Sitting of 5 June 1890

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  CHANNEL TUNNEL (EXPERIMENTAL WORKS) BILL.—(by Order.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    SIR E. WATKIN: I rise for the purpose of moving the Second Reading of this Bill, and I propose to do so with the utmost brevity. I think that the general question of the construction of the Channel Tunnel has now been reduced to certain principles on which it is not necessary to detain the House save in outline; and I believe I shall be able to show, in a few words, that the Bill has been drawn with a view to meet as far as possible the views—I was almost going
    26
    to say the prejudices—of the Government. The Bill proposes simply to continue certain experiments which have been conducted with no inconsiderable success, and then to give to the Government for the time being the power of saying, should those experiments prove to be complete, whether the Tunnel should be made or not. The whole of the question of the Channel Tunnel is by that means taken out of the sphere of private enterprise, and the responsibility is placed on the shoulders of the Government of saying whether a work of this kind should be carried out in the interests of the public at large or not. For my part, I have always declared my opinion that an extension of the Empire such as the Tunnel would involve ought to be the property of the people of this country, and ought not to be regulated by a Joint Stock Company, who may be Englishmen one day, Frenchmenanother, and American or anybody else afterwards. But as the Governments of both political. Parties have stated that they were in favour of the construction of the Tunnel, but that it ought to be constructed by private enterprise, private enterprise has gallantly stepped in and offered to do the work and to supply the means of carrying it out. So far, every bit of the experimental work has been initiated under the eye, if not under the sanction and approval, of the Board of Trade, and I, for one, think it would be idle for any combination of men desirous of performing the work to run their heads against the Government of the day, whether the views of the Government are right or wrong. If the promoters of this scheme have a grievance, it is that if they were making a proposal against the interests and liberty of the country, they ought to have been stopped at once and prevented from expending their money fruitlessly; but they were deliberately encouraged to go on, and were told by the President of the Board of Trade of the day that the Government approved of the work. The experiments, so far as they have been made, have shown that the work can be done easily, cheaply, and rapidly. The promoters contend that uninterrupted communication between the 17,000 miles of railway in this country and the 120,000 miles of

    27
    railway of the same gauge on the Continent would tend largely to facilitate the interchange of persons and commodities between our country and the various countries of Europe and Asia, and would be of vast benefit to industry, and of equal, if not greater, benefit to commerce. Again, they contend that this country requires a second line of supply for its food and the other necessities of its existence. To be without such a second line of supply is not a safe position for a great country to be in, while it is no phantom of the imagination to believe that the larger interchange of ideas of friendship and of trade which would result from the construction of a Channel Tunnel would likewise tend to promote peace and do away with the jealousies and misunderstandings which are so often the origin of wars. They say, further, and it is a point to which I wish to draw the attention of the President of the Board of Trade, that the experimental works as far as they have gone have been carried out in obedience to pledges given to France by the Government presided over by the late Lord Beacons-field. They believe that they are carrying out the work of that statesman. They submit that the honour of every friend of Lord Beaconsfield demands that the agreement which his Government made with the Government of the people of France should be observed and carried out. There is not the excuse that the agreement was made with the late Imperial Government of France, because it was made with the Republican Government of that country. There is, again, as the Board of Trade ought to know, a gradual isolation going on with regard to commercial and other interchanges between England and the nations of the Continent, and a greater union with regard to the whole of Europe. England, day by day, is becoming more and more isolated: while Europe, where mountain ranges have been pierced, great harbours made, and barriers broken down, is becoming, for purposes of unbroken interchange, more and more one. If the Channel Tunnel were made, only 2,000 miles of railway are required to connect England with her great dependency of India. That railway will soon be made; and then
    28
    are you prepared to say that for all time to come you will preserve a barrier of sea to thwart and hinder through an unbroken access to and from the 300,000,000 of people in Her Majesty's Indian Empire; while every other country in Europe may send commodities right through in the same carriage? On the other side, there are the military objections. It is said that all is well. Now, I think that all is not well between England and France. I can tell the Government, if they do not know it, that there is a very deep and widespread feeling in France at the way in which the French people have been treated in this matter by this English Government. Every reasonable person in France is in favour of closer communication between the two countries. As President Grévy said to our English workmen, every one in France is in favour of closer union with England; and if the English Government prefer a policy of separation and isolation we can only deplore it. There would be more trade, less suspicion, and England and France would be better able from time to time to stand together in all questions affecting freedom and the civilisation of mankind. Therefore, I say all is not well. Is Newfoundland well? Are Chinese and African relations well? Is it well that the commercial classes of France can charge you with the repudiation of your Convention of 1876? Then, of course, there is our old friend—the silver streak. The only advantage of being tolerably old is that one can remember things which younger men are not likely to know. In 1847 a very distinguished soldier said in respect of this silver streak—
    "You are aware that I have for years been sensible of the alteration produced in maritime warfare and operations by the application of steam to the propelling of ships. The application of steam has exposed all parts of the coast of these islands, to be approached at all times of the tide and in all seasons by vessels so propelled from all quarters. We are, in fact, assailable, and, at least, liable to insult, and to have contributions levied upon us on all parts of the coast, including the Channel Islands, although down to this time since the Norman Conquest we have never been successfully invaded."
    The writer of that letter was the great Duke of Wellington, and he dated it from Strathfieldsaye in 1847. Every sensible man will, I think, agree with his Grace

    29
    that steam has bridged the Channel, and that every advantage which we formerly derived from the silver streak has gone. The Duke of Wellington, although he was 76 at the time, undertook, with an additional force of 150,000 Militiamen, to make the country invulnerable. The hon. Member for Swansea (Sir H. Vivian) had told them that he was in favour of the construction of the Tunnel, provided we increased our forces. Other objectors had talked of a levy en masse. But if any such need would exist when the Tunnel was made, it was just as much a need now. If these are really the views of hon. Members, why do they not have the courage of their opinions and come down here with the measures they think necessary for the protection of Great Britain against everybody, under all circumstances? If they are really patriotic men, and believe that the country requires an unlimited supply of soldiers, no matter where they are to come from, they are bound to come down here and say so. But how is it that the country, notwithstanding the £35,000,000 spent annually upon the Army and Navy, is so weak; and why should this idea and apprehension of being ridden over and subjugated only just have dawned upon us? I entertain no fear of the kind; and I repeat that there is an obligation on the part of the Conservative Party to support the policy and proceedings of their great leader, Lord Beacons-field. In November, 1874, Lord Derby, then Minister for Foreign Affairs in Lord Beaconsfield's Government, in transmitting a Despatch to the French Ambassador, expressed the opinion that—
    "It is very desirable to support any well-considered scheme, the result of which may be to increase the facilities of communication between the two countries."
    That was a proposition endorsed by Lord Beaconsfield and his Government. Later. On the 24th of December in the same year, Lord Derby wrote to the French Ambassador in London stating that the Government admitted the utility of the scheme and had no objection to it provided they had no pecuniary responsibility, and generally acquiesced in the views embodied in the Report which had been forwarded by the French Ambassador. On March 18, 1875, Sir Henry Tyler, a Member of this House, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Watson
    30
    were solemnly appointed Commissioners to negotiate a Protocol which should be the foundation of a definite Treaty between England and France. In fact, the whole principle of the wisdom and usefulness of the proposed improvement in the means of intercourse with France was acquiesced in by the Government, details only remained. They agreed to the Protocol, and signed it; the French Commissioners signed it, and when the document was laid on the Table of the House of Commons, the Government thanked the Commissioners for the able way in which they had drawn up the preliminary Memorandum for a Treaty. Then how is it that these scares come so late in the day? The whole military question was considered by these Commissioners, in consultation with the War Department at home. It was agreed that either country, of its own volition, without giving reasons, might stop the working of the Tunnel, or impede it, or destroy it entirely. It was also provided that either country might make such fortifications in connection with the construction of the Tunnel as they might think desirable. I assume the Ministers of Lord Beaconsfield agreed with Lord Beaconsfield. That noble Lord was his own shepherd, and generally kept his sheep in tolerable subjection. But who formed the Government of Lord Beaconsfield at that time? First of all there was the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who was then Chief Secretary for Ireland. Whether his contact with ideas of Irish government made him an enemy to improved communication between England and France I do not know, but at all events the right hon. Gentleman shared the responsibility.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: I was not a member of the Cabinet at the time, and had no responsibility whatever in the matter.
    SIR E. WATKIN: Then, so far, I release the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman did not know at the time, but when a week or a month afterwards he did know, surely his duty was to have gone to Lord Beaconsfield to tender his resignation. There was another Gentleman who cannot plead the same excuse, the right hon. Gentleman who acts as Leader of this House. The

    31
    right hon. Gentleman was Secretary to the Treasury, and it was through his executive action that all the instructions were given to our delegates in Paris. There was also the Earl of Derby, who wrote the despatches at the Foreign Office. He, however, has not changed his views since he held a strong opinion and he still adheres to it. Nor did he form it hurriedly, or in any nonchalent kind of way; on the contrary, it was the result of firm conviction. I do not know whether the Marquess of Salisbury was in the Cabinet at the time, but I cannot believe that Lord Beaconsfield concealed from him his views and desires in reference to a closer alliance between England and France. Among the other Ministers of Lord Beaconsfield were Lord Cadogan, the present First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Right Hon. Edward Stanhope, now, happily for the country, Minister for War. If these Gentlemen have changed their views, it is their duty to get up to-night and tell us why they have done so. Always remember that France is our best and largest customer in interchange of commodities, save only our own India. Contrast the position of France with this country in regard to communication with other parts of Europe. While the communication with England is simply and solely by sea, France has 14 separate railway communications with Belgium, eight with Germany, seven with Switzerland, two with Italy, and two with Spain, while a third is now being constructed under the highest portion of the Pyrenees. What people are asked to believe by the opponents of the tunnel is that a frontier, which would be no larger than the entrance door of this House, could not be defended by all the power of England. I do not pretend to believe that. All the House is asked to do is to permit the experiments to go on. Am I to be told, with regard to one great discovery made by the men employed in the tunnel in the time they were unoccupied for Channel purposes—namely, the discovery of coal under the Channel—that that experimental work is to stop? Are we to be compelled to allow our works, made on and under our own property, and with our own money, to fall into desuetude, and to be prevented from utilising one of the greatest discoveries of modern times? All I ask the
    32
    right hon. Gentlemen is to give us fair play. Many things have happened since this question came up two years ago. Among them is the proposal of different means of crossing the Channel. There has been a proposal to bridge the Channel, a proposed combined arrangement of bridge and tunnel, the idea of a tube in Mid-Channel, suggested by the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir E. Reed), and, in addition to that, there is a proposal to render nugatory the possibility of loss, surprise, or damage, by the erection of forts designed by Mr. Heenan, C.E.—a proposal which we have been told met the objections of many eminent military men. I do not believe in forts myself, but would be prepared to accept them if they would satisfy the Military Authorities. Then there is the remarkable admission of Lord Wolseley in reference to a bridge which seems to me to make what is called the military objection vanish altogether. Under these altered circumstances I hope the Government will take a broader view of the situation. We are now simply discussing the Second Reading of the Bill, which simply means that the allegations contained in it shall be inquired into upstairs, and the whole question thoroughly ventilated, criticised, and thrashed out. I ask the House, without pronouncing a definite opinion upon the scheme, to allow the Bill to be read a second time, and fairly considered. When objections to the construction of a tunnel were raised in England on the only ground of objection, the scare of some leading military men, they created surprise and regret in France. France equally, or I should say more in danger, if there be danger; but through a sentiment of reciprocal national respect met our refusals with calm and dignity. The desire for continuous communication by railway between the two countries is so great in France, that I am assured in the highest quarters that in the final agreement to be concluded France would willingly grant every guarantee and every reasonable precaution which England could demand. Why do not our Government tell that of France what they really want? Why do they not negotiate with the Great Powers of Europe for the neutralisation of the Tunnel? I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir E. Watkin.)
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Mr. Speaker, I confess I had anticipated that a larger portion of the hon. Member's speech would have been occupied with some valid arguments for troubling the House upon this subject. This is no new matter. The present Bill has been rejected four times by the House of Commons, and in 1888 it was rejected by no less a majority than 142 votes, by no Party Division, for many of the staunchest supporters of the right hon. Gentleman opposite voted against the Bill after ample Debate, and after the hon. Member for Hythe (Sir E. Watkin) had obtained the powerful support of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone). I suppose I must not say there was any change of opinion on the part of the right hon. Gentleman—not the least, although it emanated in a change of vote, for I have no doubt the Channel Tunnel has always been dear to the heart of the right hon. Gentleman, even in the days when adverse circumstances compelled him to vote against it. I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Hythe in the hope that I should discover some reasons for his again pressing this matter on the consideration of the House of Commons. What were his reasons? He dwelt at some length on an alleged pledge of Lord Beaconsfield in 1874. By the hon. Member's own statement, what happened amounted to no pledge at all. It simply amounted to a promise to give consideration to the subject—I admit favourable consideration to it—in principle at a time when it had really not been discussed by the country or the military experts at all, and to the appointment of the hon. Member for Yarmouth as a Commissioner to consult with Commissioners of the French Government upon the International arrangements which would become necessary if the Tunnel should ever be constructed. There was absolutely no pledge given by Lord Beaconsfield and his Colleagues which could possibly bind this country to any future support of the Channel Tunnel: and the best proof of that is that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, when he succeeded to the responsibilities of office
    34
    as Prime Minister, felt it his duty absolutely to ignore any pledges of the kind, and to oppose the project. Then the hon. Member for Hythe told us something about the discovery of coal. That was, no doubt, a very remarkable discovery. I am not aware that it has been laid open quite so completely and so agreeably to public inspection as the commencement of the workings of the Channel Tunnel; but he did not allege that, even if that discovery should prove to be a practical reality, that any large quantity of coal found under the cliffs at Dover could by any possibility be sent to France through the couple of lines of Channel Tunnel he desires to construct. Another argument used by the hon. Member was that since 1888 several other schemes had been proposed for crossing the Channel, in competition with his own proposal. I do not see how that fact, if it be a fact, tends to recommend his tunnel to the more favourable consideration of the House. The hon. Member has thrown out a challenge to me which I do not shrink from accepting. During the past year the hon. Member has endeavoured to extract from me, on behalf of the Government, a declaration that it is our determination to refuse to permit any other means of communication between England and France except on the surface of the sea. All I can say is that I hope that I shall never be guilty of making so absurd a statement. We do not know what the future may bring forth. In the future there may be methods proposed for crossing the Channel, which are at unknown and which might appear as impossible to us now as the construction of the Forth Bridge would have seemed to our ancestors. Those proposals when they come to be made will have to be considered on their own particular merits. At the present moment we are not called upon to deal with the possible schemes of the future, but with the proposal of the hon. Member for constructing the Channel Tunnel. I should wish, in the first place, before I deal with this thoroughly threshed out subject, to make a remark upon the mode in which this matter has been presented to the House to-day. I suppose that those who were present in the House during the speech of the hon. Member for Hythe heard him say something about the small and inno-

    35
    cent character of the proposal which the House is asked to sanction, and that view of the subject is enlarged upon in the Paper which was circulated among hon. Members this morning by the promoters of the Bill. I think that I never read a more audacious document. It states:—
    "This Bill, while relating to a subject of national importance and interest, is yet in itself of a most innocent character. It in no sense whatever authorises the construction of the Tunnel, but simply enables the Channel Tunnel Company 1o continue experimental borings and works for the sole purpose of ascertaining whether or not a permanent tunnel for railway purposes beneath the Channel be practicable. So far from the Bill authorising the construction and maintenance of the Channel Tunnel, the Bill, by Clause 5, expressly reserves to the Lords of the Treasury the power of authorising its construction in the event of the experimental works proving its practicability. The Bill also, by Clause 6, provides that, should the Tunnel hereafter be constructed, the Lords of the Treasury may, at any time within five years after its opening for traffic, require it, and all power over it, to be transferred to the Lords of the Treasury, or to such other Department of the Government as they may direct, who would thenceforth be the sole owners thereof. From the foregoing statement of the provisions of the Bill, it will be seen how completely the public interests are protected in the event of the construction of the Tunnel being found practicable, and of its being hereafter constructed, as that cannot be done without the formal consent and concurrence of the Government of the day, and, in the event of such consent being given and the Tunnel being constructed, the Government will have the full power of taking and retaining possession of the works. Seeing, therefore, how entirely the public interests are protected by the terms of the present Bill, the promoters respectfully ask the House to pass its Second Reading in order that the Bill may be considered in its details by a Select Committee."
    That appears to contain a proposition which I do not think that the hon. Member himself will defend, because, under the guise of asking for the sanction of the House to the continuation of an experiment, it proposes to leave the determination of the question, which is one of great national importance, whether the Channel Tunnel shall or shall not be constructed in the hands of the Government of the day, and not in those of Parliament. Surely the hon. Member himself will not call that a very small matter. In reference to this point, I contend now, as I have contended before, that this question as to whether the Channel Tunnel shall be constructed or not, is one which
    36
    it is absolutely impossible can be satisfactorily determined by one of the. Committees of this House, to which we entrust the consideration of ordinary private business. What would be the value of a decision of such a Committee, before whom, according to our rules, no opponent to this Bill could have a locus standi, because there are no private interests affected? No lesser tribunal than Parliament itself is qualified to deal with a question of such great national importance as this. The question, therefore, that we now have to consider is whether this Tunnel shall be made or not. The grounds upon which I object to the formation of the Tunnel are—first, that its construction will create a new source of danger to this country. That is a proposition! which is universally admitted by all the highest Parliamentary, military, and scientific authorities, and, indeed, it is admitted by the promoters of the Bill themselves, because they have confessed that if the Tunnel is constructed it will be necessary to construct fortifications at the British end of the Tunnel and to provide means of flooding or destroying it if need should arise. But how are the means of guarding it to be provided? How are these fortifications to be paid for? It has never been suggested that any company formed to make the Channel Tunnel could possibly take upon itself, in addition to the cost of constructing the Tunnel, the extra liability of providing for the cost of these fortifications and of the consequential increase in our Military Force. Certainly no company could obtain shareholders, which undertook such a liability; and, therefore, those extra expenses must fall, upon the taxpayers of the country. And what would the latter get in return for bearing that expense? We have heard a, great deal of the commercial advantages which would accrue to the country from the construction of the Tunnel. But although vague anticipations of this kind have always been put forward by the hon. Member and his friends, they have never condescended to detailed argument upon the point, and I therefore venture to assert that they are unable to support their statements by proofs. In the next place, when all the expense of constructing the necessary fortifications has been incurred and our Military Forces have been

    37
    increased, there will still remain a risk which could not be got rid of by any means in our power. In these circumstances, I ask, had we not better leave well alone, and thus avoid all, need for the precautions which the hon. Member himself admits would have to be taken if the Tunnel were to be constructed? It is admitted by the highest authorities who have considered the subject that the risk to which I have referred would be incurred if we were to consent to the Tunnel being made. In 1883 the minority of the Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons, who reported in favour of the construction of the Tunnel, admitted that the making of the Tunnel would, in some respects, modify the conditions under which the defences of this country would have to be considered, and that special precautions would be necessary to prevent it from falling into the hands of an enemy; and they admitted, further, that its possession either during the progress of operations or an occupation of English soil would be highly advantageous to the invading force and injurious to the nation; and they conceded that, if it could be shown that no means could be devised to prevent the Tunnel when once made from passing into the hands of the enemy, its formation would be in the highest degree objectionable. The question was, could such means be devised? That was referred to a scientific Committee of Military and Engineering Authorities, who made numerous recommendations for the security of the Tunnel of a very complicated and costly character. But the Scientific Committee reported that while, by the means they recommended, the Tunnel might be made absolutely useless to an enemy, it would be presumptuous to place absolute confidence in the most complete arrangements for preventing it from falling into the hands of an enemy, thus absolutely rejecting the presumption on which the Minority Report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee in favour of this Tunnel was based. The fact is, that the risk could not be absolutely obviated, because there can be no perfect certainty in human affairs. But what would the risk be? In the first place, there is the chance of surprise at this end of the Tunnel, either with or without the previous declaration
    38
    of war. There is the chance of the Tunnel falling into the hands of the enemy by treason; there is a very great chance of hesitation at the supreme moment on the part of those who would be charged with the tremendous responsibility of deciding, when our relations with France were very much strained, whether such a great work should be destroyed, or Hooded, or not; and then there is the chance, finally, of the failure of the machinery which might be devised for flooding or mining the Tunnel: machinery which could never be tested to see if it was in working order. It is all very well for speakers to say, as was said in 1888, that these chances are so improbable that they could not happen; but I venture to say that they have happened in other countries in past times, and that there is no reason why they should not happen again. But what is the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian? He asked the House in 1888 why we were to be fearful of an invasion by Franco when in past history England had invaded France more often than France had invaded England, and even the great Napoleon had been unable to invade us, now that the numbers of our population have, comparatively, so much increased that we have less reason to fear invasion from the French than they have to fear invasion from us. Well, I should like to say that, in my humble judgment, it is not a question of the number of the population of either country, or of the wealth of either country, except so far as greater wealth offers greater temptation, or even of the ultimate resources of either country; it is a question of the military power which the organisation of either country enables it to place on a given spot at very short notice indeed. Will anyone pretend that our military organisation, as it exists at present, can be compared with the military organisation of France? Of course it cannot. I do not doubt if we had, as the hon. Member for Hythe suggested in his speech, conscription in this country, the most timid of our Military Authorities would be ready enough to sanction the making of a Channel Tunnel; but we have no conscription in this country; and if there is one subject on which I believe the House and the country would be more unanimous than any other it would

    39
    be in the feeling that we should never have it. We do not want to make it the first object of our national life, as Continental nations unfortunately make it now, to establish this nation as a great Military Power. We have refrained from doing so, confident in the strength of our natural defences, and we do not want to be driven to take such a course by the breach which would be made in those defences by such schemes as those of the hon. Member for Hythe.
    SIR E. WATKIN": The scheme is that of men like Lord Beaconsfield, not mine.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The only opinion, I believe, Lord Beaconsfield over expressed, or that the hon. Member for Hythe could quote him as expressing, on the scheme, was that he had doubt, and grave doubt, whether, if the Channel Tunnel wore constructed, it would ever pay a farthing of dividend. Those are the objections I would urge against the proposal of the hon. Member. They stand on the debit side of the account; what can be put on the credit side of the account? He has told us, in the first place, that the Tunnel would be a new route for bringing food, merchandise, and raw material to England in the event of the sea being closed against us, just as if that route would be available if France were hostile to us, and if it is at all probable that any combination of Powers against us, with France still friendly to us, could close the sea to the commerce of England. Then the hon. Member has told us that the Tunnel would be a great guarantee of peace with France, forgetting that the relations between some of those very Continental countries which he named, whoso railway communications are numerous, while the possibilities of their land communication are unbounded, are infinitely more strained, and have been more strained for many years than, I am happy to say, have been and are the relations between England and France. Then it is said that the Tunnel is to be a great artery of commercial intercourse between England and the Continent. The hon. Member has not said it would be possible that any amount of heavy snoods should be taken through the Tunnel; there would be no time for such traffic, nor could the Tunnel, as a means of conveyance for heavy goods, compete with the sea he looks to it
    40
    mainly as a means of increasing the amount of passenger traffic between England and the Continent—the accommodation of the class of passengers who can afford to pay for the luxury of greater speed and escape from the discomforts of a sea voyage—and also, to some extent, for the transit of light and expansive merchandise. On the last point I would say that any benefit this country might derive from the construction of the Tunnel as a means of transit for light and expensive merchandise, would, I believe, be far outweighed by the loss our shipping interests might sustain from the change that would be effected in the trade between England and the East. A large part of the trade between Europe and the East is now distributed over Europe from London and Liverpool, but if there were railway communication with the Continent, that trade would be much more likely to break bulk at Marseilles or even at Brindisi than to come to England at all. I contend, therefore, that there is nothing in the benefits which could be derived from this scheme which should outweigh the objections to it. I would remind the House that they have against it all the highest Parliamentary, military, and scientific authorities, that on four previous occasions they have rejected it by a large majority, and that it is defended to-day by no better arguments than those which were adduced in its favour before. I ask them again to reject it as unhesitatingly as it was rejected in 1888 and I move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.
    Amendment moved, to leave out the word "now," in order to add at the end of the Question the words "on this day six months."—(Sir M. Hicks Beach.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. W.E. GLADSTONE: I shall be sorry if the right hon. Gentleman and the Government should be disposed to complain of my contributing to the prolongation of a Debate which they think unnecessary, and against which they urge the rejection of this Bill by the House of Commons on four previous occasions. The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that he has himself to blame for imposing on me that necessity, because he has

    41
    found it needful for the purposes of his own argument to refer to what he considers, or his friends consider, inconsistency on my part in respect to this important question. The right hon. Gentleman and every speaker on the Front Bench know that there are certain subjects on which they are perfectly safe in making references to me. Any references to my inconsistency or to my capacity to express myself in the English language are certain to draw forth cheers from the forces marshalled on the Ministerial Benches. I only refer to this matter of consistency because it almost makes it necessary for me to mention that on all occasions I have held that this plan or project ought not to be opposed; and further than that, I have deemed opposition to it on the merits, and particularly on the score of danger, to be not only unnecessary, not only unwarrantable, but even, if I may so speak, ridiculous. It must not be supposed that I am claiming any credit to myself as a friend of this undertaking. I have never given to this undertaking any further support than justice and honesty demanded on its behalf in the House of Commons. Beyond this, I have given to it no sort of countenance or patronage further than that of having travelled in a special train, not at my own expense, to the Tunnel works some years ago, and having been hospitably entertained and partaken of excellent champagne at the English end of the proposed Tunnel. With regard to the champagne, so far as my recollection goes, that kind of countenance was very liberally and largely conceded to this project by Gentlemen sitting on the other side of the House. I admit, as the right hon. Gentleman stated, that the Government of which I was a Member voted against a Channel Tunnel Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) on that occasion expressed the mind of the Government, but there was not a word spoken on behalf of the Government adverse to the principle of a tunnel. Undoubtedly, this is not a Party question, and there are some who have changed their minds upon it, including one or two of my oldest, best, and nearest friends. At the time referred to, the Government then in Office found themselves in extreme difficulties in carrying on public
    42
    business, and they thought, rightly or wrongly, that these difficulties were mainly owing to systematic obstruction carried on in the main by the Party to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs. On that account we felt we could not give up the time necessary for the consideration of a question of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman is right in speaking and voting against this Bill if he believes the plan is a bad plan, and if he thinks it is impossible for the Government to be neutral upon this question. We considered at the time it was not compatible with our duty to press forward an important Bill which would have required that extraordinary facilities should be provided for the discussion of the subject. I claim no credit as an active promoter of this project. The warmth of my promotion consists simply in the warmth of disapproval and condemnation of the arguments of opponents. The right hon. Gentleman says there has been unanimity on the part of all the highest Parliamentary, scientific, and military authorities in condemning this plan. I do not know where he draws his line. This is a line by which, together with most of my hon. Friends sitting near me, I am entirely excluded as not being entitled to give any opinion of weight on a question of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman and his friends alone are entitled to reckon among the highest Parliamentary authorities. We have no title to be heard, though one of us, at least, was serving his country in Parliament before the human race was enriched by the birth of the right hon. Gentleman. I have no objection to that line of defence; but it should be understood that when the right hon. Gentleman speaks of the highest authorities of any kind, it means those who agree with him and entertain his opinions. I think the best argument of the right hon. Gentleman was that this Bill had been four times rejected by the House of Commons. But it would be very difficult to mention any great and important project of law, whether in this region of public works or in any other region, that is now upon the Statute Book, and that now forms a valuable part of the commercial arrangements or political liberties of the people, with respect to which it may not be stated that it was rejected four

    43
    times, or more than four times. Notwithstanding, I admit chat the argument is not without force. But permit me to observe that it is quite fair on my part to allege that there is a counter argument, which is this. My hon. Friend the Member for Hythe, Lord Stalbridge, and others who have been concerned in projects of this kind, prosecuted those projects anterior to the present state of feeling, and with the universal favour of the country. We may here retort the epithet of the right hon. Gentleman. The first proposal I heard for a Channel Tunnel was that of Mr. Ward Hunt, a most distinguished member of the Party opposite, who waited upon me, when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer, during the time of Lord Palmerston's Government, as head of a deputation proceeding from the main promoters of the Tunnel. I quote him, but it is useless to quote individuals. I know of one single exception, and with that exception I do not believe that the name of a man can be quoted among the highest authorities, the middling authorities, or the lowest authorities, who at that time raised his voice against the Channel Tunnel. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Government of Lord Beaconsfield did nothing to pledge themselves to the Channel Tunnel. The question is, did the Government pursue a course of action which pledged that Government? Most certainly they did. They appointed Commissioners to communicate with the French Government upon the subject, to examine and inquire into all the details of an International proceeding. I do not say that it amounted to an engagement, but it amounted to the expectation of an engagement, and a just expectation. I may also add that whilst I chink that our position in respect to the Government of France on this question of the Channel Tunnel is a humiliating position, on the other hand, the Government of France deserves, in ray opinion—and I am glad to take this opportunity of declaring it in this House—the highest credit and the warmest acknowledgment on our part for never having made our altered position a subject of complaint. That International proceeding was taken; the Report of the Commission was made by the Joint Commission on the part of the two countries, assuming the principle of
    44
    the Tunnel, and pointing out in what way all the multitudinous arrangements in detail were to be made. That Report was quite as valid and important a document as any other International Report. I do not recollect that the Commissioners were made Privy Councillors, but in every other particular the Commission had all the importance of an engagement having the highest sanction. I say, then, that the promoters of this Tunnel, when they are told that the Bill has been rejected four times, are perfectly justified in saying, "Yes; but recollect that it was a Bill which, for many years, had received the unquestioning assent and approbation of all classes of this country, which had the distinct countenance and approval of successive Governments, and with respect to which, as we think, an unreasoning panic has been raised. Therefore, we are justified in again and again questioning, at proper intervals, that which we know to be a thoroughly unreasonable decision." I must admit that the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly justified in stating that my hon. Friend the Mover of the Motion is not entitled to say that the House will not commit itself by its vote. I regard the Second Reading of this Bill, if it be carried, as a Vote completely giving sanction to the Channel Tunnel in principle. The right hon. Gentleman says that the expectation of commercial advantages are vague expectations, and are reduced to a minimum by the estimates of adverse critics. Has the right hon. Gentleman ever read any examinations of the witnesses for the first projects of railways in this country? Does he know that George Stephenson was challenged boldly and most confidently to say whether he would undertake to give his judgment that the steam engine would be able to drag a train of carriages at 10 miles an hour? And, further, he was pressed as to the possibility of eight miles an hour; and, finally, I think, whether he would guarantee that the train would go at four miles an hour. In all these questions, where strong interests are excited, the precise amount of commercial benefit to be expected will be the subject of great differences of opinion. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Let well alone." Those words are not so musical to me as they may be to younger men; because I

    45
    remember the time when, under a Conservative Government, the defence Estimates of this country for the Army and Navy, which have now reached £35,000,000, stood at £11,000,000 a year. Do not let it be supposed that I am unaware that some portion of that expense has been most warrantably and justly incurred for effecting essential improvements in the Army. But I have known more panics and alarms a great deal in the days of high Estimates than in the days of low Estimates. It is only a very few years since that we had a very extraordinary panic raised on the subject of the Navy, in days of high Estimates. So I am quite prepared for a continuance and recurrence of these panics. I believe they are states of feeling which thrive by what they feed on; and that what is true of the love of money is also true of the love of panic, sufficiently to invalidate the argument, "Let well alone." The right hon. Gentleman dwells, and I do not wonder at it, upon a Report of a distinguished Committee of Military Officers and Engineers. I think the right hon. Gentleman pushes the matter too far in saying that no distinguished Military Authorities are friendly to the project.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I did not say that.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I believe, then, that the right hon. Gentleman said a very small minority. I am sceptical about these Reports of great Military and Engineering Authorities on subjects of this kind. I am sceptical as to what they condemn from the recollection of what they have approved. There was never a more complete concurrence of Military Authorities, as far as I know, than in those Reports of great officers and engineers which led up to an expenditure of £2,000,000 at Alderney, on the most confident assurances ever delivered by man— before we ever came near the £2,000,000, and were lingering among the hundred thousands—that after we had spent that money we should close up Cherbourg, and never hear of it again as a port for military expeditions. These are not professional questions. On professional questions I have a great respect for Professional Authorities, but with regard to the amount of danger—and that distant danger—to be incurred, I do not think
    46
    that they are in any degree to be considered as the best authorities. At this moment my belief is that the people of England are not opposed to this tunnel. The question is one which does not enter into the motives and considerations of elections; but if you could get at the feelings of the sensible population of this country—and by that I do not mean only the people who agree with me, but the mass of the working population—I believe that it would be found that they look upon the opposition to the Channel Tunnel on the ground of danger as an almost preposterous opposition, and share none of those apprehensions which perplex the right hon. Gentleman. Then the right hon. Gentleman says that this a question of military power. No, Sir, it would be a question of military power if we had a land frontier with France. But we have a sea frontier with France, and the right hon. Gentleman cannot suppose, or venture to assert, that naval power does not enter into this question more largely than military power. The right hon. Gentleman points out that we have no conscription in this country. I did not expect to hear a Minister of the Crown in this country easting a longing eye on that system.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I denounced the system of conscription as strongly as any Member of this House could do. What I said was that the Military Authorities now opposed to the Channel Tunnel might, if we had the conscription, view the project without apprehension.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I regret to have misunderstood the right hon. gentleman. However, Sir, I was not aware that it was admitted in this country that the conscription was a better, a sounder, and a more solid ground for military defence than the system under which our Army is recruited. The right hon. Gentleman drew forth a lively cheer by his reference to a doubt expressed by Lord Beacons-field whether this Channel Tunnel would ever pay 1 per cent. dividend. Why, Sir, I recollect the judgment delivered by the best authorities in the world on the question of the Suez Canal. A Commission was appointed of Dutch engineers, who, from their practice in their own country, are the greatest authority on all great hydraulic questions and their results. They said that the Suez Canal

    47
    was possible, and would be useful, but it was hopeless to expect that it would ever pay 1 per cent. That is not the question. I do not ask myself what dividend the Manchester Ship Canal will pay. Some say it will pay a good dividend, while others maintain that it will not pay at all. I am not bound to protect the purse and the pocket of the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir E. Watkin), who in these matters is perfectly competent to take care of himself. The whole question for us is whether a solvent person is ready to undertake the scheme. Then the right hon. Gentleman said no arguments had been adduced in favour of the Tunnel. I think the Member for Hythe may have felt that the general arguments in this case had been pretty well exhausted on former occasions, and I should be very sorry to repeat them. I did not understand, however, that there ever was a period when the power of military concentration on the part of France in reference to England was so great as it was in the time of Napoleon, and then it proved utterly abortive. I hold my old opinion with reference to what the right hon. Gentleman has quoted, and I believe that we have invaded France ten times for once that France has invaded us. We have held the capital of France alone once, and we have entered it in conjunction with other Powers, and if there is a country which would be justified in feeling sore and apprehensive on the subject of the Channel Tunnel it is the French nation. In France there has been no apprehension. The French know that we are mainly the masters of the sea, and if we were to cease to have a prevailing command of the Channel that would, for the purpose of invasion, be fatal to our position. The question does not turn upon the Channel Tunnel in the slightest degree. The right hon. Gentleman has laboured to prove that for the transport of heavy goods, the Tunnel would only be available to a very limited extent. If so, how is it to carry the enormous heavy stores required by an invading army? The case of those who promote this project is a case resting upon general considerations which are pretty generally understood. We wish to promote the intercourse of nations. We have seen
    48
    that enormous advantage has been produced by everything which increases that intercourse. No doubt it may be true that railway communications are not sufficient to abate and neutralise active and powerful causes of hostility; but, fortunately, we have no powerful and active causes of hostility to France. We have seen the immense effects which have been produced by the Commercial Treaties with France. We see that France, although, nearly the most protective Power in the world, is almost the only country in Europe which has not during the last few years been reactionary. Whether she will always continue so I cannot undertake to prophesy. That she has not been reactionary is owing to this augmentation of intercourse. It is often said that we wish to see this intercourse augmented, and that we wish to see an unbounded number of great steamers, and the largest possible intercourse carried on. But there is a great deal more military danger in the multiplication of fast steamers and of harbours than there is in the creation of this Tunnel. I am ashamed of the attitude of this country in the face of France. I am obliged, if I meet a Frenchman, to say something of the conduct of recent Parliaments of this country in regard to the Channel Tunnel which I should be very unwilling to say in this House. I feel that we are in a position to say to France what 2,000 years ago the Spartan warrior said to the Athenian. The Athenian, referring to the frequent invasions of Attica by the Spartans, said, "Many of your dead sleep by the side of the Ilissus," and the Spartan replied, "And not one of your dead sleeps by the side of the Eurotas." There have been a, hundred Englishmen who sleep among the dead in France for one Frenchman who sleeps among the dead in England. Now, Sir, I wish to bring about a recurrence of that sound and healthy state of things between England and France which existed as to this subject 20 years ago. I admit that there has been a tremendous reaction. I admit that we have travelled some stages towards barbarism in this matter through the change of opinion that has taken place. I admit that that change is not confined to one Party or the other although the Party opposite have the, honour of claiming much the larger part

    49
    of it. I feel convinced that it will pass away. We are not in such a hurry as to think that the welfare of the country depends upon the Tunnel, and we can accordingly afford to wait. Being' asked by the hon. Member for Hythe (Sir E. Watkin) to give my opinion on the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman having forced mo into the field, I must repeat the sentiment which on every occasion I have been ready to express, and say that I believe this to be a considerable measure and a useful measure, and that the arguments opposed to it deserve neither acceptance nor respect.
    (4.40.) The House divided: Ayes 153; Noes 234.—(Div. List, No. 116.)
    Words added.
    Alain Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Second Reading put off for three months.

QUESTIONS.

  LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. BOWEN ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that on the 17th January, 1889, and 27th 1'ebruary, 1890, the Land Tax Commissioners for Banbury, Oxfordshire, obtained from Major H. C. Maul, of Horley House, Horley, two several sums of £5 12s. each, on the representation that the same were due from him to the Commissioners for Laud Tax in respect of his tenancy of Horley House and premises, the last of the two sums having been obtained by the Commissioners under a threat of distress, although the Land Tux for the said premises had been for many years redeemed, and nothing was due to the Commissioners from Major Maul in respect thereof; if he will explain why it is that, although the Commissioners have admitted this to be the case, they refuse to refund the two sums of £5 12s. each to Major Maul; and whether he will institute inquiries, and direct that the two sums of £5 12s. each be returned to Major Maul?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The facts appear to
  50
  be substantially as stated, except that inquiries have not established the allegation that a threat of distraint was made. The Land Tax Commissioners, who are appointed by Parliament by name, have been entrusted by law with the assessment and collection of the Land Tax. Neither the Inland Revenue nor the Treasury have any control over those Commissioners, or any power to interfere, so long as the fixed quota of Land Tax charged on each parish is paid over to the Crown. This has been done in the present instance, and as the Crown in no case receives any sum in excess of the quota, there is no fund out of which any re-payments could be made. The Crown has not benefited by these erroneous charges, but the other taxpayers of the parish have in consequence contributed less than their share of the parochial burden. It is not a matter for me to suggest whether or not the district Commissioners for Land Tax might see fit to make such an assessment for the present year, 1890–91, as would provide a sum in excess of the quota sufficient to repay Major Maul.

  WARLIKE STORES.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for India whether, the War Office having refused to submit to arbitration the question of prices for warlike stores, it is proposed to take any steps to obtain a decision of this House on a question which has now been pending for many years between the War Office and the Government of India?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): I do not believe it is the intention of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India to seek the assistance of the House of Commons in settling this matter.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: In consequence of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, I beg to give notice to the Secretary of State for War that I shall raise the question on the Army Estimates.

  EAST AFRICAN COMPANY AND SLAVERY.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now state precisely the attitude of the East African Company towards

  51
  slavery under the late proclamations of their Representative in the territories nominally belonging to the Sultan of Zanzibar, but really administered by the East African Company, and in any other territories which they possess or have influence over?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): The "attitude" was described in the answer of the 15th May. We have no later information.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: The answer of the 15th of May did not convey any real informatian to the House. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he is or is not possessed of precise information on the subject. I beg to give notice that I shall repeat the question.

  CAIRO OPERA HOUSE.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if it is true that, notwithstanding the extreme indebtedness of Egypt and the very small taxation paid by Europeans, the present Egyptian Government has again subsidised the Opera started by the late Khedive?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: A subvention of £4,000 is granted to the Opera. It is thought that a moderate expenditure for this purpose is directly remunerative, as making Cairo more attractive to foreigners. This is a question on which the Egyptian Government is the best judge.

  PENNY POSTAGE REVENUE.
  MR. H. WATT: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can state the surplus Revenue now derived from the Penny Postage; whether he can give an estimate of the loss which would result from the establishment of a halfpenny rate for letters throughout the United. Kingdom; and whether, provided the Government do not see their way to reduce the minimum rates of postage for letters and newspapers throughout the United Kingdom, he will consider the practicability of adopting local rates of a halfpenny for letters and one farthing for circulars, newspapers, &c., which might be calculated on a reduced limit of weight, and it is estimated would secure the carriage
  52
  of a very large amount of local letters, newspapers, &c., now carried by private service?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): I am unable to state the exact amount of the surplus Revenue derived from the penny postage, but it is safe to assume that practically the net Revenue of the Post Office is earned by the letters sent at the penny rate. Computed on the number of inland letters, according to the latest completed Return, the loss to the Revenue from the substitution of a halfpenny postage for the present penny postage rate would be about £3,100,000 a year. Moreover, that loss would not be materially lessened by any increase that might reasonably be expected to result from the reduction in the postage rate. There is no such difference in the cost of dealing with a local letter or newspaper, as distinguished from an ordinary inland letter or newspaper, as would justify a lower rate of postage for the local letter or newspaper. Besides this, a departure from the simple and highly convenient system of an uniform inland rate, would entail innumerable complications and difficulties. As regards the request for a farthing local rate for newspapers, it is right to state that the present Newspaper Post is already carried on at a serious loss to the State, and that any reduction in the rate of charge for newspapers would necessarily increase that loss.

  THE JUBILEE OF THE PENNY POST.
  MR. BRADLAUGH): I wish to ask the Postmaster General whether he will so extend the time during July for the general holiday appointed for 2nd July in celebration of the Jubilee of the Penny Post, that those employés who cannot get the holiday between 2nd July and 5th July may obtain a day's leave in lieu thereof at a later date?
  MR. RAIKES: The step suggested by the hon. Member is already under consideration. Indeed, I hope it may be practicable to extend even beyond July the time during which a day's special leave may be given in lieu of the 2nd July, and I propose very shortly issuing a Departmental Notice on the subject.

  THE GERMANS IN EAST AFRICA.
  MR. ERNEST BECKETT: I beg to ask the Under

  53
  Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether restrictions prohibiting the passage of British caravans or British traders through the northern portion of the German sphere of influence in East Africa have been issued and put in force; whether such restrictions are in contravention of Article 5 of the Berlin Act of 1885; and whether the Government propose to take any action to relieve British traders from these restrictions, if illegal, and to secure the observance of the Berlin Act for the future?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: A decree was recently issued by Major Wissmann forbidding the ingress of caravans into the German sphere behind Tanga and Pangani, on grounds connected with military operations which were then being executed; but, on the personal representation of Colonel Enan Smith, it was shortly afterwards unconditionally withdrawn.

  THE CORPORATION DESTRUCTOR.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will now communicate to the House the purport of his promised Report on the subject of the alleged emission of noisome smoke from the "Destructor" belonging to the Commissioners of Sewers of the City of London, and situated at Lett's Wharf, Lambeth; and what action does he propose to take in the matter?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I have to-day received a Report from Mr. Fletcher, one of the Inspectors of the Local Government Board, on this subject. The wharf referred to is used as a place of deposit for the contents of dustbins, market refuse, &c. After some separation by hand sorting, the combustible part of the refuse is burnt in a furnace or destructor. If this refuse were wholly burnt, Mr. Fletcher reports that there would be no smell from it; but, from the construction of the apparatus, he considers there is reason to believe that some of the sickly smelling steam and smoke, which rise from the material as heating commences before active combustion is set in, passes up the chimney. He considers that this might be remedied by the erection of a combustion chamber, which could be kept
  54
  throughout at a strong red heat, so that the gases, when led through it, would be completely burnt. The Inspector has communicated with the Deputy Engineer of the City Commissioners, who has promised that this proposal shall receive consideration. I will also communicate with the Commissioners of Sewers on the subject.

  NEWGATE.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present state of the negotiations between the Corporation of the City of London and the Government as regards the acquisition by the former of the site of Newgate Prison?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): The present state of the negotiations is that the Prison Commissioners have submitted to the City Architect a scheme to facilitate the objects which the City Authorities have in view, and at the same time not to diminish the number of cells at the disposal of the Prison Authorities. The City Architect has been furnished with an estimate of the cost of the necessary alterations, and his reply is being awaited.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: May I ask whether the sanction of this House will be asked before any final arrangement is made?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I do not know there will be any need for it.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: But is the case not on all fours with the acquisition of Clerkenwell Prison for the Parcel Post?
  MR. MATTHEWS: No; I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. I will, however, look into the matter.

  CONDEMNED ADMIRALTY MEAT.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state to the House what arrangements have been made by the Admiralty to preclude the possibility in future of any of the beef and pork which is deemed unfit for consumption on board Her Majesty's ships finding its way on board the ships of the mercantile marine; and whether such arrangements are permanent and irrevocable; and, if not,

  55
  under what circumstances alone such arrangements can be ignored or revoked?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): Circumstances wore brought to the notice of the Admiralty last year which, pointed to the possibility of meat sold as unfit for human food being brought again into the market as suitable for consumption. It was accordingly decided that in future condemned salt beef or pork should not be sold by public auction, but that it should instead be sent to soap-boilers for use in the soap-boiling trade; and it was also decided that the meat, before being sent to these firms, should be treated chemically in such a manner as to render it impossible that it should be again used for human food. These regulations are unconditional, and no departure from them is allowable, except with the direct sanction of the Board of Admiralty, and I do not conceive it to be likely that any Board of Admiralty would sanction any reversal of the present arrangement that might lead to any repetition of the abuse I have described.

  THE WESTERN AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION BILL.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the Cinder Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government have received any communications from the Australian Governments in reference to the reinstatement of Clause 8, expunged by the Select Committee, into the Western Australia Constitution Bill, and if he can state to the House the purport of such communications?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,): No communication as to its re-instatement have been received, but a representation has been made by the Government of South Australia urging the omission of Clause 8, on the ground that all the Australasian colonies should be placed on the same footing as regards immigration.

  THE NAVAL KNIGHTS OF WINDSOR.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty why the vacancies in the number of Naval Knights of Windsor are not
  56
  filled up; and whether he can inform the House how many naval officers have applied for these vacancies?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Three naval officers have applied for the vacancies in the number of Naval Knights of Windsor, but two of them only can be considered as eligible for the appointment. I have not tilled up the recent vacancies, as the reports of the visitors of the college are very unsatisfactory. In their judgement the college is not satisfying the conditions of the trust by which it is endowed. I am, therefore, considering a scheme for the better utilisation of the funds of the trust, and I do not propose in the meantime to fill up any vacancies that may occur.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Will the scheme be submitted to Parliament?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Yes, in all probability it will require a special Act of Parliament.

  WINDSOR FOREST.
  MR. LABOUGHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the authority of the Ranger of Windsor Great Park extends over the forests of Windsor and Swinley, and, if so, under what Statute; if not, whether it is by instructions from the Commissioners of Woods and Forests that the Royal keepers exercise their power to exclude the public from the green rides and open spaces in the forest; also whether he is aware that steel traps arc set in open spaces of Windsor Forest within a few score yards of public roads, and that these traps have been recently found baited with rabbit, evidently set for foxes; whether he is aware that the chickens and domestic animals of neighbouring farmers have been caught and maimed within a few yards of their homesteads; and whether the Royal keepers in setting these traps are acting under instructions from the Commissioners of Woods and Forests; and, if not, upon whose instructions they are acting?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. W. L. JACKSON,): The Ranger of Windsor Great Park has charge of the game in the Windsor Woods, including Swinley Woods. He is not appointed under any Statute. The game-keepers act under instructions from him, and not from the Commissioners of

  57
  Woods, who have no knowledge of the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member in his second question.

  THE CROMER LICENSING JUSTICES.
  MR. HENRY J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, on the 1st October, 1889, when thy Licensing Magistrates on the Bench at Cremer were Messrs. Cremer, Harbord, and Cabbell, Mr. Harbord left the Bench, applied to his colleagues Messrs. Cremer and Cabbell for a provisional licence, obtained it, and returned to the Bench; that Mr. Cabbell then loft the Bench, applied to his colleagues Messrs. Cremer and Harbord for a provisional licence, and obtained it; whether the fact of Mr. Harbord having become a licence-holder disqualified him from acting as a Licensing Magistrate; whether, for taking part in granting Mr. Cabbell's licence, he became liable to any, and what penalty; and whether the Lord Chancellor has taken, or will take, any notice of these translations of the Cromer Justices?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed that Mr. Harbord had not taken his seat on the Bench when his application was dealt with. His application was merely for a provisional licence, which is of no validity until it is confirmed. It was made in respect of an hotel proposed to be erected on property of which he was Trustee, and the plans of which had been approved at a previous meeting of the Bench. Under these circumstances I am advised that Mr. Harbord was not disqualified by this provisional licence from acting in the case of Mr. Cabbell's application, and that there has been no breach 0f the law.

  CIVIL SERVICE CLERKS-LOWER DIVISION.
  MR. J. KELLY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments with reference to attendance books are to a large extent ignored, inasmuch as the Lower Division Clerks alone are required to enter the hours at which they reach their offices; and whether it is intended that the recommendations of the Commissioners in the matter shall be carried
  58
  out only in the case of the superior officials; and, if not, whether steps will be taken forthwith to have the same rule applied to all classes throughout the Public Service?
  MR. GOSCHEN: No, Sir; the recommendations are not ignored. I have already informed the hon. Member that the reason why the Lower Division Clerks have a condition imposed on them which, up till now, is not imposed on the Upper Division, is that the Minute relating to the latter has not yet been issued. My answer to the second question is, of course, in the negative. When the Treasury Minute is issued the hon. Member will see that the Government are not unmindful of the recommendations of the Royal Commission.

  THE CONVICT BARTON.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the evidence submitted to the Coroner's Jury upon the inquest on the body of a convict, Andrew Barton, who died at the Portsmouth Convict Prison on 20th May, and to the verdict; and whether, in view of the serious allegations made against the Prison officials, it is intended to hold a public inquiry?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have not been able as yet to procure a full Report of the evidence submitted to the Coroner's Jury, but I hope shortly to have one; and in the meanwhile I have called for a full Report from the Visiting Directors, and when I receive this information I shall be in a position to judge whether further inquiry is necessary and what steps should be taken.

  GLASGOW ELECTRIC LIGHTING.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate the reason for the delay in proceeding with "The Electric Lighting Act (1882) Amendment Bill;" and whether he is aware that, upon the footing that this Bill would be proceeded with so as to enable the Board of Trade to proceed with the Electric Lighting' Provisional Order of the Corporation of Glasgow, the Corporation have withdrawn that portion of their Bill now before Parliament relating to electricity?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): The only existing cause of delay is that, when I have moved the Second Reading, objection has been taken from the Opposition side of the House. So far as I know, the Bill on its merits is entirely uncontested; it relates to a matter of administrative detail; it is the result of careful consultation with the various authorities concerned; and I gather that it has the support of the right hon. Baronet. Accordingly, I trust the right hon. Baronet will use his influence with his friends when I again move the Second Reading to-night, and at the subsequent stages; and, if so, I doubt not that the Bill will pass without further loss of time.

  BRIDGETON MEETING ON THE COMPENSATION CLAUSES.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is now satisfied that the gathering in the Mechanics' Hall at Bridgeton, to which he referred in the House before Whitsuntide, was a meeting of members of the liquor trade, and did not possess the character of what is ordinarily known as a public meeting?
  MR. RITCHIE: I am not satisfied that the gathering was of the character alleged in the question, but I have no means of ascertaining the composition of meetings at which resolutions of that kind are passed. If I attempted to do so, I should be undertaking a task which would be beyond my powers and would occupy all my time; but I may say that representations have been made as to the bogus character of this meeting and also of meetings on the other side. I have not made any inquiry into the accuracy of the statements. I ought, however, to say that since the receipt of the telegram which I read to the House I have received copies of resolutions passed at meetings held at Bridgeton, protesting strongly against the proposals of the Government; and also at a meeting held at Bridgeton Cross in the open air, in the presence, it is said, of 2,000 people, protesting against the tactics of the Liberal Party, and thanking the Government for their manly attempt to grapple with the liquor problem.
  SIR W. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentle-
  60
  man aware that at a large meeting held in Glasgow a resolution was passed condemning the surreptitious manner in which signatures are being obtained in Glasgow in favour of the Government proposals, the posters merely asking for signatures in favour of taxing liquor, promoting free education, the superannuation of the police, and the reduction of public houses, but making no mention of handing money over to the publicans?
  MR. RITCHIE: I have not heard of the petition nor of the pester, but from what the right hon. Baronet says in regard to the poster I should think it gives a pretty accurate account of the proposal of the Government.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman still consider he made the statement on good evidence?
  MR. RITCHIE: What statement?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  MITCHELSTOWN.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a statement reported to have been made by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian at Hawarden on the 28th ultimo, in the following words:—
  "At Mitchelstown I am sorry to say that one policeman was badly damaged. You cannot wonder at its happening. He was badly damaged, and I believe his life was in some danger; but he recovered, and £1,000 was, I think, the sum levied off the district to compensate him for injuries he suffered in doing an illegal act;"
  whether this statement is correct in fact whether the policeman referred to was Constable Leahy; and whether he has recovered from his injuries and has returned to his duty, or what is the state of his health at the present time?
  DR. TANNER: Before the question is answered, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has put it at the instance of the Solicitor General for Ireland—a person named Carson?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUE,): My attention has been called to the statement mentioned, which has been reported to have been made by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian. The case referred to is evidently that of Constable

  61
  Leahy. It is the fact that this constable was savagely attacked and seriously and permanently injured. It is not the case that he was doing an illegal act. He was merely acting in the proper discharge of his duty. The Grand Jury, from the evidence before them, found this to have been the case, and awarded him the compensation mentioned in respect of the serious injuries received. He has never recovered from those injuries. They disabled him from further service in the Royal Irish Constabulary, from which he had accordingly to be discharged on pension. He is at the present time a complete cripple, suffering constantly severe pain from his injuries, unable to move about without crutches, and totally disabled from following any occupation.
  DR. TANNER: Is it not the case that the Resident Magistrate who has been connected with Mitchelstown, Mr. O'Neil Segrave, has been dismissed?
  MR. FLYNN: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Coroner's Jury bi ought in a verdict of wilful murder against the constabulary?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe there was an absurd verdict returned by a Coroner's Jury, but I am not aware that it had anything to do with the injuries to Constable Leahy.

  ALLEGED RIOTTNG AT JESSORE.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State has yet received any communication from the Government of India respecting the disturbances, alleged rioting, and military occupation of districts in Jessore, Bengal; whether he can state to the House the nature of such communications; and whether he will lay them upon the Table?
  SIR J. GORST: The Secretary of State has not received any information on the subject.

  THE INDIAN POST OFFICE.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether it was with the sanction of the Secretary of State that Rule 732 of the Post Office Manual of 1881, that "No person other than a native of India can be appointed to any office in the Post Office Department," &c., has been altered
  62
  in the Post Office Manual, Vol. III. of 1889, to the Rule (now Rule 389) that "Appointments in the Post Office Department are, with certain special exceptions, reserved for natives of India," &c; whether he will state the nature of the "special exceptions," and when they were first acted upon; whether he will state the circumstances which induced this abrogation of a Rule imposed by the Secretary of State in 1872; and whether, if the alteration has been made without the knowledge of the Secretary of State, he will call for an explanation of the circumstances under which it was made?
  SIR J. GORST: The Secretary of State has no information on the point, but will cause inquiries to be made.

  "TIED HOUSES."
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will cause inquiry to be made as to the number of "tied houses" in each City, Municipal Borough, and Petty Sessional Division respectively in England and Wales?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The Inland Revenue Department has no knowledge of what houses are "tied" and what are not, as the question is one of private contracts, beyond the cognisance of the Government.

  THE RIGHTS OF BRITISH SUBJECTS IN THE COLONIES.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to the instructions issued to Australian Governors, which contain a clause to the effect that any Act passed by the Colonial Legislatures "whereby the rights of British subjects not residing in the colony may be prejudiced," shall be reserved for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure thereon, whether this Instruction has been held to include Acts, authorising the imposition of restrictions on the immigration of British subjects; and if he can say in what respects the provisions of Clause 8 in the Western Australian Constitution Bill afford any further protection of the rights of British subjects than is already provided in the instructions?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: I may point ou to my hon. Friend that the words in the Royal Instructions are—

  63
  "Any Bill of an extraordinary nature and importance, whereby our prerogative or the rights and property of our subjects not residing in the colony, or the trade and shipping of the United Kingdom and its Dependencies may be prejudiced."
  It is certainly, at least, open to question whether the words "rights and property," which are conjunctive, would cover a restriction upon immigration to which my hon. Friend refers. The introduction of Clause 8 precludes any doubt upon the subject.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Have these Acts in all cases been reserved?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Yes.

  NEWFOUNDLAND.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there are any further Papers or Correspondence relating to any relations between Great Britain and France regarding the Newfoundland Fishery Question, which can now be presented in continuation of those last presented? I should also be glad to know whether the Government can give the House any information as to the landing of French Marines on the shores of Newfoundland?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Papers down to the latest date are being brought forward for publication with the utmost possible despatch. I hope they will be in the hands of hon. Members next week. They will contain the Articles of the Treaties bearing on the questions at issue, and will fully inform the House in regard to them. Information has now been received from Newfoundland that no French armed force landed at St. George's Bay, or elsewhere. The commander of a French man-of-war landed at the wharf alone and in uniform, and requested that some of the nets might be removed, and they were lifted accordingly by their owners. The Governor says that no threat was used, and that the request was fully justified. The French have not, in any manner, interfered with fishing. No case has occurred of non-payment of taxes, though a resolution to that effect was passed by a public meeting.

  TITHE RECEIVERSHIPS.
  MR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will insert a clause in
  64
  the Tithes Bill now before Parliament, providing that when a Receiver is appointed the tithe owner shall become responsible for the proper cultivation of the lands whence the tithe so sought to be recovered is due; for the maintenance in proper repair of all building's, gates, fences, and watercourses; and, if required, take over the occupation of the lands from the occupier, making to him such payments as are provided for under the Agricultural Holdings Acts, and as are by the custom of the country made by an incoming to an outgoing tenant?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The Receiver, if appointed, will be in the position of a Receiver under the ordinary law, under which, subject to the orders of the Court, he manages land in the same way as if he were the landlord, and arranges for letting it to persons who will cultivate it properly. If buildings, gates, fences, and watercourses require to be maintained, the Court will be entitled to obtain from the Receiver the same payments under the Agricultural Holdings Act, or under the custom of the country, as if the Receiver were an ordinary landlord. It will, therefore, be quite unnecessary to insert a clause making provision for these matters.

  POSTMASTERSHIP OF BRURA.
  MR. W. ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he is aware that John Cowhey, recently appointed Postmaster at Brura, County Limerick, was twice convicted of drunkenness, once of serious assault, and was also dismissed from the employment of the Prudential Assurance Company for proceedings in connection with a policy of assurance on the life of a man named James Murphy; and whether he will institute inquiries into these allegations, and, if proved true, will remove John Cowhey from the office of Postmaster?
  MR. RAIKES: I am not aware of one or two of the statements involved in the question, and I will inquire into them; but, as at present advised, I do not consider it either necessary or desirable to deprive Mr. Cowhey of the office of Sub-Postmaster at Brura, to which I recently appointed him.

  THE SWEDISH LEPER.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the case of leprosy in a Swedish emigrant, as reported in the Liverpool Courier of 22nd May; whether the woman in question was permitted to land in and pass through England, to pass the examination of the medical emigration officers of health at Liverpool, at their survey of the Cunard steamship Cephalonia on the 17th April last, and the second inspection at Queenstown by an officer of the same department; whether it is true that the woman in question was not allowed to land by the Port Authorities in Boston, U.S.A., after inspection by their medical inspector and several eminent American scientists, who declared the case to be one of genuine leprosy; and that the Cunard Company were, in consequence, compelled to bring her back to England; if it is true that on her arrival in Liverpool she was conveyed to the Brownlow Hill Workhouse, and there examined, as reported in the Liverpool Weekly Mercury—
  "By Dr. Hope, assistant medical officer of health for the city; Dr. Hill, the Board of Trade officer; and Dr. Robertson, who entertained little doubt that the case is one of leprosy."
  And made special arrangements for her complete isolation; whether such isolation was effected on board the Cunard steamship on either passage; what has been done with the patient; and whether any steps will be taken to prevent the loathsome and infectious disease in question, as well as other contagious and infectious diseases difficult of detection, being propagated in consequence of the present system of inspection by medical Board of Trade Inspectors?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am not in possession of full particulars with regard to the case to which the hon. Member refers, but I will cause inquiry to be made into all the circumstances.
  DR. TANNER: If the right hon. Gentleman will tell me when it will be convenient to him to have the question repeated, I shall be happy to put it?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It may be necessary to refer to Boston for information, and, if so, it will be some time before I can get the information.
  DR. TANNER: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give his kind attention to the matter, as it involves a serious question of responsibility.

  MR. GARDINER, R.M.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is a fact that the business at the Cork Police Office was seriously delayed and inconvenienced on Wednesday last, the 28th ultimo, in consequence of the absence of any Local or Resident Magistrate; why Mr. Gardiner, who is appointed Resident Magistrate for the district and office in question, failed to put in an appearance; and on how many similar occasions has he been absent during the past six months?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that there was some delay in holding the Court on the date mentioned, most of the Local Magistrates having been obliged to attend a funeral. The Resident Magistrate was unable to attend, as he was engaged on duty elsewhere. During the past six months the Resident Magistrate has attended the Court (a daily one) on 113 occasions, and has been absent on 44 occasions.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to give notice that on the Estimates I shall call attention to the disgraceful conduct of this Magistrate, against whom criminal charges have been recently made, and I shall move that be be suspended from the ranks of the magistracy in Ireland.
  MR. FLYNN: IS not the right hon. Gentlemen aware that solicitors have repeatedly complained of the inconvenience caused by the non attendance of magistrates?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware of any public inconvenience having been caused. No complaints have reached me.
  DR. TANNER: Has the right hon. Gentleman made inquiry into the grave charges made against Mr. Gardiner?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  THE AQUARIUM POSTER.
  MR. KELLY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the opinion expressed by Sir John Bridge, at Bow Street, on the

  67
  22nd ultimo, to the effect that the Aquarium advertisement known as "Zæo" was more or less indecent, and ought not to be exhibited in London, and that, in such a case, the proper course was for the Police Authorities to take action under the Metropolitan Police Acts or the Indecent Advertisements Act, 1889; whether the Chief Commissioner of Police has taken or intends to take any, and if so, what action in the matter; and, if not, whether he himself intends to see that steps are at once taken to prevent the further exhibition in the streets of the advertisement in question?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir; I have seen the statements made by the Chief Magistrate. I understand that the advice finally given by him was that the matter should be allowed to drop. The Commissioner of Police concurs with this view of the matter, and it is not his intention to take any action. I do not myself intend to take steps with regard to ibis advertisement.

  BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATION.
  MR. KELLY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the number of cases, including those in the High Court with their various districts, in which Official Receivers in bankruptcy have, during the last three years, obtained summary administration orders, and the assets showed amounts of over £300; and whether many of the Official Receivers are in the constant habit of certifying cases to be under £300 when they are considerably over such amount?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am not in a position to furnish the figures asked for by the hon. Member, and it would be a work of time and trouble to obtain them from different parts of the country. I may say, however, that the total number of orders for summary jurisdiction made during the last three years was:—In 1887, 3,868; in 1888, 4,022; and in 1889, 3,819. The number of cases administered by Official Receivers and closed during 1889 was 3,814; of these the number in which the assets realised less than £300 was 3,643. The number in which they realised more than £300 was 141. In 58 of the latter cases the debtors had themselves estimated that the estates were worth
  68
  less than £300, although the Official Receivers realised more. I cannot admit that Official Receivers are in the habit of underestimating the value of debtors estates, but in many cases the estimates of debtors as to the probable value of the assets are quite untrustworthy, and the Official Receivers are compelled to form their own judgment as to their actual value.

  THE STATISTICAL DEPARTMENT OF THE CUSTOMS.
  MR. KELLY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any further definite progress has been made in the re-organisation of the Statistical Department of the Customs; and whether, seeing that this question has occupied the attention of the Treasury now for nearly three years, he can state precisely when a permanent settlement of the question may be expected?
  MR. JACKSON: I do not admit the accuracy of the statements in the question of my hon. Friend. The final Report of the Customs reached the Treasury only a short time ago. The question is now being considered, and I am not able to fix any precise date for the decision.
  MR. KELLY: Will the decision be given in one month or in three?
  MR. JACKSON: I cannot say.

  PETITIONS OF RIGHT.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Attorney General if he has refused to give his fiat to Petitions of Right presented by officers who have been deprived of the advantages promised them by different warrants, and which have been withdrawn by the Secretary of State for War and by the India Office?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I do not understand the question of the hon. Member. Every application for leave to present a Petition of Right is considered upon its merits, and, as far as I am aware, in no case has such leave been refused under the circumstances suggested by the hon. Member.

  THE CORONER FOR NORTH TYRONE.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. M'Crea, who now holds the appointment

  69
  of Coroner for North Tyrone, is also a Sub-Commissioner under the Land Act; and whether Mr. M'Crea for three-and-a half years has been habitually absent from his district, and has presided at only one inquest?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The reply to the inquiry in the first paragraph is in the affirmative. By a personal arrangement inquests in Mr. M'Crea's district have been held by the Coroner for Mid Tyrone since August, 1887, when Mr. M'Crea was appointed an Assistant Land Commissioner.

  PRISON CLERKS.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Report of the Departmental Committee, inquiring into the complaints of clerks serving in Her Majesty's prisons, has yet been issued; and, if so, when the clerks in question will be made acquainted with its contents?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The Departmental Committee have promised the Report referred to in a few days, and it will, in due course, be communicated to the clerks in question.

  THE COURSE OF BUSINESS.
  MR. SEXTON: Is it intended to proceed with the Tithe Bill from day to day?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The Government will not proceed with the Tithe Bill from day to day. The course of business we propose is this: If Mr. Speaker leaves the Chair on the Tithe Bill this evening, we shall proceed with the Education Vote to-morrow, and we hope to get it in sufficient time to enable us to take the Report of the Diplomatic and Consular Vote, which we hope to bring on about half-past 10 o'clock for the convenience of the House generally; then on Monday we intend to proceed with the Irish Land Purchase Bill. With regard to the Western Australia Bill, which is down for Monday, the Government are perfectly aware of the great importance of proceeding with it, and they will endeavour to make some arrangement for doing so which will be satisfactory.
  MR. CHILDERS: Will it be the first Order for Monday?
  MR. GOSCHEN: No; it will not be the first Order.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Employers' Liability Bill will be taken?
  MR. GOSCHEN: No decision has been come to.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman says the Irish Land Purchase Bill will be taken on Monday. Are we to understand that it will be proceeded with continuously, and that the Tithe Bill and the Publicans' Compensation Bill will not be proceeded with until the Irish Land Purchase Bill is disposed of?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Certainly not; that will be a totally erroneous inference.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say is there any intention to take the Barracks Bill to-night, and if notice will be given of the intention to take it?
  MR. GOSCHEN: It will not be taken to-night, and notice will be given when it is to be taken.
  MR. BRYCE: There are two questions I should like to have answered, first, after what hour will the Government agree not to take the Report stage of Supply voted on April 14; and also can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information as to the time when it is proposed to take the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Bill?
  MR. GOSCHEN: As to the second question, I am not now able to make any statement. As to the first question, I hope after the discussion we had the other evening- the Vote will be agreed to by half-past 10, and it will then be possible to take the Report of the Diplomatic and Consular Vote. That arrangement will, I hope, be satisfactory to hon. Gentlemen who have matters to discuss, though we have no desire to insist on the arrangement.
  MR. CAUSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board say when the Housing of the Working Classes Bill will be circulated?
  MR. RITCHIE: I hope within the next few days.
  MR. SEXTON: It may perhaps appease Irish Members, who have been somewhat taken by surprise, if the Government will say if they have made up their mind as to how long they will

  71
  proceed with the Land Purchase Bill, whether they have in view any definite period, or whether it is likely to be dropped at any time?
  MR. CONYBEARE: Have the Government yet arrived at any conclusion as to what Bills they intend to proceed with?
  MR. GOSCHEN: It may be for the convenience of hon. Members to know that we intend to proceed with the Irish Land Purchase Bill until we get the Speaker out of the Chair. I cannot make any statement as to the further stages of the Bill.

  LOCAL TAXATION.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Can the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board say when we shall have the Paper showing the division of money under the Local Taxation Accounts for the year ending March 31?
  MR. RITCHIE: I received yesterday some accounts from the Treasury; but I am not quite certain whether they are final, so as to enable me to distribute the Paper, but no time shall be lost.

  HOLYHEAD HARBOUR.
  Copy ordered—
  "Of Correspondence between the London and North Western Railway Company and the Board of Trade respecting the construction of a deep-water pier and the removal of the Platters Rocks in Holyhead Harbour."—(Mr. Kenyon.)

  NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
  John Roche, esquire, for County of Galway (East Galway Division); James Joseph Dalton, esquire, West Donegal Division of the County of Donegal.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  TITHE RENT-CHAROE RECOVERY AND REDEMPTION BILL—(No. 169.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. F. S. STEVENSON: The Instruction I have to move is based on the general principle that if by a measure of this description you confer certain tangible benefits on tithe owners, you are bound, as an act of
    72
    justice and as compensation, to confer benefits of a corresponding nature on the payers of tithe, especially if it can be shown that certain grievances, certain hardships, arc suffered by individual payers. After consultation with you, Sir, I am to some extent restricted in the scope of what it w as my intention to say, and I shall confine myself to two specific points, the question of corn averages, a most important question in the whole subject of revision, and another portion of the question which in a few minutes it will be my duty to explain, and my endeavour to devise a remedy for when we are dealing with the special rateable value clauses. My Instruction does not in any way affect the theory of tithe, whether we regard it as National property or not. If it is regarded as national property there is the more reason why the Instruction should be carried, for if it can be shown that tithe presses with unfairness upon particular individuals, although it can be shown that the nation has a certain property in the tithe or, as the President of the Board of Trade said, a reversionary interest, yet it cannot be said that a national right must needs be an individual wrong. There is no reason why the nation should exact more than it is entitled to. Crown lands may be regarded as national property, the rents going to what may be described as national purposes, yet, in bad times, and when seasons are unfavourable, those rents may be and are reduced, but by that reduction the right of the State to the rent of Crown lands is in no way impaired. So also with tithe; if Parliament decides that in certain cases the amount of tithe should be raised, should be increased or reduced, the decision of Parliament in no way affects the theory of tithe itself. The Instruction deals with one particular and specific point, that is, in the Bill before the House you endeavour to re-open the settlement of 1836; it is the bounden duty of the House not to re-open that settlement in the interest of one party only, especially bearing in mind the conditions upon which the Settlement of 1836 was based. Opinions in reference to that Settlement, at the time it was arrived at, were expressed on both sides of the House in the strongest manner by Lord J. Russell, as well as Sir Robert Peel, that one of the objects in view in the Settlement was to

    73
    remove restrictions under which agriculture was placed. If it can be shown that, owing to errors made in that settlement, owing to imperfect realisation of the conditions then existing, or which might afterwards arise, mistakes were made on considerations left out of sight; if, owing to such oversights, it can be shown that those interested in agriculture—landlords, farmers, or labourers—have suffered, and are suffering, owing to the existing state of the Tithe Law, as fixed in 1836, then it seems to me there is a clear case, on the showing of those who endeavoured to bring about a settlement, that there should be a revision of the whole question in the interest of all the parties to the settlement, not of one party only. If we look at the conditions of the Settlement of 1836, we find two conditions that do not now exist; there were high prices and cheap labour; these were the dominant features of the situation then, but exactly the reverse is the position now. Not only has a great diminution in prices taken place since that date, but we have no reason to suppose, although there may be temporary revivals in agriculture, there will ever be any reversion to anything approaching the prices that ruled in 1836. The fall has been due not to the action of Parliament but to the opening of new methods of transit, especially since 1846, when the price of wheat was 56s. a quarter. Wheat now realises less than half that price, and with the imports from the United States, from Russia, and, above all, from India, and with each successive year bringing improvements in the means of transport, there is no reason to suppose that for any considerable time prices will ever ha higher. Temporary or accidental causes may bring about a rise, but we cannot expect it will be permanent. That being the case, how do we find the condition of agriculture affected by this very serious burden imposed upon the land? If we look at the condition of agriculture now, and compare it with what it was, we see the great changes brought about by economic and other causes during the last 50 years. It is only a few years ago Sir James Caird declared—and I suppose he will be considered an authority upon agricultural matters—that it would require £10,000,000 to make the land as clean now as
    74
    it was 50 years ago. This is a serious condition of things, affecting not only owners and occupiers, but all connected directly or indirectly with the cultivation of the soil. Above all, it affects that class we all desire to see more numerous, the class of yeoman farmers, once the pride of England. One thing is perfectly certain, this class can never become so numerous as once they were, unless this heavy burden is lightened. With the fall in the price of produce the cost of labour has increased, a condition of things exactly the reverse under which the Settlement of 1836 was arrived at. Even in 1836 there was a considerable body of opinion in the country which declared that the Settlement was in the interest of tithe owners rather than of tithepayers, and reference to the Debates of that time show that the opinion found expression both among Members of the Conservative Party as well as among the Whigs, and one of the most remarkable expressions of opinion in that direction came from that Radical among Radicals, Joseph Hume, one of the last men who would have been disposed to fritter away any tithe which he regarded as national property. On more than one occasion Joseph Hume declared that no good Bill could be enacted until the Corn Laws were repealed, for they had given land and its produce an artificial value, and, anticipating the repeal of the Corn Laws, he declared that great injury would be inflicted on owners until the value of the tithe was fixed much lower than it was by the Bill then before the House. The only importance of this opinion is as coming from such a Radical Member, who might have been expected to express a view of quite a different character. It shows most clearly that even then there was an opinion that the Act of 1836 was an imperfect settlement, in the interest of the tithe owners, and not of the tithepayer. In individual cases we find that hardships are very severe indeed. As a Member from the Eastern Counties, I can speak feelingly, because a quarter of the whole tithe in England is paid in the counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, and Kent. These counties pay £1,000,000 out of the whole £4,000,000. The grievance is not confined to this part of England; it is

    75
    spread over a large area; it exists largely in Wales; it is to be found in Berks, Dorset, and other parts of the Kingdom; but I think representatives from the Eastern Counties are especially entitled to urge this grievance and to seek redress, and we claim that if the Settlement of 1836 is re-opened it should not be in the interest of one party only. Let me give the result of calculations that have been made in reference to Berkshire. Here is a computation referring to 26 farms in that county, and these farms comprise 13,000 acres. The rent derived from these 13,000 acres is £2,500, but the amount of tithe derived is £3,000. Can it be conceived that it is consistent with equity, though it may be in accordance with actual law, that a tithe 1–10th should actually become 11–6fch, that is to say, that for every 5s. of rent there should be paid 6s. in tithe? It appears to me to be a monstrous state of things, and all the more so if we look at what the tithe was really intended to be. I do not want to enter into any disquisition as to the meaning of the tithe, but etymologically it means 1–10th of the produce, and what is more it was not intended to be 1–10th of the produce developed by artificial means, but 1–10th of the produce nature actually gives; it was not intended to include 1–10th of the produce brought about by artificial means, artificial manures, and the application of all capital. You might as well exact tithe from ship owners and others engaged in industrial pursuits. Surely in the beginning it was intended that the tithe should be 1–10th of Nature's yield. As a matter of fact, it is very much the reverse of this. Experiments carried out by Sir John Lawes show the difference between the natural and the artificial produce. Sir John Lawes, by the experiments upon his model farm, has shown conclusively that in the case of wheat the natural produce is eight or nine bushels to the acre, whereas, as a matter of fact, the average yield obtained is 28 or 30 bushels. The difference between eight bushels and 28 is due to the application of capital under modern conditions of farming, and so far as the tithe as the tenth of Nature's gift is concerned, should not be taken into account. I do not dwell on that; my contention is that the settlement of 1836 presses un-
    76
    fairly in many cases, and in this revision a more equitable distribution of the burden is called for. From the theological conception of the tithe, it maybe shown the tithe should be less. I do not endorse that view, but I take it that those who adopt the high theological ground of tithe should logically follow it out. We find in the countries I have mentioned, and elsewhere, there are these grievances, but in what way does the Bill meet them? All it does is to transfer payments from tenants to owners.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must address himself to the specific Instruction and matters cognate thereto.
    MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I simply, Sir, wish to point out that my objection is based on the ground that in the Bill certain advantages are conferred upon owners of tithe, and that we are bound in duty and equity to confer corresponding advantages to payers of tithes.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's remarks were rather relative to a Second Reading Debate than to the specific points of his Instruction.
    MR. F. S. STEVENSON: The only means of redress for the grievances I complain of, the specific points for the relief of land owners, tenants, yeomen, and labourers, would be in dealing with the question of corn averages, and bringing about some solution of the difficulty by some special arrangement in relation to the special rateable value clauses. The only way in which relief can be given to the tithepayer, in addition to the revision of the corn averages, is by introducing some means whereby he could obtain redress in (he County Court, or before some other tribunal. The specific manner in which this, in our opinion, should be carried out it would be our duty to indicate by Amendments in Committee in the event of this Instruction being accepted. With regard to corn averages, that is a question upon which the House has been able to express its opinion, partly in Debate itself and partly through Committees. The question of corn averages has been the subject of a Committee's Report, and there is no adequate reason for not dealing with the question in a Bill which revises the Settlement of 1836. Of course, corn averages is a much older question than the Tithe Commutation

    77
    Act of 1836, and but for the question of tithe the question of corn averages would have but little interest for people in the rural districts. The question of tithes and the question of corn averages are inseparable, and Chambers of Agriculture all over the country have passed resolutions with reference to the latter question. One of the most serious grievances of the tithepayers would be removed if the question of corn averages were dealt with. I will not endeavour now to deal with all the grievances that arise from the present method of taking the average. There arises the question of the cost of transit, and another grievance arises from the fact that whereas in former times when prices were high a farmer sent all his corn to market, and the average was taken over all qualities, he now sends only the very best samples, and upon the corn which fetches the highest price the average is taken. Again, there are grievances connected with the practice of taking a septennial average. I admit the objections to an annual assessment, but I do not see any valid reason why it should not be possible to take a triennial average. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade will give us some explanation why it is impossible to deal with this question in the Bill, which, in the opinion of a large portion of the Committee and of many witnesses who gave evidence before that Committee, is closely and indissolubly connected with the question of tithe, and cannot be left out in a solution of the great problem raised. Last year there were Amendments proposed by the Government which seemed to go in the same direction as my Instruction indicates. The Amendments proposed by the Attorney General then showed some intention towards a certain amount of fairness as between tithe owners and tithepayers. I do not say they quite met the fair demands of the situation, but they offered far more than can be effected under the special rateable value clauses of the present Bill. One of the Amendments last year provided that the Court might, upon being satisfied on evidence, make an order for remission of tithe charge, and prevent the total amount exceeding the proceeds from the land. This covered a certain portion of the ground
    78
    occupied by my Instruction, but I look through the Bill in vain for anything having a like result. The rateable clauses will, in the opinion of those most competent to judge, prove inoperative in this regard. The new rent will, after the passing of this Bill, be simply the old rent, plus the amount paid as tithe rent-charge, and upon this will be computed the new special rateable value. It is practically impossible in 999 cases in a thousand for the tithe rent-charge, under the circumstances, to exceed the special rateable value. Therefore, to that extent, unless the clauses are amended, they will not meet the necessities of the case, and certainly will not do so to the extent of the proposals in the amended Bill of last year. On these grounds I move the Instruction of which I have given notice, and I have only been able to specify two points, for I am afraid I should not be in order if I went beyond. In moving the Instruction, I wish to point out that it is in no way an attack upon the general principle and theory of tithes; it merely implies that the question should not be dealt with in the interests of one party only. I do not mean to say that tithe owners have not suffered, but I say the question should be looked at as a whole, and the interests of all connected with agriculture should be regarded in these new proposals. Looking at the historical origin of the Act of 1836, and the conditions that have since arisen, I say it is high time to revise the Settlement, and in doing so to hold the balance equally between all parties.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to provide for an equitable revision of tithes, in accordance with the altered conditions of agriculture."—(Mr. F. S. Stevenson.)
    MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS: It becomes my duty to second the Motion, you, Sir, having, as I understand, given your ruling to the effect that the terms of the Motion I have put upon the Paper are included in the Motion of my hon. Friend. Let me say at once, as expressing the view of the people of Wales, that we have not the least wish to fritter away the tithe, or to deal with it in such a way that there shall be a permanent reduction in it as a national property, the reduction passing

    79
    into the hands of land owners. The people look to see this permanent property pass under the control of County Councils, and are not less jealous of its preservation than other members of the community. With this reservation, I certainly concur in the terms of the Resolution. The bargain of 1836 has been broken. The present Government have, within the past two years, made several attempts to break the Settlement of 1836; and the Welsh people are entitled to say, if this Settlement is to be broken, that it should be done with a due regard to every interest concerned, and by an equitable re-arrangement of the whole scheme. I do net suggest the direction in which you should proceed, but it is obvious to those who have given but a superficial study to this complicated subject, and perhaps I can claim no more, that if the bargain of 1836 once becomes to be tampered with, that involves a re-adjustment of it as a whole. Such is the scope and object of this Instruction. If you are going to transfer to landowners the immediate and primary duty no doubt intended by the Act of 1836 to pay tithe to the tithe owners making it compulsory, then surely you are invading the fundamental principle of the Act of 1836, and I hope we shall find before the Committee has finished its labours, as we have found Session after Session, that you have not approached the question in a thorough and statesmanlike manner, and if on either side Members are true to their obligations it will be found that no ingenious draftsmanship can evade the futile, unjust, and altogether unsatisfactory character of the Bill as it now stands. I will not trouble the House by again traversing the ground I went over last year, but I wish to show that support to the Instruction is quite consistent with the principle of keeping this great national property intact. We wish to relieve the undue pressure of the burden on the struggling farmer. However it may appear on the face of the Bill as the result of the transfer of payment from tenant to owner, the fluctuating value must press eventually upon the tenant, for he will have to pay the tithe in his rent. Take a small tenant farmer in Wales—I am within the mark when I say that, even assuming that the object
    80
    and motive of the Bill to be what they appear—there will still, as the Bill stands, be a pressure upon the tenant, because he will not have that claim to an abatement of rent, which I am glad to say he now gets in bad times, in proportion to the amount of his rent, because the tithe will still have to be paid. When we come to deal with the clauses referring to special rateable value, I think I shall be able to show that whatever is done for the relief of the landlord, the tenant farmer will get precious little out of that provision of the Bill. I showed last Session that, taking the whole of Wales, the due proportion of relief to tenant farmers should be £30,000 a year. That does not mean a loss to the country; it simply means the proportion of fall or rise in proportion to the condition of agriculture. Perhaps a single figure will have as much influence as long argument, and I have no wish to occupy time. If a fair reduction were made in the tithe rent-charge throughout the Kingdom, that would, amount to nearly £500,000, and to that extent would tenant farmers in various parts of the country be relieved. I ask hon. Members on either side to act up to their convictions in this matter and to support the Instruction and reasonable claim made by my hon. Friend.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The terms of the Motion of the hon. Member are very wide. I was curious when I saw the Instruction on the Paper to know in what way it was to be carried out. When the hon. Member came to consider what that Instruction really involves, he must have been frightened at the figure he had created. The hon. Gentleman has not attempted to make a speech in support of the Instruction itself: he has devoted his remarks mainly to other objects. There were, however, certain survivals in the speech that led me to think the hon. Member had intended something much larger when he placed this Instruction on the Paper. The hon. Member said he wanted a large and comprehensive re-arrangement so that the tithe should press less hardly on individuals and be more equally distributed than it is at present. Consequently, he must have had in his mini not merely a reduction of tithe in cases of hardship, but also an

    81
    increase in the tithe where the land on which it is levied has increased in value since the tithe rent-charge was fixed. I do not think, however, that any lion. Member would seriously propose a measure for increasing the tithe in defiance of the principle of the Tithe Commutation Act of 1836. I think that what the hon. Gentleman really wants is some method of dealing with what are known as "hard cases" Indeed, the hon. Gentleman suggested two definite ways in which that subject might be dealt with. First of all, he referred to the question of corn averages. That may be considered under two aspects. In the first place, there is the question whether the average should be taken over seven years or over three years or even a less extended term. To my mind, it is a matter of comparatively small importance what number of years is fixed. There is this advantage in a septennial average, namely, that it makes the payment less fluctuating, and that is an advantage to both parties in the end. I believe it would require no Instruction whatever for the Committee on this Bill to introduce, if they should think fit, a clause substituting a triennial for a septennial average. Consequently, I turn to the mode of making the Returns from which the averages are taken. That is a complicated subject. It was considered two years ago by a Select Committee, which reported against any change in the existing system in the direction that the hon. Member desires. It was proposed by several witnesses that unmarketed corn should be taken into calculation in estimating prices, but I confess I do not see how this is to be done. It is not merely a question of tail or inferior corn, for many farmers prefer to use their best corn for their stock, because it pays them better to do so than to send it to market at the prices they would obtain. Some witnesses also proposed that only first hand sales should be taken into calculation. But if either of these proposals were adopted, it would amount to such a re-opening of the system that the tithe owner would have a right to ask that it should be also considered whether the average should not be taken from the prices of other agricultural produce besides wheat, barley,
    82
    and oats. The system of taking wheat' barley, and oats in equal proportion was adopted in 1836, because it was considered that a less fluctuating average would be thus obtained than by giving a greater preponderance to any one of the three kinds of grain. Certainly, it has been proved by experience that that view was correct. That is my reply to that part of the observations of hon. Gentlemen opposite relating to corn averages. Now, let me go on to the second topic as to which hon. Gentlemen desire to see some change. The hon. Member for Suffolk said he wanted to see some more practical solution of the difficulty of dealing with those "hard cases" to which, he referred—cases where the value of land has deteriorated, since 1836, more than the value of the tithe. He wanted to see some more satisfactory solution of the case than is to be found in the special rateable value clauses— something more in the nature of the net profit proposal comprised in the Amendment placed on the Paper by the Attorney General last year. But I may say there is actually an Amendment on the Paper now, in the name of the hon. Member for Glamorganshire, to substitute a calculation of net profits for rateable value. I apprehend that it is unnecessary, therefore, for any Instruction to be moved in order to permit such an Amendment as is desired by the hon. Member to be brought forward. I would submit to the hon. Member for Suffolk that this matter could be debated under the powers the Committee at present possess. Again, there is an Amendment on the Paper suggesting that not the whole of the special rateable value should be considered, but that the tithe should' never exceed a certain proportion of it— half, or something of that kind. I do not wish the House to think that I cannot defend the proposals of the Bill as preferable to any of the suggestions brought forward; all I maintain now is that it will be competent for hon. Members to raise in Committee any question they please as to substituting a calculation of net profits for a special rateable value. So far, therefore, as this proposal is concerned, the Instruction is entirely unnecessary, and I trust the House will not be put to the trouble of a Division.
    MR. H. GARDNER: The object of the Instruction is, as I suppose, to meet the case of tithepayers who may he in any way injured by the Bill, and I desire to support it because I consider that the interest of the tithepayer has been decidedly neglected by the Government. If I had had any doubts as to the necessity of doing so on this occasion, they would have been entirely dispelled by the speech of the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade, because he twitted the Mover and Seconder of this Instruction with inconsistency, and said that no one would be bold enough to propose a general revision of tithes. Why, Sir, as I understand the Bill, that is exactly what the Government propose on the present occasion. They propose in this measure a general alteration of the Act of i836 in the interest of the tithe owner, and of the tithe owner only.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: What I said was, that no one would be bold enough to propose an increase of the tithe.
    MR. H. GARDNER: I accept the right hon. Baronet's statement, but certainly, at the time, I must have misunderstood him. In arguing the case of the corn averages the right hon. Baronet went on to say that if certain proposals made before the Committee, of which I had the honour to be a member as well as himself, had been carried, the result would have been to reduce the value of the tithe owner's property; and from that he went on to say that the tithe owner would, of necessity, have demanded that the whole question of corn averages should be inquired into. That I take to be the position taken up to-day with regard to the Bill of the Government. They have broken the Act of 1836 in the interests of the tithe owners, and have entirely neglected the interests of the tithepayers. Therefore, if I had had any doubts as to the value of the Instruction of my hon. Friend, they would have been entirely removed by the speech of the right hon. Baronet. I will endeavour, as far as possible, to keep within your ruling, Sir; but it is difficult to support the Instruction without pointing out the evils of the Bill which it is desired to get rid of. I agree—and I am sure hon. Members on this side generally agree—that tithe is national property though not in the sense in which the
    84
    President of the Board of Trade referred to it in his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill. I have heard a good deal said about frittering away the tithe, and I am certain that the hon. Member for South Glamorganshire, for moving the Instruction, will be accused of a desire to fritter away the tithe. For my part, I am as little anxious to fritter away the tithe as anyone in the Kingdom, and it is for that reason that I support the Instruction of my hon. Friend. There can be no better means of frittering away tithe than doing away with it altogether, and that must come about in the future unless some such Instruction as this is agreed to. It is well-known that where high prices for corn prevail much heath land is broken up and made arable. The Tithe Commutation Act of 1836 caught these poorer lands such as have been referred to in the Eastern Counties, and threw upon them the burden of an excessive tithe. Either that excessive tithe must be removed from the land or it will be allowed to go out of cultivation, as it is now doing in many instances. I will not weary the House by referring to those instances where land is so fully tithed that it is impossible to cultivate it with profit. But I would appeal to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, especially to country gentlemen and the friends of the farmers, to support my hon. Friend's Motion for another reason: and that is, that it was laid down in 1836 that one of the reasons why the Tithe Commutation Act of that date was passed was that there should be nothing to prevent capital being invested in land. There is not a single country gentleman or Member representing an agricultural constituency here who will not agree that in many cases tithe is paid out of the capital that has been brought into the land since the passing of the Tithe Commutation Act of 1836. The object which those who support this Instruction have in view is the same as that of a Petition which was presented to the House in August, 1885, by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture. The right hon. Gentleman presented it, not as Member for Lincolnshire, but in virtue of the justly respected position which he holds in the agricultural world. That Petition advocated the repeal of the Tithe Commutation Act—the sacred covenant

    85
    which the Instruction of my hon. Friend is supposed to attack. I hope that the rig-lit hon. Gentleman still maintains the opinions professed by him in the capacity in which he presented that Petition. I think that, as the Board of Agriculture is very much mixed up with the working of this Bill, the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman the President of that Board (Mr. Chaplin) will be of extreme value to the House, and I trust we shall have an opportunity of hearing them this evening. The Prime Minister, a few years ago, speaking of the re-valuation of tithe, stated that the revision could not be maintained by the Tory Party, because it was a matter of confiscation. I grant it would be a matter of confiscation if it could be proved that tithe rent-charge is in the form of a mortgage. It is not in the form of a mortgage. There has been no principal sum lent on which interest is paid. On the other hand, the principle of revision has always been regarded as pertaining to tithes. Before the Act of 1836 Nature herself made the adjustment, because when the crops were poor it is obvious no tithe could be obtained from the land. The principle was certainly admitted by the Act of 1836 in reference to the fluctuation in the septennial averages. I cannot, therefore, see that if this Instruction were carried out it would in any way injure the tithe rent-charge or go beyond the Act of 1836. I believe that in Essex, Suffolk, and Norfolk alone something like one-fifth of the whole tithe is paid, and it is therefore natural that we Eastern Counties Representatives should endeavour to force what we consider the just claims of our constituents in the House. All we ask for is a fair tithe, and that fair tithe would, in my opinion, be secured by the adoption of this Instruction.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: This Instruction is proposed on the ground that the present law is inequitable. I should like to ask to whom is the law inequitable? I am bound to say that, as far as the present Bill is concerned, the charge cannot be sustained that it is inequitable to the farmer. The elaborate provisions of Clause 2 are very skilfully designed to prevent the extreme hardship to farmers to which attention has been called. Under that clause it
    86
    would be quite impossible for the legitimate profit of the farmer to be touched for tithe rent-charge. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has declared that by the Act of 1836 the principle that tithe was adjustable was recognised by Parliament. Under that Act, certainly, the tithe was adjusted; but it was adjusted once for all, and it was intended that it should ever afterwards remain fixed. It would be perfectly easy, by quotations from the speeches of Lord John Russell and others to prove that this was the intention at the time. The only variation permitted was with reference to the corn averages, and this was allowed, because it was thought that a much more fixed and constant income would be given to the clery by consenting to such a variation. I should like to read a single quotation from the Report of the Poor Law Board in 1843, signed by Sir G. Cornwall Lewis, who was, I think, in Parliament at the time of the passing of the Tithe Commutation Act. The Report says—
    "It was quite clearly understood at that time that there was to be assured to the tithe owners an income as nearly as possible equivalent in real value to their then revenue, to be rendered by the provisions as to averages, independent, as far as possible, even of the fluctuations in the value of money. With this assurance of a certain revenue, the tithe owner abandoned his prospect of increased revenue from improving cultivation and rising prices of produce."
    I do not believe that the tithe rent-charge was more than 60 per cent, of the gross value of the tithe when the Act of 1836 was passed. It has been said that, since the passage of the Act of 1836, Free Trade has been established, and that, as, the result, the price of corn has greatly diminished. I should, however, be surprised to hear hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, if they are nothing else, are Free Traders, assert that the farmers have suffered, and the land has suffered, by the repeal of the Corn Laws. I should very gravely doubt whether the profit made by the landed interest, since the repeal of the Corn Laws, did not exceed any loss they may have sustained owing to the decrease in the price of corn. I claim to be a Free Trader myself, and I have every reason to believe that what I say on this point is perfectly accurate. I should like to make one other quotation. The name of Sir James

    87
    Caird has been referred to, and I should like to quote one sentence from the evidence given by him before a Committee which sat in 1881. He was asked—
    "Do you adhere to what you said, that if the old right of participation had continued with regard to tithe the annual income of the Church would now have been £2,000,000 greater than it is, and the whole of the difference has gone?"
    Sir James Caird answered: "So far as I know, I do not know where else the difference can have gone." So that positively, according to Sir James Caird, the tithe in 1881 would have been half as much again if the Act had not passed and the extra profit had gone into the pockets of the landowners. I do not believe the landowners are sufficiently dishonest to want to break the bargain made in their favour; but there are certain persons who wish to still further diminish the income of the clergy and still further enrich the landed interest. I cannot admit that the present law or the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would be in the least inequitable except to the owners of tithe. Having regard to the considerations I have tried to place before the House, we cannot look at any Amendment which is designed either by altered methods of taxing the corn averages or in any other way to diminish revenue which has already been diminished too far. This must be the position held by the vast body of Members on the other side of the House. They tell us that tithe is national property, and they will not see it frittered away. That being so, they arc obviously bound to vote with my right hon. Friend against this Instruction.
    MR. C. W. GRAY: I wish, in the first place, to say a word or two in reference to the speech which has just been made by the noble Lord. I may as well say frankly and honestly that there were not six words in that speech with which I was able to agree. The noble Lord told us, on the authority of Sir James Caird, that tithe owners had given up £2,000,000 annually, or rather had lost it, by the bargain of 1836. I have never seen that statement proved, though I have read it over and over again; and I am sure the noble Lord will forgive me for saying that he did not attempt to prove it. What we want to get the House of
    88
    Commons and the country to realise is the terribly bad position of those landlords and yeomen farmers in the Eastern Counties and other parts of England where tithe rent-charge frequently represents either the whole, or nearly the whole, annual income from the land. I am glad that, in spite of some of the articles we have seen in Radical papers, there are Members on the opposite side of the House who are willing that the difficulties I refer to should be fairly recognised provided that we do not touch the corpus of the tithe itself. On this condition I believe they will listen to reasonable proposals for the temporary relief of those extreme cases to which attention is being called? and I hope that before the Bill is passed we may make it a measure that will not only be acceptable to the tithe owners but fair to the tithepayers. I wish to draw the attention of the noble Lord (Viscount Cranborne) to the fact that if the law as it existed before the passing of the Tithe Act of 1836 had now been in operation, it would have been perfectly unnecessary for me to be now taking up the time of the House in trying to drive home the extreme grievances of the tenant farmers. If that Act were now in operation I could—not by cutting off my nose to spite my face or vice versâ, but in a rational way—prevent the tithe owner from getting money from the laud at all. Before the passing of the Commutation Act the tithe owner had a tenth of the corn and a tenth of the lambs and calves born on the farm, but he had no share whatever in the stock bought and placed on the farm. A farmer could, therefore, lay his arable lands down for grass, and had the Act of 1836 not been passed tens of thousands of acres of land in Essex that have not made one son in late years out of corn production would have been laid down for grass. We could have so manipulated our farming operations that the tithe would have been nil. How about that great sum of money which the tithe owners have lost by the bargain of 1836? This land has been paying 5s. or 6s. per acre in tithe during these years of depression, and I hope that when we touch a certain point in Committee the House will look at the subject in a fair and equitable manner. As long as it is not pro-

    89
    posed to touch the corpus of the tithe I am sanguine we shall get some relief, if it is only of a temporary nature, for these extraordinary cases. One word in reference to what is called the corn averages. I regret that the President of the Board of Trade has skated so lightly over that question. That is a very important question, and I think it would be well if the House were asked to deal with it in this Bill. I was one of the Committee who inquired into the question, and I know perfectly well that a majority of that Committee did not seem very much inclined to recommend any great re-opening of the corn average question. But I know there were practical men on the Committer who most anxiously desired a re-opening of the question; and I know there are thousands of agriculturists in the country who think that the tithe question will never be satisfactorily or fairly settled until that part of the subject is re-opened. It is an undoubted fact that about the period of the passing of the Commutation Act there was sold a great deal of cheap corn, which is now consumed at home. That class of corn does not now, therefore, have the effect of lowering the market price as it ought to have. Years ago, before our villages wore flooded with foreign corn, the inferior corn was of great marketable value. When there was a bad harvest nearly all the wheat had to go to market, but now there is a different state of things. Only the finest description of wheat is now thought fit to make into flour. With regard to the question of re-sale, it is a fact that corn is now sold 10 times over as compared with the number of times it was sold 40 or 50 years ago. At that time it was a matter of great expense for the middleman to travel about from market to market, whereas it is entirely different now; and a great deal is done in the way of re-sale, and as re-sales go on naturally the price of the corn keeps increasing. The farmer sells it to a dealer, who sells it to a third person, who "bulks" it, and then sails a large quantity at Mark Lane; and each time the corn is sold the price finds its way into the corn average, which is thus made higher than the price which the farmer gets for his corn. The question of the corn average is, no doubt, a difficult one, and I do not wonder that
    90
    the President of the Board of Trade would gladly escape the difficult task of reopening it; but it is a question that ought to be settled in a statesmanlike way. However, if I talked for half an hour longer on the subject I do not suppose I should get any nearer the point I am driving at. I think the corn average question ought to be taken into consideration before the Bill is finally disposed of, and if there is a Division on the question I shall have much pleasure in voting for the Instruction. Of course, what I am aiming at is to get relief. I am trying to whittle down the tithe temporarily, and in a fair way, in those particularly hard cases upon which I have already touched to-night.
    MR. H. FARQUHARSON: I am almost ashamed to address the House after the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Darwen (Viscount Cranborne), because if he is right I must be entirely wrong. As I understand it, it is the tithe owner and not the tithe-payer who is re opening this question. I do not know whether it will be a surprise to the noble Lord to hear that if you add 4 per cent, whenever the tithe has been above par since the Commutation Act, and if you deduct 4 per cent, whenever it has been below par, you find that the tithe owner has for every £100 of tithe received £220. From that it does not seem that the tithe owner has lost. On the contrary, I believe the tithe owner has benefited enormously by the Commutation Act. The gross produce of agriculture at the present time is greater than at the time of the commutation; but in agriculture, as in other industries, with a larger produce the profits are now smaller, and I infer that if the tithe owner were to come down and demand one-tenth of the whole produce there would be such an outcry in the country that he would get nothing at all. As to the question of corn averages, I think the President of the Board of Trade admits that there is some little grievance. He tells us it is difficult to re-arrange the corn average. I dare say it is, and, from my point of view, it is not actually necessary to re-arrange it. I think the Government might strike an average, as it were, and say, "We will give you 5 or 10 or 20 per cent, reduction." I think the matter could easily be met by some concession being

    91
    made on the principle of a general average. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that the tithepayer must remember that if the tithe were taken on beef and wool in addition to corn, the tithepayer would suffer very much. I am well aware of that; but it does seem to me that if the tithepayers cannot afford to pay tithe on corn, which has fallen so much in value, they could not pay it on wool and beef. That, I think, points to the conclusion that the tithe owners are getting more than they really ought to have. But the point I am most anxious about is the enormous loss the tithepayers have incurred by the Commutation Act in the matter of rates. When the Commutation Act was passed the old Poor Law had only just been abolished, and at that time rates were in some cases 18s. and 20s. in the £1. What the tithe owner was to receive was based on the price of corn for the last seven years, and then the amount of rates payable by him for the future was added. In the Library are the Reports of the Tithe Commissioners. In one column one sees the tithe for compensation, and in the next the amount added for rates. In some cases where the amount of tithe was £500, one sees that £300 was added in order to enable the tithe owner to pay the rates in future. I have two instances here. One is that of a parish in Norfolk. In that instance, the tithe was £215, and the addition was £123, to enable the tithe owner to pay the poor rate, which was then 11s. 6d. in the £1. Last year the rate was only 2s. Id., so that the tithepayer has to pay this enormous sum of £123 instead of £22. In the case of a parish in Hampshire, the tithe was £128, and to this £102 was added for rates. At that time the rates were 16s. in the £1; last year the rate was only 2s. 7d., making £16 instead of £102. I maintain that the tithepayers have a right to come to the Government and demand justice in this respect. The tithe owner should only receive precisely what he is called upon to pay in the way of rates, besides a fair amount of tithe. This would be a great relief in Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex. Where the tithe is found to be so oppressive is just where the poor rates are so enormously high. I quite agree that the tithe owner must live; but the tithe owner must not live
    92
    upon one class of the community only. If the Government neglect the case of the tithepayer they will be neglecting the best interests of the Church, because nothing adds more to the agitation against the Established Church than the idea that people are called upon to pay an unjust amount of tithe to the clergy of the Church of England. I hope that the Government will agree to the Instruction before the House.
    MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I understand the scope of this Instruction is now confined very much to the question of the grievances of the agricultural classes in respect to corn averages, and it is to that one point I propose to address myself. The President of the Board of Trade spoke just now of the Committee which sat two years ago, of which I had the honour to be a member, and which was appointed to deal with this question. The President of the Board of Trade has a very convenient memory with regard to what took place before the Committee. Before that Committee there was a universal complaint from farmers and agriculturists of the manner in which corn averages are taken. Then the right hon. Gentleman forgot to refer to the fact that, although our recommendations were small, nevertheless they were distinct on this point, that the provisions of the Act of 1882 should be more vigilantly enforced. Ample evidence came before the Committee to show that the officials charged with taking the corn averages did not fulfil their duty. And the Return obtained by the hon. Member for Shropshire, the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware, shows that in many markets these averages are struck on an amount of dealing which is perfectly ridiculous, probably not more than 10 per cent, of the whole amount of dealing in some special eases. This is a cause of complaint in almost every agricultural meeting. Farmers feel most deeply upon this and other grievances. The method of taking corn averages is by no means a new question. It was dealt with by the Agricultural Commission, who reported in 1882. Of that Commission the Minister of Agriculture, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the President of the Local Government Board were members.

    93
    The Commissioners recommended that the tithe rent-charge should be a fixed sum, and that it should be paid by the landlord, and that every facility should be given for its redemption. In the Bill which the Government have introduced there is no attempt whatever to deal with the first and most important of these recommendations, and the grievances of the tithepayer are left entirely untouched. There is one special grievance which has not been mentioned. It is this: that the price upon which the corn average is taken is not the price which the farmer receives. I know that in my part of the country it is the practice of the farmers to sell their corn in the autumn at a low price to the agents who go round the country They sell it in order to get the money to pay their rent. That corn is sold in the market at an enhanced price. The consequence is the farmer has to pay more than his fair share under the present system of taking averages. The price also, it should be noticed, includes the cost of transit, warehousing, insurance, and merchant's profits. None of these things are part of the produce of the soil, and, as we all know, this additional cost was never contemplated by the tithe-payer when the Tithe Commutation Act was passed, and I say they are manifestly unjust. For my part, I sincerely rejoice at the Government proposal, that landlords are in future to pay the tithe, because, if it passes, the tithe will have to be paid by the landlord out of his own pocket. When the landlord pays the money himself, and becomes aware of these grievances, he will begin to inquire to what purposes this tithe is applied, and he will find that it is applied to the purpose of the Established Church. I am confident that nothing which has been done, even by the Liberation Society, is more likely to bring about a speedy consideration of the question of the Disestablishment of the Church than this Bill. I disclaim any desire whatever to whittle down the tax. All I ask for on the part of the tithepayers is justice in the method of levying it. Whether the tithe is applied to the purposes of the Church or to secular purposes, or whether it is to be applied to education, are not at all questions before us; but of this I am confident, that to whatever purpose the tithe is applied, unless
    94
    it is levied justly and fairly, so long will it be a subject of grievance on the part of the tithepayer. And those gentlemen who are anxious to keep up the value of tithe, for whatever purpose it may be, cannot do better than assist us in endeavouring to secure that that tithe shall be levied justly and fairly, and then I am confident that tithe property will be perfectly safe.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I am sure we must all be willing that the suggestion of the hon. Member opposite, that this question should be dealt with in a scrupulous spirit of fairness, should be followed. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade put this crucial question to lion. Members, and not one of them attempted to reply toit—"Are you prepared to have such a revision of tithe rent-charge as will relieve those who are paying too much, and put an adequate portion of the burden on those who are paying too little?" A large amount of land in this country has risen enormously in rental since the Commutation Act. No one has ventured to propose that such land should be revalued, and that a higher tithe rent-charge should be put upon it. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment made this startling assertion. He said that all the produce of the farm since the Tithe Commutation Act was passed has fallen in value, and, therefore, that the owners of the land have a claim for a reduction of tithe rent-charge. Corn, it so happens, is the only produce of the farm which has fallen. Hay and straw have gone up very much. Meat has gone up 44 per cent.; dairy produce 40 per cent.; potatoes 50 per cent. I quote from Mulhal's book upon agricultural prices. The position of the tithe rent owner has been prejudiced since the passing of the Commutation Act, while the position of the landowner has become better. In 1836 the rents on titheable land were calculated at £33,000,000, and the tithe rent-charge was fixed at £4,200,000. Now rents are £45,000,000, and the tithe rent-charge is £3,200,000—a decrease of 22 per cent. But we must look still further at the equity of the case between the landowner and the tithe rent-charge owner. At the time of the Commutation Act, Daniel Whittle Harvey, a great

    95
    authority, said the enactment would put £4,000,000 into the pockets of the landowner. We know that the gross tithe was then £6,400,000, and that £2,400,000 was instantly-placed in the pockets of the landowners as the difference between the gross and net value of the tithe, all that vast sum went at once into the landowner's pocket. And since that time, as has been pointed out by quotations from Sir James Caird, the landlords have received £2,000,000 a year, which they would not have had if the old system of participation had continued, and a tithe of the produce had been taken by the tithe owner. The consequence is, that the landowner has, through the Commutation Act, profited to the amount of £4,400,000 a year at the expense of the tithe owner. With regard to the question of property, one-fourth of the tithe rent-charge is in the hands of lay holders, and must not be regarded as ecclesiastical property. We are not considering a clerical question to-day. Now, with regard to the re-assessment of the tithe rent-charge, in certain cases it must be remembered that the owner under the Commutation Act had a right to limit the tithe rent-charge to particular parts of his property, so as to relieve other portions of his estate; he had a discretion in allocating the tithe rent-charge pretty much as he liked, and so in a great many cases it is found that the land is heavily tithed in some places and very lightly tithed in others; yet it is now argued that, although this arrangement was made by his own action, the land owner is to receive relief in the case of the heavier tithe without any adequate increase being put upon the land that has been lightly tithed. The lion. Member below me has said that a deduction of 5 per cent, or 6 per cent, ought to be made all round. Does the hon. Member know what that really means? It means that £200,000 a year on the commutation value shall be handed over to the land owner, or if we capitalise the £200,000 a year that a capital value of somethinglike £6,000,000, on consideration of this measure of justice being allowed to pass, shall be paid to him. I, for one, repudiate such a suggestion, and I say that the land owners generally do not claim so inordinate an amount as the condition
    96
    of passingan act of justice A good dealhas been said about corn averages, and, although I do not wish to go much into detail on this question, I desire to point out how some of the suggestions made before the Corn Average Committee would raise, and not lower, the averages. We find that oats form a very small portion of the Returns compared to what are sold, and it is in evidence that if the Returns of oats were properly made the tithe rent-charge would be considerably raised. Again, it was suggested that we should not take the market price, but rather the value of the corn on the farms. But there are two objections to this: the first is that if the farm value were taken that would not be the market price, and the tithe rent-charges were commuted into the market price of corn; and the other is, that the best corn is not sent into the market. The best corn is the seed corn, and that corn never comes into the calculation. Mr. Pell, who is a good authority, informed us that if the seed corn were taken into the averages, the tithe rent-charge would be very largely increased. Therefore, those who desire that the whole of the corn produced in England should be taken into consideration in striking the averages, and not merely the corn sold in the market, are making a proposal that would raise the corn average instead of lowering it. These are some of the reasons why it seems to me to be impossible to accept the Instruction of the hon. Member opposite. Nevertheless, I should have no hesitation in welcoming, if it could be carried out, a re-consideration of the whole question, and I am satisfied that the tithe rent-charge owners would be able to make out so strong ease in their own favour, that a Parliament would be obliged, as a simple matter of justice, to raise, by a very considerable percentage, the amount of the tithe rent-charge throughout the Kingdom.
    MR. STUART RENDEL: I believe I am representing the opinion of the great majority of the Welsh Members when I say that they sympathise with this Instruction. We do this in an honest and sincere way, because we are not so greatly affected and interested as England is in this matter. The anomalies, which

    97
    form a grave feature of this tithe question, and which are touched by this Instruction, are bad enough in Wales, but are less felt in the Principality than in other parts of the Kingdom. Nevertheless, Wales is in sympathy with this Instruction, because we feel that we are responsible for the introduction of this measure—that if it were not for Wales there would have been no Bill of this nature now before the House; so it is we who are the unfortunate cause of the stereotyping, and giving further sanction in life to the worst anomalies of tithe, and so bringing upon the English farmers of the Eastern Counties a grievous injury which they had done nothing to provoke or deserve. It is on this ground our goodwill is given to this Instruction. The fact is, that the Government of the farmers' friends love the Welsh clergy better than they do the English agriculturists, and that is the main reason why they are endeavouring to carry this measure. We Welsh Members feel that we are bound to vote for this Instruction, because unless it be carried the measure is one that will aggravate the situation in Wales, without redressing the crying grievances in England. The Welsh people are lovers of justice, and they believe it to be a most unreasonable thing to attempt to make a tithe measure a measure of police, without, at the same time, touching any of the admitted inequalities and inequities in the incidence of tithe, even though Wales suffers, comparatively speaking, less than England from such inequalities. At the same time, Welshmen cannot favour a deliberate attempt to whittle away the property in tithe, such as that which the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Gray) frankly avowed.
    MR. GRAY: I only said temporarily.
    MR. STUART RENDEL: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman make that correction, because there is necessarily a great difference in principle between a mere temporary abatement, such as a fair landlord might make under exceptional circumstances in rent, and any fixed reduction of a general character. We do not propose that the national property in tithe should be managed on principles less reasonable and just than the property of private individuals. But I fear that the feeling we have on the
    98
    subject of tithe extends far beyond the scope of this Instruction, and we earnestly hoped for opportunities of expressing our opinion in some other Instructions upon the Paper which express our particular views. Rumours have reached us which are unfavourable to our hopes in this direction. This will not affect the opposition which the Welsh Members feel it to be their duty to offer to this Bill at every stage and on every possible opportunity. We support this Instruction because we feel that the Government are sharpening the law, adding fresh terrors to it, and creating new and unheard-of liabilities by a measure for the collection of tithe in Wales without touching even with their little finger the most extravagant and intolerable grievances in the incidence of tithe The passing into law of the Bill as it stands would simply have the effect of creating further and more extended trouble in Wales, and in causing that trouble, in all probability, to extend into England; and all this even without that scant measure of compensation and redress of anomalies for the agricultural interest which might at least have been looked for from the framers of the Bill, who have arrogated to themselves so unjustly the special title of the Farmers' Friends.
    MR. H. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I desire to offer only a very few observations, and will not detain the House more than a moment or two in so doing. I believe it is only by a re-valuation that the ultimate solution of this problem can be arrived at. I could not support the Instruction on the ground on which it has been moved, because the effect of it would be to wreck this Bill, and perhaps the Government also; but inasmuch as I understand that, according to the ruling of the Chair, the Instruction will apply only to a revision of the corn averages, I should be inclined to support it upon that understanding.
    MR. J. BRYN ROBERTS: I think there ought to be some modification of the settlement of 1836. We find that in many cases the burden of the tithe is so great that it is driving the land out of cultivation. I hold that it is absolutely necessary there should be some re-

    99
    arrangement. We are told that the rearrangement would only affect a few tenants. But supposing that the present system, instead of injuriously affecting a few tenants affected the entire community, it would be at once felt that, in the interests of public order, a re-settlement was absolutely necessary. If the settlement arrived at has operated in particular cases so as to ruin certain agriculturists, surely in regard to such cases a necessity is made out for revision. There is another reason why I feel it almost impossible to vote against this Instruction; and it is that if this Bill is passed in its present form, as it possibly may be, those who are now suffering any hardships with respect to tithe will be able to obtain no redress. The only opportunity of securing such redress is by taking advantage of this Bill; and if that chance is allowed to go by, another opportunity is not likely again to occur; and, therefore, I feel it impossible to vote against any Instruction which will afford an opportunity of extending the scope of the Bill in the interests of those who are now suffering hardships from the incidence of the tithe. In supporting this Instruction we are simply giving an opportunity of discussing in Committee these grievances; we are not pledging ourselves to the adoption of any particular policy in regard to them. With regard to the question of corn averages I cannot altogether agree with what fell from the hon. Member for the Maldon Division of Essex. He pointed out with considerable force that, owing to the immense reduction in the price of corn, only the best corn now goes to market. That is so; but, on the other hand, the corn could be quite as profitably used on the farm. Again, at the time of the Tithe Commutation Act, the inferior as well as the best corn was readily sold on the market, whereas only the best corn is now sold. As to the question of re-sales, I quite agree that very often these resales are brought under consideration in fixing the average price, and some corn may be sold over and over again in the markets from which the Returns are made. But that fact in itself does not prove the necessity of a revision of the system. It is necessary to prove that this state of things did not exist at the
    100
    time of the passing of the Tithe Commutation Act. The hon. Member for the Launceston Division has made a very different point. He has pointed out that the best corn is not now sent to market, as it is used as seed corn. But that does not affect the question at all: I believe that at the time the Tithe Commutation Act was passed, the best corn was not sent to market, and that the averages were fixed on the value of the corn that was sent. The hon. Member for the Oswestry Division has suggested that the reduction of 5 per cent, for the purposes of collection amounts in the aggregate to £200,000 a year, and that the capital value is something like £2,000,000. But if, as he suggests, that is a large sum for the clergy to be called upon to pay, surely it is an equally large amount to take out of the pockets of starving farmers who are absolutely unable to make any profit whatsoever out of the land. I think that that argument was a very weak one indeed.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): I think that the time has now arrived when we may take a Division and make some progress. I have been challenged with regard to a Petition I have presented to the House on this subject, but, without referring in any way to the terms of the prayer of that Petition, I repudiate any responsibility for it. It is the common practice of Members to present Petitions, with the prayers of which they do not in any way identify themselves. One of my hon. Friends has spoken of the great hardships of tenant farmers under the present condition of agriculture, and has expressed his regret that there should be nothing to relieve their condition in the present Bill. I cannot help thinking that, as far as the tenant farmers of this country are concerned, their position is greatly exaggerated. Nobody denies that there has been a long period of agricultural depression; bat, then, the rents of farmers have been reduced, and in any cases where the tenants paid tithe, the first representation to the landlord on the question of reduction of rent always has been that he should pay the tithe himself. I speak with some personal experience on this matter. It is true

    101
    I admit, that there may be considerable hardship in the present state of things as regards landowners and yeomen who cultivate their own lands, but I confess I am not able to follow my hon. Friends in the methods by which they propose to relieve them from the difficulties under which they labour at present. By adopting the proposed Instruction I doubt very much whether they will not be biking a step which, so far from lightening those difficulties, will have a precisely opposite effect. If the question of corn averages be re-opened in one direction against the tithe owner, surely it will be somewhat difficult, with fairness, to refuse to listen to appeals in other directions which may be in favour of the tithe owner. I admit that, if the calculation were made upon wheat alone, the position of the tithe payer would be considerably benefited. If wheat alone at the present moment had been taken, the £100 of tithe rent-charge in 1836 would now be worth £59 13s. Supposing, on the other hand, it had been based on meat alone, the £100 tithe rent-charge in 1836 would now be £133. Supposing wheat and meat had been taken together, the tithe then would be £96 6s., as compared with £78 10s., the actual average at the present time. Or it might be taken upon wheat, meat, and barley and oats as well, and the position then would be that it would be worth £93 6s. instead (of £78 10s. These are matters which deserve very serious consideration. Moreover, the Instruction is so wide in its terms that it is not confined by any means to corn averages, and I submit it is a question which hon. Gentlemen should consider whether they may not rather be defeating instead of helping the very interest they desire to support by voting for the Instruction now under the consideration of the House.
    MR. C. ACLAND: I think the hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House ought not to be left without reply. I under stood him to say there was great reason for those who called for a revision of tithe to be cautious in the extent to which they urged their claim; and I gathered from what he said that it might be proved, especially from figures which he brought before us, which are interesting no doubt, and very applicable,
    102
    that the result of the revision of tithe might be that the tithe payers generally through the country might suffer very considerably by a general revision of tithe all round. Very likely that might be true; but what the right hon. Gentleman did not do was this: he entirely failed, as far as I can gather, to prove that, if a revision of tithe took place in the direction asked for by Members representing the East of England, such a revision would entitle the tithe owners in other parts of England to claim that the assessment of tithes should be revised in their favour. The claim was pressed upon the House with very strong argument, very good reason, and in a moderate manner by the hon. Gentleman who moved this Instruction, and also by the hon. Member for Essex, and by the hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House, the Member for Maldon. I understand their point to be this: that the condition of agriculture at present prevailing in districts represented by them are so widely different from what they were at the time when the tithe assessment was originally made, that they would have a fair claim for a revision. The President of the Board of Trade, in his speech introducing the Bill, I think, admitted that tithe is national property. If that admission holds good, I think it will be at once allowed that, supposing we can prove that the amount claimed in the shape of tithe from agricultural produce is unduly large in any part of England, the claim ought to be moderated. Undoubtedly, if there prevail a lasting and continued sense of unfairness, a sense that the settlement under which tithe payers are holding their farms or estates is unfair, an expression of that feeling is certain to find voice in this House, sooner or later, to obtain redress. I contend that, while the hon. Gentlemen who have already spoken, representing districts in the East of England, are in a position to make out their case, and are able to tell us that the conditions of agriculture have so much changed since the year 1836, that they are entitled to a remission of the tithe in the interest of the tithepayer rather than the tithe owner, members from other parts of England, certainly I from the West, should be prepared to say that we can hold out our

    103
    case as tithepayers as against the tithe owners, and we can resist any claim urged by the tithe owner in favour of a revision of tithe in his interest. Undoubtedly, at the time when the assessment of old tithe was made under the Act of 1836, corn, the staple product of the Eastern Counties of England, and, of course, of certain other districts, was a much more important commodity in the English market than it is now. The production of corn by the English farmer was a very much more important part of agriculture, and the amount produced by him was very much larger than it is now. It may be that in other parts of England the same or any similar change has not taken place in agriculture. I think such change would have to be proved before it could be said that the tithe owner had a fair claim to revision in his interest of the assessment of the tithe. A great deal has been said about the subject of corn averages. I must confess that, for my part, I am unable to take the view which has been expressed with reference to corn averages by some Members who have supported this Instruction. I was a Member of the Committee which sat some years ago, and I quite concurred in the recommendation that the law with regard to the taking of corn averages ought to be more strictly enforced. I believe, myself, that the arrangements under which the averages are taken is an equitable arrangement if it is carried out properly, and no change, so far as I can make out, was advocated, or even suggested, by any of the witnesses who came before that Committee which would materially alter the position of the tithepayer. As I understand, the actual state of the facts is this: In the year 1836, when the assessment had to be made before the commutation of tithe, some adequate measure of the purchasing value of a sum of money, which was to represent the tithe for the future, had to be found, and that was found in the corn averages which were at that time, and had been long before, taken in several different market towns of England. I believe that a great deal of the complaint that has been alluded to by the hon. Member for the Maldon Division of Essex, and some others, that the corn averages do not fairly represent what the tithe ought to be is grounded on the
    104
    misapprehension that it is designed to take tithe of corn and not tithe of general produce. Every parish assessed itself upon its own general produce, whether the produce was corn or agricultural produce of many kinds; and, although the assessment was felt to be a compromise, it was only to be variable according to the septennial average. If you claim that tithe ought to be revised in the interest of the tithe owner in other districts than corn districts you have to prove that the condition of agriculture in those other districts has so changed since the parishes assessed themselves that the assessment does not hold good. I am not prepared to admit that the condition of agriculture in those districts has changed. It is only in the corn producing districts of England, I believe, that a revision of the tithe will have any serious effect. I do not wish to see the tithes, as national property, whittled away; but if they are to be the source of perpetual grievance, I do not think the House will be prepared to long resist demands clearly made for a revision such as will lead to the contented payment of what has been called a tax. I think it is an open question whether the measure of the purchasing value of the tithe fixed in 1836 still remains the best possible measure, and whether other articles of produce besides corn ought not to be included in the framing of a, measure of value. Undoubtedly, in 1836T corn was the staple of the agricultural markets of England. That has now ceased to be the case, and you now have increasing amounts of dairy produce coming into the markets every year. To arrive at the real purchasing value of the tithe I think it is right that we should go carefully into the question of whether we cannot arrive at a more equitable and less variable system by taking into consideration other articles of produce. I think the Instruction which has been moved covers that ground; and as we are dealing with the tithe, I think the opportunity is a fitting one, and I shall support the Instruction. I am not anxious for a general revision of the tithe, but I am content to support the claims of those Members who represent the losing districts, and who say that they should be placed in a more fair position than that they at present occupy.
    MR. BOWEN ROWLANDS: Unless better arguments against this Instruction can be given than some of those which we have heard from the Benches opposite, I shall certainly vote for it; but I must guard myself and my constituency as to future action, especially having regard to the light in which the subject is regarded in Wales. The speech of the Minister for Agriculture I look upon as holding out to us a most tempting inducement to support the Instruction, because, unless I misunderstand him, he said that it was well within the bounds of reasonable probability that if the corn averages were re-opened the general average of the paid on corn would be likely to be increased. It is well-known that the Welsh Liberal Members—who are nearly the whole of the Members from Wales—and the Welsh people look upon tithe as national property, and think that every effort should be made to conserve it, and, therefore, they desire to do all they can to prevent anything —whether Instruction, Amendment, or Bill—which would have a tendency to fritter it away or diminish its entire value. Whilst reserving to myself the fullest liberty of action in the event of future legislation, I cannot help thinking that if there are hardships in some districts, it would be unjust to refuse to recognise, by voting for the Instruction, that those cases should be dealt with in some way. The Mover has framed the Instruction widely, having confidence in the after-action of the Committee, and so desires to leave it unfettered; while, at the same time, be gives a general sketch of the existence of those grievances which call for alleviation. There are two classes on whom these grievances are said to press. One class is the landowners, though I confess I am not particularly concerned with their special hardships, which are more than compensated for by the benefits Providence has conferred upon them; but if there is a grievance in their case which would come continually before the House it ought to be dealt with. The other class is that of yeomen and tenant farmers, and in their case I cannot but feel that any hardship they may meet with under the present system is a fair
    106
    and proper subject for the consideration of the Committee. I rose simply to express the grounds upon which I think it right to support the Instruction, and to say that I would not do so if I thought its effect would be to bring about a permanent diminution of the tithe property, which I hops later on will be made available for purposes more strictly national, in the broad sense of the word, than at present is the case.
    MR. JEFFREYS: I desire to point out what would be the effect of the carrying of the Instruction. We should obstruct the passage of the Bill in order to provide for a general revision of tithe, and although the tithe would be reduced in a few hard cases in Essex, Sussex, and Berkshire, and in very few instances in Hampshire, yet in the great majority of cases it would be increased, and those who are interested in agriculture ought to be warned that in this way great hardship would be caused in the North and in the Midlands. On some corn land the tithe is exceptionally high, but on grass land it is exceptionally low, and if the tithe is re-adjusted in the one case, it will have to be re-adjusted in the other. At the time of the Tithe Commutation Act, corn land was the best land in England, and grass land was not worth so much, and in the present day, as a consequence, a great deal of grass land which lets at £3 an acre only pays 1s. an acre in tithe. If we are to have an equitable revision of tithe it will only be fair if we reduce the tithe in the corn-growing counties, like Essex, we should raise it in those counties where 1s. tithe is paid as against £3 rent. I do not see how we could have an equitable revision unless something of that kind were done. I would remind the House that the actual tithe is not such a large amount as appears to be generally assumed. Throughout the whole of England and Wales the commutation value of the tithe was only about £4,000,000, and within the last seven years it has been reduced to a little over £3,000,000 by means of the septennial averages. Every £100 of tithe has decreased since 1883 from £100 to £78, a very large decrease. The rateable value of agricultural property in England and Wales has been estimated

    107
    at £140,000,000, and, therefore, the tithe of £3,000,000 cannot be considered to be a very great burden, although I admit that there are individual cases of hardship. But if the hon. Member who moves the Instruction wishes to remove those hard cases where the tithe exceeds the rateable value, let him turn his attention to the second clause of the Bill. I believe that clause will be practically useless, and that, though it appears to give a certain remission, there are no instances where it will take effect; and I maintain that if the hon. Gentleman opposite wishes to give any relief to the struggling agriculturalist in Essex and elsewhere, he should support some Amendment by means of which, when the tithe exceeds the rateable value of the land, part of it may be remitted. I think that would be an intelligible course, and one which would give relief to the struggling agriculturalist. I would also point out that although at present grass land in England is very valuable, and corn land does not pay, yet In 30 or 40 years the whole system may be changed and reversed. We may not have so much corn imported, and our corn land may rise in value, and then we should want another revision of the tithe. Then the whole of this agitation would be repeated, and another change would take place. I think there is no finality about this proposal, and though I am an agriculturalist myself, I shall vote against any general provision for re-opening the question in this way. As to the septennial averages, I would not do away with that system at present, seeing that we are now getting into the years of low prices. In the interest of all agriculturalists I would say, "Now that we are getting to low years let us keep to septennial averages." The hon. Member for Suffolk has proposed this Instruction as though it would be a great boon to agriculturalists generally; but I, for one agriculturalist, believe that it would prove quite the reverse.
    MR. CHANNING: As a Representative of a Midland County Division I may, perhaps, be permitted to take part in this discussion. The hon. Member for Hampshire has referred to the result of carrying this
    108
    Instruction, and has urged that it would be fatal to the Bill. I imagine the result would be to initiate something like the course adopted under the Local Government Act, by which Commissioners were appointed to deal with the relations of funds between boroughs and counties. Obviously the whole question of revision would be one to be dealt with by Commissioners in the most careful way, and with the assistance of experts; but to meet the Motion by a contention of that character is, I think, unreasonable. All on this side of the House are agreed in supporting the principle that tithe is essentially a local property. [Opposition cries of "No."] We all agree that it is a National property, but we think it should be devoted to local uses. That is one of the reasons why I impress on the House the desirability of not passing this bald and immature measure without considering the whole question of the incidence of tithe and the division of tithe among localities. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture dealt with the Debate as if this were a very trivial matter. I would refer very briefly to the portion of his speech in which he resented the reference by my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. H. Gardner) to the well-known Petition presented by the right hon. Gentleman to the House in 1885. Of course, no man of sense would pin the President of the Board of Agriculture to all the statements of a Petition handed in in his name. But, although the right hon. Gentleman denies responsibility for the Petition, he did not repudiate its propositions. Those propositions, though they relate to a period six years ago, are of weight even now, when agriculture is beginning to raise itself in some sort from the depression to which it has so long been subjected. I will just quote these words of the Petition:—
    "That when in 1836 the tithe of the produce was commuted into a charge upon the land the circumstances of food-producing were altogether different from the present; that English corn was then protected by a duty on foreign corn," but "on the other hand, the cost of agricultural labour has very greatly increased since 1836, and tithe owners, in consequence of the commutation, escape the payment of an additional 50 to 100 per cent, on the expense of getting the 10th part of the produce from the

    109
    field through the various necessary processes to market."
    But the passage to which I would draw special attention is the following:—
    "That many instances can be given of land being now let at a gross rent of the value of the tithe rent-charge only, while many thousands of acres are out of cultivation altogether, and the large number of working men formerly employed thereon have been driven away to increase the crowds of destitute poor in our towns; that it is, therefore, necessary, in order to ensure the continual production of food in England, that this Act should he repealed, and a re-valuation made."
    I venture to say that these propositions will hardly be denied by the President of the Board of Agriculture before his constituents in the Sleaford Division. I do not know whether this Instruction has been subjected to the fiery eloquence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as one or two of the Instructions on the Allotments Bill did. I do not understand that we on this side of the House are charged with raising a question which is either irrelevant to the important Bill we are discussing or a subject which will not have to be dealt with at some future time. Although the origin of the Bill has been attributed to the heavy burden of the tithe in Wales being resented on religious grounds by the Welsh Dissenters, this should not be viewed merely as a Welsh question. The question is one which materially affects the agricultural interests in English counties, and it ought to be dealt with also from that point of view. While, as a Radical Member, I, of course, hold most strongly that tithe is national property, I do not agree with some of my hon. Friends that on that account the quantity of the tithe should be absolutely unalterable. Whether we are to have a Tithe Fund for the maintenance of ecclesiastical establishments, or whether it is to be applied to other purposes in the future, the question whether the incidence of the tithe is fair and just in relation to agricultural produce is an essential one which cannot be shirked, but must be honestly faced in considering whether it is a national property, which the nation can legally enforce and retain. It is also desirable to consider how far it is consistent with public interest, and the interests of a great industry in the country, that a share of the
    110
    value of the products of that industry should be impounded for any special purpose, ecclesiastical or secular, which is too large for that industry to bear. The contrast in the prices of the special articles on which tithe is taken between now and 1836 is very striking. I do not at all agree with the hon. Member for Hampshire that if we go in for revision, it will mean the putting on of tithe in places where it has been fixed at a specially low figure, nor do I agree with the President of the Board of Trade, who, in his speech on the SECOND READING, contended that if we enter upon anything like revision it will be necessary or just that tithe should be placed on other articles than it is placed at present. In the Debate on the Second Reading the President of the Board of Trade said that if the value of the land was more than 22 per cent, the tithe would really represent a heavier burden on the land owner and the agricultural interest than could be borne. In his evidence before the Committee on Trade and Agriculture Sir James Caird said that the fall in the income of the landowners of the country varied in different districts from 25 to 60 per cent.; and of course every one familiar with agriculture knows that the highest losses have been just in those counties where the burden of the tithe is greatest. According to Sir James Caird, the occupiers have lost more than 60 per cent.; he put the annual loss to the landowners at £20,000,000, and the loss to the tenants at another £20,000,000. What was one of the main objects of the Bill of 1836? Sir Robert Peel said the object was to get a fixed money payment in lieu of tithe, and thus put an end to the discouragement to agricultural improvement. It is important that we should keep in view whether the maintenance of tithe is really not in some counties operating to produce just the result which Sir Robert Peel said the Bill of 183b was intended to do away with. It was recently held by Vice-Chancellor Bacon that the Act of 1836 did not alter the essential character of the tithe, which was a right to receive a proportionate share of the produce of the land. We may be told that this difficulty is met by the Government proposal with regard to the special rateable value. If the

    111
    Government had adhered to and amplified the proposal by the Attorney General last year when the Tithe Bill was in its most critical position—in the agonies of death, in fact—parhaps we might have got some substantial relief. The Amendments of the Attorney General would have gone far towards creating a Land Arbitration Court—a body which should bring the question of rent and tithe into an equitable relation to the quantity and the value of the produce of the land. I venture to say that the proposals with regard to the special rateable value are absolutely illusory, and will give no practical relief to the agricultural interest. I may be told that this is not a tenant's question, but I maintain that it is perfectly analogous to the question of agricultural improvements. In those counties where the tithe is high its amount operates to prevent generous landlords from giving such a revision of rent as they would otherwise grant. It also operates to check unduly the return of a share of the rent in the form of those first-class improvements which are needed by agriculturists all over the country. I will simply refer, in conclusion, to what I said in the first instance, namely, that this Instruction is not an impracticable suggestion. It is rather a suggestion of a most practicable character. If the President of the Local Government Board were here he would remember the long and anxious Debates on the Local Government Bill with regard to the financial adjustments of that measure. I contend that this is an exactlyanalogous question. Those who are acquainted with agriculture know that the tithe is a hindrance and a check to agricultural improvement. It is, however, a question of profound difficulty, and one which requires the most careful handling by experts. It is just such a question as that which was finally referred to the Commissioners under the Local Government Act. Holding these views I most heartily support the Instruction which has been moved by my hon. Friend.
    SIR F. FITZ WYGRAM: I cannot see any need for re-valuation, nor can I see any great difficulty in settling the matter on a fair basis. Tithe has always represented a certain percentage
    112
    of the annual value of the land. In some cases it was high, in some cases it was low—in some cases it was very low. What I would suggest would be that at the present day tithe should be taken at the same percentage on the present annual value of the land, as ascertained by the rent, as it bore to the value of the land in 1836. That seems to me a perfectly fair proposal.
    MR. JASPER MORE: As I moved for the Committee on Corn Averages and have been Chairman of the Committee I wish to state my impression of the question. I believe the present system of corn averag-es, owing to the re-sales, raises the value of the averages 3 per cent, beyond the average price at which the farmers sell their grain. I was struck with the fact that no return whatever was made from the Birmingham. Corn Market. I went there and found about 200 dealers and only two farmers. The dealers declined to make a return of corn sales because they were unanimously of opinion that the re-sales raised the average of tithe 3 per cent., in which, from the evidence laid before the Committee, I agreed. At the same time I wish to qualify that statement with the opinion that the 3 per cent, is not maintained now. The curious result of this Committee has been to largely increase the amount of corn returned; as this large amount is owing to re-sales, returned six times over in Mark Lane alone, the result is that the market appears to be so flooded with grain that the price is knocked down, and the average consequently is depreciated. I wish to draw attention to the fact that revision of tithe is supposed to be both the law and the practice in Ireland at the present day, as far as lay tithe is concerned. I have instances from the Landlords' Association of tithes being revised this year, but as I am informed an appeal is pending on the subject, it is not clear exactly what the law is. Instead of introducing other products of land into the averages, as is the Scotch system, I would advise making the tithe a fixed charge, as was done in Ireland. Then the fixed charge is made at 75, which the Landlords' Association now complain of as too high. I was struck at the omission in the speech of the President

    113
    of the Board of Agriculture to the often quoted remark of his distinguished Colleague, Sir James Caird, as to the £2,000,000 he said the landlords have profited by the tithe commutation. I think that so great a mistake could hardly have been made by any man on the question. He must have included the growing tithe, which was excluded by the Act of 1836. I challenged Sir James Caird on the subject at a meeting of the Central farmers' Club in this Metropolis. It might be unfair to state from recollection his reply, but I well remember he said that remark was made many years ago, and he also referred to the statements he had made as to the landlords having lost £50,000,000 by agricultural depression. I feel we ought to have this Instruction more clearly defined. If it means that the corn averages are taken incorrectly, then I cannot oppose it. If, however, it is an Instruction in favour of a general revision, then my duty to my constituents obliges me to oppose it. I sympathise with the men in the Eastern Counties, and thoroughly understand that every Eastern County Member wishes for a revision of tithe, but if there is a general re-valuation, the consequence will undoubtedly be that whilst the tithe in the Eastern Counties will go down, the tithes in the Midland district will go up. The farmers in the Midlands wish things to remain as they are. I would suggest, however, that if a universal average is taken, the road to it should be gradual, that there should be a tithe taken on a six years produce, then On five, then on four, then on three.
    SIR W. BARTTELOT: I desire to offer a few observations on this very important question. We have heard a great deal to-night with regard to the present state of agriculture, and no one can deny that many of the statements made have shown that in certain classes of land the tithe now charged is much higher in comparison than it was formerly. The great question for the right hon. Gentleman to consider is whether it is fair, in the altered circumstances of the present day, that things should remain as they were settled under very different circumstances in the year 1836. We all remember that up to the year 1835, when the new Poor Law was passed,
    114
    the poor rate was enormously high, and that the tithe was calculated accordingly. The poor rate at this present moment is very low in comparison, and that is a circumstance which has been up to the present time very much in favour of the tithe owner, much more so than of the tithepayer. Then I would say one other thing, and it is this, there can be no doubt that the alteration which took place consequent upon the repeal of the Corn Laws has changed the whole circumstances of the case. No doubt there were causes which prevented us feeling that for very many years. All the wars which took place during that particular time maintained the price of corn far higher that it would have been if Free Trade had come into play at the moment it passed. I am not going further into that question. We know exactly what did happen and the position which it has left us in. If it has been beneficial to the country and detrimental to agriculture, surely the agricultural interests have some right to ask that their case should be taken into careful consideration. There was a remark made by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex (Mr. Gray) which I should not like to pass by unnoticed. The hon. Gentleman stated very clearly, and I think very accurately, that if things had gone on without the commutation of tithes in 1836, since the year 1879 little or no tithe, considering the cost of collection, would have been collected on a certain class of land. That is a serious question, which I am quite sure will commend itself to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. The noble Lord the Member for Darwen (Viscount Cranborne) stated that the tithe owner has lost by the improvements in land something like £2,000,000 sterling a year. The real meaning of the Act of 1836 was to encourage the laying out of money upon land, so that land should not be kept back by the tithe upon it, and the increase and improvement in value, therefore, only follows out that which was intended by the Act. The enormous amount laid out in buildings and cottages and making other improvements has greatly improved the condition of the people in

    115
    this country, and these are circumstances which ought to be taken into account. When my noble Friend stated that £2,000,000 sterling had been lost to the tithe owner, I can only reply that it has been a great gain to the country—the money laid out in the improvement of agriculture has done much for the improvement of the condition of the agricultural classes. I have only one word more to say, and that is to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. He very carefully pointed out certain clauses in the Bill which he thought would materially alleviate the sufferings of certain districts now very much distressed. I ask him to go one step further, and say that he will be prepared to give some support to those Amendments which have been placed upon the Paper. I have asked many clergymen—I have even asked a Bishop—and they have one and all said that they think that, under the circumstances in which it is proposed that these clauses should act, there is a grievous hardship which ought to be remedied. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will see his way to put in fair and reasonable Amendments, Amendments which will be reasonable, not only to the tithepayer, but also to the tithe owner, believing as I do that if we came to a fair and reasonable settlement now it may last for many years to come, which I hope and believe would be for the best interests of the Church.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: There has been in the Debate an amount of novelty which is positively charming and refreshing. During the years I have had the honour of a seat in the House, I have heard one unvarying wail from hon. Gentlemen opposite with respect to the condition of agriculture. Whether it has been a question of Imperial taxation or of local taxation, whether it has been the imposition of succession duty or the adjustment of rates, we have been told everything must be regulated and considered in the light of the extraordinary depression which the agricultural interests have suffered during the last ten years. We have been told that rents have gone down, that farmers' profits have ceased, and that no industry in this country has suffered so much
    116
    as agriculture. But to-night a change has come over the spirit of our dream. It is necessary to support a Conservative Government in a measure of this description, and we have had one hon. Member after another rising to prove that, instead of a great depression of agriculture, there has been very great prosperity, and that if any re-adjustment takes place in agricultural burdens based upon the produce of the land, that re-adjustment will result in those burdens being materially increased. I do not believe that agriculture has been or is a profitable industry at the present time. The figures go the other way. When we are told that any revision of this question will result in a large increase of the burden upon the tithepayer, we are compelled to turn to the very hard figures in the statistical abstract to see whether the rent-roll of England has increased during the last few years. I take it there is no more correct test than Schedule B. That shows exactly the profits of the land which are assessed for the purpose of the Income Tax. For 1880, those represented the sum of £69,383,000,inroundfigures£69,000,000. In 1888—we have not the Official Returns for 1889, but I take the figures from the statement in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget — that amount had gone down to £61,817,000, that is to say, that in the course of the interval there was a decrease in the annual rental of agricultural land in the country of something like 12 per cent.; therefore we reject at once the allegation of the noble Lord that there has been such a great increase in the value of agricultural property that it would have to be taken into account in any re-opening of the tithe question. But we have not only to deal with the general rental of the country, and I will give the House a few figures to illustrate what is going on in a large portion of the kingdom with regard to this matter. The document from which I quota is a Return in reference to 26 farms in the counties of Hampshire, Wiltshire, and Berkshire, and I will give only one or two cases in each county. In the case of a farm in Wiltshire the rental 50 years ago, when the Tithe Commutation Act was passed, was £530, and the tithe rent-charge was commuted at £76 3s. 11d. To-day the rent of that farm is £124. On a farm in Hampshire

    117
    the tithe rent-charge, which only is given in this case, is £122, and the rent today is £125. In a case in Berkshire, where the tithe rent-charge is £75, the rent at present is nothing. In the same county there is another case where the tithe rent-charge is £166, and the rent is now £200. I maintain, therefore, that there has been a material change for the worse during the past 50 years. The question has been asked whether Members on this side of the House are prepared to do justice in this matter—whether, regarding tithe as a national property, they do not desire to do an injustice in order to improve that national property. I repudiate the suggestion. Tithe, like all other national property, should be dealt with justly. All we ask is that if the question is to be re-opened it should be regarded as a whole in a spirit of equity and justice all round. The object of the instruction proposed is that when the House goes into Committee on the Bill, the hands of hon. Members should not be fettered in dealing with any Amendment that may be moved, in order to render the settlement of the question more equitable by the Chairman being compelled to rule that, technically, such an Amendment is outside the four corners of the Bill. Voting for the Instruction pledges a Member to nothing more than this, that when the House goes into Committee our hands shall be absolutely unfettered, and we shall be free to deal equitably with the whole question. The right hon. Gentleman says he would be able to defend his position, and that he has no objection to alter the time for taking the corn averages, but all we ask is that we shall be free to deal with all the questions that arise. Who has re-opened this question of the settlement of 1836? It has not been re-opened on the Liberal side of the House. It has not been re-opened by the tithepayer. But when the tithe owner comes to Parliament and to the Government and complains of his position under the settlement of 1836, and says that it presses unfairly on one party to the bargain, then we on this side of the House claim that the question should be re-opened all round, if it is to be re-opened at all. The noble Lord says there was a great sacrifice made by tithe owners in 1836, to
    118
    the extent, I think he said, of 40 per cent. But let me quote an extract from a very able speech made on the occasion by Mr. Charles Buller, an eminent Member of the Liberal Party. He was dealing with this very question in reference to the sacrifice of a certain part of the tithe, and he contended that it ought to be a much larger sacrifice than Lord John Russell proposed—
    "It would be doing an injustice to the tithe owner to take from him more than was to be given up to him, but it would be equally unjust to make the tithepayer pay more than he ought. Attention had not been sufficiently directed to the cost of collection."
    That is of the old tithe, which, if it remained, would now leave nothing to be received. Mr. Buller further said—

    "In the West of England the cost of collection amounted to 20 per cent., and to show the-House how the system operated, he referred to a case tried before Lord Tenterden in the King's Bench, in which, through the non-carrying away of the tithe in the form of early I potatoes, the produce became spoiled by exposure to weather. Lord Tenterden held that, however great the loss and inconvenience, it must be submitted to by the tithe owner; that he must be in attendance to take the tithe, though doing so might cost him ten times the value of the tithe itself."
    Then Mr. Buller went on to give illustrations in reference to the cost of collecting every tenth of eggs, milk, and other perishable produce; but the point of the argument is, that the commutation of tithe into money payment in lieu of payment in kind is an enormous boon to the tithe owner, for which there has been no such compensation as the noble Lord alluded to. One of the main terms of the settlement of 1836 is that there shall be no personal liability by anybody for the payment of tithe. That is clearly and unmistakably embodied in the Act of Parliament. It is one of the terms of the bargain that the tithe, whatever it may amount to, shall be simply a charge upon the produce of the land, not on the land itself, for there is no charge on the land, and that there shall be no personal liability. But the Government now propose to alter this—to alter one of the main terms of that bargain. We on this side of the House, however, do not contest this point now. What we say is, let it be shown in Committee that there is a good case for the alteration, and let the right be given hon. Members to con-

    119
    sider, at the same time, all the other terms of the settlement. If hon. Members opposite open the question of the mode of recovery, we on this side have the right to re-open the question of the amount to be recovered. It is impossible to forget that since 1836 there has been a vital change made by the Legislature, which affects the position of both the tithe owner and the titbepayer. The figures I have quoted and the practical knowledge of every Member of the House prove to demonstration that the repeal of the Corn Laws has completely altered the conditions under which the bargain of 1836 was made. The agricultural rental value of England has been reduced in consequence of the justly free competition with other countries in reference to produce. It is not worth while to discuss that point now, if hon. Members opposite accept the position that the repeal of the Corn Laws made no difference in this respect. I do not wish to press the argument; but if the position of land cultivation has been affected, then I say the position of the joint receivers of rent should be affected also. If, as is the fact, land which 40 or 50 years ago produced 30s. an acre, and paid a tithe of 3s., now produces only 10s. an acre, and yet still pays the same amount of tithe, the fact, of course, materially alters the proportion between the two, and this is a matter into which the Committee should have power to inquire. Why should the man who receives the 30s. rent have to submit to a reduction to 10s. and the receiver of 3s. have no reduction imposed upon him? Then look at the totally different position of the rates. Mention has been made of rates before the Tithes Act having been 18s. in the £1, but if hon. Members will turn to the Debates quoted in Mr. Walpole's History of England, they will find that in some instances the poor rate exceeded the rental, and there is an instance in the Vale of Aylesbury where the rate was equal to 30s. an acre. Here is very considerable reason for dealing with the question as a whole. The argument on which I rest my support of the Instruction is that the Government are re-opening the settlement of 1836 in the interests exclusively of the tithe owner. The Instruction asks that in Committee
    120
    there should be power to re-open the question in the interests of the tithepayer. We shall then be able to look at the question all round and see where it can be dealt with more fairly. If the supporters of the Instruction are wrong, they can be met by fair argument; if they are right, they will have the opportunity of making such alterations in the law as may seem desirable.
    MR. AMBROSE: The right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House spoke of re-opening the settlement of 1836 in a very light manner; but the right hon. Gentleman surely must know that the passing of this Instruction would make it absolutely impossible for the Committee to deal with the Bill in the present Session, or even for any Committee to deal with it in a whole Session. I deny that there is anything- in the Bill before the House which re-opens the settlement of 1836. ["Oh!"] The Bill simply proposes to give certain remedies. Its main object is to enable the tithe to be collected. Hon. Members will say that that is for the benefit of the tithe owner. Yes, but the right existed before, and it is the business of the Government and the Legislature to provide a means of enforcing that right. Here is a body of persons who have had rights which they are unable to enforce because there are conspiracies and combinations to resist the law. The expense thus entailed upon the tithe owner makes the tithe not worth the cost of collection, and hon. Members seem to think that it is the right of the tithepayer to put the tithe owner in that difficulty. In such a case it is the duty of the Legislature to step in. Under the present Bill the Settlement of 1836 remains intact, and all that the Bill proposes to do is to enforce the authority of the law. Some of the cases cited, where the tithes exceed the rent, seem very hard; but that is the result of the Act of 1836, which allowed the landowners to apportion the amount of tithe payable within each parish among themselves. The 33rd section of the Act of 1836 provides that, in the settlement of value, and in determining the principle on which tithe should be fixed, the decision shall be with the land owners. By the 58th section the amount of tithe in the

    121
    parish is ascertained, and then the land owners determine the apportionment among themselves. Say, for instance, that in the parish of Hampstead the total amount of tithe is £1,000. The land owners, in meeting, agree to the apportionment of this, and they have power to exempt certain lands from the burden. What was the result? Owners of large estates took the opportunity of agreeing among themselves, and in practice freed large portions of their estates from tithe, placing the whole charge on the remainder. I do not want to make a personal allusion; but I may mention, by way of illustration, that I happened to be interested, as Trustee, in a small plot of land or allotment of something like half an acre, and this bears the whole tithe of a large estate of 150 acres. The Legislature gave land owners this power of settlement, and where they did not exercise that power the Land Tax Commissioners did it, the safeguard to tithe owners being that the land should be at least three times the value of the tithe secured upon it. In the result land owners and tithe owners became dual owners, and ascertained their respective shares by agreement among themselves. Incidentally other matters are introduced; but the object of the Bill is to provide for the collection of tithe. The Bill, while leaving the settlement of 1836 untouched, deals with a crying evil which is a disgrace to any Government, and I hope the House will reject the Instruction, which would kill the Bill by Amendments which it would be impossible to pass.
    MR. ILLINGWORTH: When my hon. Friend the Member for the Eye Division moved this Instruction I felt some difficulty as to its real interpretation; but, after the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, I shall have no difficulty in voting for the Instruction, because, in common with other hon. Members, I am concerned in the protection of what is really a national estate. At the same time, we wish to do justice to the other interests affected. I do not wish to see any injury done to the clergy. I think a good case has been made out by my
    122
    hon. Friend the Member for Eye on behalf of the agriculturists of the Eastern Counties, who, owing to certain circumstances which have occurred in recent years, have been placed in a peculiarly difficult position. I think that the Government have gone too far to justify them in now saying that the settlement of 1836 has not been reopened. Undoubtedly it has been re-opened. If there were no justification whatsoever for meddling with this question at a time when Parliament has its hands so full, and when the country is looking for legislation in other directions, the Government ought not to have included in this Bill so many contentious points. I say that this question has been re-opened in many important phases. An hon. Member has stated his belief that there can be no final settlement of this question unless the incidence of the tithe itself is re-considered. Many of us on this side of the House are of the same opinion, and we hold that if this Instruction is carried and if the Committee is left free to deal with this matter, we shall be able to take into consideration the hardships which are prevalent in corn-growing counties and to deal with the evils of under-assessment as well as of over-assessment. We understand the principle of the tithe to be simply 1-10th the produce of the soil. It may be that a great deal of the land in the Eastern Counties is not now yielding so much as it yielded in 1836; but, on the other hand, we should find that other parts of the country are paying much less than l-10th of the produce of the soil. This is a national estate, and if the landlords are to suffer in one direction, surely it is the duty of Parliament to see that a proper balance is maintained. I have observed that wherever the landlord class are suffering they have shown no disposition to fleece the clergy Now, I have no disposition to fleece the clergy or to whittle away a national estate. I should be very glad, indeed, if the Government, by the acceptance of this Instruction, enabled us to go into the whole question of the tithe with a view to effecting something like a permanent settlement. At present, what they are doing is giving no satisfaction to anyone, and I venture to say that the farmers and labourers will find

    123
    means to give vent to their dissatisfaction at a suitable time at the polls. We want to see this national estate maintained where it is possible to do so. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton has referred to the fact that the landowners of the country have suffered in consequence of the repeal of the Corn Laws. Of course, if he bases that statement upon the figures referring to the last eight or 10 years, he will find the statistics in his favour. But I do not hesitate to say that since the repeal of the Corn Laws land has been worth to the landowner a greater sum on the average of the years than it was in the corresponding period before the repeal. I propose to support this Instruction, because it will give the Committee an opportunity of dealing with these important questions, and I believe that if the Government will only give sufficient time to this subject, the result will be a settlement infinitely more satisfactory than can be the outcome of the Bill in its present form.
    MAJOR RASCH: I hope the Government will make some concession on the question of corn averages, because the system as it is now worked is unfair to the farmers of England. In Scotland, I admit, it is different; but so far as England is concerned, I am able to speak with some personal experience, as I represent a body which owns some of the worst land in England at the present time—land which, during the time of the French War, was devoted to the cultivation of wheat, but which is now going out of cultivation almost wholesale, and within a few hundred yards of the house in which I reside there are three farms which are not being cultivated. In certain parts of Essex nearly one-third of the land in the parishes is out of cultivation, and the value has been reduced to almost nil. I have in my mind at the present time a case in which a farm in my own neighbourhood was sold at a sum of £3 per acre. I am aware that a revision of the Corn Laws will not bring the land back to cultivation, but I think it will do something to remedy the present distress, and I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is no more eloquent advocate of Disestablishment than a derelict farm.
    SIR J. SWINBURNE: I quite agree with the hon. and learned Member for Harrow (Mr. Ambrose) that in England we have a dual proprietorship in land. But the whole of the improvements on the land have been always carried out by only one of those proprietors, namely, the landowner, while the tithe owner has absolutely done nothing. And where the Church have been sole owners of property they have allowed it to remain in the occupation of the harbourers of vice and immorality, as is instanced in the slums of Westminster and infamous houses of Portsmouth, so long as those properties remained in the hands of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster and Winchester respectively. In many cases, if it had not been for what has been done by the landowner, the value of the tithe would be absolutely nil. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) has rather understated the case as to the effect of the depression of the value in land. The Income Tax Returns give a more favourable view of the depression of agriculture than is really the case, because in many cases landowners have given 30 or 40 per cent, reduction for some years, while they have gone on paying the same Income Tax. The case of the Eastern Counties has been referred to, but it is the same in the North of England; while in Oxfordshire I know of land which barely pays the tithe. It has been said by the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Ambrose) that the Bill does not re-open the settlement of 1836; but if the Bill passes in its present state it will increase the value of the tithe enormously by altering the security, and no one knows better than the learned Member for Harrow that if you give a first-class security you are entitled to a corresponding lowering of the charge or interest. I think it is a, mistake on the part of Her Majesty's Government to be afraid to have this matter threshed out in Committee. There should be free and open discussion upon it, so that both sides may be heard. The hon. Member for Leicestershire has complained of the want of finality. Well, I have not been in Parliament long; but I fancy if there is to be finality in legislation, there is no

    125
    need to have a Parliament at all. I have always believed that the object of Parliament is to revise, amend, and add to existing Statutes, and, therefore, I cannot endorse the complaint of my hon. Friend. This Act may have worked well for 54 years, but circumstances have now altogether changed, and I hold that the time has arrived for a re-consideration of the whole subject.
    VISCOUNT WOLMER: I have had the advantage of hearing not only speeches which have been delivered from both sides of the House, but also interjections by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, and I think that those interjections have shown that there is a considerable difference of opinion between the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleague the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton. I understand the right hon. Member for Derby to be in favour of preserving the corpus of the tithe while willing to consider whether, in some special cases, such as the Eastern Counties, a revision of tithe was required. On the other hand, I understand the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton to be in favour of a general revision of the tithe. I agree with the right hon. Member for Derby, and am opposed to anything like a general revision of the tithe, as proposed by this Instruction. The true reading of this Instruction is that there should be an equitable revision of all tithe, and any hon. Member who thinks that the corpus of the tithe can emerge unimpaired from such a revision must be living in a fool's paradise. It should be recollected that in a general revision of the tithe it would be impossible to increase the tithe on grassland, on account of the increased value of stock, while decreasing the tithe on the arable laud, because the only standard of the tithe is a corn average. The only result of such a revision would be that the corpus of the tithe would emerge in a shattered, meagre, and whittled condition. Is there any equitable claim for a general revision of tithe? For my part, while opposed to any general revision, I am perfectly ready to consider favourably any Amendment dealing specially with the Eastern Counties and similar eases. It is generally acknowledged that Sir
    126
    James Caird is the leading agricultural expert, and we may take it from him that the gain by the Act of 1836 has been to the land owner, and until the hon. Member for Dorsetshire becomes an even greater authority, I think we are bound, in the absence of a contradiction from Sir James Caird, to accept that statement. Whether the tithe remains chiefly in possession of the Church, or is devoted in the future to other purposes, the attempt on the part of some land owners to re-open this question for their benefit is founded on no just basis, and is wholly unworthy of English gentlemen. Hon. Gentlemen around me may laugh, but it seems to me that a bargain by which the land owners have gained £2,000,000 per annum is not one which they have now any just right to try and re-open. In this denunciation I differentiate the case of the small yeomen—men who are struggling hard for their living—from the general mass of land owners. Their attitude, if not grounded on as good a case as some of them may think, is at any rate natural. In my view, any hon. Member who votes for this Instruction will vote in effect for whittling down the corpus of the tithe, and for that reason I shall oppose it to the utmost of my power.
    MR. PICTON: I was unable to decide which way I ought to vote until the speech of the President of the Board of Agriculture convinced me that I ought to vote for the Instruction. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to argue that the result of an equitable revision of the tithe would be that tithe which now stands at £78 would become £133. for my part I am anxious for the improvement of the value of the national property, and for that reason I shall vote for the Instruction. It cannot be denied that there are special cases of hardship, and the Instruction will relieve them without injuring the national property. I understand an equitable revision to be that where the tithe is too high it will be reduced, and that where it is too low it will be raised. Otherwise, there can be no sense in the phrase, "equitable revision."
    SIR W. HARCOURT: In this interesting Debate there have been many remarkable speeches, but the

    127
    most remarkable has been that of the noble Lord the Member for the Darwen Division of Lancashire. I cannot conceive that there could be any more valuable leaflet for distribution in the agricultural districts than the speech of that noble Lord. The lion, and gallant Member for Sussex has spoken with his usual plainness and frankness, and has told Her Majesty's Government that the Bill is one which nobody wants, and that, unless it is altered in a, very material manner, it will be extremely displeasing to himself and his constituents. The hon. Baronet also gave the Government the advice that I myself have tendered them, both in the last and the present Session, that they might have done better to leave the tithe question alone unless they are prepared to deal with it on a much larger scale. The noble Lord the Member for Darwen has spoken of the extreme immorality of disturbing the settlement of 1836. There is a good deal to be said for that view, but if that is the ground on which the Government stands, why have they brought in any Bill at all It would have been different if the Government had introduced a Bill merely to make the land owner directly liable for the tithe, as they have admitted him to be, although it is a liability he has shirked, and got out of, as he has out of every liability. Within the last 10 or 12 years there was a Bill passed in this House which provided that a farmer on leaving his farm should receive compensation for his improvements, but which, at the same time, enabled the land owner to get rid of that liability. The Government and their friends are very fond of these voluntary and permissive measures, and now they bring in a measure which, though professing to do so, fails to remove the liability from the occupier, who is just as liable as he was before. The fact is that it renders him liable under the name of rent instead of under the name of tithe, and the process is made far more drastic than before. I say that this Bill is one that seriously affects the position of all parties in relation to the tithe—it affects the position of the land owner and the position of the occupier, and, this being so, we ask that the Committee shall have power to review the whole question. Now, we are told by hon. Gentlemen 128
    opposite that every one who votes for this Amendment will thereby pledge himself to a re-opening of the whole of the tithe question; and it is said that there is some difference on the matter between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton and myself. But in reality there is no difference whatever. I am in favour of preserving the corpus of the tithe and of making the necessary revision in cases of hardship, and that I understand to be the view of the right hon. Gentleman as well as the view of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Maldon (Mr. Gray). It is also the view of my noble Friend behind me, who says he is quite ready to revise the tithe in particular cases where there is shown to be hardship. As I understand it, an equitable revision would be that where the tithe is too high it should be reduced, and where it is too low it should be raised, and it is on these grounds that I support this Instruction. The noble Lord the Member for the Darwen Division of Lancashire (Viscount Cranborne), together with my Friend behind me, is extremely anxious in the interests of the tithe owners to re-open the tithe question. If there is to be a re-opening of the settlement of this question, the Committee will, at all events, have the power to redress existing injustice. My noble Friend is entirely mistaken in supposing that this Instruction aims at a general revision of tithes. All weask, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton has explained, is that the Committee in dealing with this question should have the power to redress any injustice it may come across, and those who vote against the Instruction will vote against the possibility of redressing the special cases of hardship which are found in different districts. That is the vote which hon. Gentlemen opposite are about to give on this subject. The Members for Essex, Suffolk, and Norfolk intend to vote against the Instruction. They mean that the Committee which is about to deal with the tithe question should have no power to afford relief in these special cases. Take the case of North Hampshire, a county in which I have the pleasure to reside. The hon. Member for North Hampshire has said there are no cases of hardship in that county,

    129
    which shows that he knows extremely little of the county he represents. The hon. Member for South Hampshire, who followed him, suggested a system for which something may be said, and which might come under this Instruction, and that is that we should have a percentage proportionate to the old percentage of 1836 applied to the new condition of things. My right lion. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton has referred to certain cases of hardship, but I would refer to one or two which I deem still more striking. In doing so I will confine myself to Hants. I have hero the case of a farm, the net rent of which is £5, and the tithe rent-charge £120. I ask the House, what does it think of the relation of the rental to the tithe rent-charge in such a case as that? Here is another case where the net rental is £50 and the tithe rent-charge £160, and another where the net rent is £20 and the tithe rent-charge £80. Are these cases in which it is thought that the tithe rent-charge bears the same relation to the land and the actual rent payable as was intended by the Legislature? Everybody knows it does not. You may say the settlement of 1836 was final, and, therefore, you will not re-open it, but you cannot say that logically, because you are now re-opening the question, and in doing so you ought to place the Committee in a position to redress these injustices. My noble Friend behind me said he wished to see these injustices redressed, and would be glad to see this done in Committee. How is he going to do this if the Committee are not so instructed? By objecting to this Instruction he is absolutely disabling himself from doing the very thing lie wants to do. One argument which struck me as new was used by an lion. Member, who pointed out that the tithe-payer is actually paying a large sum of money by way of a present to the tithe owner in consideration of the payment of the rate. That is to say, in addition to the tithe on the land there would be 16s. an acre given for the rate, which was really only 2s. or 3s. in the £1. He gave figures showing that as much as £120 a year had been given to the tithe owner in respect of rates which really only amounted to £20 a year, so that the tithe owner was receiving
    130
    £100 a year in respect of rates he never paid at all. These are questions which are perfectly free to arise, and which we ought to be perfectly free to discuss. All we ask by this Instruction is that we may deal freely with these questions in Committee. But what is the line the Government, who profess to be the farmers' friends, arc taking? They say—"We are going to vote against this Instruction; we will debar the Committee from considering any question of injustice which may be proved, whether in Essex, Norfolk, Suffolk, or elsewhere." I challenge the Attorney General, who will follow me, to say whether, without some such Instruction, it will be possible to redress the grievances I have referred to within the four corners of this Bill. If he cannot show this, the result will be that Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk, Berkshire, Hampshire, and other counties will have still to suffer the existing inequality of the tithe, and will be refused the means of obtaining justice. Regarding this Bill as guilty of special and unnecessary injustice to occupiers of land in respect of tithes, I say the injustice is greatly aggravated by debarring the Committee from the means of correcting existing inequalities. A general re-valuation of the tithes is not contemplated by this Amendment. It only enables the Committee to deal with injustice where it arises. Representatives of agricultural counties will take an immense responsibility on themselves in refusing to allow the Committee this power. It is said that the tithe is national property and we must not whittle it away. I have no desire to whittle it away, but I agree with the lion. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, that if it be national property it ought to be dealt with like all other national property, and if it has exemptions, privileges, or monopolies, which do not apply to other national property, it ought to be corrected in that respect. What has been the case in regard to the Crown estates and our national property One of the oldest demands of hon. Members opposite was, that the exemption of rates enjoyed by Crown lands in former times should be taken away. That was a fair demand, and the privilege enjoyed by the national property was corrected in that respect. Therefore, the argument that because this is national property it

    131
    should not be freely and fairly dealt with, goes for nothing. It seems to me that the ease made out by my lion. Friend is unanswerable. No one has risen on the other side to say there are not districts in this country where the unequal operation of the tithe is unfair and unjust. Here, however, we have a Bill dealing with the tithe question, and yet lion. Members representing agricultural districts are about to refuse tins House the means of dealing with admitted injustice and redressing admitted inequalities. That seems tome a most extraordinary position. If, however, they insist on adopting it we cannot help it. We are not the farmers' friends, at least in that sense. What we say is this, If you propose to open the tithes question at all you ought to allow the whole question to be opened. If Amendments are proposed which are not fair and reasonable you may reject them, but do not preclude yourselves from considering Amendments of this description on the ground that they will admit proposals which are necessary to redress injustice and inequality, on which ground I, for one, give it my cordial support.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I can assure the right hon. Gentleman I shall not neglect the challenge which he has, with great courtesy, given to me, but I shall deal with the particular point. Certainly it would be a great injustice to the supporters of Her Majesty's Government if we left them to vote on the merits of this question under the impression that they would do so on the lines indicated by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman is under a complete misapprehension as to what the real provisions of the Bill are. But I must allude to a very important question which was dealt with in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I have not been absent.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I do not meau absent in the sense that the right hon. Gentleman is not master of the Debate, but I believe he was absent while this particular point was being dealt with.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I was only absent five minutes.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I am extremely sorry I referred to the absence of the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure we are all glad that he has been here the whole time. It was said by hon. Members sitting behind me that if the Instruction simply enabled the question of corn averages to be gone into they should vote for it. If that be the real meaning of the Instruction it is quite impossible that it could have been moved by the hon. Member opposite. There stand on the Paper, in the names of the hon. Member for the Ashburton Division and of the hon. Member for Glamorganshire, two Instructions which distinctly raise the question of re-adjusting the method of taking the tithe rent-charge averages. Instead of these Instructions, the hon. Member has moved an Instruction which, as has been pointed out more than once, would enable the right hon. Gentleman opposite to submit any Amendments he wished in Committee. There would be nothing to prevent Amendments being put down to raise the whole question. Let me explain to my hon. Friends behind me exactly the position. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton did not in any way blink the point that the question of an equitable revision would be open to the House what then, conies of the suggestion that we are only voting for an Instruction to deal with corn averages and the method of taking them? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton did not suggest that it 'would be in any way so limited. I understand the hon. Members for Maldon and Dorsetshire to say that if a Division is to be taken solely on the question of corn averages they would vote for the Instruction. But I would point out that if this instruction were passed it would enable hon. Members to smother the Bill with Amendments, involving questions of the greatest difficulty, and which could only be adjusted, by an expenditure of time which is not at our disposal this

    133
    Session, or in any one Session. The Government are not unwilling to deal with the question of corn averages, but this Instruction goes a great deal further than the narrow grounds on which lion. Members behind me are willing to support it. I may add that the Government are willing to afford temporary relief in cases of hardship. If the right lion. Gentleman the Member for Derby had time to consider the Amendments on the Paper—he has time to write letters to the newspapers—in would see that these cases of hardship are dealt with by these Amendments. These Amendments we are fully prepared to consider on their merits, and we believe they go far to meet the equities of the cases referred to by the lion. Member for Wolverhampton. Where the produce or rental value of the land has fallen so low that it has no proper relation to tithe, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent temporary relief being given. We are prepared to consider suggestions upon the question of corn averages, and I go further, and say that we are prepared to consider any definite or practical scheme that may be submitted. Five or six suggestions have been, made in a tentative way, but no definite or practical scheme has yet been put forward. Her Majesty's Government are ready to give effect to any such scheme by practical legislation as soon as it can be devised. But I protest that if this Instruction is passed it will enable lion. Members to load the Bill with an unlimited number of Amendments, each one of them raising the Mover's own view of what is to be an equitable revision of the Settlement of 1836, and which would bring about a result which some lion. Members would not be unwilling to see, namely, that it would be impossible to pass the Bill in the present year. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby challenged me to show that this Bill would enable the House to deal with special cases of hardship; and he went so far as to say—"I am sorry that he pledged his great Parliamentary reputation so high;"—that every body who voted against this Instruction would be voting against the possibility of the House dealing with these cases of hardship. Sometimes, when I read the speeches of the right hon. Gen-
    134
    leman—and I read them all—I think that his imagination plays a very considerable part in the representation which he gives of the schemes of Her Majesty's Government. I do not think that it is meant unfairly, but I do say this, that lie trusts very Largely to his imagination. I have not time to argue this point at length. The right hon. Gentleman said, three or four times, positively and distinctly that to vote against the Instruction would preclude the Committee from dealing with cases of hardship. Is he aware that the Bill proposes that the tithe shall be reduced in cases where the standard, it may be of the rent or of the produce, has been ascertained to be less than the tithe? There are Amendments on the Paper which propose that if the rental or profit value, however it be ascertained, is below a certain figure, the tithe will be reduced one-half, or down to that figure. The right hon. Gentleman may shake his head; but I challenge him to put an Amendment on the Paper, or to object, when Mr. Courtney is in the Chair, that any Amendment in that direction is out of order. I am justified, I think, in telling hon. Members that they need not be afraid of its being said that they are precluding themselves from going into these cases of hardship. I would again point out that, unless the right hon. Gentleman is able to take the Bill and show that these cases of hardship cannot be dealt with in Committee, the assertion the right hon. Gentleman has made, but which he has not endeavoured to support by argument, should scarcely have been made in the House. Both the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby and the right lion. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton said that this Bill re-opens the settlement of 1836. I cannot understand gentlemen with logical minds and legal knowledge putting such an argument before the House. The settlement of 1836 provided that instead of l-10fch of the produce there should be a rent-charge fluctuating in amount with the fluctuations in the price of wheat, barley, and oats, and that it should be paid by the landowner. I pass by the customary and somewhat threadbare attack on landowners in general to which we have been treated to-night, and will only say that the other prin-

    135
    ciple involved in the settlement of 1836 was, that whatever might be the improvement in the land the tithe owner should never receive more than this rent-charge. I will not discuss whether that was an equitable assessment or not; but I do not think any hon. Member will suggest that I have not fairly stated the points in the settlement of 1836. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby says the Government have ripped up that, settlement. I listened with astonishment, and waited to hear in what respect they have done so. The right hon. Gentleman asserted the Government have imposed a personal liability on the occupier. I will assert they have imposed no such liability; but I will not stop to bandy words on that, because my right hon. Friend has said that the Government are willing to insert words to prevent any such result being brought about. Have the Government done nothing to relieve the bard cases I They have proposed that the actual rent shall be reduced in certain cases. By the clauses of the Bill they have attempted to reduce the burden in certain cases where it is thought to press hardly. The hon. Member for North Hants thinks the standard we have set up will not be satisfactory—that our relief will not go far enough; but whether he is right or we are right we have by the clauses attempted to reduce the burden in hard cases. Will any hon. Member who is willing to deal fairly with my position be good enough to suggest to mo what part of the settlement of 1836 is ripped up? It is provided that the owner shall be the only person responsible. The clause reserving existing contracts is a mere incident which appears in every Act of Parliament of the kind, and has nothing to do with the main scope of the Bill. In all future contracts the owner and not the occupier will have to pay the tithe. In that respect we are absolutely carrying out the settlement of 1836. Again, we have given no increased value of any sort or any kind by this Bill to the tithe owner, except that involved in the settlement of 1836. Lastly, in the cases in which we have given relief we have given it to the occupier and not to the owner. All the steps we have taken have been steps to redress the evil felt by the persons who
    136
    have paid the tithe, and in no way to give any increased value, either in amount or security, beyond the Act of 1836 to those who receive the tithe. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman cannot now reply to my speech; but these questions will come up over and over again in the course of the discussion on the clauses of the Bill, and I will respectfully, but firmly, challenge the right hon. Gentleman to point out then in what respect I am wrong when I say the Bill does not break up the settlement of 1836. I trust that I have made my meaning clear. I will only assort again that this Instruction is not necessary for the purpose of enabling relief to be given in cases of hardship.
    SIR H. VIVIAN(11.38.) SIR H. VIVIAN rose to address the House.
    Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACHrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    (11.40.) The House divided:—Ayes 238; Noes 197.—(Div. List, No. 117.)
    Question put accordingly.
    (11.55.) The House divided:—Ayes 197; Noes 240.—(Div. List, No. 118.)
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask, as a matter of order, whether it is not now necessary to go on to the next Order, as the time for contested business is passed.
    MR. SPEAKER: I was about to take the House into counsel upon an entirely new point which has arisen. The position is this: There arc several other Instructions on the Paper. If there were no other Instructions down on the Paper I should have to leave the Chair without Question put. There are a number of Instructions down; but I regret to inform the hon. Members, in whose names the other Instructions stand, that they are not in order. Some of them have been anticipated, and others are beyond the scope of the Bill. Under these circumstances, strictly and technically, I should leave

    137
    the Chair and allow the proceedings to be completed as they originated before 12 o'clock. I do not, however, wish to do so without the full concurrence of the House, the occasion being a perfectly new one. I am not going to insist upon any technicality. I am disposed to take the House fully into my confidence. I shall not leave the Chair if the House objects to my doing so.
    MR. SEXTON: Would not discussion on the subject constitute opposed business?
    MR. SPEAKER: The House will observe that there is no question before the House on the assumption that these Instructions are out of order. Of course, I know very well that it is possible some Instructions may be put down which may be in order. If hon. Members wish me to state specifically and categorically why the Instructions arc out of order I will do so. [Cries of "Yes," and "No, no!"] Probably, the House will not think it necessary that T should do that. I shall only leave the Chair, as I say, after that explanation, with the concurrence of the House. I have no personal feeling, I need not say.
    MR. P. STANHOPE: Am I to understand that, in consequence of your ruling, it is open to any Member to object to your leaving the Chair?
    MR, SPEAKER: No objection can be taken technically; but it is a new point which has arisen, and, as I have said before, I have stated it to the House as fully and as fairly as I could. I cannot say there is a technical rule, but I do not wish to put the House to any inconvenience. The Instructions, as a matter of fact, are out of order. There is 1:0 question, therefore, before the House, and, technically, I say, I should be obliged to leave the Chair, and think myself entitled to leave the Chair without Question put; but, if the House objects, the Debate must stand over.
    MR. P. STANHOPE: Under the circumstances of your recent ruling, and considering the fact that there are many hon. Friends of mine who would like,
    138
    perhaps, to put in order the Instructions they have at present on the Paper, I shall, with great respect to the Chair, take what formal course may be necessary to raise an objection to your leaving the Chair.
    MR. SPEAKER: I shall not leave the Chair unless the House generally wishes me to do so. Perhaps the House will be kind enough to express an opinion. [Cries of "No, no," and "Yes, yes."]
    MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: Speaking, as I think I may do, on behalf of the Welsh Members, and without wishing to take advantage of any technical objection, all I can say is that we desire most certainly that you, Sir, should not leave the Chair.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: Will it not be in order to move that the House should proceed to the other Orders of the Day?
    MR. SPEAKER: I think I am precluded from putting any question that I expressly leave the Chair. It would be better that I should not leave the Chair.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I do not rise to make any observations, because it is perfectly clear, from the statement which you, Sir, have made, that unless you saw clearly that it was the unanimous feeling of the House you would not think it right to leave the Chair. I did not rise, because T thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby would give utterance to some expression of opinion on the matter; but clearly, unless there is some more unanimous feeling than we are acquainted with at present, you would not think it right m the circumstances to leave the Chair. Perhaps I may add that we shall put the Bill down as the first Order this day.
    It being after Midnight, Further Proceeding on going into Committee stood adjourned.
    Further Proceeding to be resumed to-morrow.

  TREES (IRELAND) BILL —(No. 70.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 2.
  MR. KELLY: I beg to move, Mr. Courtney, that you report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  DR. TANNER: I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his opposition. This is a Bill on which both sides are agreed, and its object is to enable tenants to improve their property by planting trees.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept the Amendments which have been put down to the Bill. If he will look at the Amendments he will see that they do not in the slightest degree interefere with the efficiency of the measure. The registration provided for in those Amendments is a simple matter, involving no expense to the county.
  DR. TANNER: I think that if the hon. Gentleman will look at the facts of the case he will see——
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! If the hon. Member is not prepared to accept the Amendments it is impossible for us to go further.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  CUSTOMS CONSOLIDATION ACT (1876) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 247.)
  Considered in Committee.
  DR. TANNER: I object.
  MR. CRAIG: I hope the hon. Gentleman will allow this Bill to pass. He thinks it will promote smuggling, whereas its effect will be just the reverse.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: We have now got to the definition clause. If the hon. Member has any Amendments to propose I will give them my best consideration on the Report stage.
  DR. TANNER: On the understanding that only one stage will be taken tonight I will not insist upon my objection.
  Bill reported; as amended to be considered upon Thursday next.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 239.)
  Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

  LICENSING ACTS (APPEALS) BILL.— (No. 35.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  On the Motion for adjournment of the House,
  MR. J. MORLEY: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade whether to-morrow, in case the Government succeed in getting you, Sir, out of the Chair, they intend to proceed with the Committee on the Tithes Bill, or to go into Committee of Supply?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I should hope that the Speaker will be permitted to leave the Chair without any delay to-morrow, and the evening will then be devoted to the subject of education.
  MR. JACKSON: It was understood that it would be convenient to take the Report of the Consular and Diplomatic Vote to-morrow, following the Education Vote.
  MR. BYRON REED: May I ask when it is intended to proceed with Committee on the Tithes Bill?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am afraid I cannot answer the question.
  House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.

DE WAHULL BARONY.
Petition of Constantia Elizabeth Chetwood-Aiker, of Stoke Bishop, in the County of Gloucester, widow, as heir lineal and representative of Sir Richard Chetwood, the claimant to the title in the time of Her Majesty's predecessor, King James the First, and also of the several persons her ancestors who received the accustomed summonses to Parliaments, to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to be graciously pleased, on sufficient proof of the petitioner's right and descent being made, to admit her succession, and to declare that she is of right entitled to bear the title, honour, and dignity of Baroness de Wahull in the Peerage of England, with succession to her heirs general, and also to assign to that title, honour, and dignity such precedence as Her Majesty may be graciously pleased to declare, or that Her Majesty might be graciously pleased to make such other order or to give such directions in the premises as to Her Majesty might seem meet, together with Her Majesty's reference thereof to this House and the report of the Attorney General thereon thereunto annexed: Presented (by command), read, and referred to the Committee for Privileges to consider and report.
The Lord Reay—Took the Oath.

SAT FIRST.
The Earl of Craven, after the death of his father.
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 57.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. considered (according to Order) and dispensed with for this day's sitting.
CUSTODY OF CHILDREN BILL.

  (No. 98.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Bill consists of but a single clause, and I do not think anyone who takes an interest in the subject will say that it goes too far. It provides that where the parent or guardian of a child

  3
  applies to the High Court, or the Court of Session, for a writ or order for the production of the child, and the Court is of opinion that the parent or guardian has so conducted himself that the Court should refuse to enforce his right to the custody of the child, the Court may, in its discretion, decline to issue the writ or make the order. Tour Lordships will remember that when my noble Friend the Earl of Meath introduced a Bill on the subject I considered it was my duty to point out certain objections to it, and that Bill was ultimately withdrawn. Another Bill has been introduced by my noble Friend, which I must say seems to mo to be free in a great measure from those objections; but I am not at all certain that even in its present form there may not be objections to some of its clauses. I believe great mischief has been done, and is constantly being done, by persons being permitted to exercise the important functions of parents very much to the injury of their children; but, at the same time, while recognising that a measure of this kind is desirable, it is necessary to be careful not to go too far in the direction of substituting other control for that of parents, or cutting down or in any way seriously affecting parental rights. One may very readily be tempted to go much too far when influenced by feelings such as are not unnaturally raised by incidents of the kind we have heard of. I am sorry to say that many other such instances have since been called to my attention. Still, when I ask your Lordships to read this Bill a second time, I do not propose to make it in any way a rival to the Bill which my noble Friend has upon the Paper, and which, I understand, he intends to bring forward. On the contrary, I would suggest that both Bills should be referred to the same Committee; and, if with proper security for preserving parental rights, additional security can be given in the interests of the children, I should be very glad indeed to concur with the noble Lord as to some form in which such additional protection can be given. At the same time, I think we are all agreed that the subject is one which demands legislation, and the Bill which I now propose is for the purpose of giving additional security to children by giving further powers to the Courts,
  4
  which, except in certain instances, have not thought themselves authorised to withhold children from their parents' custody. I think it may be very fitly discussed in Committee, and I will only now ask your Lordships to read the Bill a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD THRING: The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has given so much encouragement to the Bill which stands in the name of my noble Friend Lord Meath, that I will make very few observations upon this measure. The Bill which the noble and learned Lord proposes adds, in my judgment, and, I think, also in your Lordships' judgment, very little to the existing powers of the law. What is really required is that poor children should have the same benefit before the law as the children of the rich possess at present. It has, I believe, been decided by the Court of Chancery that a parent who has misconducted himself cannot demand to have the custody of his children given back to him. Again, it has been decided that a parent who misconducts himself can have his children taken away from him. That was done in the famous Shelley case. The Court of Chancery, therefore, protects rich children when parents who have misconducted themselves want to resume the custody of their children, and it also takes away from them that custody when, in the judgment of the Court, they do not deserve to have it. Then there was also the case, to which I pray the attention of the Lord Chancellor, of "Lyon v. Blakey," in which, I think, Lord Eldon decided that an aunt who had brought up two or three young ladies, and intended to provide for them, should retain the control of them he refused to give back those children to the custody of the father, on the ground that the father had really and truly relinquished their custody. Those are suggestions which I trust the noble and learned Lord will see are desired to be embodied in Lord Meath's Bill, or in some other measure which may be approved of in Committee. The proposition is that where a father in poor circumstances practically relinquishes the custody of his children by acquiescing

  5
  in their being brought up by somebody else, the children of a poor person should have the same protection as the Court of Chancery would give in the case of children of richer parents. Then with regard to the question of the father's misconduct, the noble and learned Lord is, of course, quite aware that it is utterly impossible to prove misconduct is many cases, for the simple reason that the child has been picked up as a waif and taken charge of, or else the child may have been handed over by a father or mother who has disappeared. Such parents will sometimes go away for years, and my noble Friend will, I believe, be able to give numerous examples where that has occurred. They then return at the critical moment of the child's existence, and demand that he shall be handed over to them, if a girl, for the vilest purposes, and if a boy, for the purpose of getting the benefit of his labour. I think those propositions, therefore, should be embodied in some formal way, so as to provide that where a parent relinquishes the custody of his child, he should, before he is allowed to resume possession of it, be obliged first of all to show that he deserves to have the custody by paying such a sum as the Court shall think tit and proper to the foster parent for its maintenance; but, above all, if he relinquishes the custody of his child, he should be called upon to prove that he is worthy to have the child given back to him, that he is able to properly maintain and educate it, and that it would be more for the child's benefit that it should go back to the father than that it should remain with the foster parent. I quite agree with what the noble and learned Lord has said with respect to the absolute right which the parent has at Common Law, but I would submit to your Lordships that the real consideration is what is for the benefit of the child, not what is for the benefit of the parent in this matter. In considering what is best to be done, we must consider what is best in the interests of the children, and this appears to me to be one of the most urgent matters which your Lordships can have to consider. I believe there is no cruelty equal to the cruelty, in many cases, of rending poor children from their foster parents, and handing them back to their natural guardians.
  LORD EMLY: My Lords, I, of course, entirely agree with what my noble and learned Friend has just said, and with what the Lord Chancellor has said with regard to the importance of legislating upon this subject; but I would venture to suggest to my noble Friend that without some important Amendments very injurious effects may be produced by a measure of this kind. It might be used for very dangerous purposes. Take the case—a very common one—of a wretched, half-starving mother, who, stifling her conscience, sells her child to a proselytising society. In a little time her conscience pricks her, and, stung by compunction, she tries to recover him. If she had so conducted herself that the Court did not think her fit to have his custody, although some other institution conducted on the principles of her own religion might be ready to take charge of him, she is under this Bill to be refused redress, and unless she can show that she is herself a proper person to have the custody of the child she could not get him away. I submit to your Lordships that, if I am correct in my interpretation, some Amendment should be made to meet the difficulty which at present might arise. Because, observe what happens. The law would be giving its sanction to the making of an immoral contract. I am sure that every one of your Lordships will agree with me that to induce persons by bribery to violate their consciences, whatever religion they may belong to, or whatever religious views they may hold, is to strike at the very foundation of natural morality, and any measure which would lead to that result your Lordships would, I am sure, be unwilling to pass. But I will now take a stronger case. Take the case of a child whose father is dead. By the law that child is bound to be brought up in the father's religion; but by this Bill, if unamended, should there be misconduct on the part of the mother surviving, the Court would have to decide that the child should be placed in an institution where a religion totally different from that of the father was taught. I, of course, entirely acquit the noble and learned Lord of any intention to give a charter to proselytism, but I submit to him that in those particulars the Bill requires amendment. I have no doubt that he will be far better able than I to

  7
  suggest some way of meeting these difficulties. It appears to me there are two very obvious ways of doing it. One would be that the Bill shall only apply to the case of recognised and legal institutions; and the other that the Court shall have power, in cases where it thought fit not to order the child to be returned to the parent, to place him in an institution in which, having reference to the religion of the parent, it would be proper he should be placed. I will venture to make one other observation, and that is that among those Amendments I trust there will be one requiring that in all cases the alleged misconduct of parents or guardians, or their competency to have charge of the child, should always be inquired into in open Court.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE: My Lords, before this Bill is read a second time I desire to say a few words on the general subject. If I may be permitted to say so, I approve of the Second Reading, and I am glad the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has stated that there is really no intention of offering opposition to the other Bill which is to be brought before us by the noble Earl on the other side of the House. I will express no opinion on the Bill which has been presented by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, but I would venture to say that if we pass that alone we shall only have touched the fringe of a very important subject. The Bill that is to come on afterwards has been aptly described as one for the better "protection of children," while that presented by the noble and learned Lord has reference only to the "custody of children." That is, no doubt, a very important matter; but looking at the subject from the noble Lord's point of view, the consideration of what is best for the children themselves rather than what are the legal rights of parents, is the most wholesome point of view from which to regard it. Cases of this kind have been brought under my notice. A boy has, for instance, been put into a public institution, and has been there taken great care of. The father and mother are, I will not say extremely depraved persons, but extremely careless persons, in whosehouse the child would get no good and they very rightly acquiesce in the provision that has been made for
  8
  him he remains there for a certain time, and then when the parents find that he has been taught to read and write—better taught than they had any right to expect—they make the base calculation that they can turn the boy to good account, and they go to the institution and apply to have the boy given up to them in order that they may make use of him for purposes of mendicity of various kinds. It is clear that to give way and recognise the legal right of parents of that kind would be really to sacrifice the best interests of the children; and that if you could only look to the best interests of children you would refuse to hand them over to such parents, and would continue the child at the institution in which the parents had assented to its being placed. That is the kind of case which presses upon my mind, and that is the kind of case which it appears to me will be met by the Bill of my noble Friend opposite. While I do not doubt the wisdom of the Bill of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I do supremely rejoice that it is not to go by itself before the Committee, but that it will probably go pari passu with the other Bill. I hope they will be considered by the same Committee so that we may have the benefit of both these Bills.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would propose that this Bill be committed to the General Committee. Although it does touch upon questions of law it deals with the general subject, and may, therefore, very well be dealt with by the Committee.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee for General Bills.

COURT OF CHANCERY OF LANCASTER BILL.—(No. 93.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Bill is, I believe, identical in most of its provisions with a Bill which was proposed by the noble Lord opposite in 1883. It is practically to give greater facilities for the performance of the work of the Court of

  9
  Chancery in the County Palatine. The matter to Liverpool, Manchester, and, indeed, the whole of Lancashire is, of course, extremely important. There are a great number of places in regard to which it is very desirable to give facilities for the trial of cases in the County Palatine, and it is the object of this Bill to remove the difficulties at present standing in the way. My Lords, I have stated the substance of the Bill, and I move that it be read a second time.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.

OFFENCES COMMITTED ABROAD BILL.—(No. 94.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a Bill which, for many reasons, has been proved to be urgently needed. One very important feature of the Bill is this: Where persons are guilty of an offence by reason of receiving goods known to be stolen, that offence is known in this country as felony. There is no such thing in other countries as felony; and the result is that where the offence has been committed abroad which would constitute a felony if done in this country, it is not felony, having taken place abroad. Therefore, the receiving of goods knowing them to have been stolen is one which cannot, in proper language, be so described if the goods have been received knowing them to have been stolen abroad. That is one of the classes of offences with which the Bill proposes to deal, and I believe it will be found to be one which can best be made effective by discussion in Committee, in order to see whether the proper technical phraseology is adopted. I hope that will be done in Committee in a way which will enable your Lordships to see that the Bill deals effectually with a matter which is of importance.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD THRING: My Lords, this Bill is a most important one, and it will, in almost every sentence and line of it,
  10
  require severe scrutiny. I only trust that the noble and learned Lord, in pity for the limited intelligence bestowed on the human mind, will have a Memorandum prepared regarding it for presentation to the Committee. This Bill affects many statutes, including the Fugitive Offenders' Act, and the Acts referring to jurisdiction abroad. I would submit to the noble and learned Lord that without some Memorandum or summary of the Acts to which it relates, it would hardly be possible for any Committee to grope through its mazes. I would also suggest, with great respect to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that Section 4 of the Bill should be re-drawn, for, as it stands at present, I defy any human intelligence to understand its meaning.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, in giving an account of the scope of his Bill, has dealt with only a very small portion of it. The provision of which he spoke is one of a very desirable character, and I should imagine that nobody could seriously object to it. It makes a change in the law which, in my opinion, is very necessary, because the law in that respect has always seemed to me to be somewhat absurd. But the Bill is of a wider scope than would have appeared from the speech of my noble and learned Friend, because it deals very largely with the power of arrest and trial of persons who commit offences out of Her Majesty's dominions, and not within the realm of any civilised State; and it provides practically for their trial in any part of Her Majesty's dominions. Very largo powers of arrest are given, and they may be exercised not only by British, but by foreign officials. It seems to me that those provisions require the very closest scrutiny, because I can conceive various cases arising which, under the Bill as it now stands, would be likely to create considerable diplomatic difficulties with Foreign Powers. The arrest of a person by the authority of the Government of a country outside its own dominions must obviously always be a matter of very considerable delicacy. We should be effecting that arrest in a place where our laws do not prevail and where Her Majesty's Government and officials have no authority; and the power that is given here to authorise the arrest under

  11
  such circumstances, not only by British officials but by foreign officials, of any person accused of a crime of this character might, it seems to me, give rise to difficulties of a very serious character; because, of course, a person being accused (at least I presume so) of a crime as mentioned in the 5th section, 1st sub-section, for which he can be tried under this Act, means accused by any person who may choose to make such accusation; it cannot mean accused in any official or authoritative manner, because no official authority exists in the place where the crime is suppossd to have been committed. But one can conceive that, under such circumstances, the question of a crime committed by a person found outside Her Majesty's dominions which would lead to his arrest by an officer of a Foreign State might obviously give rise to some very awkward questions indeed. I am not calling attention to these matters in any spirit of hostility to the Bill. I can quite understand the difficulties which arise when British subjects commit offences outside the territory of any civilised Power, and I entirely sympathise with the desire expressed of bringing them to justice, the more especially as they very often do great mischief to the country of which they are unworthy subjects. But I mention those matters for the purpose of calling attention to the important character of the Bill and the extreme care and attention which will have to be devoted to the consideration of all its details, as well as the close scrutiny which will be necessary into the effect of its provisions before it can be allowed to pass into law.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I am sure your Lordships will sympathise with the noble Lord who has just sat down when he says that a Bill of this kind needs careful scrutiny. No doubt some of its provisions are, to a certain extent, novel, and deal with very difficult subjects, but I think they deal with a growing evil. If we had only to deal with countries with which we are able to conclude Extradition Treaties—with civilised countries of that character where we could use sufficient influence—there would be less difficulty and less need for a Bill of this kind; but the
  12
  House is well aware that in recent times a new sort of dominion has been slowly growing which is expressed in a great variety of ways. Sometimes it is called a Protectorate, sometimes a sphere of influence, sometimes a region in which another Power has interests, and so on; but without some authority of this kind there is no doubt that persons of unruly spirits, who are to be found on the outskirts of civilisation, may do a great deal of mischief and cause a great deal of trouble, and there may be no means of bringing them to justice. That is, I think, the motive which has induced the production of this clause. I quite admit the great difficulties which attend the question: but I want to press upon the noble and learned Lord and upon the noble Lord behind me that they are not difficulties of our seeking; they are not difficulties even which have arisen from previous complications; but they are difficulties, which have arisen out of the curious conditions of International relations which: have from time to time grown up. The point in which I am—I will not say most interested, but which interests me very much—is the trial of British subjects in: this country for offences committed abroad. With most civilised States we have Extradition Treaties, and most of them allow us to extradite our own subjects to be tried for offences committed abroad. On the surface that seems a reasonable arrangement; but when you; come practically to work it, you are asked to send your own subjects for trial to a place where you cannot reasonably have any conviction that the trial will be conducted according to any principle which, in this country, we have been accustomed to consider inseparable from justice. It would be invidious to suggest instances where such differences exist; but in some there is a great delay in dealing with prisoners, and in others great corruption is found, considerations which make it very desirable that we should, as far as possible, try our own subjects in this, country for any crimes they may have committed abroad.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I must apologise to your Lordships for having referred in a somewhat perfunctory manner to the provisions of the Bill, but I thought its details would be best dealt with in Committee. That was the

  13
  reason why I made but short reference to it. I gave one example only of some of the difficulties which might arise when you are dealing with questions involving the consideration of foreign law, but I quite agree with my noble and learned Friend that it is a matter which must be very carefully looked into in Committee. For that reason it appeared to me there was no great necessity for any considerable amount of explanation at this stage. I would suggest that the Bill should be referred to the Grand Committee on Law.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN BILL.— (No. 68.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I desire, in the first place, to return my thanks to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for having brought forward a Bill dealing with the custody of children, and that having found it necessary on a former occasion to oppose the Bill which I brought forward for the adoption of children, he had the frankness to acknowledge that there were grievances to be redressed. Quite unexpectedly by me he has responded to the appeal which I made to him upon that occasion that he should bring forward, on the part of the Government, some measure which would protect the children. I therefore return him my most sincere thanks for having done so; and I have also to thank him for having permitted me to bring forward a second time this Bill for the Protection of Children. It would have been quite in his power to prevent this Bill being brought forward; he has not only done that, but he has informed your Lordships as I understand that he will allow it to be read a second time and referred to the Committee before which his own measure will go. I hope some legislation may result therefrom, which will remove these poor children from the risk of ill-treatment and the sufferings which they undergo when, after, perhaps, many years of kind attention and care, they are claimed by brutal and unworthy
  14
  parents who demand as a legal right that the children shall be handed over to them. The Bill which I ask your Lordships now to read a second time has been framed with the view of avoiding the contentious subject of adoption, and yet, at the same time, of protecting from the abuse of parental authority children over whom their parents have relinquished control. Your Lordships will notice that all those contentious questions have been avoided which raised debate upon the occasion of my former Bill being presented. I then produced some 30 cases in which children had been taken away from happy homes by their parents, just at the age when they could be made of use to them, regardless of the children's interests, and I showed that in a great number of those cases the children had relapsed into misery and crime. Since that time I have received a number of letters from persons who are interested in this question, and there are one or two of the cases mentioned there to which, if your Lordships will allow me, I will call attention. There was a case which has been brought to my notice in which a child was taken into a home and supported for several years. The mother died of a broken heart from the cruel treatment of her husband he was a hopeless drunkard, and, though he had been well-educated, and was formerly in a good position, he had lost every thing through drink, and was, in fact, living on the charity of his neighbours. When the child, a girl, was seven years old, the father came to the home to remove her.
  "I found," says the lady who writes to me, "that the father had several people outside; having taken legal advice, I found that we could not resist the father's claim, and that we could not prevent him exercising his rights, though he had no lodgings to which he could lake the child, and that she would he exposed to all kinds of evil, religious and moral."
  That is a case, my Lords, which I point out as a very good example of the instances which have been sent me. There is one more, however, to which I will refer. A man was sentenced to five years' penal servitude for burglary. His two infants were taken into the home. The wife was also a drunkard and was convicted of crime. When they were released from prison their first act was

  15
  to demand their children, both of whom were almost dead of starvation when they were admitted. Those who had taken care of and maintained the children had no power to keep them, however wicked or depraved the parents were, and they had to be given up. There are a number of such cases, but I am not going to inflict them upon your Lordships. I think I have read enough in conjunction with the cases I read on the previous occasion to show that there is really a necessity for some legislation of this character. In fact, it was acknowledged by all the noble Lords who spoke upon the last occasion, and it is generally admitted that there is great need for legislation which does not improperly interfere with the exercise of parental authority, to prevent cases of hardship and of injury to children where they have been deserted and brought up by persons other than their parents. The Bill is intended to prevent the abuse of parental authority, and it is a very short one. By the 1st section it provides that where a parent has relinquished his control over his child, and such child has been maintained by others out of private funds in a proper manner, the parent shall not be entitled to resume the custody or control of such child until he has repaid to such person or persons all costs properly incurred by such person or persons in bringing up such child. The parent, however, though he may be willing to repay the costs incurred in bringing up the child, shall not be entitled to resume custody of it unless the Court shall be of opinion that it is for the child's benefit he should do so. The Bill, however, gives power to the Court before which the case comes to waive such repayments in such cases as it may think fit. As has been said by the noble and learned Lord behind me, I think there can be no question but that in these days public opinion and feeling is more acute than in former times with regard to the way in which children are treated, and in accordance with that general feeling I do not think it is right that the law should consider the benefit of the children as subordinate to the interests of the parents. By Section 2, a foster parent may be similarly protected in reference to payments by Poor Law Guardians. Section 3 simply gives a definition of the
  16
  meaning of the words "parent" and "child." Then Section 4 provides that—
  "For the purposes of this Act a parent shall be deemed to have relinquished the control of his child if tie has abandoned or deserted his child; or has been guilty of such misconduct as would, according to the law for the time being- in force as administered by a Court of Equity, disentitle him to the custody of his child; or if he, knowing that his child is being brought up by a foster parent, has not taken any proceedings to resume the custody of such child for so long a time or under such circumstances as, in the opinion of the Court having cognisance of the case, to indicate that the parent has acquiesced in the bringing up of such child by the foster parent."
  If I might be permitted at this stage, as I did not speak on the occasion of the Lord Chancellor's Bill being brought forward, I would ask a question which I think the noble and learned Lord might desire to answer, and that is, What is the actual law on the subject at present? Speaking as a layman, I cannot find out what the law actually is upon which Magistrates act at present. It appears that when children are claimed by parents under these circumstances the Magistrates either refuse to interfere altogether or they grant a summons, and the child is obliged to be handed back to the parents. In the Bill which has been laid upon the Table of your Lordships' House only those cases are mentioned where the matter has been brought to the cognisance of the High Court; but, as far as I can make out, such matters are not brought to the cognisance of the High Court at all. I should like, as a layman, to know what would be the course which persons having the custody of a child should take if they thought they were justified, under the Bill of the noble and learned Lord, in retaining the child. Of late years, my Lords, much attention has been drawn to this subject, and it is being more and more recognised that the interests of the child ought to be regarded as paramount where they clash with the old Common Law rights of the parent. By my Bill all complications from changes in the law by the transference of authority to persons other than parents, or in regard to the law of devolution of property, are avoided. There can be no fear of its encouraging or permitting the sale of children, or of proselytising, as the parents can always, on paying the costs which have been

  17
  incurred, resume possession or control of children, and even if they are too poor to pay those costs, the Court can give possession of the children without payment, if it considers it would be right from any cause that the parents should resume possession of the children. I hope your Lordships will permit this Bill to be read a second time, and that you will think it right that it should be referred to the same Committee to which the noble and learned Lord's Bill has been referred, in order that the two measures may be considered together. There is, in my opinion, no question that the handing back of these children to their parents is, as a general rule, very adverse to the interests of children themselves. A gentleman who has for years been at the head of an institution for the reception of lads reclaimed from the streets writes to me that he has gone through the brief history of the boys who have been received into that institution for the last two and a half years, and he finds that of the whole number about one in eight has been injured by the parents coming and claiming them as soon as the boys have been taught a little, and are able to be employed as errand boys; so that in about 12.5 of the cases in which their funds and labours have been expended in the work of rescuing such children from ruin their efforts have been thrown away. A lady who has the care of girls writes to me in a similar way. She says that the proportion of relapses into crime among children when returned to their parents equals 16.9 per cent., as against 6 in the cases where they have not been returned to their parents; and that in the Felton School 23 per cent, of the children returned to their parents are re-convicted, as against 5 per cent, of those who are otherwise provided for. I will not detain your Lordships any further. The discussion upon this subject has practically been going on now for some time, and I think, therefore, your Lordships are all more or less in possession of the facts of the case. I only ask your Lordships to permit the Bill to be read a second time, and to refer it to the same Committee as that which will consider the Bill of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I should desire to make a few observations to the House upon this Bill, and particularly with reference to its bearing upon the Bill of my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, which has been read a second time. I am very glad they are both to go to the Standing Committee, because I cannot help feeling that some measure of protection for children is necessary beyond that which would be afforded by the provisions contained in my noble and learned Friend's Bill. It would be necessary, in order to prevent the parent obtaining possession of his child under the measure proposed by my noble and learned Friend, for the person seeking to withhold the child from its parent to prove that such parent had been guilty of some misconduct, and that he or she was unfit to have the care and custody of the child. Now it is, of course, obvious that the difficulty of bringing forward such proof would often be immense, and in many cases it might be impossible to bring forward evidence to support such an allegation. I do not think where a parent has relinquished the control of his child to others who have cared for it, brought it up, and expended money upon it, that he can reasonably be allowed to assert a right to resume possession of his child without first restoring to those persons the money they have so expended. But I do not think it would do to make that a condition absolute in all cases, because there may be cases where a parent can prove that he is perfectly fit to have the possession of his child, that he can afford to properly maintain it, and that he can provide for it a happy home, that he is not in any way to blame, and that his circumstances are such that it would be absolutely debarring him of the custody of his child altogether if he were compelled to pay those expenses before the child could be handed over to him. Therefore, I think my noble and learned Friend has wisely left to the Court the determination of the question whether the parent should first be compelled to pay the whole, or some portion, or none at all, of those expenses, at the same time enabling the Court, if it should think fit to do so, to enforce payment of those expenses before the child is delivered up. That would, of course, throw upon the parent the onus of showing

  19
  that he was fit to be allowed to take back the child, and that the child's interests could be safely entrusted to him. It seems to me there is all the difference in the world between that onus being thrown upon the parent and casting upon the person who has taken care of the child and brought it up the burden of proving that the parent has disentitled himself to the custody. I quite agree in what has been said by a noble Lord that there has hitherto been too great a regard for what is called the sanctity of the parental authority, even after parents have violated every duty which they can owe to the children to whom they have given birth. It seems to me there has been too little regard paid to the interests and welfare of the children. It is certainly terrible to reflect how often it has been the case, and may be still, that a child who has found the lack of parental care supplied by those who have taken the place of real parents to it, who have done for the child, land well done for it, all that parents ought to do for a child, has been torn from those foster-parents at a time when it has learned to love them and feel grateful to them, as to those to whom alone its gratitude is due, to be handed over to parents in name only, who can afford it no proper education or maintenance, and who have shown themselves—himself, or herself—utterly unfit to train it for its future life. I agree, at the same time, that we are not lightly to regard the relation of parent and child, and that we ought not lightly to set aside the right which the parent has hitherto had in law to the custody of his child. But it appears to me that that right is fully guarded in the Bill which my noble and learned Friend has proposed, because the provisions of the Bill are only to operate where the parent has relinquished the control over his child, to other persons who have brought it up. The parent is only in that case to be regarded as having abandoned or deserted it. Surely if a parent has abandoned or deserted his child, and left the duty of its care to others, it is only reasonable that the Court should have power to require him to repay what those others had spent, and to inquire whether it would be good for the child to remain where it is rather than that it should go
  20
  back to the parent who has deserted it. With regard to the question of misconduct, the Court of Equity will interfere with the exercise of the parental right to custody in proper cases and upon sufficient evidence, and this Bill would apply that principle equally in cases of the kind I have been describing. Another category to which the observation might be applied is that class of cases where the parent knowing that the child is being so brought up has refrained for so long a time from making application for the custody of his child that he may be taken to have really acquiesced in its being so brought up. In none of the cases is the barrier to the parents resuming the custody made absolute, but the matter is left in the discretion of the Court, which must be satisfied that it will be for the child's interest before the parent can be permitted to resume possession of it. I submit to your Lordships that that is a provision which is eminently reasonable. With regard to the observations which have been made by Lord Emly, I certainly should feel very much regret if any measure of this kind should be taken advantage of for the purposes of proselytising in reference to the children, and I do not think there would be any real difficulty in providing against it, if it were thought to be at all possible. Where the parent himself or herself is shown to be unfit to have the custody of the child, I think if it was proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a child was being brought up in an institution where the religious teaching was other than that its parents accepted, and that there was some other institution the religious teaching in which was in accordance with their views, and where the child would be equally well-cared for, there could be no objection to giving power to the Court to transfer the child from one institution to the other. But that is a matter which would require consideration. There seems to me to be no insuperable difficulty in striking against the danger which the noble Lord has suggested. I trust that the result of the consideration of these two measures combined may be one measure which will afford better protection to children, and secure them against many of the hardships they have now to undergo.
  EARL PERCY: I am sure your Lordships will agree with the last remark of the noble and learned Lord Lord Herschell in hoping that the issue of sending these two Bills to the same Committee may be the production of a measure which will strengthen the hands of the law in dealing with the very hard cases which have been referred to. To my non-legal mind this seems a matter of the greatest difficulty to deal with. We all seem to know generally what we want; but if we can judge from the measures which have been successively laid before us we do not quite see how to meet the requirements of the case. The first Bill on the subject which my noble Friend Lord Meath presented to your Lordships' House was generally understood to go too far. The noble Lord has now presented another Bill which we have before ns. That measure was stopped in its progress by the notice which the noble and learned Lord gave that he proposed to bring forward a measure on behalf of the Government. I presume from the fact of that measure having been brought forward that the Government is of opinion that Lord Meath's Bill is not absolutely necessary, and that, at any rate, the provisions which it embodies are not altogether needed, because otherwise the Government measure would have been more exhaustive. But, my Lords, if it be the case that we require some further legislation than that embodied in the Lord Chancellor's Bill, I do not doubt that it would be of great importance if, before we go into Committee, the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill would consider what the best means would be of meeting the difficulties which have been mentioned with regard to this species of legislation altogether. I should like to say a few words here with regard to the first clause, which provides for cases where a parent has relinquished the control over his child, and certain provisions follow. One of the instances by which the noble Lord sought to support this Bill was a case in which the parents of the child had suffered a lengthened term of imprisonment, and he asked your Lordships whether it was not a very improper thing that the child should have been returned to parents after they had come out of prison under such circumstances.
  22
  That, I think, would depend entirely upon the circumstances of the particular case; but as far as any objection on that account goes, there is nothing, as far as I can see, in this Bill which makes the imprisonment of the parents tantamount to the relinquishment by them of control over their children. We ought, I think, clearly to understand what it is intended that this legislation should do. I am strengthened in that remark by the words which occur at the end of the clause—
  "If the Court having cognisance of the case is of opinion that it is not for the benefit of the child that he should be brought up by the parent instead of the foster-parent."
  That is going rather far I think. What does "the benefit of the child" mean? To put an extreme case: suppose the foster-parent is likely to leave the child a large fortune, and the natural parent is not so happily circumstanced; is the Court to decide that it is not for the benefit of the child under those circumstances that he should be restored to his natural parent? It is impossible, I think, that my noble Friend can mean that. Unless something is introduced to make that a little plainer, I think it may lead to very great difficulty. Then the noble Earl has said that it would be right the Court should consider what is for the benefit of the child, rather than what is for the interest of the parent in the matter, and other noble Lords used the game language. It is not simply a question, I beg leave to say, of whether it is for the benefit of the child that it should be restored to its parent, or left in his custody. The assumption of the law, so far as I understand it, is that parents were by nature intended to have the control of their children; that that control is proper for the child, à priori, and that it is only where it is clearly proved that the child would suffer morally or physically by being left to its parents that he can be taken from their custody by the State. The benefit to the child is not the question; the question is, whether there is not a natural right existing in the parent, which only the strongest reasons can justify us in depriving him of. I confess I think the Committee will find some difficulty in welding these two measures into one; but I am very glad that the matter has been brought forward, and that your Lordships' atten-

  23
  tion has been called to it; and I trust that the labours of the Committee upon the Bills will bear good fruit.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, there are a few additional remarks which I wish to make upon the present Bill. I think that some of the observations which the noble Earl has made are very material; but it seems to me that they would rather require discussion in Committee, and not to be discussed now, in dealing with the principle of the measure, because they are matters which, as it appears to me, can only be dealt with by detailed machinery. Let me take the most obvious suggestion with regard to the condition precedent to acceding to the demand of the parent that his child should be given back to him, that all monies paid on the child's behalf for its maintenance and education should be paid. I confess I regard that provision with exceeding jealousy; it looks to me very much like giving a sort of lien upon the child. It was not with that object at all that it has been put into the Bill. The object is to interpose a barrier against the demand of an unworthy parent to re-take possession of his child, I cannot doubt that that is the real object, because, regarding it merely as a matter of repayment, no one would suppose that the charitable institution or private person who has taken care of and brought up the child would willingly give him up upon being repaid the money which had been expended upon him. But if the real object is to impose a barrier to the resuming of possession by unworthy parents would it not be better to put that provision into the Bill, that an unworthy parent is not to be allowed to exercise that parental right which the Common Law gives him? Then I quite admit that, unless you make some provision with regard to the onus of proof, it may be very hard upon the charitable parson or institution that they should be called upon to submit to the child being taken away by the parent, unless they could give actual proof of the parents' misconduct when the parent who had disappeared re-appeared to claim him. There would, however, be no difficulty in changing the onus of showing misconduct; and if a child has been so deserted, and the parents have left it to the care of others, it would certainly not
  24
  be unreasonable to provide that, before the child should be allowed to be restored to him, the parent should show what was the reason of the desertion, how the child came to be abandoned, and that he or she is now in a position to resume possession of the child, and to take back again the parental control which they had voluntarily abandoned. And so with regard to the observations which have been made by the noble Earl who has just sat down. Unless some provision is made with reference to the principle on which the Court is to act where you have such words as "for the interest of the child," it seems to me that the Legislature will be abandoning its duty and throwing it upon the Judges without affording any guide to them in dealing with the very difficult problem which they have to solve. I think it ought to be explained in the Bill that what is meant by the expression "interest of the child" is not merely its pecuniary interest, but its moral and religious interests. Then, the moment you mention the religious interest, it is obvious that you raise a question which my noble Friend pointed out was one of the sources of danger in attempting legislation upon this subject. All I can say is, that I will listen with very great attention to any suggestions which may be made upon the clauses of the Bill to which reference has been made by noble Lords; and if the Bill can be so moulded, following the principles which it embodies, as to give effect to what is desired, as far as I am concerned I shall have very great pleasure in giving my assistance. One point more with regard to the duties which the Magistrates have to discharge. I confess I should regard with very great jealousy any proposal to submit questions of such importance and difficulty as those now under consideration to any other tribunal than the High Court. I certainly would not be a party to referring them to any other tribunal. Questions of this character affecting the relations between parent and child ought not to be remitted to Petty Sessions or Courts of inferior jurisdiction. If any such proposal were made, I am afraid I should be found on the opposite side. With the general objects of the noble Lord I am in hearty agreement. We are endeavouring to reach the same

  25
  goal. The only question is as to the mode in which that is to be done, and if the two Bills can he welded together satisfactorily I shall be very glad.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee for General Bills.

  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; then Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. having been dispensed with, moved that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; Committee negatived: Bill read 3a, and passed.
CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) PLEURO-PNEUMONIA BILL.— (No. 105.)
  DEEDS OF ARRANGEMENT BILL.— (No. 106.)

    WORKING CLASSES DWELLINGS BILL.—(No. 107.)
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
    House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter-past Four o'clock.