufficiently answered the speech of the Member for East Essex, who seemed to think the Government to blame for having dealt with only one part of the question. The right hon. Gentleman is frank enough to say that he looks in the near future to an attempt on the part of the Government to grapple with the whole question. His great objection to this Bill is founded on the fact that he thinks it might prejudice a more comprehensive measure; but the House will probably conclude that his apprehensions in this respect are extremely exagge-
    812
    rated. Indeed, we find the question likely to be prejudiced in a different direction by the state of feeling which has grown up in some parts of the country. The Government think it is necessary for a proper consideration of the tithe question as a whole to make it clear to the country at large that tithe is to be recoverable by the ordinary legal machinery. I claim for this measure, to which no one has attributed an enormous importance, that it will clear the ground for a fairer and juster consideration of the whole question when Parliament comes to deal with it on a future occasion. It is impossible in discussing this question to avoid some reference to the tithe agitation in Wales, although this is not exclusively, nor even mainly, a Welsh question. The right hon. Gentleman has deprecated what he called anything like sneers at Welsh Nonconformity. I think it is only right to say that, while I for my own part should be very sorry to embitter the discussion by sneering at any body of religionists in Her Majesty's dominions, and indeed, I recognize the great self-sacrifice and earnest piety which distinguish the Welsh Nonconformists, yet it is obvious that the aggressive attitude of Welsh Nonconformity has provoked many of those unfortunate social symptoms in the Principality to which reference has been made. I am quite certain that if the Nonconformists of Wales would set the Churchmen the good example of abstaining from violent language, they would contribute largely to a happier state of things. I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman understands the Welsh language, but if he would get some one to translate for him certain articles in the Welsh papers, he would find they contained language which would perfectly account for the violent refusal of the legal obligation to pay tithe by a part of the Welsh population. It is indeed impossible to separate the propaganda of the Welsh Nonconformist papers from the disturbances which have recently occurred in what used to be the most law-abiding part of Her Majesty's dominions. And it is a consequence of that unfortunate state of things which has grown up during the last few years that the Government have brought in I this Bill, as a preliminary to more extended legislation on the subject. The I right hon. Gentleman has quoted a

    813
    passage from a speech delivered by the Prime Minister last year in the House of Lords. I do not care to rely on quotations unless I have the context before me, and not having that speech here, I am unable to say how far that passage may have been modified by subsequent sentences. The right hon. Gentleman has attributed to Lord Salisbury the very pronounced opinion that a tenant is to be distrained upon for a debt which is not his own, but he (the right hon. Gentleman) immediately afterwards went on to lay down the doctrine that the charge which has to be satisfied, either by distress or execution, is a charge on the produce of the land, and surely that can only be levied in the first instance upon the occupier of the land. If the tithe is to remain a charge upon the occupier of the land, I do not see how we can reach the produce in the hands of any one except the person to whom that produce belongs. If the right hon. Gentleman accepts his own definition of tithes, he cannot be in a position to affirm that the tenant is distressed for a debt which is not his own. I have been much interested by the speech of the hon. Member for Bye. I think it was a speech of very rare candour. The hon. Member for Eye said that tithe was a burden on the nation because, if there was no tithe, the nation might be in a position to levy a much heavier land tax. That is at least a novel proposition which the hon. Member has contributed to the discussion of that question. The speech of the hon. Member for Monmouthshire is hardly characterized by the same degree of candour as that of the hon. Member for Eye. The hon. Member for Monmouthshire has endeavoured to draw a distinction between property in tithes and other property, which he seems to hint would justify persons liable to tithe in refusing to pay it. Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to advise any person liable to the payment of tithe that he is in a position to refuse payment of it because it is a property that could not be recovered at law? If he is not prepared to do that, it is hardly candid in him to use language which when read out of doors might be interpreted to mean that persons may be justified in refusing payment of tithe, whereas they would not be justified in
    814
    refusing to discharge other legal obligations. The hon. Member has talked in familiar language of the tithe-payer protesting against a bad system. I myself am far from attributing the resistance to tithe entirely to mercenary motives. No doubt there is much of honest conviction mixed up with it; but I think it is unbecoming in a Member of this House who is credited with some knowledge of the law to insinuate that there is such a difference between property in tithe and other property as might seem to justify resistance on the part of those who are liable to tithe to the payment of their just legal obligations. The hon. Member divided tenants into two classes—those who are willing to pay tithes and those who are unwilling; and he asked for which class is this Bill intended. Well, my answer is that the Bill is not intended for either the one class or the other. It is not a Bill levelled at any one particular class of persons in any particular part of the country. It is intended to be general in its application. It will not affect those who willingly recognize their liability, and if it in any way impairs the power of the resistance which some persons at present offer to the just demand of the law, it comes merely as a supplement to supply a defect in the machinery of the law, and it will not alter the law itself. I desire, before sitting down, to repeat that there is no intention by this measure to prejudice any question as to property in tithe, and no intention to alter the remedy for the non - payment of tithe. It is a Bill merely to give a more practicable and useful machinery for the enforcement of legal obligations; and from that point of view I believe that it will command the confidence of the majority of this House, and give satisfaction to the people of this country.
    MR. STUART RENDEL: In spite of the lateness of the hour, and of the fact that right hon. Gentlemen on both Front Benches have just spoken, I ask the indulgence of the House to allow one more Member from Wales to take part in the Debate, because the Bill is undoubtedly specially aimed at the Principality, and is intended to deal with a condition of things which has arisen there in regard to the collection of the tithe. Now, Sir, in the course of this evening, some 25 Mem-

    815
    hers have addressed the House, and eight of them have been Representatives of Wales and Monmouthshire. Still, the subject is far from exhausted from a Welsh point of view. I will not, however, trespass long on the time of the House; I propose rather to deal with the Bill in only one aspect. I think the Government have fairly admitted that this is a measure of police. The object of the Bill is that the Government shall be able better to discharge its responsibility as an executive in the collection by creditors of their just debts. In that aspect of the case, I think the Government have proceeded upon very imperfect information. The Bill, as a measure of police, is, at the best, obsolete and out of date. It might have been that three or four years ago the condition of things in Wales with regard to the collection of tithes justified, in the minds of some persons, some such strengthening of the law. But the Government has failed to follow closely what has been going on in Wales with regard to that condition, and I submit that the course it is now taking, so far as from rendering the collection of the tithe more satisfactory to the executive, and assisting in the maintenance of law and order, will have directly the reverse effect. It was honestly believed in this country, and in this House, that the disturbances which undoubtedly took place in Wales were characteristic and fair examples of what the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Government Bench last called the "unfortunate disturbances which have disgraced the most peaceful and law-abiding part of the Kingdom. "In point of fact, the disturbances were rather the result of accident than of malice or ill-will, and the Commissioner whom the Government sent down to the spot must have satisfied the Home Secretary that they were the result of misfortune rather than of deliberate intention, and that there was no ground for supposing that they would be renewed. In Montgomeryshire we find a desire on the part of a most respectable portion of the tenantry to take legitimate advantage of the state of the law in regard to the collection of the tithe, and by challenging distraint to express an opinion as to the appropriation of it. They are at the same time most desirous that their action should not be discredited by any
    816
    violence. Indeed, they take steps to prevent any breach of the law, and those steps have hitherto proved perfectly successful. The House has been informed how our Chief Constable Major Godfrey has over and over again found it possible to allow the protest desired by the tenant-farmers to be duly made without any serious inconvenience to the tithe owner, or anything like a breach of the peace. It is now long since any disturbance whatever characterised the collection of tithes, therefore we maintain that the Bill is entirely out of date and uncalled for. But what will be the actual result of passing the Bill? Those in Wales who have been struggling to allow a protest of a political character to take place in connection with the collection of tithes—a protest unaccompanied by any disturbance—have triumphed in the end. There is no doubt we have succeeded throughout the length and breadth of Wales. So much so that a few newspapers and persons of more lively views reproach us with having killed the tithe agitation in Wales. By attempting to pass this Bill the Government are practically renewing the whole difficulty. They are not in any way preventing those who would otherwise resist the collection of the tithes from resisting it: the Bill is utterly and entirely ineffective in this respect. But they are creating a new departure and challenging fresh disturbance. One who knows the state of Wales might almost think they have some sinister desire that disturbance should occur, that penalties should follow, and that the unfortunate Welsh people should in some way or other be put in the wrong. I appeal most earnestly to the Home Secretary and to the President of the Board of Trade—who, I am sure, are not aware of the actual state of Wales—to aid the Welsh in maintaining the existing order of things, under which no disturbance can occur, under which I think we may pledge ourselves no disturbance will occur; and not by a fresh departure, not by administering some mild dose of coercion, for this is nothing else, tore-kindle smouldering fires, and invite the people to begin in an unfortunate manner the struggle which we all know is in prospect for the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales. All they have to do is to leave well alone. The case for the

    817
    Bill disappeared long ago, and it is only fair to the Government to say that Members from Wales, I believe almost unanimously, will find it their first duty, not to the violent party, if such a party exists, not to the extreme party in Wales, but to the party of moderation, to the best of the Welsh Nationalist party, to resist the progress of this measure by every means in their power. We know perfectly well that the passing of the measure can have but a bad influence in Wales. We are not against property in tithes. We do not consider this is a very desirable moment to endeavour to strengthen that property, and we look with some suspicion at the attempt to strengthen it and give it a large percentage of value in view of the time, which is coming, when it will have to be commuted. But we wish to safeguard the property as much as any Members of the House. We have no designs upon it which are unrighteous in any form or way. Our sole quarrel with it lies in its present appropriation. We desire, however, that no new law shall be made which will undoubtedly have the effect of placing the greatest possible strain upon the maintenance of peace and order in Wales, where at present there is no real breach of it and no cause for any interference.
    MR. BRUNNER: I only desire to inform the Home Secretary what has been said in his absence by the Postmaster General. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton very clearly expressed the objections that are felt on this side of the House to the Bill. They are mainly two. The one is that the Bill for the first time makes the tithe rent a charge upon the person, and the other is that the Bill makes the charge one upon personal property other than the produce of the land which has hitherto been chargeable. The Postmaster General has assured us that there is no power of imprisonment under the Bill. That is a repetition of what the Home Secretary said, namely, that the tithe is not to be a charge upon any person. But the Postmaster General went a step further: he told us that it is not to be a charge upon any personal property other than that which has been chargeable hitherto. What, therefore, remains of the Bill? Nothing whatever but an extra
    818
    step in the law. Instead of going direct to the farmer with a distraint if he refuses to pay, we are now to go through the County Court and approach him with an execution, a process by which the costs will be enormously increased.
    MAJOR RASCH: As an agricultural member, I wish to ask the Home Secretary one question, and that is, will the Government state definitely whether they are willing to bring in next Session a Bill for the compulsory redemption of tithe, because in the event of an unfavourable answer, although I am neither a blasphemer nor a plunderer of Churches, I shall be obliged either to follow the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. H. Gardner) into the Lobby, or walk out of the House like the hon. Member for Maiden (Mr. C. Gray.)
    The House divided:—Ayes 212; Noes 160.(Div. List, No. 228.)
    Main Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 208; Noes 151.(Div. List, No. 229.)
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Tuesday next.

  PASSENGER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL (LORDS.)(No. 327.)
  Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.
  STEAM TRAWLING (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 335.)
  Read a second time, and committed for this day.

  POST OFFICE SITES BILL.(No. 244.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. LAWSON: May I ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether there is any serious intention to take this Bill this Session. Might not the Order just as well be discharged?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): I can assure the hon. Gentleman, that there is the most serious intention of going on with the Bill; I propose to put it down for Second Reading this day.
  Second Reading deferred to tomorrow.

  REVENUE [ALLOWANCES AND STAMP DUTY].
  Resolution reported.
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of additional allowances and remuneration to clerks to Commissioners of Income Tax and Inhabited House Duties, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to amend the Laws relating to the Customs and Inland Revenue, and for other purposes connected with the Public Revenue and Expenditure."
  Resolution agreed to.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES' ACT (1888) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 193).
  Lords Amendments considered.
  Amendments, as far as the Amendment in page 1, line 15, agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 15, to leave out from the word "Act," to the end of the Clause, and insert the words—
  "Such certificate shall be subject to revocation by the chief registrar, with the approval in each case of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, but shall remain in force until so revoked, and until notice of such revocation shall have been advertised in the London Gazette, and in some newspaper in general circulation in the county in which the registered office is situate, and also transmitted by a registered letter to the society at such registered office; and so long as the certificate is in force the society shall be subject to all the provisions and entitled to all the privileges of the Friendly Societies Acts as if it were a society within the definitions of section eight of the principal Act not receiving contributions by means of collectors at a greater distance than ten miles from the registered office,"
  the next Amendment, read a second time.
  Amendment proposed in line 1 of the Amendment, to leave out the word "such,"and insert the words—
  "In case of the refusal by the chief registrar to grant a certificate of exemption in any case, the society making the application may appeal to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, who are hereby empowered in such case to grant a certificate of exemption. Any."—(Mr. Tomlinson).
  Question proposed, "That the word 'such' stand part of the Lords Amendment."
  A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir HERBERT MAXWELL,): I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. I know the reasons why he has
  820
  put his Amendment on the Paper, and to a certain extent I sympathise with them; but I do not think it will further the interests involved in this Bill if the responsibility of the Chief Registrar is diminished in the way in which the hon. Member proposes. I hope he will not press the Amendment, but allow the Bill to go through.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I know that it would be impossible for me to carry the Amendment in the face of the opposition of the Government, and therefore I will withdraw it at once.
  Amendment to Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lords Amendment agreed to.
  Subsequent Amendment agreed to.

  ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOT- LAND) BILL(No. 105).
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

MOTION.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Charles Hall, Bill to amend "The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854," and the Acts amending the same, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Charles Hall, Mr. Gainsford Bruce, Mr. Gully, Sir Charles Palmer, and Mr. Charles Wilson.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 339.]

CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COM- PANY (CONTRACT.)
Copy ordered—
"Of Treasury Minute, dated the 18th July, 1889, and of the Contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, dated the 15th July, 1889, for the conveyance of Her Majesty's Mails, Troops, and Stores between Halifax or Quebec and Hong Kong, and for the hire and purchase of vessels as cruisers or transports."—(Mr. Jackson.)
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 263.]
House adjourned at a quarter alter Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
THE EARL OF MORLEY sat Speaker.
THE EDUCATION CODE.

  QUESTIONS—OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I desire to ask the Lord President of the Council whether the Education Code has been abandoned or only suspended?
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: I think your Lordships will see that this is a case in which suspension was impossible. The Code could only be continued or abandoned. It has been withdrawn; but the subject will, of course, receive the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I can only express my great regret at the information, more particularly after the complete manner in which the Lord President on various occasions in your Lordships' House defended the provisions of the Code.

  TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
  LORD BALFOUR, in moving the suspension of the Standing Order in order to enable this Bill to be read a second time, said that the Bill was introduced into the House of Commons on the 17th May, and was read a second time shortly afterwards. The reference to the Commons Committee had not taken place for more than a month. One Order was opposed, but after negotiations that opposition had been withdrawn, and the whole of the Orders were now
  654
  going through Parliament as unopposed Orders.
  Moved,
  "That the Order made on the 5th day of March last, 'that no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall be read a second time after Friday, the 28th day of June next,' be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read 2*;"
  Agreed to.
  Bill read 2* accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

THE STANDING ORDERS AND PRO- VISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
A Special Report from the Standing Committee for Bills relating to General Purposes, referring to a number of Local Government Provisional Order Bills, was ordered to be considered.
LORD BALFOUR, in moving to discharge the Order of Reference to the Standing Committee, explained that that Committee reported that they had not proceeded to consider the Bills in question because they found themselves in such a position that that course would be, if not useless, exceedingly difficult. Provisional Order Bills dealt with matters which were to a large extent matters of agreement between private individuals and Government Departments. If any Committee of the House were to take them into consideration with a view to upsetting the arrangements that had been arrived at, that would almost necessarily involve the attendance of the parties by counsel or otherwise. The Standing Committees of the House were not appointed for that purpose, and it was obviously unsuitable to refer Bills of this kind to those Committees.
Moved,
"That the Order of Friday last committing the said Bills to the Standing Committee for General Bills he discharged."—(The Lord Balfour.)
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: In the absence of my noble Friend Earl Carnarvon, the Chairman of the Standing Committee for General Bills, I may be allowed to state that the view which the Committee took was substantially that which has been stated by the noble Lord, that these Bills, as a rule, are not Bills which should be considered by a Standing Committee. At the same time, it was felt that there might be some Bills of this class which involved questions of public policy, and which it might be desirable to refer, and, therefore, we thought it should be left open to the House to make such a reference in special cases, although, as a general rule, these Provisional Order Bills ought to go to a Committee of the Whole House.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: I do not wish to oppose the Motion, but I wish again to point out that one of the special reasons that was given for the appointment of these Standing Committees was that they should consider these Provisional Order Bills. It was stated by the noble Marquess the Prime Minister that the Bills were passed through the House without any examination, and when I called attention to the matter when these Bills were before the House on Friday, he again stated that all Provisional Order Bills ought to go before the Standing Committees. I understand from what has fallen from the noble Baron that that is not for the future to be the practice, and it seems to me that, under these circumstances, one of the main reasons for the establishment of the Standing Committees has fallen to the ground.
LORD BALFOUR: With the indulgence of the House, I would like to say that the noble Earl is not quite accurate in his description of the course of procedure in regard to these Bills. I demur to the statement that the Standing Committees were formed for the purpose of assisting these Bills, but I will not pursue that subject further just now. I would point out to the House that it is not correct to say that these Bills pass through Parliament unscrutinized. In the other House of Parliament they are
656
referred to a specially appointed Committee on unopposed Provisional Orders, and in this House they undergo careful scrutiny in the department of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: I am perfectly aware that the Bills undergo scrutiny from the officers of the House, and I have no doubt that that is a very careful scrutiny. What I said was that they were not controlled by Parliament, and that seems to be the fact.
THE EARL OF MORLEY: Perhaps I may be allowed to make an explanation. These Bills, as the noble Lord has said, are referred to the officers of my Department, who go through them very carefully, and have caused, and do cause, many amendments to be made in the clauses. I think it is valuable that the Bills should go to some tribunal in the nature of the Standing Committees of this House, but I fear that those Committees are too large to be able to deal with these Bills, which are, after all, very much in the nature of private Bills. In the other House, I have been told (but I am not absolutely certain of this) that these Bills are practically dealt with exactly in the same way as private Bills, and are referred to the Chairman of Ways and Means and to his Unopposed Bills Committee. Though they would not come before me sitting in Committee, but are, I think, as public Bills, rightly committed to the whole House, still it is not accurate to say that they go through no scrutiny at all on the part of the House or its officers. I think that, although it may be useful to refer certain of these Bills to a Standing Committee, those Committees are so constituted that, as a general rule, it would be better not to refer to them Bills of this complicated character. I would also venture to suggest that in cases where Bills are referred to the Standing Committees ample notice should be given of the intention of noble Lords to move Amendments.
LORD HERSCHELL: I would suggest that it is worthy of consideration whether the same practice should not be followed here as in the other House—that is to say, that Bills of this character should go before a Committee for Unopposed Bills, subject to this—that if the Chairman of the Committee on Unopposed Bills wishes to call attention

657
to any matter of principle involved in a particular Bill he should refer the Bill to the Standing Committees.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I quite agree that it would be useful to have, as an aid to the Standing Committees, a small Committee similar to that which is known in the other House as the Unopposed Bill Committee.
Motion agreed to, and the Bills in question committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
Moved, to resolve that Bills for confirming Provisional Orders should pursue the course hitherto adopted, unless their reference to the Standing Committee be ordered for some special reasons; after notice given (The Lord Balfour); agreed to.
MARRIAGES (BASUTOLAND, &c.) BILL (No. 155.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD KNUTSFORD, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, explained that it was a Bill to confirm the validity of certain marriages contracted in Basutoland and Bechuanaland before they became British territory.
  Bill read 2* (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

WINDWARD ISLANDS APPEAL COURT BILL. (No. 156).

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: My Lords, I may very briefly explain the object of this Bill. The Act which established the Court of Appeal for the Windward Islands provided that a quorum of that Court should consist of three of the Chief Justices, exclusive of the Judge whose decision was appealed from. It is now thought advisable to amalgamate the offices of two of the Chief Justices, and the quorum indicated by the Act could not therefore be formed, and this Bill is to enable Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to reconstitute the Court of Appeal.
  Bill read 2* (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

HERRING FISHERY (SCOTLAND) BILL (No. 149.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Before your Lordships read this Bill a third time, I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to call attention to the fifth clause. Your Lordships have heard a good deal of Sunday closing on land. This is practically a Sunday Closing Bill as regards the waters on the West Coast of Scotland. Now, legislation of this kind is in itself objectionable, and certain to lead to evasion of the law. My noble Friend the Marquess of Lothian the other day gave reasons in support of this clause, but I think they were wholly insufficient. The first reason which my noble Friend gave was that there was a similar law in the time of George III. In the few remarks I have to make, I wish to carefully guard myself against the supposition that I yield to any Member of your Lordships' House, or to any member of the Presbyterian body in Scotland, in respect for the Sabbath, and in the desire that it should be decently observed. So much so that I have never yet voted for the opening of Museums on Sundays simply for fear that it would be the thin end of the wedge, and that in course of time the working man would lose his day of rest. But, my Lords, that is no reason why we should have legislation of this kind, which would tell so cruelly upon the fishing population. Fishermen lead a very hard life, and gain a very hard and uncertain living. Their calling is doubly precarious. It is precarious as regards the weather. You may have Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, days on which, owing to boisterous weather, it is impossible for them to set or shoot their nets. And then there is the uncertainty of the run of the fish. Again, you may have no fish on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday, and on Saturday the whole sea may be teeming and

  659
  glistening with silvery life, with human food, and wealth for the fishermen, and yet, if this clause passes, they cannot stretch out their hands and take it, they will not be allowed to set or shoot their nets between Saturday and Monday, and will thus be barred from gathering what kind Providence has sent them. I think that is a mistake. If fish came like manna, if they came every day in the week regularly, with a double portion on Saturday, then I could understand it; but unfortunately they do not, and I think this legislation is wrong in principle, it is unjust to the fishermen, and must lead to evasion of the law. So much, my Lords, for the principle of this legislation. Now, my noble Friend, as I have said, gave two reasons for this clause. One was that this was a provision existing already, or one which had existed in the time of George III. I am bound to say that in these days it is extremely refreshing to hear such a Conservative doctrine from a Conservative Treasury Bench; but I think my noble Friend goes a little too far in citing as a precedent the restrictive Sabbatarian legislation of the date of George III. In this he greatly out-Herod's my Conservatism. If my noble Friend is going on this tack I should like to know if he is prepared to revive all the arbitrary Acts of Parliament with reference to Sunday, some of which are dead letters. In the old days a person was liable to be sent to prison if he did not attend the service of the Church on Sunday mornings. I have seen in the town of Peebles the steeple in which those were confined who failed to attend the services in the church itself. But these Acts are obsolete, and I maintain it is unwise to endeavour to revive them, because, my Lords, there is plenty of Sabbatarian feeling still left to push these principles to the lengths of persecution. Witness the Sabbatarian outcry with which the recent opening of the Botanical Gardens at Edinburgh has been met. I would then appeal from my noble Friend, the Sabbatarian Secretary of State for Scotland, to my noble Friend on his right, Lord Balfour, who is a distinguished lay representative member of the General Assembly and a shining light in that Assembly. I would ask him to say whether he approves of the proposals of his fellow-countryman, the
  660
  Sabbatarian Secretary of State for Scotland, or whether he does not think that catching fish under the circumstances; to which I have referred on Sunday is neither a sin nor a crime. I feel confident he would give them, in such case, absolution and plenary indulgence. The* other argument of my noble Friend was that the fishermen themselves wished for this legislation. I would call my noble Friend's attention to the bearing of that argument. If a Minister is to grant a thing which possibly may be wrong merely because the people wish it—that goes very far. There is no limit to the carrying out of this argument. It was equally applicable to the demand of the trades unions for eight hours; of the Protectionists for Protection; of the Irish for Home Rule. I would ask my noble Friend, How will he do with the crofters? Is he prepared to give the land of the owner to the crofters because they wish it? I am sure that my noble Friend, when he sees the bearing of this argument, will be sorry that he put it forward. I object, then, in the interest of the fishermen, and on public grounds, to this anachronous penal Sabbatarian legislation, that is certain to lead to evasion of the law? It is retrograde legislation altogether, and would tend to bring the law into contempt. For these reasons, my Lords, I venture to ask your Lordships to strike out of the Bill those provisions which prevent fishing on the Sabbath.
  Amendment moved in Clause 5, page 2, line 14, leave out from ("October") to the second ("on") in line 16.—(The Earl of Weymss).
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I cannot regret that the noble Lord has taken the course he has, because he has upon a very small matter taken occasion to give your Lordships a discourse upon the subject of the breaking of the Sabbath. He has stated what his own views are upon the question—namely, that he is very anxious that the-Sabbath should be kept; and he has also given me a name which I do not know that I deserve—namely, that of the Sabbatarian Secretary for Scotland. He has also appealed to my noble Friend on my right for support in the views which he has advanced. But, my Lords, although I have no objection to the epithet which the noble Lord has

  661
  applied to me, I am perfectly satisfied that before I have finished I can prove to the noble Lord that Sabbatarianism has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the question. The noble Lord has referred to the reasons which I gave upon the occasion of the Second Reading. I must just remind the noble Earl that I had no notice then of his objections, and when the noble Lord got up and stated his intention of moving the omission of Clause 5 I expressed my regret that the noble Earl intended to take that course, and gave two reasons which occurred to me at the moment. Those are the two reasons which I would now, with your Lordships' permission, like to say a few words upon. The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment, if your Lordships were to give effect to it, would simply be that on Saturday evening for two or three hours, and on Monday morning for two or three hours, there would be additional power to fish. The Act to which I referred on the previous occasion was an Act which was passed in 1815, in the reign of George III., and that Act is still in force. If the noble Earl wishes to make an alteration in the law, let him bring in a Bill to alter the law; but that certainly is the law actually in force all over Scotland at this moment. It is unlawful in any part of Scotland to cast herring nets between the hours of midnight on Saturday and midnight on Sunday. The consequence is that the only effect of this clause (which applies to a very small part of Scotland) would be to say that from Saturday night to Monday morning there shall be no fishing for herring. The reason for this enactment is this—that any fish caught on Saturday night it is impossible to sell on the Sunday, unless the noble Lord would also like to give permission to sell as well as catch fish on the Sunday, and the fish would be absolutely worthless, because they could not fee sold till Monday morning. On Monday morning, of course, for two or three hours after midnight on Sunday fish might be caught; but the reason why this clause was introduced into the Bill is because it was found that this longer close time has a very beneficial effect on that part of the coast of Scotland, and is desirable in the interests of the fishermen themselves, as the herring are very easily frightened fish. That, I think, is a
  662
  quite sufficient reason for the enactment by itself. With regard to the second reason which I gave to the noble Lord, that the fishermen themselves wished for this legislation, the noble Lord has gone into heroics upon that, but I simply meant to say that the fishermen themselves are so well aware of the advantages of having an enactment to prevent fishing during two or three hours on Saturday night, and two or three hours on Monday morning, that they themselves greatly desire it, and are perfectly willing to accept the clause in their own interests. My Lords, I think I need say no more. I have tried to point out to the noble Earl that this is not a Sunday question at all. It is simply a provision in the interests of the fishermen themselves in that part of Scotland. I would like to say one word more, and that is, that if this had been a Sabbatarian question the noble Earl might have given me credit for thinking that if I did accept the principle I would accept it for the whole of Scotland, and not apply the Sabbatarian principle merely to one small part of Scotland that I did not think it necessary to apply to the whole. Under these circumstances, I hope your Lordships will not consent to the Amendment of the noble Lord.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, as my noble Friend has publicly stated the grounds upon which he put these words in the clause, and as it appears that the real object is to have a close time for fish, I do not like to trouble your Lordships by standing in the way, and with your Lordships' leave I will withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Bill read 3*, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

COURT OF SESSION AND BILL CHAM- BERS (SCOTLAND) CLERKS BILL. (No. 162.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I do not think I need trouble your Lordships by going into the details of this Bill to which I have to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading. The Bill is to

  663
  make provision for the Sessions Court in Scotland, and I think the title is quite sufficient to show your Lordships the general nature of the Bill. Its object is to regulate the number and duties of the clerks in the Court of Session and Bill Chamber.
  Bill read 2* (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.

TRUST FUNDS INVESTMENT BILL. (No. 153.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Your Lordships may remember that last year a Bill to diminish the liability of trustees was introduced, and a clause was inserted in that Bill when it was before your Lordships' House enlarging the power of trustees with regard to the investment of trust funds. The matter came before the House of Commons somewhat late in the Session, and in view of some difference of opinion on the subject which might have imperilled the passing of the Bill, that clause was struck out of the Bill. The Bill which is now before your Lordships is an enactment substantially of the clause which passed your Lordships' House last year. There are one or two slight alterations to which I might call your Lordships' attention. The Bill of last year authorized the investment, amongst other things, in the preference shares of railways which for the previous 10 years had paid dividends on their ordinary stock. As the Bill now stands they must have paid a dividend of not less than 3 per cent on their stock. I think that is the only alteration of importance in the clause of last year, with one exception. In the clause which passed your Lordships' House last year a provision was inserted placing certain Colonial stocks in the same position as the other securities authorized by the clause. An endeavour was made to provide an automatic test which should distinguish between those Colonial stocks which should not be regarded as trustee investments, and those (and undoubtedly there are some) Colonial stocks which are investments quite as sound as any to be found in this kingdom. When the matter came before the Committee of the House of Commons
  664
  to whom this Bill was referred, there was some difference of opinion upon the subject of Colonial trust investments, and a Resolution was passed by that Committee that it was inexpedient to enter, with reference to that Bill, into the question of having any investments in Colonial stock. Consequently, so such provision is to be found in the Bill before your Lordships, and I feel very strongly that, whatever one's own doubts upon the subject may be, it would be very inexpedient to attempt to introduce such a provision into the Bill which is now before your Lordships' House. I think it is to be regretted that Colonial stocks are altogether to be excluded from this Bill, not merely because some of those stocks are perfectly safe and sound investments for trust funds, but because there is a feeling on the part of the Colonies that they ought not to be excluded from investments of this nature; and if you add to the list of those trust investments Indian stocks and other securities mentioned in this Bill, it is not right that all Colonial stocks should be treated as though they were not proper funds in which trust moneys should be invested. I understand that that matter has been pressed upon Her Majesty's Government by those who represent the Colonies in this country, and that the matter is under consideration, and that it will be the subject of inquiry, and I hope that the result of that inquiry may be to secure some understanding as to the conditions upon which, or the legislation subject to which, Colonial stocks might be put into the list of trust investments. I hope there will be no difficulty in arriving at such a result, and, seeing that the matter is thus under consideration, I think it would be inexpedient to delay this measure at all, or to run any risk with regard to it by pressing the matter at the present stage. I shall await with interest the result of the inquiry which I understand is now taking place upon the subject, and I may probably upon some future occasion trouble your Lordships further in the matter.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: I have to express concurrence in the greater part of what the noble Lord has said. As he knows, I am personally desirous that trustees should have power to invest in these Colonial stocks, upon sufficient security being given as to their stability,

  665
  but I think it would be unfortunate if any step were now taken which might delay the passing of this useful measure. My noble Friend, is perfectly correct in stating that this matter has been again pressed upon the attention of Her Majesty's Government, but after the Resolution which was passed by the Grand Committee of the House of Commons upon this very clause intimating that they thought full inquiry ought to be made before the clause was passed, or before it was brought up again for consideration, Her Majesty's Government have decided that it will be the best course to have that full inquiry which the Committee of the House of Commons desired made by a Departmental Committee. That Departmental Committee will be soon appointed, and I hope that the result may prove satisfactory, and that there may be some means found of enabling trustees to invest in these securities.
  Bill read 2* (according to order).
  LORD HERSCHELL: Under ordinary circumstances, I should move to refer this Bill to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c, but inasmuch as, with the trifling exception to which I have alluded, it is substantially identical with a clause which has already passed your Lordships' House, I think it is unnecessary to take that course, and under those circumstances I will move to commit the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY BILL (No. 144).

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD HENNIKER: As the result of representations with regard to the unsatisfactory accommodation given to our national portraits at Bethnal Green, the Office of Works submitted to the Treasury on the 30th April last a proposal to build a new Museum either on a site to the north-east of the National Gallery, or on a site to be acquired at South Kensington from the Exhibition Commissioners. Immediately after this proposal had been made an offer was
  666
  made by a gentleman to build a National Portrait Gallery at his own expense, if the Government would procure a site within one mile and a half of St. James's. The site provided by the Bill which I now bring before your Lordships is on the north and east of the National Gallery. It has been approved by the donor, and it has been approved by the trustees of the National Portrait Gallery, and the trustees of the National Gallery have concurred in agreeing to the site being taken, on the understanding that a space should be taken from the St. George's Barracks at some future time for any extension that may be necessary. The greater portion of the land given as a site is vested in the Commissioners of Works, under the National Gallery Enlargement Acts of 1866 and 1867, which were passed for the purpose of extending the National Gallery. But further statutory authority is required to appropriate this land for the present purposes, and therefore this Bill is brought in. The Bill provides for the re-transfer to the Commissioners of Works of a piece of land on the west of the site, of which I have spoken, which was conveyed to the Crown in 1885, or rather to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests on the part of the Crown, in exchange for a small piece of land taken from the Barrack yard of St. George's, which has been used for the late extension of the National Gallery. The proposed site, I may tell your Lordships, has been pronounced by the eminent architect who has prepared the sketch plans for the donor, Mr. Euan Christian, as quite sufficient for any National Portrait Gallery, but Mr. Christian thinks that it would be a very great advantage that a plot of ground on the north of Hemmings Row which is now vacant should be kept an open space. Not only does he think that it would secure a better light for the rooms, but he also thinks that if you had that open space it would secure better protection against fire. This plot of ground belongs to the London County Council. The Office of Works are in correspondence with the Council, and in correspondence with the Treasury, with a view to keeping this land as an open space. I think I need say nothing more in commending this Bill to your Lordships.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGE: My Lords, I think it would be difficult to say too

  667
  much in appreciation of the munificence of the gentleman whoever he be who has come forward and offered to build a National Portrait Gallery at his own expense, and thereby has extricated the trustees of the National Portrait Gallery from a somewhat difficult if not a hopeless position. My noble Friend says that the trustees have approved of the site, but on the distinct understanding that, whenever at some future day the trustees require more accommodation for their pictures, both the National Gallery trustees and the National Portrait Gallery trustees should be able to appropriate part of the barrack yard for any extensions that may be required, and that if necessary the barracks should be given up. I hope that under no circumstances it will be necessary to take such a course. I believe that the parade ground if built upon will be amply sufficient for the extension of both Galleries, and the barracks will always be a useful place in which to put a company or two of Guards in case of any serious disturbance. I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to another point which my noble Friend has lightly touched upon, and that is the question of this vacant space north of Hemmings Row. I do not know whether people generally are aware of the great importance of this ground north of Hemmings Row being kept as an open space. It is obvious that if the County Council sell this land (for which they hope to get £7,000) at auction, as it appears they intend to do, there will be no security whatever against the erection of enormously high buildings, which will mar the effect of the present and any future National Gallery, and may be such unsightly buildings as your Lordships may see from Rotten Row by Albert Gate. I understand that it is the intention of the London County Council to recoup themselves by this £7,000 for the expenses of carrying out the Charing Cross improvement. I see that my noble Friend, the Chairman of the London County Council (Lord Rosebery) is in his place, and perhaps he will state, from the point of view of the London County Council, how the matter now stands. I would like to read to your Lordships the architect's opinion as to the importance of this open space being preserved. Mr. Euan Christian says:—
  668
  "One point, in my judgment, of primary importance, and indeed of real necessity, if the gallery is to be built on this site, is the maintenance of the open space northwards which its occupation by buildings would effectually destroy. The security of this open space is vital to the scheme."
  That being so, it is quite possible that this anonymous donor might cry off and say, "If you are going to have high buildings there, I will not build the Gallery." Under these circumstances, it is very desirable that without delay some sort of arrangement should be come to between the County Council and Her Majesty's Government. I understand that what the County Council say is that they will have nothing to do with this question, which is an Imperial question. I do not know what line the Government have taken or intend to take, but whether it is a Municipal or whether it is an Imperial question, it is highly necessary that something should be done. If the London County Council, as representing the ratepayers, choose to say, "We will not give a sou towards the buying of this ground," it will then be for the Government to consider, and it will be a very serious question, whether, after all, they should hesitate to spend this dreadful sum of £7,000 in buying this open space. Considering they have not given a sou towards this undertaking, considering that at no expense they will have a National Portrait Gallery built, it would be monstrous, I think, if either the Government or the London County Council allowed these high buildings to be built and the light shut out from the National Portrait Gallery. I do rot know whether my noble Friend the Chairman of the London County Council will enlighten us at all upon the position which the London County Council take up. Perhaps it would be possible for the London County Council and the Government to divide the purchase money for this open space between them; but, at any rate, matters cannot remain as they are, because, in face of the strong opinion which I have quoted of the architect, it is quite on the cards that, unless this comparatively small matter is properly dealt with, the anonymous donor might cry off altogether and withdraw his munificent offer.
  LORD LAMINGTON: I quite concur in the view of the noble Lord who has just sat down. This generous and

  669
  patriotic offer having been made, it seems to me inconceivable that for the small sum of £7,000 this plot of ground which is clearly necessary should not be acquired. Athough it is not more than a fourth of an acre, it is a long piece of land, and any buildings erected upon it will block the whole light of the Gallery. I hardly agree with my noble Friend that this is at all a matter for the County Council. It is for the Imperial Government, and I think it will be very little short of a scandal if the Government, having had given them a magnificent building of this kind, should for the sake of a few thousand pounds see the whole undertaking spoiled by the erection of high buildings in immediate proximity to the Gallery.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: It may perhaps be convenient, as the London County Council has been referred to by the noble Lords who have spoken, that I should state exactly the way in which this matter stands. The piece of land in question is valued at, I think, about £7,000, and it is part of the assets of the London County Council, for which they are responsible to the ratepayers of London. The London County Council, whatever their deficiencies may be, are certainly not averse to the acquisition or the maintenance of open spaces wherever it can be proved that that is to the interest of London and of the rate payers. But they are not entitled to look to any interests beyond those, and, indeed, in my opinion, they would be culpable if they did. It is perfectly clear, as I believe, that it is necessary for this building, both outwardly and inwardly, that this piece of land should not be built upon; but that is not a matter which concerns the London County Council. It is an Imperial matter. If there is an Imperial building in this country, it is that building in which you propose to keep the portraits of all those, whether in the United Kingdom or in the Colonies, who have rendered service to the Empire. What business it is to the ratepayers of London to maintain or to bring light into a building of that description I, for one, cannot possibly conceive. Some time ago the Council passed a resolution that this land should be dealt with as the other assets are dealt with—namely, it should be put up for sale. Shortly afterwards we received a letter from the right hon.
  670
  Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, asking what our intentions were—a very courteous letter—and intimating, with the habitual politeness of the right hon. Gentleman, that it was possible that we might wish to contribute this open space, in consideration of the national character of the work, without payment. I do not think that that was actually put in black and white, but the insinuation was a delicate one, and one which we were not so blind as not to appreciate. Upon that we took the only course which was open to us. We sent back to the First Commissioner the resolution which had been passed by the Council, and said that, as far as we could, we should be willing to meet the wishes of Her Majesty's Government in not putting up the land to public auction, but dealing with it as a matter of private negotiation. Since then a conversation has taken place with those members of the Council who are most directly interested in the matter, and I have some hope that a favourable result may be arrived at. But I would point out most clearly to the House—and I think the House is, on the whole, with me in this contention—that if that land is built over it will be due to the laches, not of the London County Council, but of Her Majesty's Government. And I must further add, not as a member of the London County Council, but as an individual who has filled the position of First Commissioner of Works, and who has always had the building of this gallery very nearly at heart, that I do think that Her Majesty's Government will not be making an undue, an unlicensed, or an extravagant contribution if, to the £100,000 which have been contributed by a private individual, they string up their courage to find these £7,000 to purchase this piece of land.
  Bill read 2* (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

TELEGRAPHS (ISLE OF MAN) BILL. (No. 113).

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I need trouble your Lordships with only a few observations. The Telegraph

  671
  Acts are already applied to the Isle of Man with one exception, namely, the Act of 1878, but various difficulties have been found in the working of those Telegraph Acts, because the phraseology of the Acts is not suited to the executive and judicial machinery of the Isle of Man. This Bill is really an interpretation Bill, in that it applies the phraseology of the Telegraph Acts so as to suit that executive and official machinery; and by another clause it applies the Telegraph Act of 1878 to the island. There is really nothing else in the Bill than those provisions, and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
  Bill read 2* (according to Order), and committed to the Standing Committee for General Bills on Tuesday next.

CANADA (ONTARIO BOUNDARY) BILL. (No. 151.)
House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3* to-morrow.
BILLS OF SALE BILL. (No. 150.)
Read 3* (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
PUBLIC TRUSTEE BILL.(No. 127.)
Read 3* (according to Order); Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
TRUST COMPANIES BILL. (No. 10.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  LORD HOBHOUSE: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who happens to be absent, has prepared a number of Amendments to this Bill. I have gone carefully through the Bill with reference to these Amendments, and I think it would save your Lordships' and the public time if you would allow me to put them en bloc.
  Various Amendments agreed to.
  LORD HOBHOUSE: Then, my Lords, upon Clause 26 I ask your Lordships to insert the words—
  "Upon the application of persons interested in the property held by a trust company as trustee, executor, administrator, or any other fiduciary capacity as mentioned in the Act."
  My Lords, the reason for the Amend-
  672
  ment is this: as Clause 26 stood before the House when in Committee, it was stated that it was intended to give to the Board of Trade power to appoint inspectors on the application of any person interested in the trust funds held by the company, and we look upon that as a very valuable safeguard in the administration of these companies. When moving his Amendment, the noble and learned Lord Herschell desired to substitute the four sections of the Companies' Act, 1862, applicable to this matter for the reference to it in the clause of the Bill, but I think he never intended to deprive the Board of Trade of the power of acting upon the application of a person interested in the trust fund; but there seems to have been some misapprehension as to the verbal addition which was then made to the written Amendment. The result was that there has been an entire omission of power to the Board of Trade to act upon the application of persons interested. I desire now to restore that power, and I think everybody will agree that it is requisite.
  LORD BALFOUR: There is no doubt, my Lords, that an omission has by some misapprehension been made, and I entirely accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill read 3*, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE PARLIAMENT STREET IMPROVE- MENTS.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I rise to put a question to Her Majesty's Government respecting the company who have undertaken the Parliament Street improvements. These improvements, my Lords, are being carried out by a private company. When the Bill passed relating to the company, it was distinctly understood that the whole of Parliament Street was to be taken down in the autumn of 1887. Two years have since elapsed, and in three years the whole thing will be at an end. This way of conducting public works is very unworthy of a great city, and as there appears to be no hope held out of this work ever being done at all, I want to ask Her Majesty's Government what they intend to do in the matter. I think, my Lords, it is not too much to say that

  673
  this is a very unworthy way of carrying out public improvements in the Metropolis. Do the Government never intend to make use of the land they have at their disposal, and which belongs to them? I have to ask whether it is intended that anything shall be done to carry out the improvements.
  LORD HENNIKER: My Lords, in reply to the question which the noble Lord has put, I must decline on the present occasion to discuss the question whether these improvements ought to be made by a private company. A Bill was passed two years ago for this purpose, and I have stated over and over again that Parliament imposed upon the company the condition that £500,000 should be subscribed for the ordinary stock before they could pull down a house, and that that has been really the cause of the delay. The company is a private company, and the Act, I believe, is a private Act, and therefore I think the question of the noble Lord is hardly one which the representative of the Office of Works can properly be called upon to answer. The only connection of the Office of Works with the company at the present stage is in regard to some of the land with which the company propose to deal which is Government property. Beyond what has passed with respect to this land and the negotiations which have been going on with regard to it between the company and the Office of Works, the Office of Works really know nothing officially. It is not necessary for me to remind your lordships that, as long as the company keep within their powers, neither the Office of Works nor any one else has any right to interfere with them. In fact, the Office of Works can have no responsibility for the company, nor any official knowledge of its proceedings. However, my Lords, having said so much, as I find some noble Lords take an interest in the matter, I have endeavoured to obtain information, and by the kindness of the promoters of the company, I can give some information to the House. It was given to me by Mr. Edward Easton, a gentleman whom I have known for many years. Mr. Easton writes on July 18th in regard to the position of the company as follows:—
  "In answer to your inquiry, I have to say, on behalf of the promoters of the Parliament
  674
  Street Improvement Act, that the arrangements for complying with the Act, which stipulates that £500,000 of share capital shall be subscribed before commencing the works, have not yet been completed, but that the matter has now been carried so far that it is expected the necessary certificate of the Board of Trade that the capital has been subscribed will be obtained within a month from this time."
  That, my Lords, is the present position of the company, as far as I know.

WESTMINSTER HALL AND CONSTITU- TION HILL.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government the question of which I have given Notice, I have to apologize to your Lordships for again obtruding myself upon your notice. I ask your indulgence the more as, in bringing this subject forward, I am acting on behalf of friends of mine in another place who have taken great interest in this question, and who are anxious to move in another place that the objectionable structures in Westminster Hall to which my questions refer shall be removed; but the period of the Session and the business in another place are such that it is impossible for them now to bring the subject forward. I have therefore been asked to do so in your Lordships' House. Now, my Lords, besides this question of the structures themselves, I hold that there is a very grave question involved as to the management of public building and the constitution of the Department of Her Majesty's Office of Works. In regard to what has been done in Westminster Hall opinions possibly may differ. I can only say as regards myself that I dislike these structures. I hold that they in themselves are unsightly, and that they destroy the breadth, simplicity, and grandeur of that noble Hall. I have read somewhere that
  "He never really loved,
  Who loved not at first sight."
  I think there is much truth in that. But if one can love at first sight one can hate also. But I had heard nothing of what was going on, and knew nothing about it. There was a hoarding round the structures which had concealed the whole thing from the public, and when I first beheld the staircases I own that, to use a common term, I was "flabbergasted" at what I saw, and there being nobody else near to whom I could

  675
  express my feelings, I could not resist saying to the policeman as I went through St. Stephen's Hall, "I don't think the Fenians could have done worse." The policeman replied, "Well, my Lord, I don't think they could." That, my Lords, was my first impression upon seeing these staircases. But I ask you not to be guided by my opinion, for there is a general concensus of opinion in this matter. "With the exception of Mr. Shaw Lefevre and the Minister of Works, there is not, I believe, a member of the other House who has a word to say in favour of what has been done in Westminster Hall. Mr. John Ellis brought the subject forward, and moved a reduction of the vote. He objected to the rooms, said that the arrangement was bad and inconvenient, that they were badly lighted, and were more like elongated passages than rooms; that on the ground floor there were only a few cellars, that there was a ridiculous arrangement for members' carriages and horses, and that the declivity made it difficult to take horses there. He objected also to access to the rooms by these steps, and said that there was no foundation for the suggestion that they had previously existed. Mr. Ellis said that Mr. Shaw Lefevre had intended that there should be a model, but it was not made that; all the work was boarded off as if some "deed of darkness" was going on behind it, and was being concealed, and members could not see what was going on; but "now the structures could be seen in all their hideous deformity," and "they entirely spoilt the vista down the hall." Mr. Cavendish Bentinck described the staircases as unsightly and an obstruction, and added that the large erection was a copy of the pulpit used by Mr. Spurgeon. Mr. Causton hoped it was not too late to have these ugly staircases removed. Mr. H. Gardner said that the staircase in the interior was nothing less than hideous; and Dr. Farquharson that the stairs were in themselves not beautiful, and that they marred the majestic simplicity of the whole interior. Mr. Labouchere said, with regard to the staircase, that there was a pretty general opinion in the House that it ought to be taken away, and he therefore hoped the Chief Commissioner would have it removed. In short, my
  676
  Lords, there is such a consensus of opinion on the subject in another place that if a Motion had been made for the removal of these structures, I believe it would have been carried. There has been another opinion expressed on this matter which I should like to quote—the opinion of a noble Lord, a Member of your Lordships' House, who is a great authority on architecture, and especially Gothic architecture. I mean Lord Grimthorpe. I was in hopes that he would have been here, but as he is absent I will read to your Lordships a letter he has written to me. He says:—
  "8th July, 1889.
  "Dear Wemyss,—Bentinck asks me to write to you about the Westminster Hall 'spoilation' (as a Doncaster Alderman called the Municipal Reform Act), as I cannot come back from St. Albans merely to make a speech which will not be reported, and on which nothing can be voted. The view I expressed all along in the Times four years ago was that the right thing to do was to keep the six old doors into the courts, and rebuild proper large rooms in the style of the hall in their places. Their floors were at the proper level, a few steps above the street. They would not have been passage rooms like the new ones. But one large new one might have been made where the present great north-west room is—the only really handsome one. But Pearson and Lefevre could not be content with such a simple plan as that, and would have two stories, of which the lower one is half a cellar, and unfit for civilised use. They stuck up a model of one low storey only to show a bad contrast with their two, and of course it looked too low. Another consequence is that the windows of the new rooms are all so low and mean, as modern architects make everything look. As for the staircases, I see new faults every time I look at them. They are in every way incongruous with the simple and grand style of the hall, and, still worse specimens of the said capacity of architects for frittering away everything into little bits. There is one famous model of a staircase, with a door under it (not that there ought to be any here) in Beverley Minster, which you may see in Hickman's 'Architecture'—simple and perfect, and not exhibiting sham ends of steps sticking through the wall, as this one does in the middle of the hall. As for the 'dreadful figures,' Plunket's good answer to Sir G. Campbell has given them a reputation which they certainly do not deserve for their own merits. They want dynamiting, and if half-a-dozen 'eminent architects' were put on the stairs beforehand it would benefit the nation. That is the substance of all that occurs to me to say, except, by the bye, to remark on that hideous north-west turret, with its little windows divided into 'littler' bits, in the fashion, which architects delight in for pulpits—to hide the preacher's dirty shoes, I suppose,
  Yours very truly,
  GRIMTHORPE."
  Now, my Lords, I think I have at least shown to your Lordships that there is unquestionably a concensus of opinion against what has been done in Westminster Hall, and I urge that these structures should be removed. But it is not only what has been done, but the way in which it has been done, showing how the office of Works has proceeded in this matter to which my question points to the fact that although there was a model of the outer portion with the buttresses, no model of the staircases inside the Hall was shown. Furthermore, I have been informed by those that are concerned that a design showing the elevation was never shown. Though the ground plan was shown to the Committee there was nothing at all—so far as I can see—professing to represent the structure. Surely the inner part of the Hall—which is more precious thantheoutside—shouldhavebeen treated with the same care, and a model should have been provided to invite expressions of opinion, as was done with regard to the outside. Instead of that, the whole thing was shut off by a hoarding, so that what was going on could not be seen. But besides these new objectionable staircases we have to complain of the removal of the iron work on one side of the broad steps at the end of the Hall and the substitution of a solid wall and terrace, which looks strong enough to form a platform for carrying a 45-ton gun. It has entirely destroyed the symmetry of the hall. Then, further, there is this point: on the right hand side of the Hall, where these changes have been made, the stonework, from some cause or other, had decayed—I have heard it attributed to the mephitic air which came out of the Divorce Court. This has been refaced. I wonder why the impaired surface could not have been chiselled off, leaving it practically new stone. But no; for some reason or other it has been refaced with stone, but with small instead of large stones, as on the other side. Now, I ask if the Hall required refacing why should not the refacing or renewing have been carried out so as to make one side identical with the other? But such are the fads and caprices of architects in these days that one side of the Hall has been left in its original state with a wall composed of large blocks of stone,
  678
  and on the other they have put in new stones, wholly differing in size and in colour from the others. A word now as to the outside. A model of the proposed buttresses, &c. &c, was put up, actual size, and we were thus enabled to judge of the general effect of the proposed alterations; but we find that a buttress-has been stuck against one side of one of the Towers at the end of the Hall, which entirely destroys that portion of Sir C. Barry's work, so little respect do architects pay to each others' buildings. Really this is one of the most monstrous, things that was ever done in architecture, and I cannot help thinking that, if the model had shown this, it would have been seen at once that the buttress ought to be removed. So much for Westminster Hall. But, my Lords, my question also refers to a totally different subject, although the principle upon which I am bringing it before your Lordships is very much the same. My question also refers to the subject of the arch on Constitution Hill. I venture to ask whether any steps are being taken to remove from London the reproach of having a triumphal arch standing as that arch does. I defy any architect to point out any arch, railway, or otherwise, which has one leg shorter than its fellow, as this arch has; for being built upon a slope, one side is 12, or 18 inches higher than the other. I hope then, as. Constitution Hill is about to be opened, and roadways are to be made on each side, of the arch, that it will be under pinned and levelled. These are points to which it is necessary to call attention, because I am anxious not only to call attention to the things which are done, but to the system under which they are done. I should have thought that on a question such as this, affecting a great historic hall in which your Lordships have certainly not less, interest than those sitting in another place, there would have been a Joint Committee of both Houses appointed who should have had the plans before, them. Now, my Lords, if any of us look back, as I am afraid I can for a good many years, what do we find with, regard to the appointments which have been made to the office which has the management of public works? Is it the case that the man appointed to fill the high post of First Commissioner of Works is usually selected from the fact

  679
  of his having given his mind to these subjects, from his knowledge of landscape gardening, or of architecture? Nothing of the kind; the office is always one of political convenience, and as regards the influence of the holder, he is seldom or never in the Cabinet, and hence he does not exercise the influence which he ought. Looking back for well on for 50 years, I do not know of any single holder of that office whom any noble Lord in private life, if he were building a house of his own, would have consulted as to what he ought to do—except one. I shall not name him, so that every surviving holder for the last 40 or 50 years may imagine that that one is himself. Now, my Lords, there is something radically wrong in the system which produces such hideous structures, and renders it possible for any First Commissioner of Works without the knowledge of the public to evolve out of his inner consciousness such structures as these, to which I have called attention. Really, my Lords, it should not be in the power of any First Commissioner, even if he were a man who has given his whole life and attention to such, matters, to deal with our public buildings is the way in which Westminster Hall has been dealt with. Something more is wanted. Take the case of a late Commissioner, Mr. Ayrton. When he came to office he boasted that he had no training of any sort for it, and that he had no taste for architecture or anything of the kind. And yet he proprio motu, without anyone's knowledge, cut down 40 of the old trees in Kensington Gardens, divided the main walk, and thus destroyed the whole plan of the garden. Now, all this shows the necessity of some changes in the constitution of the Office of Works. I once had the honour of being a member of a Royal Commission which recommended that there should be a Committee of Advice attached to the Office of Works. Something of the kind I think, my Lords, is certainly wanted—it might be a Standing Committee of Advice of both Houses—thus assuredly many mistakes might be prevented, and it would not be necessary in future for any one to trouble your Lordships as I have had to do on the present occasion. I have to apologise for having taken up so much of your Lordships' time, and I beg to ask
  680
  the noble Lord who represents in this House the Office of Works: "Whether the designs for the staircases recently erected in Westminster Hall were ever submitted to any Committee of either House of Parliament, or to any other body, for consideration and approval; whether previous to the commencement of the work any models of the proposed structures—full sized or other—were made and exhibited to Parliament and the public; and whether, seeing the dissatisfaction that has been publicly expressed regarding these staircases, the Government will cause them to be removed, and devise some means of access to the new rooms more in keeping with the original character of the Hall; also whether, inasmuch as the approaches to Constitution Hill from Hyde Park Corner are about to be altered, the Government will cause them to be so formed as to admit of the levelling of the base of the arch at the entrance to the drive, which, since its removal to its present site, enjoys the unique privilege among similar structures of having one side considerably shorter than the other consequent upon its being built upon a slope."
  LORD DORSHESTER: My Lords, I only desire to add a few words. I must endorse in the most emphatic manner the remarks of the noble Earl as to the necessity of having a Committee to consider these architectural works, and that they should not be foisted on the nation—seeing they were to endure for years—without some justification and consideration. It should be an impossibility for such an occurrence to happen in connection with one of the proudest monuments in the world as the erection of these hideous structures. Some of your Lordships may remember the outcry which was made when Sir Charles Barry put up the staircase at the end of Westminster Hall, but that was a sheer necessity, and another outcry occurred with regard to the Courts of Justice. My Lords, I venture to say these few words in addition to what has fallen from my noble Friend as to the necessity for having a properly authorised body to consider these works, and that such things should not be allowed to go on without protest. It was my privilege to serve on a Committee with regard to the removal of the Wellington Monument. The late First Commissioner

  681
  promised me that five plane trees which stood in front of Lord Rothschild's house should not be cut down without notice, but those trees were cut down and replaced by small ones, such as the nurserymen could put in. That the right hon. Gentleman, who had, perhaps, taken his ideas from the West of Ireland, where there are very few trees, should pledge himself that the trees should not be cut down, and then that they should be cut down and replaced by broomsticks within two years, is a public scandal. But, my Lords, that is not the question now; the question is whether these particular works which have been designed and approved without being submitted for an expression of public opinion, or to some authority such as has been suggested, should be allowed to remain.
  LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I can only express a hope that the discussion will induce the Government seriously to consider the question of the reform of the Office of Works. The only Board that ever did anything for the Metropolis was the Metropolitan Board of Works, and now it is gone, I do not know what is to be expected from the County Council.
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I desire to express entire concurrence with what has been said as to the vandalism of cutting down those trees which were opposite to Lord Rothschild's house. It is not only that what might have been a very great improvement to the communication of the Metropolis has been very much spoiled as a matter of beauty, but that the inconvenience owing to the utter want of practical knowledge on the subject of Metropolitan communition (and I speak having years ago been a member of a Committee on Metropolitan Communication) has caused a constant block at the meeting of Hamilton Place and Piccadilly. All the traffic from Hamilton Place went either from the south or west, that is, either went to or from Grosvenor Place or to or from Knightsbridge, practically none to or from the east; and the object should have been to provide for a separate continuous communication along Piccadilly. I remember protesting against the undue narrowing of the new extension of the roadway between Hamilton Place and Park Lane. I did so before the railings had been fixed,
  682
  and when a slight extension of some 18 feet would have afforded great facilities for the traffic, which, in the graphic words of a policeman there to me, would disentangle itself in the wide space opposite Lord Rothschild's. The answer given was—"It has not been sufficiently tried, and therefore it is premature to express any opinion"; but no time was lost in going to the great expense of fixing the rails in the wrong direction. The opening of Constitution Hill will, I hope, a little relieve the traffic, but the main defect is the want of one line of continuous traffic along Piccadilly. The vandalism of cutting down the handsome trees affording welcome shade was only equalled by the want of practical good sense in the arrangement of the details of the new communication. With regard to the staircases, I concur in every word that has been said as to their ugliness and their marring the character of Westminster Hall. To what do they lead? I do not know whether your Lordships have taken the trouble to examine them, but they lead to a set of perfectly useless rooms opening into each other with no separate passage outside. Although I am bound to say that the architect has certainly shown great taste in some of his ecclesiastical works, he in this case evidently considered first what would look well, in his opinion, from outside, and he cut up the space within afterwards; but it never occurred to him that the first object should have been to arrange a convenient and rational plan. The result is that when it was laid out a large mass of building has been added to Westminster Hall, which is, as regards the tower, perfectly hideous, and is also perfectly useless from the want of common sense in the arrangement of the interior, large as that is. I entirely agree that it is most unsatisfactory that we should have the buildings of the Metropolis at the mercy of chance political agencies. In the course of fifty years—and my memory goes back, I am sorry to say, for fifty years or more—we have had, as my noble Friend truly said, very few heads of the Departments of Woods and Forests, or of Works who had had any previous training at all, or who had anything to do with the laying out of grounds or the arrangement of buildings till they suddenly found themselves for political

  683
  reasons put into an cilice of this sort, and naturally they were under the practical ascendency of some permanent officials whose zeal is more remarkable than their taste or practical skill.
  LORD HENNIKER: I regret, my Lords, that in the course of this conversation, a general attack seems to have been made upon the Office of Works. As far as I am concerned, I am much too humble an individual to venture to discuss matters of taste with my noble Friend, or to venture to give an opinion upon the internal arrangements of the Hall, but I will, as shortly as possible, answer the questions which my noble Friend has put upon the Paper. He asks me, first of all, whether the designs for the staircases recently erected in Westminster Hall were ever submitted to any Committee. In answer to that question, I have to tell your Lordships that the arrangement of the staircases at Westminster Hall was submitted to the Select Committee of the House of Commons, and the plans were approved by that Select Committee. If your Lordships will look at the Blue Book which has been published by that Committee, you will rind that the staircases are set forth in the plans marked No. 5a, No. 6a, and No. 8. The only difference between the staircases approved of by the Committee and the staircases erected is this, that they do not project quite so far into Westminster Hall as they were originally intended to do. The next question my noble Friend asks is whether models were made of these staircases. Of course, I am quite ready to admit that it is a very good thing indeed on all occasions when possible to have models of important buildings. But my noble Friend must remember that to have models entails a great deal of expense and trouble, and in this matter of the staircases it was not thought necessary to incur that expense and trouble. My noble Friend has made a general attack upon all the plans of Westminster Hall; but I would remind him that those plans were approved of by the Select Committee. I am perfectly well aware that, although he made a general attack upon those plans, the chief cause of objection, both in the House of Commons and elsewhere, has been all along with regard to these four staircases. Therefore,
  684
  with your Lordships' permission, I will just say a few words upon this subject. I would venture to remind your Lordships that it is not at all a new departure having these staircases at Westminster. The four staircases existed from the earliest times in Westminster Hall. Henry III. put up two flights of stairs, and two more were erected at a later period to give access to the rooms which, have now been re-erected under the buttresses. All the staircases that are put up in Westminster Hall now are shown on the old plans that are in existence. Notably they will be found in a plan which had the Committee's, approval, No. 18. To show that this is not a new departure there is this curious fact. Henry III. cut a doorway at the head of a very large flight of stairs. Mr. Pearson designed a doorway exactly in the same place, not knowing that a, doorway was extant, and when he went in and began to put up his doorway he found the old one which had been built up a great many years ago by an architect called Searle. He has now opened this doorway built by Henry III., a doorway from one of the staircases, and it now fills its original purpose. I think this shows that at all events these repairs, or whatever you call them, at Westminster Hall were intended as reproductions, and not as a new departure. I must repeat once more that all these plans were approved by the Select Committee. My noble Friend has quoted the opinion of Lord Grimthorpe in a very characteristic letter, but I must remind the noble Lord that opinion with regard to these staircases is not all on one side. There is a great deal of division upon this subject, and I think as the noble Lord quoted several opinions against these staircases, I may be heard also to quote one or two names which I think deserve attention. Mr. Shaw Lefevre, when he was First Commissioner of Works, had several letters from leading architects. Mr. Euan Christian, then the architect, was at first very much against these staircases, but after he had seen them he changed his mind. Another name which I think will command respect, is that of Mr. Waterhouse, who strongly approved of the staircases. Professor Brooks also approves of them, and also Mr. Bloomfield. These are only a few names out of many who approve of the staircases.

  685
  I think I have shown your Lordships that opinion is divided, and that it is not, us the noble Lord seemed to suggest, all on one side. Finally, my Lords, I would say, that on the grounds that these repairs have been done according to plans approved by the Committee, and that Mr. Pearson's plan restores as nearly as possible the old approach to the rooms, and forms—I think I may say—the best means practicable of access to these rooms, the First Commissioner of Works has decided that he will not remove these staircases. I have only one more question to answer, and that is with regard to the arch at Constitution Hill. The fact that one side of the arch appears higher than the other has not escaped the notice of the First Commissioner of Works. It is intended at once to level the front of the Constitution Hill side of the arch by the workmen of the Office of Works, and we have a promise from the Vestry of St. George's, Hanover Square, that they will level the other side in the same manner.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I must say that I think the very discussion that has been raised by my noble Friends, who are chiefly responsible for the taste of this House, does illustrate in a very striking manner the unadvisability of accepting their general suggestions. Now, I do not pretend to know whether these staircases are in consonance with Westminster Hall, whether they are good or whether they are bad; but this I do know—that they were arrived at very much by the process which my noble Friends would recommend as an alternate to the present method of procedure. The First Commissioner of Works did not act on his own responsibility, he acted on the advice of the Select Committee of the House of Commons. That, as I understand, is very much what my noble Friend on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) desires to carry out Complaint is made of the unaided responsibility and power of the First Commissioner; and my noble Friend wants him to be assisted by a Council of taste as I understand, whereas it is this very method of procedure which has brought about the state of things of which he complains. I do not know how this Council of taste is to be constituted, but
  686
  I do not suppose it will be much better than a Committee of the House of Commons. The House of Commons is, as we all know, composed of 670 of the most intelligent men in the country. A Committee of taste chosen from the House of Commons would therefore imply all that is most desirable from that point of view. But, my Lords, suppose you went outside the House of Commons for a Council to take off responsibility from the First Commissioner of Works. I do not say that the present is an ideal method, but I venture to say this, that it shines in comparison with this suggested alternative. The ordinary First Commissioner is supposed to be a man of business, not unversed in public affairs, who will take a commonsense view of the situation, and get the opinion of experts as far as he can. He is at full liberty to consult with every architect, every man of taste, every ingenious person whom he can call to mind, or who is willing to make spontaneously suggestions to him. Now let us take the alternative. The alternative is to establish a Council on the model, I suppose, of the Council of India. Well, opinion is not unanimous in praise of that Council, and, indeed, I believe Her Majesty's Government are at this moment in process of endeavouring to reduce it. This Council would, I presume, be composed of men of taste. Now, we have heard Lord Grimthorpe's letter to-day. I venture to ask what would be the position of a First Commissioner in whose Council Lord Grimthorpe happened to play a not unimportant part? They say that councils of war never fight. I venture to think that this Council of taste would do nothing else. There would be Lord Grimthorpe, there would be my noble Friends who chiefly inhabit the Cross Benches, and who always speak in these Debates, and there would finally be the dozen architects whom Lord Grimthorpe is so anxious to blow up on the very steps of Westminster Hall which my noble Friend is so ready to condemn. The Office of Works is at present a peaceful abode, and has a chance of doing good work; but I venture to say that if the recommendation of my noble Friend were adopted, it would become a hotbed of turbulent contention from which no plan would ever issue, because it would be absolutely impossible

  687
  for the Council of taste ever to come to a conclusion.
  THE EARL OF WEMTSS: I would, with your Lordships' permission, say a few words further. I repeat that the designs of these staircases were not shown. There were plans shown, but the designs were not shown. The only thing in the shape of a design that was shown was the plan of the staircase at the end of the hall, but no design whatever was shown to the Committee of what is the main subject of offence—namely, the staircases in the centre of the Hall. As to the argument that it is simply restoring the Hall to its original position, I will point out to your Lordships plan No. 22, in the Report of the Committee for 1884–85. Your Lordships will see that there is, no doubt, a doorway, and that doorway is in the centre of the Hall, but this one is not, which is a material difference. Again, there are steps, but what are the steps? There are two steps, certainly, but not a double flight of steps, or anything of that kind. Again, the old doorway in the Hall had a Gothic ornamentation round it. Therefore, it is trifling with your Lordships to say that this is simply a restoration of what existed before. I have no doubt my noble Friend can get architects to back up that statement. There are trades unions in architecture as in everything else, and one architect, as a rule, will back up another in questions of this kind. As regards models, I am surprised to hear my noble Friend say that they are costly. Any man who is building his own house would take good care that he had models of almost everything, small and large, before he went on with the building. My noble Friend says that the present constitution of the Office of Works is perfect. I cannot conceive its being worse. Judge them by their works; judge them by the Kensington Gardens. In spite of all that has been said, I still think that the present system is faulty, and that something in the nature of a Council of advice should be constituted.

THE DEBATE ON THE MAR PEER- AGE—"HANSARD'S PARLIAMEN- TARY DEBATES."

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN, in rising to call attention to the report
  688
  in Hansard's Debates of a speech delivered by the Earl of Mar in this House on Monday, 1st July, in which report occur references to the conduct of certain noble Lords, Members of this House, which references were not contained in the speech as originally delivered, said: My Lords, perhaps it is scarcely necessary that I should do so, but I think it would be well that I should state, before I make any further remarks upon this subject, that I am speaking entirely in my private capacity as a Member of your Lordships' House. My Lords, the matter upon which I have ventured to address your Lordships is one of considerable delicacy, and I felt some hesitation before I placed it upon the Notice Paper. It is a matter of delicacy, because it must more or less bring into question the action of a Member of your Lordships' House; but I feel that the course that has been pursued by the noble Lord to whom the notice refers has been so very inconvenient, so very prejudicial to the reputation of your Lordships' House, and—quite unintentionally no doubt—tends to act with such extreme unfairness and injustice upon certain Members of the House, that I thought I should not be fulfilling my duty if I did not bring the matter under your Lordships' consideration. In any remarks which I may have to make, I wish the noble Earl, the Earl of Mar, who I see is present, clearly to understand that I shall make them in no spirit of hostility whatever to him, and I do not wish to impute to him any intention of acting unjustly or unfairly to any Members of the House in any course which he has thought it right to pursue, I may just shortly bring to your Lordships' recollection what happened in the course of the Debate on the 1st July. On that occasion there was a Debate in the House on the question of the Mar Peerage, and the noble Earl, the Earl of Mar, in support of the Resolution of the Earl of Galloway, made a speech. In that speech, to which I listened very attentively throughout, I say with the utmost confidence there was no reference whatever to my name. Not only was there no reference to my name, but there was no reference to the names of the noble Lords who appear in the report of the speech. My astonishment was considerable when two or three days after the 1st

  689
  of July my attention was called to a report in the Times, in which my name and the names of the other noble Lords occurred as having been mentioned in the noble Lord's speech. Perhaps your Lordships may ask why it was that immediately on this coming to my notice I did not, when the Debate was fresh in your Lordships' recollection, and when the matter could have been more easily discussed and dealt with, at once place a notice on the Paper of the House; but, acting under advice, I thought it was better to defer taking any notice of the circumstance until the semi-official Report had been published in Hansard's Parliamentary Debates. There was another reason why I thought it was desirable not to take too hurried action in the matter. As we all know, there may every now and then be certain mistakes and inaccuracies arising from speeches being sent to the Reporters' Gallery before they are delivered in the House, and there may be certain sentences in those speeches which are either left out or inserted by mistake, and the deliverer of the speech may not have had an opportunity of correcting the mistake before it appeared in the papers the next morning. But of course if that had been the case the noble Lord would have had the opportunity of expunging anything which he was aware had not fallen from him before the report actually appeared in Hansard's Debates, because the report of the speech to which I am alluding bears an asterisk, which shows that it came under the personal review of the noble Lord himself. I have already stated to your Lordships that there was no mention made of my name by the noble Earl in the speech he made. Yet in the corrected speech of the noble Lord I find these two passages—
  "Now, my Lords, to-day we are opposed chiefly by the few Scotch Peers, who, from the beginning, opposed even the rectification of the injustice that Lord Kellie was to hold the Earldom of Mar limited to males, and vote in right of my Earldom that has been acknowledged to be traced through seven ladies. Those Peers, notably Lord Lothian, Lord Elphinstone, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and the late Duke of Buccleuch, tried to prevent the protests made against Lord Kellie assuming a title the House had not given him being received; and if they could have stopped the protests, and could have carried out their endeavours, they would to this day have prevented justice being done to me, and allowed
  690
  Lord Kellie to continue to vote under the old Earldom."
  And again—
  "Those who have supported Lord Kellie's supposed rights with regard to an Earldom of Mar since 1875—notably, those noble Lords—Lothian, Lord Elphinstone, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and the Duke of Buccleuch, with the Earl of Selborne, whose action I shall briefly recapitulate directly—should have the courage of their opinions, and be the first to promote investigation into such an attack on the decision of the Committee of Privileges."
  Those are the words that appear in Hansard. Now, I think I need scarcely assure the noble Earl that I am perfectly willing to stand any amount of criticism from him. He may accuse me of anything he likes in your Lordships' House; he may accuse me of not having the courage of my opinions; he may accuse me, perhaps, of having unfairly stood in the way of his getting what he thinks to be justice in the case of the Mar Peerage. He may do that in the House or out of the House; but what I do object to is that the noble Lord should make these accusations not in the House, but should make them appear as if they had been made in the House when it is perfectly clear that they were not, and, therefore, make it appear that they were submitted to without any remark whatever, and that I should sit in this House and hear insinuations as to my motives and conduct without any protest whatever, and by implication that I accepted those imputations without any comment or denial. Now, as I said before, I do not in the least care about the noble Lord's imputations: he may make any imputations he may like against me, foolish or otherwise, in the exercise of his judgment, but I do say this, that they should be made when I am present, and when I should have an opportunity of contradicting them, or else that they should be made in such a manner that it may be generally understood that I was not present when they were made. My Lords, I think there is another reason, but not a personal reason, why I should venture to bring this matter before the House. I think it is very derogatory to the Official Debates, as reported in Hansard, that this kind of alterations and this kind of amendments of speeches should be allowed to proceed. We all look to Hansard's Debates as a book of reference, corrected by noble Lords themselves in

  691
  very many instances, and we ought to be perfectly certain that the speeches as they are reported are those delivered in the House. I do not know how far it may be carried, but in this instance I think your Lordships will admit that I am perfectly justified in bringing the matter before the House. Of course the difficulty about this question is, and I have felt it very strongly, the difficulty of proving a negative; but I have consulted with two of the noble Lords who are mentioned in conjunction with me, and I have asked many noble Lords who were present during the Debate, and no single one of them is able to say that the words in Hansard were used by the noble Earl. There is one thing which makes me absolutely certain that those words were not used, and that is that the noble Earl has ventured to introduce the name of the late Duke of Buccleuch in connection with this Mar Peerage case. Now, all who had the privilege of knowing the late Duke of Buccleuch know that he was absolutely incapable of taking any line of conduct except that which he thought absolutely right and just. I do protest most earnestly against the memory of a man who has gone being attacked in this way, not in the House, but by the noble Lord when correcting a report of his speech. I do not wish to pursue the subject any further. I have spoken, my Lords, simply as a private Member of your Lordships' House, and I hope your Lordships will not think that I have gone too far in calling attention to the matter. I leave it to your Lordships to say whether you think that the mere fact of having drawn attention to it is sufficient, or whether you think that any further notice should be taken of it. For myself, I am perfectly satisfied of the fact that I have done my duty in calling attention to it, feeling perfectly certain that the noble Earl will, after this, be more cautious and more careful in the corrections he may make of any speech he may address to your Lordships in the future.
  THE EARL OF MAR: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Marquess for calling attention to this matter, for I am anxious not to transgress any rules of this House, written or unwritten, though I venture to think that I have scarcely done so. I am sorry if any slight irregularity in the report of my speech should have occurred
  692
  through misadventence on my part. I must explain that, in consequence of the Earl of Selborne having opposed Lord Galloway's Motion in a speech of very considerable length, introducing many assertions which I felt bound to answer and refute, the Debate lasted to a late hour, and it is possible, of course, that in my speech, the time being very short, I omitted to say very fully every word of the particular observations which Lord Lothian complains that I left out, though I certainly expressed the substance of them, and I meant to say the whole of them. Messrs. Hansard, as is customary, after the Debate, asked me for my notes, and a few days afterwards I received from them a printed proof for my revision. Now, my Lords, after the somewhat long Speech which it was my duty to make to your Lordships, I found it naturally rather difficult, as all your Lordships I venture to say find on similar occasions, to recall every word said, and I am sure many noble Lords present will admit that it frequently happens that on revising proofs of speeches you may revise them to rather a fuller extent, by way of explanation, than the words actually used. On the other hand, as in the case of my speech on the 1st instant, the printed reports omit some passages that are said. That is but natural considering the difficulties under which Messrs. Hansard labour in this House in consequence of their representative being placed where he cannot hear every word spoken. I understand that Messrs. Hansard have addressed a letter to the Marquess of Lothian on the subject of their reports in general, and in allusion to the Debate on the Mar Peerage they say—
  "Whether the revised speeches accurately represented the utterances in the House could only be tested by a comparison with the notes of a competent shorthand writer placed in a position to hear everything."
  Now, in justification of these remarks which the noble Marquess says I did not completely state to the House—and I have been rather severely taken to task for those remarks appearing in print—it is my duty to make an explanation, which I will do in as brief terms as possible. Those noble Lords, Lord Lothian, Lord Elphinstone, Lord Balfour, and the late Duke of Buccleuch (I am bound to mention his Grace's

  693
  name in the matter, but I must say that it is a fact known to many Members of this House that his Grace was seriously misled as to my position, and he committed himself to several actions in regard to the Mar Peerage which he otherwise would not hare done; that is my excuse for introducing the name of the late Duke of Buccleuch)—these Peers I have named were almost the only peers who took action against me in the——
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND: I rise to order. I think the noble Lord is rather travelling outside the point. What I understood the noble Marquess below me to complain of was that in the corrected version of the speech which the noble Earl behind me delivered on the occasion of Lord Galloway's Motion he had not then, in his speech in the House, mentioned the names of certain noble Lords whose names afterwards appeared in the corrected version in Hansard, and it is to that that I understood the noble Marquess drew attention in order to ask the noble Earl behind me whether he could explain how it is that there appeared in Hansard the names of noble Lords who had not been mentioned whilst he was speaking in the House. Now, I think it would be irregular for the noble Lord to go into, and to travel back upon, the old controversy, and to enter into an argument as to the position taken up by any noble Lord in the matter.
  THE EARL OF MAR: My Lords, it is very possible that I did not mention the names of these noble Lords who are alluded to, individually, but I am perfectly sure that in this House I referred in very full terms to the action of these noble Lords, with certain others, who were opposed to me. I still think that I must trust to the indulgence of the House to allow me to explain in a very few words the answer I make to these charges. ["No, no!"] I am in your Lordships' hands. I would like to say one thing with your Lordships' permission. It is but due to the noble Lords—Lord Lothian, Lord Elphinstone, and Lord Balfour—to state that they were good enough, two or three years ago, to express gratification at the recognition of my rights, and in consequence of that it was a great surprise to many noble Lords.—["Order, order!"]
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I rise to order. I think that after what the noble Duke has said, the House is entirely of opinion that the noble Earl should confine himself to the point which has been raised, which is rather a serious one, whether this report in Hansard was made to show something which did not take place in the House. He ought not to go beyond that.
  THE EARL OF MAR: The statement in Hansard is very full indeed, and—I will fall back upon what I just said—if I left out anything inadvertently, as very often happens when speeches are made in this House, I explained the substance of it, and the greater part of my speech was to explain in very full terms what had been done by these who had acted in opposition to my rights, and in support of Lord Kellie in his assumption of the title. That is really the substance of my speech in support of the Earl of Galloway's Motion for the rectification of the whole matter. My Lords, I still venture to think that I am entitled to the indulgence of your Lordships' House to give me an opportunity of explaining; but if that is denied me, of course I am in the hands of the House. I must again thank the noble Marquess for calling attention to the matter, because, as far as I am concerned, the more the matter is aired the better in the cause of truth and justice. And, my Lords, it is but right that I should say, it is but due to myself and to my heirs and to all these after me to say, that the unprecedented and grievous wrong under which I have suffered for so many years should be rectified by, if necessary, even an unprecedented remedy.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: My Lords, in saying what I have to say about this matter, I wish to deal with it in the most impersonal way. I feel that there is a certain difficulty in noticing the particular irregularity that has taken place on account of the very anomalous position in which our system of reporting stands. If our reporting was official, as it is in the French Chamber, the matter would have been brought to the notice of the House the very next day, and would have been corrected by order of the House. We still retain the

  695
  fiction that there is no report at all, and there is, therefore, some difficulty in expressing our condemnation of reports the existence of which we affect not to believe in. But passing that anomaly by, I must say that this is the first time I ever heard of such a mode of dealing with the reports as that which the noble Earl behind me has thought fit to take. My impression is that the whole world knew that when any noble Lord had to make a correction of a report sent to him, it has always been held a matter of duty not to insert anything which the speaker did not say. In Committees it has happened more than once that witnesses having got their evidence to correct have inserted a large amount of matter which they did not give in their evidence, and whenever that circumstance has been brought to the notice of the Committee, the intruded matter has always been struck out. I can only repeat that I have never heard of a similar thing being done in either House of Parliament before. I did not think it right to remain silent lest it should be thought that the matter was of slight moment, or that we were not concerned to prevent the repetition of such a proceeding in future. I wish to state my opinion that it is against the unwritten custom and law of Parliament; and I earnestly hope that no noble Peer may take such a course again.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.