Sitting of 14 April 1891

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
QUESTIONS.
  BERMUDA DOCKYARD.
  MR. BROADHURST: I had intended to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that a shipwright has recently been placed in charge of the engines and machinery in the Bermuda Dockyard, and that the Inspector of Machinery at Bermuda recommended that an engineer should be appointed to the post; and, if so, whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the circumstances which led to the appointment of a person who can have but little practical knowledge of the duties involved? In the absence of the noble Lord I will put the question on Thursday.

  POSTCARDS.
  MR. BROADHURST): I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will give instructions that Post Office stamps shall not be impressed on the message side of postcards?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,: It is already an instruction to postmasters that postcards are not to be stamped on the message side, and 1 shall be glad if the hon. Member will send me any cards stamped in disregard of this instruction which he may have received.

  SCHOOL BOOKS IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  MR. HERMON-HODGE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether it is a fact that the parents of children attending elementary schools are frequently forced to purchase the school books from the schoolmasters at a higher price than they can buy them in the shops in the neighbourhood; whether it is also the fact that they are forced to provide new books for each child of their family for each standard, though they already have the books in
  474
  good condition in their possession, and whether they are so forced by fear of punishment to the children?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT or THE COUNCIL(Sir W. HART DYKE,: No case of the kind, to my knowledge, has come under the notice of the Department; but if my hon. Friend will give me the facts upon which his information is based I will have full inquiry made into the circumstances.
  MR. HERMON-HODGE: Is it not desirable that instructions should be given to the Inspectors to inquire into the matter?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I see no objection.

  ROTHESAY SCHOOL BOARD.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the attention of the Scotch Education Department has been called to a report of the proceedings of the Rothesay School Board, published in the Rothesay Express, of the 8th instant, in which it is stated that—
  "The expenditure of the Board having been £138 less than the grant received, the Government would have deducted that amount from the grant unless it had been expended ";
  and that, therefore, the £138 had been given away as a bonus to the teachers; and whether the expenditure of the sum in question was necessary in order to enable the School Board to secure the grant which had been earned; and, if so, whether the Department will consider the propriety of amending its rules so as to do away with so obvious an incentive to the waste of public money?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B.ROBERTSON,: The Scotch Education Department has not yet received the accounts of either of the schools under the Rothesay School Board for the school year just ended; but I am inclined to doubt the accuracy of the statement quoted, inasmuch as in previous years the expenses of these schools greatly exceeded the grant received, which had to be largely supplemented from local resources. In these circumstances, I am unable to say what expenditure was necessary in order to secure the grant. But I may remind the hon. Member that the rule which in certain circumstances limits the grant to the amount provided

  475
  from other sources is not made by the Department, but is laid down by an Act of Parliament.

  CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the case of two men who were tried in the Sheriff Criminal Court, Glasgow, on the 30th of March, and found guilty of criminal conspiracy, on the ground that the accused, being members of a Trades Union, called out, or said they would call out, their fellow members unless a non-Unionist fellow workman was dismissed; whether his attention has been called to the comments of the learned Sheriff on the novelty of the charge, and his statement that its legality had been ascertained by the trial; and also to the ruling that the exemption from the Common Law of Conspiracy contained in " The Conspiracy and Protection to Property Act, 1875," does not extend to trade disputes between workmen; and' whether, having regard to the great importance of the issues involved, he will consent to lay upon the Table an authentic Report of the proceedings, including the Sheriff's charge to the jury?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: As the information to enable me to reply to this question has not yet reached me, I must ask the hon. and learned Member to postpone it until Thursday.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I will give it again on Friday.

  POSTAL DELIVERIES IN EAST LONDON.
  MR. ISAACSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will state the reason why the northern and eastern portions of the Metropolis are not included in the 7 o'clock delivery from the House of Commons?
  MR. RAIKES: In answer to the hon. Member, I have to state that the 7 o'clock collection at the House of Commons Post Office for delivery in all the London districts, except the eastern and northern, was established about 20 years ago, and those two districts were excluded because the letters for them were found to be too few in number to justify the expense of their conveyance. I will, however,
  476
  have inquiry made to ascertain whether there has since been a sufficient increase in the correspondence to justify the cost of including those districts in the arrangement.
  MR. ISAACSON: I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that the population of the East End of London is now something like 10 times as large as it was 20 years ago.

  GWYLWYR SETT QUARRY.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the nature of the provisions contained in the lease of the Gwylwyr Sett Quarry, Carnarvonshire, for enforcing the effective working of the quarry by the lessee; and especially, what is the minimum number of men the lessee is called upon by the terms of his lease to keep employed upon the quarry?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: I am informed that Clause 3 in the agreement makes provision for the efficient working of the quarry by the lessee, and requires it to be worked to the satisfaction of the lessor.

  ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any steps have yet been taken, in accordance with his promise of last year, to see for the public the ad-advantages of open competition or limited competition for the supply of drugs and medical comforts and appliances and surgical instruments to the Army?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BBODRICK,: The supply of drugs and medical appliances has been put up to limited competition, and the contract has fallen to Messrs. Herring. No change has as yet been made in regard to surgical instruments. Experience will show whether the public has gained by the change of system.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: If the list was decided after considerable inquiry, how is it that the name of the best known firm in the trade was omitted?
  MR. BRODRICK: I cannot answer that question off-hand.

  SAVINGS BANKS DEPARTMENT.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received repeated applications from Messrs. Mann and Harting, two Second Division clerks, to be re-transferred to the Savings Banks Department, from which they were removed in November last without cause for their removal being assigned; whether similar applications have been received from Messrs. Foord and Johnson, whose removal from the Department was stated to the House to be intended as a punishment in consequence of being suspected of communicating an official document to the Press; whether it is a fact that these two officers have received his assurance that he is satisfied that they were not responsible for such communication; if so, why they are still undergoing punishment for the alleged offence; and whether, having regard to the undermanned condition of the Department, the application of these officers to be re-instated is still refused?
  MR. RAIKES: I have received the application referred to, but do not think it would be in the interest of the Public Service to re-assign the officers in question to the Savings Bank. I have accepted the assurance given by Messrs. Foord and Johnson; but it is not my intention to employ them again in that branch of the Service.

  FOREIGN ENLISTMENT ACT—BRITISH SUBJECTS ON CHILIAN WARSHIPS.
  MR. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have taken steps to prevent the engagement of British subjects to serve as officers or crews on the vessels of war now being built and equipped in Prance to the order of the Government of Chili, one of which is reported to be on the point of departure from Havre; and whether it is true, as reported, that the French Government have prohibited the service of French subjects on these vessels?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOB FOREIGN AFFAIRS(Sir J. FER-GUSSON,: No steps have been taken of the nature indicated in the first paragraph of the question.
  478
  It has not as yet been considered necessary to apply the provisions of the-Foreign Enlistment Act under existing circumstances in Chili. No official information has been received to the effect stated in the last paragraph.

  SCOTCH SHERIFF SUBSTITUTES.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he claims any right to review or to animadvert on the conduct of, or observations made by, a Sheriff Substitute in his judicial capacity in a civil case pending before him in the Small Debt Court in Scotland; if so, under what law or authority he makes the claim, and the extent of his claim; and whether he has powers to censure or dismiss without an Address to the Crown being carried in Parliament?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The hon. Member is entirely mistaken in supposing that a Sheriff Substitute in Scotland cannot be dismissed from office without an Address to the Crown being carried in Parliament. Under the Statute 40 & 41 Vict., c. 50, he may be removed from office by the Secretary for Scotland for inability or misbehaviour upon a Report by the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Justice Clerk for the time being. As regards the first part of the hon. Member's question, I have not in this case, on which I gave an answer yesterday, claimed any right in the matter, but merely stated to the House the facts of the case, and what I understood from his own statements and from the duties of his office to be the views of the Sheriff Substitute.
  MR. CALDWELL: Then 1 understand that the right hon. Gentleman has not given any official intimation upon the subject?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I think I have sufficiently answered the question already.

  BECHUANALAND.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is true, as is reported to have been last week stated by the Colonial Secretary of Cape Colony, that the Imperial Government has expressed its willingness to agree to the annexation of Bechuanaland by Cape Colony?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer the question. The incorporation at some time or other of the southern portion of Bechuanaland into the Cape Colony has always been contemplated since the first establishment of British authority in that country, but Her Majesty's Government have not at present decided to take any action. I may add that the telegraphic summary of the speech can hardly be accepted as correctly representing Mr. Sauer's remarks.

  TRESPASS BY COTTARS IN LEWIS.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the fact that at the trial of 12 Lewis cottars, under the Trespass Act, for raids upon Orinsay and Stimrenay, the prosecuting Procurator Fiscal was Mr. John Ross, the private agent of Lady Matheson, pro-prietrix, and Mr. J. Martin, tenant, of the localities in respect of which the trespass was charged; and whether, considering the repeated declarations of Scottish Law Officers in this House as to the undesirability of Public Prosecutors, where it can be avoided, being allowed to engage in private practice, he will direct regular Procurator Fiscal Mr. William Ross to act personally in any other cases arising out of the recent raids?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I understand that Mr. John Ross, Depute Fiscal, conducted the prosecution in question, in the absence of Mr. William Ross, the Procurator Fiscal, who was engaged in other official duties. Lady Matheson's interest in the matter of the recent trespasses are being attended to by an Edinburgh solicitor unconnected with the Fissal's firm, and not by Mr. John Ross. I have no doubt that the Procurator Fiscal will endeavour to take any remaining cases of this nature where this is possible. I entirely adhere to the Ministerial declarations referred to by the hon. Gentleman in regard to new appointments of Procurators Fiscal.

  ILLITERATES AT THE NORTH SLIGO ELECTION.
  MR. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the recent North Sligo
  480
  election, owing to a large number of illiterate voters presenting themselves at one time at one polling station, the forms for illiterate votes ran short, and in consequence that polling booth had to be closed for a considerable period, and also that, when many of the voters presented themselves to vote as illiterates, long discussions arose between the personation agents of the two candidates as to whether the several claims to vote as illiterates were bonâ fide ones or not, and in consequence great delay arose; were any persons who had not taken the oath of secrecy permitted to remain in the polling stations while the illiterates' votes were being taken; and whether the Government propose to cause inquiry to be made into the subject?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: The official Reports furnished to me do not afford the additional information asked, but I have directed a further inquiry to be made into the subject.
  MR. WEBSTER: I will repeat the question at a later date.

  LAND PURCHASE BILL.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I bag to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if it was by inadvertence that the clause providing permanent tenure for the Fair Rent Commissioners is inserted in the Purchase Bill, while the clause providing equality of salary for the Purchase Commissioners is inserted in the Land Department Bill; and will the Government undertake to treat the entire question of the status of the Commissioners connectively, and deal with it in the same Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The settlement of the question of official tenure appears to the Government essential to any sound land purchase scheme. The question of alteration of salary evidently only arises if there is an alteration of duties. Now, the Bill we are at present discussing does not suggest any alteration of the duties of the Land Purchase Commissioners. This is done in the Land Department Bill, and it is on that Bill that the subject should, I think, be discussed.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Are we to understand that the Purchase Commissioners are to have all the powers of

  481
  the Fair Rent Commissioners, and that the Fair Rent Commissioners are to have none of the powers of the Purchase Commissioners?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; we leave that question entirely on one side to be discussed when it is proposed to make an alteration. I think that will be the proper time to discuss the matter.

  NEW WRIT
  For the City of London, v. Thomas Charles Baring, esquire, deceased.— (Mr. Akers-Douglas.)

  COMMONS.
  Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 179.]

  IRISH SOCIETY AND LONDON COMPANIES (IRISH ESTATES).
  Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee on Irish Society and London Companies (Irish. Estates) in Sessions 1889, 1890, referred to the Select Committee on Irish Society and London Companies (Irish Estates).—(Mr. John Morley.)
MOTIONS

  DIVORCE BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Hunter, Bill to amend the Law of Divorce in England, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hunter, Mr. Asquith, Mr. Cobb, Mr. Fenwick, and Mr. Herbert Gardner.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 281.]

  POOR LAW GUARDIANS (IRELAND) (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. T. W. Russell, Bill to enable "Women to act as Poor Law Guardians in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. Thomas Dickson, Mr. Lea, and Mr. Johnston.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 232.]

  SALMON FISHERIES (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Macartney, Bill to amend the Salmon Fisheries (Ireland) Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Macartney, Mr. O'Neill, and Mr. Webb.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 283.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  MAIL SHIPS BILL.—(No. 163.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, " That Clause 4 stand part of the Bill."
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I must protest against the practice which the Government have recently adopted of putting down Bills of this kind as the First Order of the Day at Morning Sittings. The Government ask hon. Members to give way at 12 o'clock at night, and having done so we find these Bills put down as the First Order on the next day, so that they may slip through without discussion. I look upon this as a most objectionable practice. The present Bill is a measure of great importance, and it contains many matters which are deserving of attention, but at present I do not wish to do more than raise a protest against the system. All I can say is, that if the Government intend to continue the same course, the result will be that hon. Members overnight will keep on their blocks, and the Government will not succeed in making progress with their business.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 5 agreed to.
    Clause 6.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 20, after " detained," to insert "and any legal proceeding in relation to any such matter as aforesaid may be commenced by such service in the United Kingdom of any writ or process as may be prescribed by rules of Court."—(Sir J. Fergusson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. T. M. HEALY: As these words deal with a special matter I think the Committee is entitled to some explanation of them.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,: The whole effect of the Amendment is to give the same advantages to British as to foreign ships.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it likely to result in a convention?
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: Yes.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: When were the terms of the Convention submitted? I want to know whether any agreement has been come to as to the terms of this Amendment.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Convention has been weeks before the House. This Amendment was decided upon after the Bill was in print. It will be of advantage to British ships in giving a ready means of recovering damages against a foreign Mail steamer which may have' caused damage. I can assure the hon. and learned Member that all the provisions of the Bill have been most carefully considered.
    MR. CHANCE: In the event of a foreign ship committing damage to a British ship, will the same summary mode of procedure apply?
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: Certainly. All the obligations in the Bill are reciprocal, and the object of the measure is to prevent the detention of a Mail ship when a claim is made by entering into a permanent Mail bond.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: That being so I cannot help thinking that it is most injudicious to introduce this provision, for this reason—that England owns more ships than any other country, and it is not to the advantage of this country to have a provision of this kind made reciprocal. It will undoubtedly give foreigners a great advantage over us against the very slight advantage which we can possibly obtain from them.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: On the contrary, the provision will confer great advantages upon British interests over those which they at present enjoy. Hitherto, French mail ships have been free from arrest on account of their national character, but no British vessel will be placed under any disability not previously borne.
    MR. CHANCE: This Amendment will enable any service to initiate proceedings. I have no doubt that the Judges would act with great discretion, but I think it would be desirable, as part of the service, to require some notice to be given to the Consulate of the country to which the ship belongs. 1 am sure that this must be intended, and that the omission is a mere slip.
    484
    Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider the matter before the Report.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: I shall be glad to consider it; but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that every line of the Bill has been most carefully considered by the legal advisers of the Crown. There is no need for the intervention of the Consul for the recovery of the damages, the parties having been heard in the suit.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    SIR J. FERGUSSONmoved, in page 6, line 21, after "shall," to insert "in accordance with Rules of Court."
    Question, " That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    SIR J. FERGUSSONmoved, in page 6, line 27, at the end of the clause to add—
    " Where the Commissioners of Customs, in pursuance of any Act or as a condition of waiving any forfeiture, require a deposit to be made by any exempted Mail ship to which this section applies, the amount of such deposit shall, on notice from the Commissioners of Customs, and without any further proceeding, be set apart out of the security as money belonging to the said Commissioners, and shall be paid and applied as they direct, and any Rules of Court relating to such notice, payment, or application shall be made with the consent of the Treasury."
    Question, " That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 7 agreed to.
    Clause 8.
    SIR J. FERGUSSONmoved, in line 3, after "Scotland," to insert " and the Court in which it is recovered may reduce the amount of such fine."
    Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I observe that so far as Scotland is concerned the Court is to have power to reduce the fine. Is that the present practice in Scotland?
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: It is intended that the practice shall be common to the United Kingdom generally. The amount of the fine can now be reduced.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: It may not be the case in the Scotch Law, but in Irish Acts it is customary to say any fine may be recovered not exceeding a certain sum. The Bill does not impose

    485
    upon the Scotch Courts the duty of inflicting a maximum fine; and why, therefore, insert these curious words, which will enable the Court to reduce the amount of the fine after it has been imposed?
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: The word " Scotland " does not govern the proviso, it will apply to all the Courts of the Kingdom.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Then the Bill is drafted in a very curious manner.
    MR. CHANCE: The Amendment is open to two interpretations—first, that before judgment is given the Court, instead of imposing a fine of £50, may impose one of £40, £30, or £20; and, secondly, that after the Court has given judgment its jurisdiction shall not cease, but that it shall have the power to reduce the amount of the fine.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Amendment has been suggested by the Judges of the Court of Admiralty, and I think the House ought to consider that sufficient.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: On the contrary, that is a reason which renders it suspicious, and, for my part, I protest against the manner in which Bills of this kind are brought in. It is most unfair, I think, to ask the right hon. Baronet to conduct such a Bill, and I beg to move that Progress be reported until the Attorney General can be present.
    Question. " That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

  PURCHASE OF LAND AND CONGESTED DISTRICTS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 111.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 13, to leave out the word " fifteen," and insert the word " ten."—(Mr. Keay.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'fifteen' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. SEXTON: I think the Committee are rather unfortunate to-day in the attendance of
    486
    Ministers. It was very inconvenient to discuss the last Bill in the absence of the Attorney General, and as this Amendment ultimately concerns the Department of the Chancellor of the Exchequer I had expected to find the right hon. Gentleman present.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: He is in the Library, and will be here in a moment.
    MR. SEXTON: The clause as it stands is justified on the solitary plea, that the Government desire to create a Stock that shall be worth par value; but the Chancellor has not explained why the Government consider themselves underan obligation to give a Stock worth more than par value to the Irish landlords. Hitherto the Irish landlords have been the worst enemies of this country, and have brought nothing to it but trouble and disgrace, and I think they ought to be content to receive a Stock which stands on a level with any other class of funds whatever. The Government ought, I think, to have had regard for the present as well as for the future. It is abundantly clear, however, that they apprehend a depreciation in the value of Stock hereafter, and that they believe that 2¾ per cent. will be of no higher value in years to come than 2½ per cent. now. It is somewhat curious that in this Bill provision should be made for 2¾ for 30 years, while the best class of Government Stock stands at 2¾ per cent. for 12 years only, and then falls to 2½ per cent. The result will be that this particular kind of Stock will run considerably over par value before it comes to be redeemed. I have no wish to dogmatise, but I should like to submit two or three principles which ought to have some bearing on the case. In fixing the rate of interest on this Stock I think the Government are bound to consider the interests of the tenants, the fundholders, and the community. The tenants have suffered grievously and long from the policy of the State, and they are now entitled to such encouragement as the Government can give them. Such encouragement should be to place the annuity which they will have to pay at the lowest possible figure. The amount of interest to be paid to the. stockholders measures the annuity which is to be paid by the tenant to the State, and

    487
    if the Stock is issued at 2½ per cent. the tenant would be let off for a less annuity than 4 per cent. Therefore, I contend that we are acting unfairly to the tenant, while, at the same time, we are giving to the landlord too high a rate of interest. Then, again, I say that the Government ought also to consider the interests of the fundholders, and it is certain that Stock at 2½ per cent. will depreciate if a higher rate of interest is to be paid on this particular description of Stock. My contention is that you will depreciate the property of every man who has invested his money in the funds, and that the Irish landlords are not a class in whose interests you ought to inflict such a blow upon the fund-holders. So far as the community are concerned, their interests will be best regarded by stimulating the creation of a peasant proprietary, and it is manifest that this can only be done by exacting a low rate of interest—that, in fact, the lower the interest the better will be the security. Possibly the Government may be inclined to accept a compromise upon the question. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) has outlined one that is certainly deserving of consideration. What he asks is that we should not give the Irish landlords a better class of Stock than any other class of public funds, but simply as good a Stock, to be converted in 1903 to a Stock yielding dividends at the rate of 2½ per cent. I am disposed to think that if the Government are prepared to consider that proposal favourably, a lengthened discussion may be avoided.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I think it would save the time of the Committee if the Amendment were withdrawn and the discussion were taken on the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, which raises a broader issue than is involved in the Amendment before the Committee.
    MR. CHANCE: Before that is done 1 think it is essential to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what manner the Land Commissioners are to deal with this clause. They may deal with it in either of two ways. They may assume when authorising an advance that the Stock is worth par, or that it is to be taken at its market
    488
    value: and the difference between the wo might be a very serious one, because the landlord would get the benefit and not the tenant. I see no distinct direction to the Land Commissioners as to how they are to deal with the clause; and as the Bill is of a complicated character, I should like to have an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I think it would be convenient if my hon. Friend the Member for Elgin (Mr. Keay) were to withdraw his Amendment in favour of that of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, because the latter really places the Stock precisely in the same position as the present Two and Three Quarter per Cent. Consols.
    MR. KEAY: Under the circumstances, I am quite prepared to withdraw the Amendment; but before I do so, I think I am justified in complaining that for the third time the Government have absolutely refused to reply to a question which is essential to the consideration of the facts of the case. I find in Hansard a report of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he brought forward his Conversion scheme. My Amendment recommends a Two and a Half per Cent. Stock, and in 1888 the right hon. Gentleman defended himself against proposinga Two and Three Quarters per Cent. Stock in consequence of the mere present price of a Two and a Half per Cent. Stock being 96. He said that he must look to the price of the Stock for 50 years to come, and the estimate which the public and he himself had formed as to what that price must be. The right hon. Gentleman was totally wrong in talking of 96 as the future value of the Two and a Half per Cents.: and so far as a Two and Three Quarters per Cent. security is concerned, the value of it would be a good deal more than par.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: I did reply upon that point last night, and it is quite unnecessary that I should re-state the whole position.
    MR. KEAY: The right hon. Gentleman did reply to one of the points I urged last night; but to the main point he made no reply at all.
    MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken; I did reply.
    MR. KEAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what he believes the future value of British credit based upon a Two and a Half per Cent. Stock will be?
    MR. GOSCHEN: The point was whether or not in the course of years a 2½ per cent. conversion would stand in the same position as Consols. I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment without further discussion.
    MR. KEAY: I would willingly give way if the right hon. Gentleman would make any real reply. But what does he say?—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order ! I must warn the hon. Member that it is in the power of the Chair to put a Member to silence, and he is now laying himself open to a charge of tedious repetition in pressing an argument which he has announced his intention to withdraw.
    MR. KEAY: I only wish I could get the chance of pressing my argument. I was endeavouring to quote Hansard in order to show what the view of the right hon. Gentleman was in regard to the value of the securities. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not think we should secure the advantage to which the State was entitled if he were to convert the Stock into a permanent Two and Three Quarter per Cent. Stock, yet this is what he is now going to do for the Irish landlords. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the Stock ought to be reduced to 2¾ for a term of years, and then descend automatically, without any further action of Parliament, to 2½ per cent. That is what I maintain ought to be done in this case. It has been somewhat doubted whether or not these securities will be at par when they reach 2½ per cent. What does the right hon. Gentleman say? He says, " I will assume, but I will not grant, that the new Stock will not be above par." What, then, must be his estimate of what the price of a Two and Three Quarter per Cent. Stock will be, which is practically to be perpetual. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I quite admit that it is to be redeemable at 30 years,
    490
    and that that fact diminishes the value of the Stock; but the right hon. Gentleman, speaking of the Two and a Half per Cent. Stock created by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Childers), stated that it had been most valuable to the Exchequer, and that he was desirous of securing the same advantage for the taxpayers of the country from the new Stock which he himself proposed to create. The right hon. Gentleman, in refusing to admit that 2½ per cent. is the future value of Stock at par, places himself on the horns of a dilemma. If, on the one hand, he confesses that 2½ per cent. will form a par security in the future, he thus cuts the ground away from under his feet in regard to the creation of a Two and Three Quarter per Cent. Stock for the Irish landlords. On the other hand, if he believes that Two and a Half per Cents. will be, as at present, at a discount, he must be prepared to admit that he has deceived a considerable number of innocent widows and orphans who took the " Goschens," as they are called, at par on his representations. The right hon. Gentleman said last night that it was necessary to keep the Stock in this way simply that it may be earmarked; but I fail to see how that affects this Amendment at all. It might be earmarked by calling it " Land Stock," or it might be printed on pink paper in order to show its sporting character. On these grounds I venture to say that the reply which the right hon. Gentleman gave last night was insufficient to establish a case for the rejection of the Amendment.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I and the Committee generally agreed with the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley) that this discussion should be taken on the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, but 1 did not know that the penalty we should have to pay for the conception would be to hear the whole speech of the hon. Member for Elgin repeated over again. Nor did I ever, throughout the whole of my Parliamentary experience, find an hon. Member who was as anxious as the hon. Gentleman is that the last word should be given to his opponent. He always seems to think that every argu-

    491
    ment he employs must be replied to. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it would be a rather novel proceeding to take stock of every argument which an hon. Member is pleased to address to a Committee, and for the hon. Member to threaten to report Progress if each of them is not answered seriatim. I did reply to the hon. Member last night, but only briefly, because I was anxious to save time. The point which he raised was why this Stock should have a higher rate of interest than Consols, and I pointed out that small separate Stocks never commanded so high a price in the market as the great Stocks of the country. I prefer, however, to give the fuller answer which the case requires on the next Amendment, which stands in the name of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton.
    MR. KEAY: I do not think that I deserve the strictures of the right hon. Gentleman; I have raised no objection to anything that has occurred on the other side of the House except that distinct questions, which were undoubtedly germane to the issue before the Committee were not noticed or replied to. I beg now to withdraw the Amendment, but in doing so I wish to remind the Committee, that up to this moment the right hon. Gentleman has not said a word in reply to the one essential question whether or not this new Stock at 2½ per cent. is, in his opinion, to represent Stock at par value generally in future time?
    MR. CHANCE: I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer would answer the question whether, in making advances to the landlord, the Land Commissioners are to be bound to treat this Stock at its par value or to deal with it at its market price?
    MR. GOSCHEN: The Land Commissioners will take all the circumstances of a case into their consideration, and will see whether the State is secure on the terms on which the advance is granted. Whatever is the price of the Stock, that would have some influence on the number of years' purchase the landlord would take.
    MR. CHANCE: Then am I to understand that where the Stock is perceptibly below par you are really requiring the tenant to pay somewhat more than 4 per cent.? Is that so?
    MR. GOSCHEN: If we were to give the landlord Stock very much above par he would have to take so much less himself, or to give less favourable terms to the tenant. If you depreciate the value of the Stock you will render the progress of land purchase in Ireland on reasonable terms more difficult.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I beg to move to insert, after " capital," the words—
    " Until the first day of June one thousand nine hundred and three, and thereafter yielding dividends at the rate of two pounds ten shillings per cent. per annum."
    I am afraid that it will be necessary to repeat, although I shall do so very shortly, what has been said already. The Amendment which has just been withdrawn was virtually to give the Irish landlord a Stock inferior to English Consols, whereas the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to give the Irish landlord a Stock superior to English Consols. My Amendment proposes to give to the Irish landlord a Stock that shall be the same as English Consols, and the words of the Amendment are taken from the original Conversion Act. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated last night, and has repeated to-day, that the Government wish to secure an even field between the landlord on the one side and the tenant on the other. That is my justification for the Amendment. I have no wish to attempt to cut off any portion of the value of the purchase money by giving the landlord something less than its par value; but, at the same time, I have no desire to give him anything more. The object of the Bill is to encourage the principle of purchase, and it provides the means by which that is to be effected. If the landlord is entitled to receive £100 or £1,000, as the case may be, we are bound to give him what is equivalent to that, and nothing more. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says he is anxious to give the landlord par value, and what I say is that if the conversion scheme is founded on a right basis it is founded on this principle: that the creditor of the English Government is entitled to receive 100 sovereigns for every £100 of debt he holds. In lieu of these 100 sovereigns, I propose to

    493
    give him Stock which, for 12 years will bear 2¾ per cent. interest, and which for the remainder of a certain period will stand at 2½ per cent. The right hon. Gentleman says that is equivalent to £100. If it is not so, a gross injustice has been done to fundholders. What the English fundholder was told, both by his broker, by the English Government, and by the experts, was that in the probable future state of the English Money Market, the Government Stock would bear interest, first at 2¾ per cent and then at 2½ per cent. and that such Stock was worth £100. Upon that basis the conversion proceeded. The Stock stands now at 96.
    MR. GOSCHEN: We are not to deal with the temporary value. I do not press that part of the argument.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I appreciate the force of that remark. There is a practical admission that this Stock will be,worth £100 to the Irish landlord. The Chancellor of the Exchequer meets the proposition I make in two ways, if I understand him aright. He says that a small Stock does not command as high a price as a large Stock. I do not like to question the authority of the right hon. Gentleman, but I am bound to say that experience, and especially that of; an English railway, points the other way. A small Stock, where there are a limited number of people selling, will command a higher price than a larger Stock. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right, why not give the Irish landlords Consols? I think the argument of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) last night was unanswerable. Why say to the Irish landlord, "We are going to give you Stock; we believe that the market will be a limited one, and we therefore give you a higher rate of interest in order to compensate you." That interest must come out of the pocket of somebody—either the State, the tenant, or the public. Then why not give the Irish landlord Consols at once? The right hon. Gentleman says, " If you do that you will interfere with another part of my scheme. I want to earmark the new Stock "; but my rejoinder to that is that it is simply a question of professional book-keeping. I am not urging this from the point of view of depriving the landlord of a penny of his purchase
    494
    money, nor do I wish by my Amendment to improve the terms for the Irish tenant. I believe the terms given under the Bill constitute a boon of great magnitude, and one which Parliament is not called upon to increase. Out of the £4 payable by the tenant on every £100 of the advance, £2 15s. is applied to the payment of interest, £1 is payable to the Sinking Fund, and 5s. is paid into the Local Taxation Account, with a specific enactment in favour of the appropriation of the sum for the benefit of Irish labourers' cottages. To this extent there is an endowment of Irish local taxation, and, as has been pointed out, the 5s. in the £4 represents a total sum of £75,000 a year. The effect of my Amendment would not be a reduction to the Irish tenant: it merely provides that when the interest on the land comes down to £2 10s. per cent. there will be 10s. per cent. to pay to the Local Authorities. Thus Irish local taxation will be strengthened and British credit will be used for the benefit of the community at large. I wish to know why, in paying this specific purchase money, there is to be given to the Irish landlords for £100 what is worth more than £100? Why should the Irish landlords be placed in a better position than that in which the deserving English middle class were placed by the conversion scheme? In that case the contention was that £2 10s. paid annually by Government was worth £100. I am afraid I have to some extent gone over ground already traversed, and, now, I put this proposition before the Committee as one of purely financial opinion, not mixing it up in any way with the rights and wrongs of Irish landlords or Irish tenants. When a hundred sovereigns are paid to an Irish landlord, why should not this be subject to the same conditions as when English creditors of the State were paid in Two and a Half per Cent. Stock?
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 14, after the word " capital," to insert the words " until the first day of June, one thousand nine hundred and three, and thereafter yielding dividends at the rate of two pounds ten shillings percent. per annum." —(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
    Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GOSCHEN: I appreciate the tone in which the right

    495
    hon. Gentleman has spoken. I also appreciate the way in which the right hon. Gentleman and others have spoken of the conversion scheme. I wish to make it absolutely clear that, in my opinion, this Two and Three Quarter per Cent. Stock will be about par, and nothing more. This is the conscientious view of the Government, though it may prove to be erroneous. The right hon. Gentleman very fairly asks why the Stock should not be equal to Consols if the terms are the same; and the right hon. Gentleman is of opinion that a small Stock always commands a higher price than a large Stock. That view may be right with regard to Railway Stock but it is not right with regard to Public Funds. A large Stock suits the market best, because of the rapidity of the transactions. Consols are used, not only for investment, but as the basis of loans which are constantly taking place. Therefore it has happened that in the Public Funds no smaller Stock with the same guaranteed security has ever been equal to Consols. The Government have accordingly, in all good faith, come to the conclusion that the Stock to be issued in connection with the Bill would not be equal to Consols. The right hon. Gentleman next asks, very properly, why Consols were not given in these circumstances. I feel confident that if the Government had proposed to issue Consols a totally different set of arguments would have been brought against the scheme. Having regard to the future, I have felt that the country ought to have clearly and constantly before it what the proposed operation is, and that the operation should not be mixed up with Consols. I wish to keep before the public eye how from year to year the Stock has either decreased or increased, and I believe, therefore, that the best plan is to keep the Stock, like Local Loan Stock, as a separate operation. I have held the same view with regard to all Stock which is represented by assets; and I have always been of opinion that the proper financial measure to take is to separate that Stock on which there is to be repayment from that on which there is not to be repayment. At all events, the right hon. Gentleman will admit that the Government in these two matters have not acted hastily, but
    496
    on a settled policy. Then as to the value of the Stock. Hon. Members have argued as if the Stock in question were a Stock of 2¾ per cent. for 49 years. But there are conditions under which the Stock is redeemable in 30 years; and, of course, if this Stock should be at a premium 30 years hence, any Chancellor of the Exchequer would borrow money at the rate of 2½ per cent., and would pay off this sum. The difference between this Stock and Consols is that Consols at 2¾ have 14 years to run, and the stock created under the Bill has 30 years to run at 2|. I do not myself believe—though I should be glad if the contrary were to prove true—that the Stock will stand high. If it does, it will facilitate transactions between landlord and tenant, but it is in no such expectations that the Stock is created. I wish to point out to hon. Members who are sincerely desirous of passing the Bill, this fact: Supposing the Government were to give to the landlords a Stock which during the next few years was 4 or 5 per cent. below par, an impediment in the way of purchase would be set up. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: No, no. It does not matter to the tenant.] Hon. Members must see that the offer of the landlord to the tenant will depend upon the revenue which the landlord will be able to derive from the Stock.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: That depends on the Local Land League.
    MR. GOSCHEN: It will depend upon whose influence is supreme in Ireland at that time; but I notice that, according to the hon. Gentleman, the Land League is to be continued after the next General Election; and that, if right hon. Gentlemen opposite should succeed to power, the Local Land League is to have the same power as in earlier days. The Government have not regarded the matter from that point of view. Supposing, as an extreme case, we were to give the landlord paper that was worth, say, 9 or 10 per cent. Surely hon. Members must see that that would have the effect of preventing sales from taking place. The landlords are free to act in this matter—whether to sell or not to sell, and it is not as if the tenants had to agree to buy or not. Therefore the placing of British credit wholly at the disposal of the guarantee will the more easily enable the purchases to take place.

    497
    The lower we place that credit the less use we make of it—that is to say, the lower the Stock the less likely we shall be to attain the object in view, the more we shall hinder the operation of the Bill, and the less able will the tenants be to get terms from the landlords. What the Government wish is that the landlord should be in such a position that he can and will sell, and hon. Members will remember that, as matters stand, the land revenue of the landlords will be considerably reduced after this Bill is passed. In many cases the landlord will not get more than half the gross rent he now obtains; and if we still further gave him Stock which will be 5 or 6 per cent. below par, shall we not again diminish the return he will get? We shall be removing from him the inducement to sell, and the reduction will be no advantage to the landlord or the tenant. The Government are not placing any loss upon the State by putting 2¾ into the Bill. With regard to any advantage to the Local Authorities, that must rest on the general desire of hon. Members opposite whether they wish to lessen the temptations to sales between landlord and tenant in order to increase the amount to be paid to the locality. What the Government desire is that the Bill should work, and we believe the rate we have fixed will make it work. In those circumstances, we are of opinion that anything that would tend largely or seriously to diminish the amount of Stock, as we have put it, would be an impediment to the working of the measure, would be a disadvantage to the tenant, and would confer no advantage on the taxpayer. I understand it is now the feeling in all parts of the House that the benefit accruing from the Bill should go only to Ireland in one form or another, and, that being so, it becomes a question between the tenants and Local Authorities of Ireland. It appears to the Government that the inducements both to the tenants to buy and the landlords to sell, large as they are, ought not to be diminished by any change in the framework of the Bill.
    COLONEL NOLAN: There is one point which arose last night, and to which I attach more importance than the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given it. I say, emphati-
    498
    cally, that the higher the interest on the Stock the better it will be for the tenant. That I take to be beyond argument. For my own part, I object to any money going to the Local Authorities; and I intend to move an Amendment exempting small holdings from contributing to any fund, even for the labourers. It is an elementary principle of finance that it is better to issue at par than below par. I am quite aware that some States pursue a contrary policy, but not, I think, those whose credit stands high; and though Pitt did the same thing in days gone by, I think it is now acknowledged he made a blunder. I repeat, that to issue the Stock below par would be a disadvantage to the tenants.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I do not intend to pursue this subject at length, but I desire to say a few Words with reference to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. The chief argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that the landlord, in selling his land, will look to the revenue—to the interest he will receive on the capital—in order to see how far he will be recouped for the rents he gives up. I believe, however, that the landlord will look rather to the capital value of the Stock than to the actual interest he will receive, and that it will be his desire to hold the Stock, whether it is Land Stock or Consols. He will look at the price at which he can sell the Stock rather than at the actual revenue it brings in. Nobody at present can tell what the value of the Land Stock will be; and I should have thought an Irish landlord would prefer to have Consols offered him rather than a Stock of which he does not know the value.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Judging from precedent, the value of the Stock will stand between the price of the Local Loan Stock and the price of Consols.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The right hon. Gentleman's interposition shows, at all events, that no one knows what will be the price of the Stock. The landlord would prefer a Stock of which he knows the price. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to remember that half of those who take the Stock will desire rather to sell it than to hold it,

    499
    and if there are a large number of sales of a small Stock like this, which is not very negotiable, it will be likely to put the price down below what it would if it were a large Stock, like Consols. The Chancellor of the Exchequer somewhat naturally wants to keep all these arrangements in reference to Land Stock separate from our great National Debt, and to that extent I think we all agree with him. But, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton pointed out, that after all is simply a matter of book-keeping. The interest on the Stock will have to be found through the National Debt Commissioners, just as in the case of Consols, and it is simply a question of book-keeping, and not a matter of real practical importance. The question for us is whether it is worth while charging this Stock with the extra ¼ per cent. in order to keep it distinct from Consols, when we believe it would be better if it were put into Consols. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) said he would not be a party to anything which would go to benefit the locality at the expense of the small tenant. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said this is a matter simply between the tenant and the locality. I think it is to be remembered that, as far as the English taxpayers are concerned, we wish to get the locality the largest possible interest in the repayment of the fund. We want to do what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian did in his Bill, and make it to the interest of the locality to see that the tenants pay their debts to the State. We therefore think it will be of advantage to the taxpayers as well as of advantage to Ireland itself that the locality should have such an interest in the re-payment. The Government do not give us the real reason why they oppose this proposal; the fact is that they do not want it to appear to the public at large—as it would if they simply issued Consols—that the English taxpayers are practically guaranteeing the interest to the landlords. That is the real reason why they decline to accept the Amendment. It seems to me that the financial arguments used by my hon. Friend and others have been entirely in favour of issuing one large Stock instead of these little un-negotiable Stocks.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I only rise to notice one remarkable-statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He spoke of the disadvantage under which the Stock would be1 placed if it went down to £5 or £6 below par. That is his estimation of a Stock which would rest exactly on the same footing as his own Consols. I suppose, then, that is his estimate of the future of Consols.
    MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Gentleman was not in the House when I pointed out the difference.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Of course, I know the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that one Stock was larger than another. That may have a small effect, but it will only be a small one. The right hon. Gentleman, in order to support the proposal he has made, talks about the Stock being 5 or 6 below par.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would wish to misrepresent me. I simply made an. assumption for the purpose. I never suggested that the Stock would be 5 or 6 below par.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Then let us get rid of the assumption for the sake of argument. The assumption was used to support an argument, and if the assumption disappears the argument disappears with it. I saw an article a few weeks ago in the Economist criticising the financial ingenuity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his extreme love of creating a quantity of new Stocks. It seems that now, to the great heavenly body of the National Debt, the right hon. Gentleman is adding a number of satellites to revolve round it. It seems to me there is very great inconvenience in this multiplication of accounts. The great object of the original Consolidated Fund was that there should be one great Stock, and that the National Debt should be one single item, as far as possible, in which the country would have to deal. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his great success in the creation of the Stock which is now Consolidated Stock of the United Kingdom, by his conversion scheme, but that he should follow that up by immediately creating a new Stock on different terms is, I think, an unfortunate experiment in finance. These are the financial considerations which, I think, weigh against this proposal.

    501
    But the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down pointed out another. You may argue as you please as to what terms shall be made between the landlord and tenant, but there is this intelligible thing which will be known to everyone, namely, that the Stock you have offered to the Irish landlord in respect of this great experiment of purchase, is a Stock of higher value and at a higher rate than Consols. That will be a fact perfectly understanded of the people. I regard that as a great objection in a proposal of this character, and, therefore, I shall certainly vote for the proposal of my right hon. Friend.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I do not wish on this question to speak in anything of a Party spirit, but I am bound to say I regard this as a fad of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that may cost the country £75,000 per annum. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton put the thing clearly. He said he was not entering into the question of whether the landlord would profit or whether the tenant would profit. He simply asserted that it was the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get the money in the cheapest manner possible. When the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose, he tried to drag a quantity of red herrings across this trail, and we have for some time been discussing the position of the landlord and tenant—a very interesting question, no doubt, but not the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton. Why does the Chancellor of the Exchequer want this separate Stock? He says he wants it in order that this money should not be mixed up with the general debt of the country, but should remain before the eyes of the country? Well, is it worth while to tax the people £75,000 per annum, in order that this fund should remain before the eyes of the country? It will be really a most costly spectacle.
    MR. GOSOHEN: I do not understand where the hon. Member gets his £75,000.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I get it as the amount which would accrue after, say, 14 years. To anybody but the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who deals in millions —£75,000 a year is a very handsome sum, which we could save. The whole reply—I cannot, with all respect to the
    502
    Chancellor of the Exchequer, call it an argument—of the right hon. Gentleman was this fancy and fad of " keeping the matter before the eyes the public." He said last night, and again the first thing this afternoon, that it is necessary to keep this Stock separate in order to carry out the objects of the Bill. He has given that up now. He knows perfectly well that it is really a question of book-keeping. You always keep the Stocks separate, as between the Land Commission and the Exchequer, and you may keep them separate, as between the the public in their relations as buyers and sellers of this Stock. I hope the House will stand by what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, and will vote with him, putting aside all questions of where the money is to go to, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer can give us some more valid reason for making this separate stock.
    MR. SEXTON: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his otherwise clever speech, has left the question of the future value of this Land Stock in rather a vague condition. I should have expected him to deal with it more precisely. He believes, because the Stock will be what he calls a small and separate Stock, that it is not likely to stand on a parity with Consols. But it will not be a small Stock. Some day it will be £30,000,000. I would point out that Two and a Half per Cents. are small Stock, relatively to Consols, but that does not prevent Two and a half per Cents., though a¼ per cent. lower than Consols, being close to Consols in market price. It does not, therefore, appear that the smallness of the Stock is a reason against its having a high value. As to the question of separate Stock, why need it be separate? I see no reason why this Land Stock should not be merged in Consols. The right hon. Gentleman points out that there are no assets against Consols, whereas there are assets against these Stocks. But that is a question of book-keeping. The main question before the Committee is not that of assets, but the liability of the country to the stockholder. This Stock will be held by a great many persons, for the Irish landlords will, generally, be ready to invest in it, and I say, therefore, that from the

    503
    largeness of the amount and the plurality of the ownership it will command the largest price corresponding with its value, and I conclude that the Land Stock in future years will be of more value than Consols. I say that that is a Stock you have no right to give to the Irish landlords, because, by doing so, you will be inflicting a wrong on the whole of the country. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway has assured me that I shall have his vote if I can extract from the Government a promise that the amount of the savings will be given to the Irish tenant.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I spoke of a promise from the Opposition.
    MR. SEXTON: I am afraid I must throw back the overture to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. At the present moment—and I hope this is only a temporary condition of things—the hon. and gallant gentleman is in a better position for obtaining pledges from the Government than I am.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I said the Opposition.
    MR. SEXTON: The Front Opposition Bench are not in a position to give effective pledges in reference to this Bill, and I must assume, therefore, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's observations were directed to the Government. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has got in this subject, it appears to me, considerably out of his depth. He has made tonight one of the most extraordinary proposals I ever heard. He has actually laid down the principle that the higher the interest you give the landlord for his Stock the better it will be for the Irish tenant.
    COLONEL NOLAN: Provided he pays 4 per cent.
    MR. SEXTON: The hon. and gallant Member should remember that the chief figure in measuring the interest is the amount paid to the stockholder. The inference to be drawn from the hon. and gallant Member's speech is, that if the State pays a high interest to the landlord, the landlord's sense of equity is so nice that he will extend the benefit to the tenant.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I never said anything of the kind.
    MR. SEXTON: That was the inference I drew from the hon. and gallant Member's speech. The Bill
    504
    fixes the 'annual value of the holding. What will be the position of the transaction? The landlord will endeavour to get as many years' purchase as he can. I do not think that the rate of interest on the Stock or the price of the Stock in the market will have any material influence on the price of the holding. The annual value of the holding will be determined by the Bill, and the landlord will try to get as much as he can, no matter what may be the interest on the Stock or the value of the Stock in the market. It is clear, therefore, that the price of a farm will be determined by figures other than the value of the Stock; and if you tell me that if the landlord gets 6 per cent. on the Stock, he will be disposed to sell his farm to the tenant for half the money he would have wanted if the interest he had got had only been 3 per cent, I say the statement is monstrously absurd. I say the lower the interest on the Stock, provided the landlord accepts the Stock at all— and he will accept it if it is Consuls— the better it will be for the tenant. And why? For a reason lucidly stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that the State makes no profit in the case. The annuity of the tenant is measured chiefly by the interest of the stockholder. If this amendment is carried one of two consequences will follow. Either the annuity of the tenant will have to be reduced from £1 to £3 15s., which I should hail as a great boon, or else the county percentage which goes to local uses, either relief of rates or erection of labourers' cottages, will have to be increased from 5s. to 10s. for every £100 lent under the Bill. I should prefer that the annuities of the tenants, should be reduced, because I think the main interest of all classes in Ireland is to stimulate transactions under the Bill. At the same time if I were defeated in that I should be glad to see the relief given in the other direction; but I challenge my hon. and gallant Friend to say that in either case the acceptance of the Amendment would not be followed by a distinct advantage.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I should like to know what would be the real nature of the Stock. One Stock will amount to £30,000,000, created from time to time, but all of the same kind, and redeemable

    505
    in 30 years. Is that so, or will there be a fresh Stock created, whenever a fresh purchase is effected, redeemable in 30 years from the date of the purchase? There is a difference according to the meaning attached to the language adopted. In the one case the purchasers, five or six years hence, will get paid in a Stock of somewhat less value than those who are paid immediately on the passing of the Act. On the other hand, if a new Stock is to be created, redeemable at the end of 30 years after purchase, there will be a creation of separate kinds of Stock in respect of which there will be different prices. Which of these two systems does the right hon. Gentleman propose to adopt?
    MR. GOSCHEN: It is intended that there shall be one Stock, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will see how extremely important it is that there should be one Stock, so as to enable transactions to take place as between bankers and others. Ultimately it will be a large Stock, but for some time it may be a small one; but whatever arguments hon. or right hon. Gentlemen may bring against it, everyone seems to me to agree that there should only be one Stock. I had not omitted to consider the question. The Stock may be higher or lower, but however that is it will adjust itself to the purchases. If it is lower the landlord will ask for more years' purchase; if it is higher the tenant will have so many less years' purchase. Our desire is that it shall be as near as possible at par. I cannot go beyond this and enter into prophecy, a responsibility which no Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to undertake.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has now explained to the House clearly what the character of this Stock is to be; and, unquestionably, as between the one alternative and the other, I should think he has taken the right one—but still one which lands him in enormous difficulties. The first difficulty that arises is this: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, of course, sees that the value of this Stock will vary according to the number of years for which the higher rate of interest has to run certain. Where it is to run certain for 30 years, the value of the Stock will be higher; where it is to run
    506
    for 20, 10, or 5 years the value of the Stock will be materially lower. The meaning of that is that the landlords of Ireland are to receive for their property different rates of compensation from the State.
    MR GOSCHEN: Not from the State, but from the tenant.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The Stock in which the landlords are to be paid will be of different values in each succeeding year. It will be of a continually descending value. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer says it will not come from the State, but the tenant. What has the property of the tenant got to do with the Stock? Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the Land Commissioners, in fixing the number of years purchase that each estate is to be worth, are to take into view this sliding scale? The doctrine of the sliding scale is so perplexing and confusing that I can hardly understand it to be the intention of the Government to adopt it. Are the Land Commissioners to say, " This estate would have been worth 18 years' purchase if the landlord were to be paid in a Stock that had 30 years to run at £2 15s. per cent.; but as he is only going to be paid in a Stock that has 15 years certain to run it is worth 20 years' purchase." The number of years' purchase which an estate is worth ought to be governed by a fixed and certain standard, and ought to have no reference whatever to the change of interest.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The right hon. Member for West Bradford has asked a question, and the answer has been given. The question does not arise on the Amendment whether the reduction will be made 12 or 30 years hence.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The whole subject is a very difficult one, but I have no doubt that you are quite right. I think, however, that you will find that the result of this discussion will be to show that it is a mistake altogether to create these differences of Stock. If we are going to have these estates bought by the Irish occupiers, the only mode of proceeding is to give the landlords a Stock created in the way suggested by my right hon. Friend, or a Stock which is equivalent to Consols in the market. Whatever course may be pursued, I am

    507
    quite certain that there must be some time or other when this matter will have to be fully discussed, because it is most relevant to the purpose of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman opposite must see that he has presented most serious dilemmas to the Committee, and has afforded no solution of them.
    MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Member for Mid Lothian has suggested that the Government introduce a fresh complication in fixing, as he said, the price of purchase by the Land Commissioners. But the Land Commissioners do not fix the purchase at all; they merely ratify the purchases which are made.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: There is a standard of approval.
    MR. GOSCHEN: There is no standard whatever. All that the Commissioners have to do is to see that the purchase is such that satisfactory security is obtained by the State. That ought not to be in any way regarded as applying to the number of years' purchase, and all that the Commissioners have to look to is to see whether the security is sound.
    SIR W. HARCOURT; Surely the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a fallacy. What is it that the Land Commissioners do? They determine what is a fair and safe bargain between the landlord and tenant. The number of years' purchase as well as other matters will have to be considered. Therefore, if, in consequence of the Stocks varying in price, the price agreed upon between the landlord and tenant varies, why, of course, the judgment of the Land Commissioners is based upon that bargain so made. The main argument which the Chancellor of the Exchequer used with reference to the variation at future periods in the value of this Stock, cuts from under him the whole ground upon which he has based his objections to my right hon. Friend's proposal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was quite true that this Stock at future times might vary in value, but that in time the parties would accommodate themselves to that variation in value. If that be the case, why should they not accommodate themselves to the present value of Consols? Every argument, therefore, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has used is in favour of the
    508
    right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. All that part of the argument which relates to the creation of Stock to bear par value disappears. If the Stock is now at par value, it is quite plain that it might be something below par value next year. [" No, no."] I do not understand the hon. Member saying " No." If the number of years for which the interest is granted affects the value of the Stock, then, as the number of years diminish, the value of the Stock must diminish. I should have thought that anybody who understood the elements of the question would have understood that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian observes that it is a perpetually descending scale. [" No."] There is no use in saying " No." The hon. Member might just as well say "No " to the proposition that twice two make four. It is quite plain, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not deny it, that 10 years hence the Stock must be of less value than it is now, because there will be only 20, instead of 30, years' value attaching to it, and so it will go on from time to time, and we will have, as the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian said, a sliding scale established. The argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that all parties should accommodate themselves to the alteration in the value. Why should they not accommodate themselves to the value of Consols now? The whole answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is practically in support of the Amendment.
    (4.40.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 144; Noes 209. — (Div. List, No. 130.)
    MR. KEAY: The Amendment which I now propose to move is in line 16,
    To leave out from the word "after," to the word "redemption," in line 20, inclusive, and insert " for the purpose of paying off the whole of the Land Stock at or before the expiration of the time at which the purchase annuities hereinafter mentioned will cease."
    The general object of this Amendment may be said to be of the same character as that of the last, namely, to endeavour to secure that the landlords do not get a Stock which will come to a premium, and thus injure the interests both of the British taxpayer and of the Irish tenant. The object of leaving out the words is to

    509
    prevent the landlords from obtaining an undue premium upon their Stock, compared with what is got by the general creditor. I object to the 30 years, and want to leave that provision out, because I am anxious that there should be prompt and immediate reduction of the liability on the British taxpayer, whom I want to see relieved as speedily as possible. What I propose is that there should be, either by annual drawings or otherwise, a prompt and early application of the Sinking Fund to the diminution of Stock. I do not know the object of the 30 years' clause, unless it is to command a premium on the Stock I have mentioned. I hold that the only object is to give the landlords at once 30 years' enjoyment of the higher rate of interest of 2¾ per cent. If it is not for that purpose, what is it for? Judging from what has transpired in the Debate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer believes that in this 2f Stock he has got a par Stock. He is aiming at a par Stock, and that is why he is giving the enjoyment of this interest for 30 years. But in order to ascertain the full significance of this 30 years' clause, it must be read along with Clause 7, Sub-section 2, towards the end of the first part of the Bill. That clause provides that if the Land Stock should be, in the opinion of the landlord, undesirable, he may exchange it for Consols; and if he does not consider the exchange desirable he may stick to the 2| Stock. I hold that the benefit of the alternative is given to the landlord, and to the landlord alone, who will be in a position to enjoy the 2¾ Stock at a premium for 30 years. If the Stock is to remain on the border line of par, naturally it will be likely, as do other Stocks, sometimes to go below par. Why does the Chancellor of the Exchequer put in 30 years, then? Surely to retain it at par the best way would be to make it redeemable at once, or within a year or two. But I say the only reason that can be attached to its being made a 30 years' Stock is that it may have the capacity of going to a premium, otherwise the right hon. Gentleman would be very sorry indeed, for the sake of his landlord friends, to put in the 30 years clause, if he were frightened that the Stock would come to a discount. Now, the words proposed to be added by my Amendment simply secure that there is
    510
    a direction in the Bill that none of the Stock shall be left outstanding in the 49th year. I do not know whether the Government will consent to this, but I hope they will. All the annuities are to be paid into the Treasury in 49 years, and they furnish the interest at 2¾ per cent., and cease at the end of that period. That seems a very good reason for putting a direction into the Bill that the Stock itself shall be compulsorily paid off by the end of the 49th year. There is another argument, namely, that the Government themselves thought it necessary to put this very clause into the Land Purchase Bill of last year. I do not see how they can refuse to accept the Amendment, which is simply a copy of Clause 5, Sub-section 2, of their own Bill of last year.
    Amendment proposed, page 1, line 16, to leave out from " after," to " redemption," in line 20, inclusive, and insert—
    " For the purpose of paying off the whole of the Laud Stock at or before the expiration of the time at which the purchase annuities hereinafter mentioned will cease." — (Mr. Keay.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'And after 30 years' stand part of the Question."
    MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Member has divided his Amendment into two parts — the words to be omitted and the words to be inserted. He wishes in the first place to omit words which settle the whole process and method by which the transaction shall take place. It is impossible to omit these words and to leave everything vague. In the next place, the hon. Member has put a sense upon the word " redeemable " which I do not think it will properly bear. "Redeamable" means that the State has the power to redeem, but not that the State shall redeem. The hon. Member says that if the Stock is not redeemed in two years it must remain at par. Not at all. It depends upon whether it is likely to be redeemed or not. The State ought never to engage to redeem large sums at a certain date when it does not know precisely how things may stand at that date. I do not think the hon. Member will object to my passing over in silence that part of his argument which relates to the 30 years, because after all it is only a modification of the contention we have been

    511
    arguing over all the afternoon. I do not say there is much to object to in his words, but the whole tenour of the Bill is that the redemption -will take place within 49 years, and, in the case of Stock above par, within 30 years.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The hon. Gentleman has used an argument which seems to me a strange one after the discussion we have had this afternoon. It is said that after a certain time these particular ear-marked annuities would be converted into Consols. The right hon. Gentleman has been fighting that point all the afternoon and telling us it was impossible to issue this Stock in the form of Consols because he wants to keep it separate. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will explain the discrepancy between his argument and this provision of the Bill.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I was going to raise the same point. If it be the case that there is a provision in the Bill which will enable the Stock to be exchanged into Consols, what becomes of the right hon. Gentleman's argument?
    MR. GOSCHEN: If the hon. Member will turn to Clause 7, Sub-section 2, he will see that, within limits fixed by the Treasury, there is power given to the National Debt Commissioners to take the Stock in lieu of Consols. That is totally different from putting the whole of this into Consols. If applications were made for the exchange of moderate amounts no doubt the National Debt Commissioners would exercise their option.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question. We want to know what now becomes of the argument about keeping before the public this separate Stock. Supposing the National Debt Commissioners exchange any of this stock for Consols, pro tanto that amount disappears.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to explain. It would not disappear at all, but the National Debt Commissioners would have so much less Consols and so much more Stock.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: It is "all persons" and not the National Debt Commissioners.
    MR. GOSCHEN: It is the National Debt Commissioners who are to have the power. It is not a power of cancelling Stock or changing one Stock for another, but a power of investment. The two Stocks will remain entirely separate.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: We understood from the previous statements on the Bill that the landlord was to have no option of conversion into Consols. Now, if I understand it rightly, the case is different. The National Debt Commissioners will give Consols in exchange for the Stock created under this Bill when they find it agreeable to their own convenience, so that of course the landlord's option becomes a qualified and conditional one. If I understand the matter rightly the National Debt Commissioners do not necessarily hold such large amounts of Consols as to have great quantities disposable for the purpose of enabling landlords to exercise that option. Therefore, it will have to be understood that it is not a free option but one qualified and conditional according to the state of the investments of the National Debt Commissioners.
    MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. If I am not out of order I will read the clause:
    "All persons, including the National Debt Commissioners, shall have the like power of investing in the Land Stock as they have in Consolidated Annuities, and the National Debt Commissioners shall also, within the limits fixed by the Treasury in communication with them, give on application Consolidated Annuities in exchange for an equal nominal amount of the Guaranteed Land Stock."
    That is to say, the Treasury may say, they will take £5,000,000 or £7,000,000 of the Stock. Of course, for the State, it would be a good investment. I am glad to say the amount of Consols held by the National Debt Commissioners is extremely large—something like £60,000,000. This is a power that would be exercised with very great caution by any Government, but the probability is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day will think it would be very desirable that a portion of this Stock should be held by the National Debt Commissioners.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Would the National Debt Commissioners have power

    513
    to sell this Stock like any other of their investments?
    MR. GOSCHEN: Certainly.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: There is one question I should like to ask. The clause says—
    "The National Debt Commissioners shall also, within the limits fixed by the Treasury in communication with them, give on application Consolidated Annuities in exchange for an equal nominal amount of the Guaranteed Land Stock."
    But who are they going to give it to? Who wants it, and why is the exchange going to be made? I suppose the person who gives this Stock to the National Debt Commissioners and gets Consols in exchange for it expects to get some advantage. I do not understand what the nature of these transactions is. What is to be the interest of the persons who take part in these transactions?
    MR. GOSCHEN: We are really discussing Sub-section 2 of Clause 7; but I will answer the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know what the interest of the persons may be, but the matter amounts to this: that, considering that this Stock bears a guarantee of 2¾ per cent., the National Debt Commissioners can never do wrong in giving Consols in exchange for it. I think the clause shows the bona fides of the Government. It shows that we do not believe that this Stock will be so much above par. I submit, however, that any further discussion on the subject ought to be taken on Clause 7.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do well to try and shut out this discussion.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is quite irregular to go on discussing the meaning of Sub-section 2 of Clause 7.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Quite so, but the consideration of the words we are now on involves comparative consideration of the value of Consols and the value of the Land Stock. As I understand the Amendment refers to the paying off the whole of the Land Stock. The hon. Member for Elgin and Nairn proposes to leave out the 30 years; in other words he proposes that this shall not be a terminable or redeemable Stock. I submit that opens up to us comparative considerations of the two Stocks.
    MR. CHANCE: On the question of order, I should like to point out that if the Bill is allowed to stand as it is the Sinking Fund which would be created would, in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners, be applicable to the redemption or purchase of any of the Government Stocks, but if the Amendment is carried that Sinking Fund can only be applied to the redemption of the Land Stock. If that is so, is it not relevant to consider which Stock would most properly be redeemable, and whether the Committee would be wise or not in depriving the National Debt Commissioners of the power they would have of using the Sinking Fund for the purpose.—
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman has addressed the Committee under a complete misapprehension.
    MR. KEAY: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a very distinguished and experienced statesman, and he is also very ingenious; but I am sorry to say his ingenuity as practised towards myself is directed to not answering the main point of my Amendment. 1 propose to leave out the 30 years. That is of course the gravamen of my Amendment, but the right hon. Gentleman stands up and says " the hon. Gentleman will excuse me for not saying anything about the 30 years," and then goes on to refer to the very innocent words I proposed to substitute for the omission. If the right hon. Gentleman did not put in the 30 years for the purpose of appreciating the landlords Stock above par what was his object? I hold that even we, private Members, humble as we are, are entitled to have the clear gravamen of our Amendments replied to. He says there is no object in giving the landlords the enjoyment of this Stock for 30 years, because it will not go to a premium. It is very difficult for me to get replies from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own mouth. I have already to day made him answer himself by quoting from his speech last year. I will make the Chief Secretary for Ireland answer him now by quoting from the speech the right hon. Gentleman made in bringing in the Bill of last year. On the 24th of March last year, the Chief Secretary said—

    515
    " The second explanation is that the owners are to be repaid in Government Stock hearing 2¾ interest not payable before 30 years."
    I am quoting from the Times: I have not the revised version of the speech in Hansard. The right hon. Gentleman went on—
    "This part of the Bill will be explained more fully by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer; hut he tells me that in his opinion such Stock is at least as good as Consols, and if any landlord is foolish enough to take a different view there is a provision in the Bill which obliges the National Debt Commissioners to exchange Consols for the Stock."
    MR. GOSCHBN: I will reply at once. The hon. Gentleman says I have omitted to answer the point he raised with regard to the 30 years. I stated that the whole of the point which the House was discussing on the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton was that this Stock would bear 2¾ per cent. for a longer period than Consols. Consols are at 2¾ per cent. for 14 years, and the whole point of the discussion on the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton turned upon the difference between the two periods. It is that difference which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton wishes to remove. The House has been debating that point the whole time, and has come to a conclusion in favour of the provision in the Bill. Therefore, I thought that a reference to that would be a sufficient answer to the hon. Gentleman opposite. With regard to the second point, I do not know how far the report quoted by the hon. Gentleman was full or accurate; but I have no doubt it entirely confirms what I have stated.
    MR. KEAY: Is the House to understand that it is not the expectation of the right hon. Gentleman that this Stock will go to a premium?
    MR. T.M. HEALY: The Chancellor of the Exchequer leaves the matter at large as to whether in his judgment this Stock is a better or a worse Stock than the original Consolidated Stock he has converted. If it is a better Stock, why give the landlords more interest? If it is a worse Stock, then it is worse to get 2¾ per cent. than 2½ per cent. In this matter the Government seem to me to be dancing on eggs. They do not know what position to take up.
    MR.GOSCHEN: I thought I had made the point as clear as possible. I look upon the two Stocks as very nearly identical in value, though I look upon one as rather superior to the other. The length of time given for the enjoyment of the 2¾ per cent. is in favour of the Land Stock, while, on the other hand, the fact that Consols have always been put on a separate footing and have always been higher than other Stock, reduces the difference between the two Stocks, and I believe, on the whole, that their values will be very nearly identical. When hon. Gentlemen ask me to prophesy what will be the precise value, that is a matter I cannot undertake. I will, however, venture to say that within three years there will not be any divergence in the prices of the two Stocks. It would be forcing the situation to ask me to prophesy what the value of the Stock will be.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: What I want to know is, will it be permissible at any time to change Consols into this Stock?
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to give us some reason for this fancy of his, and he will do so if he is anxious to shorten the Debate. We have heard of fancy franchises, and he is now creating fancy Stocks.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That is not the question before the House. The question is whether this Stock is to be. redeemable after 30 years, in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1888, or whether it is to be redeemable as soon as it has been created under a plan which the Amendment does not reveal.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: It appears to me that the whole question of the redeemability of the Stock is involved. I can not, for my part, object.—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    MR. SEXTON: I hold that either this Amendment must be accepted or some identical provision be inserted in the Bill later on. My hon. Friend's proposal is that Parliament should indicate that the whole of the Stock issued is to be paid off within the period of the annuity. The whole of this financial scheme is founded upon an arrangement whereby after payment of interest to the stockholder 1 per cent, is reserved

    517
    for the formation of a Sinking Fund. The information we at present have as to the nature of this Sinking Fund is of a most meagre character, and I think the time has come when it should he supplemented. How soon, I may ask, will the 1 per cent. per annum enable the Government to redeem Stock; and if it is allowed to accumulate, will the Government be able at the end of 49 years to redeem the whole of the Stock?
    MR. GOSCHEN: That is our calculation.
    MR. SEXTON: I assumed so. Then what is the actual intention of the Government? At what period do they intend to redeem the Stock? They seem to bind themselves to nothing. The provisions of the Bill in this respect are very peculiar. The proviso is that 30 years after the commencement, and not before, the Stock shall be redeemable. That is to say, the State must not redeem at all for 30 years. Why should the State be put under such an obligation? Why should the Government and this House now attempt to bind the State not to redeem the Stock for a period of 30 years? Let us see how this Sinking Fund is to be created. First, there is the 1 per cent., and the purchaser's assurance money. The average number of years' purchase in Ireland is about 15, instead of 20, so that every purchaser will have to pay about a quarter more than he ought to in the first five years. The result will be that there will be a sum of about £1,500,000 lying idle. Why should it be idle for 30 years? I do not see why that sum should not be devoted to the redemption of the advance. Why should the Government be bound not to redeem for 30 years? I believe that their real reason in this matter is that they want the Stock to have an artificial value, so that the landlords may sell it at a premium. We must resolutely oppose any proposal of that nature, and must secure that the Stock is redeemable as soon as it has been issued. I may point out that there is no provision making it obligatory on the Government ever to redeem the Stock. I can only add that the Government ought in this Bill to bind itself to put this Sinking Fund to its proper use.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I think the hon. Member for West Belfast is in error
    518
    in saying that the insurance money will be applied to the Sinking Fund. It will have nothing to do with it.
    MR. SEXTON: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. If he will refer to Sub-section 4, Clause 7, he will find the words "Sinking Fund, including purchasers' insurance money."
    MR. GOSCHEN: Yes; but that insurance money is not to be applied to the purposes for which the Sinking Fund is created. The Insurance Fund is part of the annuity. I doubt whether this is a proper occasion on which to explain the whole operation of the Sinking Fund. It has been considered wisest to leave to the State the freest possible hand in dealing with this Stock, in the interest of the State itself. I should have no strong objection to the insertion of words making it more clear that the State is absolutely bound to redeem, but we have thought it best to leave a free hand, and the Sinking Fund will be employed by the National Debt Commissioners in paying off the advance in the best manner possible. It must be remembered that a Stock with regard to which there was doubt as to how long it will goon paying 2¾ per cent. is not one which can be held by trustees at all. We wish to make this a Stock which can be held by trustees, bankers and others, and I fear that a provision such as the hon. Member suggests would disqualify it as an investment for permanent purposes. I will, however, consider the question of inserting words with regard to the paying off of the advance.
    MR. SEXTON: I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will insert words which will place it beyond all doubt that the Sinking Fund shall be applied to the purposes for which it is proposed now to create it.
    MR. MONTAGU: If it should occur that the Stock be worth 2 or 3 premium in the market, would it not be well to reserve to the State the option of paying the landlords in cash instead of Stock, paying them, say, £100 in money instead of bonds to that amount?
    MR. KEAY: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to promise that he would insert words which will have practically the same

    519
    effect as is arrived at by the Amendment?
    SIR G. CAMPBELL(Kirkcaldy, &c.): From all I hear, it seems to me it would have been very much better for the Government to have borrowed the money in Consols and paid the landlords in cash, for then we should not have bad all this trouble about the varying value of the Stock, while it would have been made clear to the British taxpayer exactly what this experiment is costing him.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That is not relevant to the Amendment before the Committee.
    MR. CHANCE: I think there is one method of redemption to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have no objection. He might allow the tenants to tender for Stock at nominal value and thereby extinguish their liability for annual instalments. That surely would not interfere with the market value of the Stock.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Of course, anything which would lead in the direction of the redemption of the Stock would meet with the approbation of the Government. I believe there is an Amendment down which aims at the object suggested by the hon. Member, and which indicates some process of that kind, but I have not yet been able to understand exactly what is proposed. I do not see how it would work.
    MR. CHANCE: The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out with some degree of force that the value of the Stock will be interfered with unless people are certain that they will get interest on it for a definite number of years, and he, therefore, objects to a proposal enabling the Stock to be redeemed before 30 years have expired. My suggestion is this, that if a tenant owed £300 in a given year he should be allowed to go into the open market and purchase Stock to the nominal amount of his annuity and tender it to the Government in payment. That would practically extinguish the Stock without interfering with its market value.
    MR. SEXTON: May I ask whether the Government are prepared to fix the redemption within a specified period?
    MR. GOSCHEN: I should not like to say anything final as to the redemption until I have had an opportunity of consulting the draftsman. As to the proposal that payment should be accepted in Stock, I do not for the moment see any considerable objection, and I will consult my right hon. Friend as to whether an Amendment of that kind will be acceptable. Of course, if the Stock is below par it will pro tanto delay redemption.
    MR. MONTAGU: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That subject is not relevant to the Amendment.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has certainly gone some way to meet our objection. The proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for South Kilkenny involved only a small operation, while that made by the hon. Member for West Belfast embodied much larger considerations. I think, in the interests of the country, we ought to have a definite answer on that.
    MR. GOSCHEN: On what point?
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the Government bind themselves in the matter of the redemption? They seem to be proceeding under the idea that they are sailing under the flag of the Ashbourne Act. That Act provided for an advance of £10,000,000, and when that sum has been re-paid the operation is entirely done with. You are, however, now using the framework of the Ashbourne Acts to involve the British taxpayers in altogether new liabilities. It is proposed that the Stock shall not be redeemed for 30 years, although £20,000,000 out of £30,000,000 may have been paid off. The money is during that period to be dammed up like a financial river, and will not go to redeem the Stock. The reason the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given for that is that he does not like to offer his friends, the Irish landlords, a Stock of precarious value, which this Stock will be if unascertained portions of it are subject to redemption at any moment. Of course, he does not say that in so many words, but he hints at it. He says he will give the holder of the Stock an absolute guarantee of non-extinguishment for 30 years. What in

    521
    the meantime is to become of the money which the tenants are re-paying? The whole thing hinges upon the proposal in Clause 7, by which the National Debt Commissioners and the Treasury.—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Clause 7 has nothing to do with the point before the Committee. As I have already explained, the sole question is whether the Stock shall be redeemable at the end of 30 years under the Act of 1888, or whether it shall be redeemable at once, in a method as yet unexplained.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I appreciate the point, Sir. My object is to prevent this money being dammed up in the pockets of the National Debt Commissioners, and to provide that there shall be some blood-letting arrangement.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order !
    MR. T. M. HEALY: It is clear to my mind, and I am sorry I cannot make it clear to other minds that the meaning is —
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order !
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Well, I will drop that, and simply ask for a distinct statement from the Government as to when the Stock will be redeemed?
    MR. KEAY: As I understand the concession of the Government to be of a substantial nature, I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
    MR. GOSCHEN: There must be no misapprehension on this point. My observations were confined to the point raised by the hon. Member for West Belfast. I distinctly hold the view that the first £30,000,000 shall be paid off within the 49 years, but I cannot undertake that the re-issues shall be paid off within the same period. I promise that words shall be placed in the Bill indicating that view.
    MR. SEXTON: I agree that there must be no misunderstanding. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman is over cautious. He admits the 1 per sent. will enable all the advances to be redeemed within the 49 years, but when we ask him to bind the State by this Act to redeem, he says he will consider the point.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I am anxious to safeguard myself. My promise is that the intention of the Government that the original advance of £30,000,000 shall be paid off in the 49 years, shall be indicated in the Bill.
    MR. SEXTON: That is sufficient. Of course, I did not expect the right hon. Gentleman to go further. He says he will see how this object can be secured, and that promise means he will do it.
    MR. KEAY: I think the right hon. Gentleman hardly understands his own Bill, for it provides for the possible cancelment of all Stocks when the annuities cease, as also did his Bill of last year, from which my Amendment is taken. I do not see any difference between the right hon. Gentleman's intention and my wish as expressed in the Amendment. Therefore, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. CONYBEARE: The Amendment I propose to move is the omission of the words— "After 30 years from the commencement of this Act, and not before," and subsequently I have an Amendment to omit the reference to the "National Debt Conversion Act, 1888." So my proposition is that the clause should run—
    " Such Stock shall be a Capital Stock, consisting of annuities yielding dividends at the rate of £2 15s. per annum on the nominal amount of the capital, payable by equal half-yearly payments on June 1 and December 1, and shall be redeemable at par by yearly drawings to an amount equal to the capital value of the sinking fund for the same year."
    There is, first, the intermediate Amendment to line 16, and these, I may say, are alternative proposals. There is something to ' be said in favour of annual drawings, and without now entering upon a lengthened argument, I put forward the Amendment as it stands, and it may be deemed worthy of discussion.
    Amendment proposed, in line 16, to leave out from the word " after " to the word "before," in line 17 inclusive.— (Mr. Conybeare.)
    Question proposed, ." That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. GOSCHEN: I thought this was practically disposed of by the Debate we have had. We debated upon the last Amendment whether 30 years should stand, and I think we exhausted the arguments on both sides.
    MR. CONYBEARE: The right hon. Gentleman has not quite caught my meaning. I do not wish to re-argue the question, which I am well aware has been discussed, as to whether 30 years should remain or not, but to get rid of the limit and introduce the alternative proposal of a yearly drawing. As a financier, the right hon. Gentleman is well aware of the fact that national and foreign loans are frequently redeemable in that manner.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I did, in the previous discussion, address myself to the point. It is true the system to which the hon. Member refers is often applied to loans, but it is generally applied to other than first-class Stock, and not to Stock that Trustees can invest in. Nothing can be worse for a Stock to invite investors than that it should be subject to redemption at uncertain intervals. If for no other reason Trustees would not avail themselves of Stock of this character because of the uncertainty and trouble possibly of reinvestment of the funds under their care at short intervals. In no Stock of high class is this considered a desirable method of redemption. The plan the hon. Member has suggested would be of no advantage to the State, nor would it be of any advantage to stockholders themselves, and I trust the hon. Member may not think it necessary to press the Amendment.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: It is because of the mathematical precision with which the right hon. Gentleman puts his points that we have urged upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should never have made this distinction between this Land Stock and Consols. I now ask the right hon. Gentleman— and the opportunity presents itself on this Amendment-to explain his position on this point, and why the distinction is made, and to defend the term of 30 years. We have, observed the right hon. Gentleman's' uneasiness whenever reference is made to: the difference between this Stock, and Consols; but we may ask him, why this term of 30 years? Ho has said, and no doubt his contention is correct, that if you have Stock redeemable at a moment's notice, the precarious nature of that Stock reduces its value as an investment; but when you have funded
    524
    the Stock, why the provision of this term of 30 years?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member is wandering wide of the Amendment before us.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I did not intend to wander. I may say my mind remains at anchor upon this point; but I accept your ruling, Sir, that my observations are wide of the Amendment, and will not pursue the discussion.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I admit the force of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said as to the position of Loans and Stocks in the market, and have no inclination to waste time with my suggestion beyond saying that I should like to see it adopted in an experimental transaction like this. In reference to the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I may say that I had not taken the view that this will be a first-class Stock, and I do not see any arrangement by which it could be made a first-class Stock. I should be sorry, indeed, for the Trustees and others who placed their investments in Stock of this kind based on a bogus security. However, that is a question for the protégés of the right hon. Gentleman in time to come. I do not insist on the Amendment. I accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and ask leave to withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I presume I shall now be in order in moving my Amendment to leave out " thirty " and insert " ten," and I am not aware that the ground of my Amendment has been covered by any discussion we have had already. The proposal of the Government, we are told, is to establish what they call a first-class Stock in which Trustees and bonâ fide investors may invest their money; and to make it a first-class Stock it is placed in a position better than that of what is usually known as the best first-class Stock for Trustees, namely, Consols. So far as I can judge the effect of the proposal made by the Government, it is to give a higher rate of interest to this than is given to those who invest in the ordinary and more or less depreciated Consols. In order, further, to protect their friends the landlords of Ireland, in order to give them the very best security in their

    525
    power, they—to use a Stock Exchange slang expression—they " bull" this Stock, raising it to an inflated value, and giving the holders the advantage of selling out at an inflated price. The Chancellor of the Exchequer now proposes that it shall be fixed—that is to say, that it shall not be redeemable until after 30 years from the commencement of this Act. Now, we have here two extremes. In my last Amendment the proposal for annual drawings was pronounced precarious and unsound for a first-class Stock, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer goes, I think, to the other extreme when he proposes that the redemption shall not be until after a term of 30 years. Between these two points of extreme there are, I daresay, many points of agreement. I hold that the term of 30 years is too long, and that it is a long term I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will admit, and I now propose to limit the period to 10 years, by way of an alternative for yearly drawings, the proposal I made just now. In fixing the term so high as 30 years the Chancellor of the Exchequer is taking a measure which will undoubtedly inflate the Stock he is creating in a manner wholly unnecessary and unfair. Now, the proposal to which I invite the attention of the Committee is to substitute "ten " for " thirty " and I shall be interested to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there is any substantial objection to that proposal. If his objection is one of those of the same character as his last, possibly we may approach each other by some figure between 10 and 30, but I think that a shorter term than 30 years is essential in the interest of the public.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 16, to leave out the word "thirty "and insert the word " ten."—(Mr. Cony-beare.)
    Question proposed, " That the word ' thirty' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. GOSCHEN: It is not probable that the whole of the £30,000,000 will be issued in two or three years, and if the period of issue were to approach five years then during five years the holders of the Stock would be uncertain what interest they were to receive. I notice with
    526
    pleasure the view taken by Irish Members that the Bill is likely to operate pretty fast, there being a disposition among landlords and tenants to avail themselves of the facilities the Bill offers. But still I think the period of 10 years is much too short.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and there is apprehension that the Bill will operate pretty fast and our constituents will be defrauded by the operation of the Bill. But let me explain that my. proposal is that the issue of Stock should be divided into certain quantities, thus,: The right hon. Gentleman may want to issue, say, £10,000,000 this year, and perhaps another £2,000,000 in another year, and so on, and the time would run from the date of each issue. I do not say that provision is made for this in the Bill, but such provision could be readily made. I am not wedded to the term of 10 years; it may be a term of 12 or 15 years or 20 years, but I do think that when, as was said last night, the object is to give the landlords good security at par, there should be an undue inflation of value by fixing this term of redemption at 30 years. However, I survey the question with indifference, and do not press the Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. KEAY: The Amendment I now have to move is that which appears at the end of the page at line 26. It is better, I think, that I should move the Amendment in the form I propose, because, so far as I know, other hon. Members may desire to introduce Amendments to the same line. I do not quite know what our Irish friends may say to my proposition, but, for my own part, I see no reason to strike out the Guarantee Fund in this place. In the interests of the Imperial taxpayers we think it better to retain it, and that is why I move the Amendment. The object of it is simply to prevent the general assets of the taxpayers of this country from being pledged for the benefit of the Irish landlords, and it is also for the purpose of securing that the Land Stock which they receive will rest, as it ought to rest in our opinion, on what the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself called in his speech of last year "the network of securities provided in

    527
    the Bill." 1 remember that he was very strong upon this point, for when he followed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian in Debate on the Second Reading he boasted that the great master of finance did not find himself able to attack this network of securities with which the Bill was surrounded. Now, if there is this excellent network of security I say why bring in the Consolidated Fund? It has been the standing boast from the Treasury Bench that this Guarantee Fund will in itself cover the whole of the advances under this Bill. Well, then, if these securities are sufficient, why, I say, bring in the Consolidated Fund? If, on the other hand, they are insufficient, what, then, becomes of the pronouncement that the British taxpayer incurs no risk whatever? Both of these propositions cannot be accepted; either the public taxpayers have risk, or they have not. If they have not, why this additional security 1 Before I proceed any further, perhaps I may be allowed to refer to a few words in the recommendation contained in the Report of the Royal Commission, which reported upon the working of the Ashbourne Act in 1887, words, I think, very pregnant in the consideration of the Amendment which I propose. The Commissioners say—
    " It is clear from the evidence that the great majority of the small Irish tenants are not in a condition to meet the risk of fixed rents for so long a period as 15 years. It would, therefore, be prudent without further delay to make provision for revision at a shorter term than 15 years. We therefore recommend that the term should he shortened from 15 to 5 years."
    Well, now, I ask what is the position of Her Majesty's Government, who, having appointed this Commission, and having received its recommendation, yet in these days—I may almost say in these decades—of falling prices and falling agricultural values, forget altogether this recommendation of their own Commission, and now provide for fixed payments for a period of 49 years 1 I do not want right hon. Gentlemen opposite to suppose that I am founding my argument on the figures of the old rents, as the Commission did. I know they will say—and they have a certain right to say—that they hope and believe that these annuities under this system are very different from the rents of
    528
    which the Commissioners were speaking. I admit that the immediate necessity of revision may disappear, yet the principle, which the Royal Commission says is enforced by the evidence, is equally applicable to the present case, that principle being that it is impossible for the tenant to accept a fixed rent which he may not be able to sustain in case of a fall in value. There has, indeed, now been added an additional and enormous risk to the Consolidated Fund, inasmuch as this Bill deliberately provides for the wholesale overvaluing of the holdings. The Bill is apparently framed for the purpose of providing that the tenant be steeped in insolvency. Who would ever capitalise the gross value of a lease, or of any fixed property, as is done here, if he wanted the buyer to remain solvent? Suppose one of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench were going to buy an advowson, and the price was to be 25 years' purchase. He would not agree to pay 25 years' purchase of the gross value of the benefice, but would first deduct the outgoings, say for the salary of a curate, and then capitalise the net income of the benefice. This Bill is absolutely unique in proposing to capitalise the gross value instead of the net value of the holdings, and I say that an enormous additional risk is being placed on the Consolidated Fund by this means. We are, fortunately, indebted to the Government for having—tardily, it is true—provided a Return of a most interesting character, as elucidating this important matter. I refer to Return No. 47 of the present year. It must be remembered, in the first place, that the whole of the sales effected under the Ashbourne Acts have been at an average of 19 years' purchase of the valuation. Of course, the great majority of the tenants have been successful up to the present in paying their instalments. But what about the defaulters? The Return shows the number of them, and the ruinous annuities which have been saddled on them in consequence of the extortionate prices at which they have been compelled to purchase their holdings. I have averaged the whole, and find they have paid not 19, but 25 years', purchase. The lesson we must draw from this is that the deliberate

    529
    overvaluing of holdings and the deliberate misguiding of the Commissioners as regards overvaluing, has the effect of making the tenant bankrupt and consequently of largely increasing the risks -which come on the Consolidated Fund. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will remember having produced to the House in his first speech a statement which was certainly very clear and much appreciated by the House, in which he took £100 as the ideal of rental, and said that the £100 would come down to £68 under the scheme of this Bill. When we look at what has actually taken place with the defaulters, what do we find? We find that the defaulting tenants have been charged 25 years' purchase of their holdings, and have, therefore, had to pay a 4 per cent. instalment on 25 years' purchase, which is equal to the whole of the Poor Law valuation of the holdings. This means that these poor tenants, instead of having had their £100 reduced to £68, could have had it reduced in the Land Court to £80, but by purchasing instead of going into the Land Court have had what would have been a judicial rent of £80 raised to £100 for 49 years. I do not -wonder that these men are bankrupt. The deliberate capitalising of the gross value of the holding, instead of the net value, has the effect of almost ensuring their being placed in financial difficulties. I am very anxious to know by what method the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary can explain how the advance out of the Consolidated Fund to pay the dividends and the Sinking Fund payments can possibly be, as it is termed in the Bill, a " temporary advance." The provision is that the dividends and payments to the Sinking Fund shall be paid out of the Land Purchase Account; and if it is insufficient shall, to the extent of the deficiency, be paid as a " temporary advance " out of the Consolidated Fund, and every such advance shall be repaid out of the Guarantee Fund. I have no hesitation in saying that as the different Amendments come up I shall succeed in demonstrating that this clause simply direct? that an impossibility be done. A " temporary advance " must, of course, imply that the Guarantee Fund had the coin, or in a short time would have the coin, in it for
    530
    the purpose of repaying to the Consolidated Fund the whole of the dividends and Sinking Fund payments to be created by the Bill. I say that even if the Guarantee Fund succeeded at any time in paying off one year's instalment rendered necessary by default, the result would be that the income of Ireland would be correspondingly diminished by the denial of Imperial grants and contributions, and that would tend to cause a recurrence of the default in the following year. But there is a stronger argument. If the Guarantee Fund fails to pay up, the temporary advance becomes more or less permanent, and the Guarantee Fund can be shown to be absolutely, arithmetically, unable to pay up to the Consolidated Fund what is temporarily advanced until after an enormous lapse of time, and until an enormous amount of debt has accumulated. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, replying to a question I put to him in December, laid great stress on the alleged temporary character of the advance from the Consolidated Fund, and he even somewhat lost his temper, and accused me of " suppressing the fact that the Consolidated Fund is at once recouped by the Guarantee Fund." But I say that the whole of the Guarantee Fund is positively insufficient, and, therefore, it is impossible that the Consolidated Fund can have its advances at once recouped, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman. How can the Guarantee Fund at once recoup when it has not the coin in it to do so? Let us look at the figures in the Return presented at the request of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford and myself, showing the operation of the Sinking Fund. This Return was not all I wanted. For some reason best known to himself the Chancellor of the Exchequer has confined it to 30 years, and has not carried it to 49 years as I desired. But it shows that on the 30th year the annuities due from the tenants amount to £1,845,000. But the whole income of the Guarantee Fund for each year it is also shown will amount to £1,200,000 only. The right hon. Gentleman's own Return, therefore, shows a deficit at once for that single year of £645,000. What does this clause in the Bill say? Why, that the difference, which will be £645,000 on this one year alone, is to

    531
    be "temporarily advanced" from the Consolidated Fund. Now, suppose that the whole of the £1,200,000, which constitutes the income of the Guarantee Fund, is got in. I will not enter into the difficulty of realising the Guarantee Fund and of denying the Contingent portion's contributions to Ireland. I take it all as cash, and I say the right hon. Gentleman will exhaust his Guarantee Fund. He will have a deficit which the Consolidated Fund will make good. Then how is the "temporary advance " to be recouped? It cannot be done by taking the next year's £l,200,000; assuming always that there is a default, for that will not only all go but the next year's deficit will in its turn appear to the extent of £660,000, and so on every year. Thus, deficits will go on accumulating year by year in the Consolidated Fund, although you sweep off the whole Guarantee Fund every year, and, as a result, at the end of 49 years you will have £13,000,000 or £16,000,000 that has been advanced out of the Consolidated Fund for a period of 19 years. I want to know if the right hon. Gentleman considers that to be a " temporary advance "? I want to know where the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his reply to me come in—the words in which he said I had suppressed the fact that the Consolidated Fund was at once recouped? Nineteen years is surely a long time for recoupment not to have been begun. The fact is, the Government have solved an extraordinary hydrostatic problem. There is an old saying that you cannot put a quart of water into a pint pot, but the Government have enormously powerful hydraulic machinery at their command. They have actually succeeded in putting the quart of water into the pint pot; and not only so, but the answer of the right hon. Gentleman showed that they are just preparing by this Bill to take it out again. All I have got to say is this: that the network of securities of the right hon. Gentleman will be proved to be only a network in the sense that it is full of holes.
    It being ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

    PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) [SALARIES, &c.]
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Question again proposed,
    " That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to he provided by Parliament, of any Salaries, remuneration, and expenses, which may become payable under any Act of the present Session to amend the Procedure in regard to Private Bills relating to Scotland."—[Mr. Jackson.)
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

    REGISTRATION OF CERTAIN WRITS (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS].—(No.272.)
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

    LOCAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 189.)
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.
  EVENING SITTING.
    MOTIONS.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN RURAL DISTRICTS.

        RESOLUTION.
        MR. ARTHUR DYKE ACLAND: In rising to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper, I think I shall be right in saying that the House will not think it unreasonable that, after three years' working of the Local Government Act, it should once more consider the question how Local Government in our rural districts, that part of Local Government still the most incomplete, the most unsatisfactory, stands at the present time. I am not going to spend any lengthened time in speaking of the chaos and complication of Local Government in rural districts. I think that the whole of that subject is well known and well under-

        533
        stood, and I will only say that after three years' promises in three successive Queen's Speeches of a District Councils Bill, the anxiety of the country for such a Bill, which will give some further measure of reform in the matter of Local Boards, Boards of Guardians, and other authorities, is certainly growing every day. I can testify, and I am sure many north-country Members can testify to the fact, that dissatisfaction as to Local Board elections and the election of Boards of Guardians, and the manner in which these elections are carried out, is increasing and growing constantly. It is one of those matters our constituents are constantly bringing before us in a great variety of ways. They ask why, when they vote for a member of a Town Council or a Member of Parliament under a simple straightforward method why they should be condemned to an antiquated and unreasonable method in these local elections for Local Boards and Boards of Guardians, where still the plural vote obtains, with a property qualification vote and the voting paper method, all profoundly annoying to people in populous districts. Now I have confined my Motion to rural districts because the problem there has a distinct aspect, and because I think that even town Members are brought to realise that the country question, the rural question, the state of the inhabitants of villages, and the kind of life they lead there, are matters of great importance to dwellers in towns as well as to those who live in the country. I hope my Motion in its wording is sufficiently clear, and I am somewhat surprised at the Amendment my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset proposes. I have not a word to say against District Councils. District Councils were in the Bill of 1888, that part of the Bill which had to be dropped. In my opinion, District Councils which shall do more than the Bill proposed they should do, and in the same way in some districts, though in some respects differing, in which the Boards of Guardians shall be merged, will be necessary for sanitary and Poor Law purposes for a long time to come. But what the upshot of my proposal comes to is this— that, the next time a Local Government Bill is brought in, whether you call it a District Councils Bill or whatever other
        534
        name you give to it, it must be fundamentally of a different character from that part of the Bill of 1888, which we may call the District Councils' portion of that Bill. The District Councils' portion of that Bill, what did it do? It practically wiped out the parish. Many of those powers which, though not much in working, still exist as belonging to the parish, that Bill proposed to transfer to District Councils, and the Bill did nothing whatever to bring back any life into the parish or to reform the Vestry, and practically it ignored the parish altogether. Now I say, if my Motion be accepted to-night, it would mean a fundamental change from the position in the Government Bill of three years ago. In my opinion, it is fundamental. You may say, after all, that the Vestry and the parish are very small matters, and they may be small matters, I know, but they may also lead to valuable local work and education in citizenship which in your little villages may, though it be a humble position, comparatively, be of very large educational value indeed. After all, what are the principles of Local Government, and the objects of Local Government, but the drawing out of local patriotism? It is not a question of poring over maps in an office, of sub-dividing areas and settling unions that they may be of the same size, or multiples of units nearly of the same size; nothing of the sort; we do not deal with great towns in that way. A great town grows from a small one, and we do not propose to split it in half. We give it the same Local Government whether it has 20,000 or 300,000 or 400,000 inhabitants. Nobody dreams of making any separation or division of the town grown from a small to a large size. In the same sort of way we must look to the question of Local Government in rural districts, not as a question of numbers but of interesting people in their own parish, large or small. I know that some of these parishes are small. The parishes I refer to, of course, are civil parishes. I am not concerned with ecclesiastical matters tonight. The parish is one of the most ancient institutions in the country, and it is rather Remarkable that the Conservative Party should do anything to expunge from our midst the parish, the old township around which associations have gathered. Not so very long ago, there

        535
        really was some parish life in the country. But by degrees, and for various reasons, village government dwindled to nothing worthy of the name, and gradually died out. I believe the time has come when we ought to revive it, and I believe there is a strong feeling among the inhabitants that they are capable of managing their own affairs if we give them an opportunity of doing so in their own way. Now the stock argument, which I dare say we shall hear more than once to-night, against doing anything for the parish, is that many of the parishes are so small. I shall be told, I dare say, that there are 6,000 parishes, with under 3,000 population. I quite admit this, and some of these parishes must be merged in those around and become larger parishes. But that does not affect the Motion. There are, I know, parishes so small that there is no strong feeling in connection with them. I am reminded of a friend of mine talking to a farmer in Wiltshire, and who asked how he stood in his relation to the parish, and the farmer replied he held land in two parishes, that he was made overseer in one of these parishes, but no Vestry had been called during four years, and it was not necessary; and in the other parish he generally sat on a stile and talked over matters with the overseer and settled them every Easter; so practically government in either parish was pretty much the same. An hon. friend of mine, who is a Member of this House, tells me he is one in a parish of 25 in population, and he tells me that he and two of his friends take turns in the office of overseer, and appoint an assistant overseer to do the work. Well, of course, parishes of that sort might well have been merged long ago, and not of such do I speak. What I say is that though there may be great difficulties in these boundary questions you have no right to sacrifice the interests of the larger parishes to the interests of the small. I am quite aware that there are parishes in Norfolk and in other counties where difficulties may arise, and it may be difficult to merge parishes with rural claims. But it is a question for the County Council to deal with. Each County Council knows its own county well, and can adjust boundaries and amalgamations, as the Local Government Board will never
        536
        be able to do. I have looked into this question, and I find that in Wiltshire there are 10,000 people in little parishes of populations below 200, and 150,000 in parishes of populations from 250 to 4,000. These first parishes are small, but why, therefore, should we sacrifice the interests of the 150,000 for the 10,000, and of a population say of 10,000,000 in the rural districts? Now,, my Motion first of all speaks of reformed Vestries; but, of course, the name is a matter of small importance. Some of my friends think that the word Vestry so much stinks in the nostrils of some people, because as an institution it has so long remained effete and non-efficient, that it would be better to do away with the word. Well, they may be called open parish meetings, or any other name would do as well, but I like the name of Vestry as well-known to the rural population; it has a meaning to them; and at any rate I wish to see a complete and effectual reform. Why it is asked by some, have Vestries, if you are to have District Councils? Well, it is a very important matter I think that you should have the opportunity of an annual open meeting of the parishioners, where all may meet. I think those town meetings of which we often hear as being held in American towns, and which are sometimes summoned by the Mayor in English towns, are very useful means for the discussion of questions of local interest. The reason why towns meetings are so difficult in towns is because the population is so large; but in proportion as there is less to interest, less to excite, less to occupy the attention of our country people, in proportion as the people's life is dull and dreary, and the means of entertainment are fewer, so in proportion also, ought yon to give every opportunity to the villagers to meet in gatherings which would be the subject of considerable interest to them. I would say, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said 20 years ago—
        " You ought to give every opportunity for these town meetings, and make every reasonable provision for 10 or 20, or whatever larger number of ratepayers you think right, to ummon open public meetings, for the discussions of matters which concern the inhabitants."
        An Instruction was moved in 1888 that provision should be inserted in the Local

        537
        Government Bill to reform the Vestries. That proposal was defeated by the Government at that time. The whole of the Vestry Law is in a very chaotic state, and on some points there is a good deal of obscurity. The powers of summoning the Vestry are extremely limited. The powers of giving notice of business at Vestries are also extremely limited. The Chairman of the Vestry cannot be selected by the people, the plural vote arrangements are extremely unsatisfactory, and there is no adequate power of adjourning the meeting—each meet-is complete in itself—and when attempts are made to alter the time of meeting, they constantly prove ineffectual. The principle of one man one vote should prevail in all Vestry meetings, in all polls; the plural vote should be abolished, the people should choose their own Chairman, and in country villages there should be full right and opportunity of always meeting in the evening, which is the only time when the labourers can attend. Some of these changes would be perfectly simple. You could incorporate the Vestry, as the hon. Member for Rugby proposed to do in his Parish Councils Bill of last year. You could arrange for deliberations, for resolutions which might initiate important reforms, you could have gatherings which would back the Parish Council in their action, which would criticise the action of other authorities if they thought it injured in any way the interests of the parish. What is the Vestry as it stands at the present time in a good many parishes? I have here a Vestry notice which was hanging on some church door only a week or two ago. This is the notice—
        " The inhabitants "—
        it is a parish of 700 or 800 people—
        " are requested to take notice that a meeting in Vestry will be held for the nomination of overseers and for the election of way wardens. It will be held on the 24th of March, at 11 o'clock in the forenoon, at the ' Crown ' "
        —the " Crown " is a public house. If that is English Local Government in rural districts it is a very unsatisfactory thing. It would have been much better to say that "the five farmers and the one parson, and the five publicans "—for there are five publicans in this parish—" and the six trades people, and one or two other persons who may possibly come at
        538
        11 o'clock in the forenoon are hereby invited, and that the 120 or 130 labourers and artisans in the parish who cannot possibly come at 11 o'clock in the forenoon are asked to take notice that the meeting is to be at a time when it is well-known they cannot possibly attend." We have many indications that the people are anxious to take advantage of the Vestry, incomplete and insufficient as it is. I heard the other day of a Vestry meeting in a northern county. About 9 or 10 people had been in the habit of attending it, but it so happened that recently a School Board has been started in the parish, and School Board matters had stirred up the people to take some interest in their own parish concerns. The people said " we will go to the Vestry." The Vestry meeting was held in a public house. The room was not a large one, and the labourers and other people crowded in till the public house people were greatly upset lest their best parlour would be turned topsy - turvy. That is a warning against holding meetings in public houses, which I am glad to say 1 do not think is at all a common practice. A friend in my own constituency wrote to me recently to say that two years ago a majority of the working men from his parish, who live in the parish but work in the town, lost half a day to attend the Vestry meeting and see if they could not get the time altered from 4 to 7 p.m. A resolution was passed by a very large majority that the time should be so altered, but in the face of the resolution every meeting since had been called for 4 o'clock. There is no redress for anything of that sort. There is a little parish in Wales where there is a School Committee of a National Church School, of which the clergyman is the Chairman, and nearly all the other members of the Committee are Nonconformists. The Committee, of which I happen to be Secretary, work harmoniously. One of the first things this Committee discovered was that the school attendance officer, who lives several miles away, was doing nothing whatever to get the children to school. His pay was £25, equivalent to 1d. in the £1. The Committee sent a deputation to the governors, who referred the matter to the Vestry, thinking no doubt that the Vestry meeting would be attended

        539
        by very few people. What happened? The Vestry meeting was held in the National School, and I am told the proceedings were rather lively. It was resolved that the work of the school attendance officer had not been done satisfactorily, and it was suggested that he should appoint a deputy and pay him out of his own salary. And then it was resolved to ask the School Attendance Committee to present a balance-sheet each year. Since the meeting, the attendance of the children has enormously improved, and the parties concerned have begun to get frightened of the parishioners. I am glad to know that some clergymen are holding Vestry meetings in the evening, and are encouraging the people to elect their own Parochial Council. One clergyman writes, that he thinks the labourers ought to be represented on this Council in the proportion of three to one of any other class. Then he says he has a Voluntary School Board elected on the same principle, and adds, that whatever else it does it disarms jealousy and suspicion, and produces more or less confidence all round. Why should we not emphasise such a state of things by making it a legal and proper process which should be gone through in every parish, whether the authorities that be like it or not? I now pass to the question of Parish Councils. I hold that in every parish of reasonable size a Parish Council, the members of which might vary in proportion to the number of the inhabitants, should be elected. It should be elected by ballot, and on a thoroughly popular basis. Such a Council should have administrative powers over matters which purely concern parishes. It should have the administration of the charities, of the allotments which are granted under the Allotment Act; it should have powers of control over public buildings, free libraries, common lands and footpaths. Then I think it might very reasonably, in some cases, be entrusted with limited sanitary powers; and besides all this, it would have its eyes open to a great many things which are wanted in the parish. It could call the Vestry together, and could appear with authority before the District or County Council. Amongst other matters it would be able to show and prove whether compulsory powers
        540
        were wanted for the purchase of land or for the leasing of land for any public purpose—either for allotments, or small holdings, or for public buildings, village halls, or in some cases for dwellings. I consider that this question of dwellings and the security of tenure lies at the very root of all progress in a great many of our villages. I have present to my mind the case of a man living three or four miles outside a large town. He works in the town and goes backwards and forwards every day. His idea was that some day or other he would get around his house a piece of land as a vegetable garden, give up his town work and devote himself to country life. The man organised the flower shows in all the parishes around, and is one of the foremost men in the district. He has just got a month's notice to quit his house in order to make room for a second or third gamekeeper the landlord is going to engage. I do not complain of that, but this man, to my knowledge, is being driven into the town. He knows perfectly well that none of the chief landlords there would dream for a moment of giving him a piece of freehold. Mr. Fife in his evidence before the Town Holdings Committee mentions cases in which the landlord refused to give one bit of freehold. I say that no Small Holdings Bill, or any other Bill, which has not some kind of compulsory power behind it, will do any good whatever to the United Kingdom. Well, there is the question of education. I quite admit that the little parish School Boards, as we have them now, are not satisfactory. In England, at any rate, however things may be in Scotland, where there is a stronger feeling in favour of education, our rural districts will not be effectually organised until we have district School Boards embracing a number of parishes, with a view to providing higher and evening instruction for the children in the upper standards. At the same time there must be strong management, and if we have, as we ought to have, the schools under popular control, the parish Council will be well represented on such a body. There is a growing interest throughout the country on this matter of organised village management. I believe, and I do not hesitate to say, that when people learn lessons of association and lessons of responsibility a

        541
        good many other things will follow. They will learn to develop the principle of association for their own interest in a way they have never hitherto learnt. I hope we shall see the great co-operative movement so successfully carried on in many towns introduced in the villages, where no facility is now given for the acquisition of freeholds for co-operative purposes. In many towns in the North of England they are a matter of course. The movement could not be successfully carried on without it. I hope we shall see the introduction of such co-operative societies as one I know. There is one society with which I am acquainted in a large district where something like 700 members, all working people, receive over their own counter £18,000 or £20,000 a year, of which they save £2,000 to put back into their own pockets; and for a labourer's wife, whose husband does not earn more than 15s. a week, to receive back £6 of her own, made by her own society, and not given her by any one else, is important as a lesson in self-help. I hope these methods of association will lead them to appreciate the value of a Trades' Union for the agricultural districts. In my opinion the successful development of an agricultural Trades' Union throughout the South East and middle of England would be one of the best possible things for the agricultural labourer. I do not know why, but for some reason this has been looked at askance by some who would not hesitate to tell the town labourers that they have to thank Trades' Unions for the progress they have made. I hope the agricultural labourers will learn the lesson which has been so beneficial to their brethren in the towns, and which has made them what they are. I hope my Motion is thoroughly clear. I have only been able to sketch my views in support of it in broad outline. I do not exclude District Councils; but when a District Councils Bill is brought in it will be utterly unsatisfactory unless it contains, as part and parcel of the Bill, these powers given to Vestries and Parish Councils. As I understand my hon. Friend's Amendment, part of which seems to me to refer to urban districts, it is merely a benevolent and pious opinion that District Councils are wanted. We said that long ago, and we have asked
        542
        the Government for it, over and over again. District Councils have been mentioned in the Queen's Speech for three successive Sessions, and therefore I should not have thought my hon. Friend's Amendment was particularly necessary. In a Tory leaflet which I hold in my hand, and which was printed at Birmingham, it is said that some parishes are too large and some too small for Parish Councils; that Lord Salisbury's Government proposes to create District Councils elected by the householders, which will take over the duties of Boards of Guardians—that is new to me, for it was not in the Bill of 1888—and which will have power to look after labourers' cottages, establish libraries, repair the roads, and attend to many other matters. The leaflet goes on to say that they would have carried their proposals into practical effect before now but for Radical obstruction. I do not complain of that, for I suppose the writers of these leaflets have general instructions to fill up any blank spaces with "Radical obstruction." If there is one subject on which the Radicals never offered any obstruction it is District Councils, and if the Government had introduced a Bill dealing with that subject, instead of their attempt at temperance reform last year, they would not have had the slightest difficulty in bringing it to a successful issue. I think I know the views of some of my Tory friends in rural districts on this subject, and I believe they will strongly protest against Tom, Jack or Harry having an equal voice with themselves on parochial affairs. For my own part, I am sure that by degrees, they may be slow degrees—when Local Government has died out it cannot be revived in a day—I am quite sure we shall find our village people worthy of a trust of this sort. We shall be able to give those who must leave the villages, many of them strong, vigorous, enterprising men, a better knowledge of Local Government than they have at present; we shall accustom them to a sense of public responsibility—and as to those who remain behind, we shall be able to brighten their lives and give them a sort of education they have never had before. The process may be slow, but we must be patient with people who have had so few chances, though, for my own part, I do not believe

        543
        in any speedy cure for the grave difficulties and hopelessness which beset much of our village life, due to a great variety of causes. The House of Commons can, by the means I have indicated, provide a training school in public responsibility and self-government at the very door of the people. Every example of such efforts in. other countries shows they are almost invariably attended with success. It is in order to grant these responsibilities, to provide that kind of training in citizenship of which I have spoken, that I think we may heartily and earnestly ask the House of Commons to pass the Resolution which stands in my name.
        MR. J. MORLEY: I beg to second the Resolution.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That, in the opinion of this House, no measure of Local Government for the rural districts of England and Wales will he satisfactory which does not provide for the reform of Vestries and the establishment of Parish Councils, so as to secure to the inhabitants of country villages a reasonable share in the management of their own affairs."—(Mr. Arthur Acland.)
        MR. HOBHOUSE: There was a great deal in the excellent speech of the hon. Member who moved the Resolution with which I cordially agree. When I first saw this Motion on the Paper, drawing attention to the unsatisfactory position of Local Government in rural districts, I sincerely hoped that I should have the pleasure of supporting him. I thoroughly agree with him that it is unsatisfactory, and I am certainly not one whit behind him in wishing for its speedy reform. But I have two very strong objections to his Resolution in its present form. I object to it because it is a negative Resolution —a Resolution which, if it be carried, is more likely to delay Local Government reform in this House of Commons than to advance it — a Resolution which does not affirm the urgency of this reform, but which is in the form of an Amendment to the Second Reading of the District Councils Bill—a Resolution which, as my hon. Friend himself explains, requires a fundamentally different Bill to be introduced as regards District Councils from the provisions which were before this House three years ago—a Resolution which also, if he will allow me to say so, seems intended rather for
        544
        consumption on public platforms than for practical use in this House. Such a Resolution is surely one which those who wish for a speedy settlement of the present difficulties which surround Government in rural districts cannot very well vote for. My second objection to the Resolution is that it gives quite an undue prominence to the parish as related to the district; it exaggerates the functions of parochial Government, and entirely ignores the district. It tends to put Local Government reform in the future on a wrong basis, and, in effect, it puts the cart before the horse. Therefore, the carrying of this Resolution will, in my opinion, embarrass rather than aid those who are anxious to put Local Government on a more satisfactory basis in the future. The present position is eminently unsatisfactory. We have got the reformed County Councils above, and below we have the chaos of overlapping areas and unreformed authorities and conflicting rates, which has been so often alluded to. The only way, in my humble opinion, to evolve order out of this chaos is to unify areas, to create proper District Authorities, and to concentrate in those authorities all the powers which appertain properly to district affairs—powers relating to the Poor Laws, highways, and sanitation. And then it must be secured that the District Authority is brought into proper subordinate relation to the County Council. Care must be taken that this District Authority is not only the only rating authority within its district, but that it is the predominating administrative authority. That being so, the question arises, what is to be the principal unit of district government? I should certainly gather from the remarks of my hon. Friend, that his opinion is that the parish ought to be the predominant unit in District Government. Certainly the choice lies between the parish on the one hand and the Union or Rural sanitary District on the other; and it seems to me that the Motion affirms the necessity of setting up in every parish, or at all events in every parish of tolerable size—for my hon. Friend did not clearly define what, in his view, ought to be the exact number of the population which should be required,—a Parish Council endowed with sufficiently exten-

        545
        sive powers to make it the serious rival of any District Council. With regard to the reform of the Vestry, I am willing to admit that I am very much at one with my hon. Friend in that matter. I confess that our present Vestry needs reform; but I decline to put the reform of the Vestry side by side with Parish or District Councils, because, after all, the Vestry has extremely little to do in the matter of local government. It ought, moreover, to be borne in mind that there are many Vestries which are conducted in a way that fairly meets the needs and wishes of the inhabitants; and, therefore, this reform of the Vestry is not such a pressing thing as seems to be imagined. My hon. Friend has made light of the question of the size of parish areas; but I must say I think it necessary to impress this fact on the House, because, after all, in choosing new areas, the number of the population is the most important point to be considered. In England and Wales there are some 15,000 parishes; and about half of these have a population of under 500. I have not with me the exact figures; but from the Returns which were published some years ago, it may be gathered that there were some 6,000 parishes in England and Wales in which the population was less than 300. In my own county of Somerset we have 550 parishes in 300 of which the population is under 500, and in Norfolk I find that out of 800 parishes no less than 600, or three-fourths have a population of under 500. Thus, more than one-half of the parishes in England and Wales have a population of under 500 people, and yet that is the area my hon. Friend thinks the most suitable area in which to establish Councils with extensive powers. There are only two arguments, as far as I know, for taking the parish as the principal area for District Government. The first is that it is an ancient institution to which a large amount of local sentiment attaches. That is naturally an argument; which recommends itself extremely to hon. Members on this side, and which also recommends itself to me. But when you come to examine the size of the parishes, the amount of rearrangement, and, in some cases, of sub-division which they will have to undergo, it becomes perfectly clear that
        546
        your reformed parish will be very different to the original parish, and will probably become an area to which very little local sentiment attaches. The other argument is that the parish is a small area containing a number of inhabitants who could meet together for the purpose of discussing matters of Local Government, and would not be barred by distance from so doing. But there is this fatal objection—experience has shown us that these small areas have been found to be unsuitable both for Poor Law and for highway administration. I think it will be admitted that the parish would also be a most unsatisfactory area for sanitary administration. [" No."] If that is not admitted I might remind the House that when the Local Government Bill was passing through it, there were serious complaints from hon. Members on this side of the House that sanitary matters could not be satisfactorily administered in small areas, and for that reason steps were taken to enable the County Councils to appoint sanitary officers. On the other hand, I may remind the House that the sanitary district which was practically brought into existence by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax at a date subsequent to that at which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed the parish should constitute the area of county government, has been found so convenient in practice as to have been almost universally adopted for all new district purposes during the last 20 years. I think this will constitute a very strong argument for the sanitary district against the parish. The sanitary district is not such a large area that men cannot meet together to discuss local affairs, even in the most scattered parts of the country, but it is large enough to give a choice of able and competent administrators. Now my hon. Friend proposes to set up Parish Councils in every parish, and I want the House to realise how these Parish Councils would work, and I think that in so doing I am entitled to call in aid the Bill of last year which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby. The House is able to judge from that what kind of powers the Parish Councils are likely to have if they are set up according to the wishes of hon. Gentle-

        547
        men on this side. Take a parish with a population of 200 persons. Its Council would be elected for three years; its Council would be able to appoint its mayor, clerk, banker, surveyor, and solicitor; it would have powers to acquire an unlimited amount of land compulsorily for allotment purposes, and now my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham proposes to give it power to acquire land for erecting houses.
        MR. A. D. ACLAND: I do not propose that.
        MR. HOBHOUSE: That explanation I accept. But at any rate the Parish Council would have the management of the schools and charities, and extensive Poor Law powers, according to the Bill of the hon. Member for Rugby, for it would be actually able to discharge indoor paupers and order the Guardians to relieve outdoor paupers. As to sanitary powers, they include the inspection of all houses, and the services of sanitary officers are required. They were to have some highway powers, such as preventing the obstruction of footpaths. That is a short account of the powers proposed to be given to the Parish Councils. ' What I want to ask the House to consider is how this could be worked. Suppose we have a parish of 200 inhabitants, that means 30 or 40 families —perhaps 30 agricultural labourers' and a few farmers' families. These 30 labourers will have absolute control of all parish matters; even a small minority of them may get this control, because we know that, unfortunately, in these country districts there is great apathy in regard to local affairs. Therefore we may have ten or a dozen agricultural labourers electing their mayor of the parish, and this mayor, where the population of the parish is over 500, is to be an ex officio Magistrate. These Parish Councils when elected would, perhaps, in many places, consist of five agricultural labourers—-because in many places where, I am sorry to say, the agricultural labourers are not on very good terms with the farmers, they would certainly object to electing any but a member of their own class to a Parish Council, and these Councils are to have extensive powers over land, houses, charities, Poor Law, and sanitation. Then, the members of these Councils may be all compound householders,
        548
        not paying rates. There is no doubt that in many of the rural districts an increase of rate does not fall on the occupier but on the owner, therefore, it will matter very little to the members of the Parish Council how much the rates are increased. They will have no interest in economy, and very little leisure to attend to public affairs. I wish to ask the House whether, under these circumstances, which will probably prevail in a large number of parishes out of the many thousands you have to deal with, there is likely to be a very wise administration of local affairs? Let us look back 50 years to the way in which the Poor Law was administered by the parish, and do not let us do anything to recall that state of things, and to bring back the abuses which prevailed. I am bound, however, to remind the House that under that system the Poor Law was administered mainly by those who had a direct interest in keeping down rates, while in the proposed Councils these matters would be administered by those who have practically no interest in keeping down rates. There is another illustration which, I am glad to see, was alluded to by the hon. Member for Rotherham— the small parish School Board. That is the only instance, or, at any rate, the nearest instance, of a body similar to that he proposes to set up. I was not surprised to hear my hon. Friend, who has devoted so much valuable time and labour to the cause of education, admit that these small parish School Boards are not very satisfactory bodies. Of course, there are exceptions, but I have heard from Government Inspectors and schoolmasters serious complaints of the small parish School Boards, for the simple reason that in the small area of a parish there are not always competent men to man such bodies. But now the hon. Member is proposing to set up bodies with far more extensive and varied powers in the very areas where these bodies have failed. I, therefore, contend that by setting up these bodies we should be running the greatest risk of bad administration. But there is another objection. We should fail to simplify the present chaos. For it is acknowledged that District Councils would remain for many purposes side by side with Parish Councils, and the last named, if

        549
        they receive the powers I have mentioned—poor-law, sanitary, and highway powers—will usurp the functions of the District Councils, and materially interfere with the performance of their duties. You would have the powers divided between two bodies mutually interdependent—half dependent and half independent—neither subordinate to the other, and the Parish Council practically the more powerful of the two. You would then have either waste and expense from these bodies employing a double set of officers, or constant friction, confusion, and general irresponsibility from their employing the same set of officers. Thus, if we set up without due consideration these Parish Councils with extensive powers side by side with the District Councils—which we all admit must be set up—we shall run the risk of making confusion worse confounded, of deterring good men from taking part in local affairs, and the still more serious risk of generally discrediting the development of Local Government throughout the country. This last consideration is to those who approach this question, as I endeavour to do, from a non-Party point of view—[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but I have a right to say this to the House, for before I took any active part in politics at all I expressed publicly in writing exactly the same views I am expressing to-night, which views I have always held, and shall continue to hold, until I am convinced that I am wrong. I say the consideration I last referred to is an important one to those who consider the matter from a non-Party point of view. If we want steady and healthy development of local institutions we must guard against too precipitate forcing. No doubt further steps are required, but we ought to be secure of our ground, and take care that we shall not have to reverse our steps in the future. We must remember that we are legislating in the South of England for districts which, compared with some others, are backward. We want good administrative bodies, manned by competent men, and I hope we shall not sacrifice the cause of good Local Government to any considerations of Party. I am well aware that " Parish Councils" is a very popular name on public platforms, but there are higher
        550
        considerations than those of the platform. I think we should take care to realise what we are proposing, and to regard the matter from a responsible point of view. Having said so much about Parish Councils, I will shortly deal with my own proposal. My own Amendment proposes to do that which I believe we all desire—to group the rural parishes under popularly elected District Councils, with concentrated powers, and in touch with the people, through making the areas of a fair and workable size. These District Councils when established must be put in proper relations with the County Councils. Every County Councillor, for instance, should be an ex officio District Councillor. With regard to the second part of my Amendment, which provides for the control of local affairs in urban and populous places, I would point out that in many rural sanitary districts there are towns or populous places which stand on a very different footing from the ordinary small country parish. Those places will require different treatment in respect to local control, and various suggestions may be made in respect to them. We might set up Local Boards for all towns of 5,000 inhabitants and under, or we might enable the County Councils to delegate to them certain powers, but powers not so extensive as Local Boards will possess. Whatever course we adopt let our system of district government be as elastic as possible. We should have a system of joint committees, so that the sanitary districts included in a union may be able to work together for Poor Law or other purposes. On the other hand, power should be given to set up executive committees in all small towns or large villages. I would give every town or village of 2,000 inhabitants, the right to have powers delegated to an Executive Parish Committee by the popularly-elected District Council. These Executive Committees should manage the lighting, sewage, allotments, public buildings, burial grounds, and perhaps the schools of the parish. I would extend the Parochial Committees now existing under the Public Health Act, and would make them really responsible bodies with some financial control. In this way there would be elastic and suitable machinery

        551
        set up for any parish which desires it. I would further urge that such reforms are greatly needed. The present difficulties existing between the County Councils and the District Councils are really of an urgent and an awkward character. Many County Councils have hung up the question of the maintenance of the main roads until District Councils shall have been created. The responsibility of maintaining roads and bridges being now vested in the County Authority, the improvements required mainly for the benefit of particular localities cannot be effected at the cost of those localities. The Allotments, Housing of the Working Classes and Sanitary Acts are not properly administered, owing to the want of a popularly elected District Authority. These evils are fully recognised. The County Councils Association, at a meeting the other day, passed a resolution by a majority of 2 to 1 urging the introduction of a District Councils Bill. On behalf of all interested in Local Government, I would make a strong appeal to the President of the Local Government Board to redeem the promise he has so often made, and produce a District Councils Bill. Even if there is no possibility of passing the Bill this Session, much good would result from the introduction of the measure. In dealing with such a complicated subject as Local Government, the more time that is given for the consideration of the questions involved, the more likely is there to be produced a good measure in the end. I believe that no time will really be lost by giving a Second Reading discussion to the District Councils Bill this Session. I feel sure the right hon. Gentleman will be a willing party to this appeal, and that he will not wish to leave the great reform he has undertaken incomplete. He will not wish it to be said on his retirement from office that the system of Local Government is left, as the Latin poet has said—if it is still allowable to quote Latin in this House—
        " Desinit in piscem mulier formosa superne."
        Above we have a well-planned and successful superstructure of County Government, while below we have nothing but chaos. I trust that by accepting this
        552
        Amendment the right hon. Gentleman will give a further pledge for the introduction of that Bill which is to complete his scheme of Local Government on sound and satisfactory lines.
        MR. HASTINGS: I do not desire to say one word against the introduction of improved Local Government into our rural districts. I think, however, that the hon. Member who brought forward this Motion has done a little injustice towards the inhabitants of rural districts in imagining that they do not avail themselves of the means they at present have of making their voices heard and of improving their local administration. With regard to County Councils, I was very much struck with the interest that was taken in my own parish in the election of a County Councillor nearly three years ago. I was asked to take the chair at a meeting, and although it was a night in November, and was pouring with rain, and although many of the people had to come a considerable distance, there was a large attendance of all classes, and the keenest interest was taken in the question who was to represent them on the County Council. I listened to what the hon. Member said as to the indifference of the rural populations to District Councils, and their desire for Parish Councils. I am frequently in every parish, I believe, in my own constituency, and I have been asked again and again within the last 12 months why the District Councils Bill has not been brought in, but not once have I been asked if there is to be a Parish Councils Bill introduced. The hon. Member will allow me to say that I cannot agree that Parish Vestries are so very ineffective as he seems to imagine. In my own parish we have Vestry meetings much more frequently than once a year, and they are very well attended. I was present at one not long ago, called at the wish of the electors, because it was believed that the Poor Law and sanitary administration was not properly carried out by the parish. Men of all classes were there, and they showed complete ability to understand the questions at issue, and to manage their own parochial affairs. Although there is no doubt that the Vestry system requires amendment, it might be made

        553
        much more effective if it were placed upon more modern lines than it is on at present, and I do not see why it should be superseded. I believe that reformed Vestries would much more commend themselves to the minds of our rural population than Parish Councils. I do not think it is desirable that we should search for a more distant object when we have before us a question that is ready for immediate solution. It is for District Councils that we ought now to press; and it is because I feel that the bringing forward of a Parish Councils Bill would seriously embarrass us in pressing for District Councils that I support the Amendment. It may well be that at some future time we may go on from District Councils to a further development of Local Government. I believe, however, that District Councils can now be brought practically before us, and I therefore ask the House to say that District Councils shall be first constituted.
        Amendment proposed,
        To leave out all after the words "provide for," in order to add the words "the grouping of rural parishes under popularly elected district councils, and the effective control of local affairs by similar bodies in urban and populous places, and that such further reform of Local Government in rural districts is urgently required,"—(Mr. Hobhouse,)
        —instead thereof.
        Question proposed, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
        MR. SEALE - HAYNE: I desire to say a few words in support of the Motion, and I must congratulate my hon. Friend (Mr. A. Acland) on having brought the question so fully and ably before the House. I regret that the hon. Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse) should have endeavoured to drag a red herring across the scent by substituting an Amendment relative to the establishment of District Councils. The hon. Member for East Somerset is a supporter of Her Majesty's Government, and Her Majesty's Government have promised us District Councils. When they introduced the Local Government Bill of 1888 they promised to deal with the question of District Councils in the following Session. That promise was
        554
        not kept. I believe they also promised to deal with it this Session, and it seems to me there is very little chance of that promise being kept. However that may be, as the hon. Member for East Somerset supports Her Majesty's Government, I take it that he ought to be satisfied with their promises, and not throw obstacles in our way, who desire to go at once to the root of the matter by creating Parish Councils. It has been acknowledged by all those who have undertaken the question of Local Government Reform that in order to establish a satisfactory and thorough reform you must begin with the parish. The hon. Member for East Somerset desires that the district should be the unit of Local Government. The district, in my opinion, is too large, and I think that in some instances even the parish is too large. I live in a parish five miles away from the centre of Parochial Government, and I have the pleasure of paying for lights which I cannot see, for drains which are useless to me, and for burial grounds, recreation grounds, and other supposed local advantages. To make the anomaly more absurd, the next parish within a few hundred yards of my residence provides some of these things, should I require them, at the expense of their ratepayers, whilst I have to pay a considerable rate for those which are absolutely useless. I admit that in order to obtain a satisfactory Local Government we should begin by readjusting our areas; and whether you call these units of Local Government parishes or districts, the beginning must be made by ascer-faining first of all the proper dimensions to the local area, and adjusting the local boundaries to meet the necessary requirements. I live in the West of England, a little further west than the hon. Member for East Somerset. In my part of the world we do not care very much for the squire, and we do not pay much attention to the parson; but we rather want to get rid of the dominating influence of both the squire and the parson in parish matters. We want to have the control and management of our own affairs. First, we want to control the allotments of the parish; we also want power to take land on compulsion for the purpose of allotments. I, for one, would go even a

        555
        step further, and give them power to take land for the purpose of small holdings, subject to the control of the District or County Councils. This, I think, is a sine quâ non for rural parishes in the West of England. We also desire that the parish should have full control of the parochial charities, and be able to administer them irrespective of denominational considerations. We know that they often get into the pockets of those who are, or represent themselves to belong to one denomination, and we want them to be administered fairly by Council elected by the people on which all parties are represented. Again, we feel very strongly on another point; we have an Established Church and the clergy of that Church, I assume, are our servauts as long as the Church is the Church of the nation. We desire, therefore, to have some control by means of Parish Councils over their nomination, and to be able to get rid of thos3 clergymen who do not satisfy their parishioners We desire to be placed in the same position as our Nonconformist' friends, who are able to select such ministers as will serve them, in a suitable manner. As long as the Church of England takes the national money the clergy ought to be subject to national control. Then, again, the Parish Councils ought undoubtedly to have some control over the relief of the poor. I do not say entire control, but sufficient to enable them to amend the manner in which the aged and infirm are dealt with. I am afraid it is often very harsh under the management of the Guardians. Then, again, the sanitary condition of the villages ought to be in the hands of Local Parish Councils; and where there are no active and efficient School Boards, I think it would be expedient to place parish school management in the hands of Parish Councils, because, being elected by the people, they would be the proper authorities to exercise control. Beyond this, we desire to have control over the management of open spaces and commons, believing that the Parish Councils on the spot would be able to keep better watch over any encroachments that may be made than is the case under the present system. In fact, we want our
        556
        Parish Councils to have the same power as the Town Councils. We want to get rid of the various Boards which at present in some parishes exercise an overlapping authority which leads to a chaos of control. There is also no reason why Parish Councils should not also have the control of all burial grounds, in which case they would certainly put an end at once to many of the scandals that are common at the present day, when high-handed action is taken by clergymen of the Church of England which is the cause of gross offence to many of their parishioners, and contrary to the true spirit of Christian charity. I do not see why the chief of the Parish Council should not have the same position as the Mayor of a municipality, and be made a-Magistrate of his district. By doing this we should satisfy the want felt by the people that they should have some control over the appointment of the Magistrates. By giving the Chairman of the Council the powers of the Magistrate you would ensure the election of the best men in the parish, who, in such case, would be induced to come forward. If you wish to set up a thorough system of Local Government you must begin at the foundation and re-constitute the parish. 1 assure the House that this reform is ardently desired in every rural district; and, from personal experience, I know that there is no more popular topic on which you can address a rural audience than that of showing them how they may get control of their own affairs. Whatever may be the fate of this Resolution, I trust the Government will think fit to give this matter their most earnest consideration; and that when they introduce, as I trust they will with in a short period, a further measure of Local Government, by bringing in a District Councils Bill, they will at the same time include the appointment of these Parish Councils, and thus satisfy a great and growing demand on the part of the people of this country.
        MR. LLEWELLYN: I came to the House to-night in order to hear from my hon. Friend what work he intended to give these Parish Councils which

        557
        has not hitherto been conferred on the Vestries. In addition to that, I wanted to hear something I hare not yet heard, namely, how he proposed to group the small parishes together. That is a practical difficulty which has occurred to me. I see great utility and advantage in the case of many parishes arising from the constitution of Parish Councils, but I think they ought to be of a sufficient size, and that the difficulty is not removed when the hon. Member for Rotherham tells us we must merge the small parishes in the best way wo can. My hon. Friend has told us that in the small parishes there is no sentiment. My experience is that the smaller the parish the more sentiment there is in regard to it, and that if you try to group two small parishes you will have a more difficult task than in the case of two large ones. Differences arise between the smaller parishes which do not exist between larger ones, and if you lump together three or four small parishes under one Parochial Committee you will necessarily raise questions of very considerable difficulty. I was particularly struck by the impractical way in which the Mover of the Resolution, and those who supported him, dealt with this question. I should like to know how many hon. Gentlemen who adopt these views ever attend parish Vestries, how many hon. Gentlemen opposite, for instance, attended the Easter Monday Vestry in their own parish this year? My hon. Friend made certain statements which puzzled me immensely. He spoke of a state of affairs which I hardly knew of as existing under the present law. For instance, the hon. Member for Rotherham has said he knew of a case of a Vestry who got rid of a Guardian. How, I ask, can a Vestry get rid of a Guardian? The Vestry has no power to appoint a Guardian, and, therefore, has none to take away his office; although I can imagine cases in which they might think it very desirable that an obnoxious Guardian should be got rid of. The hon. Member also said he knew a parish where the accounts had not been audited for years, but how about the district audit, how had they got over the presentation of the books half-yearly to that audit? The hon.
        558
        Member also said he knew a parish where a Vestry meeting had not been held for four years. I want to know how such a thing could have taken place. I know that Vestry meetings are not called very frequently in the rural districts, but they are always held when required if the parish expresses a wish to hold them. Again, the hon. Member told us cases in which Vestry meetings are held at hours that are not convenient to the bulk of the local community. That, unfortunately, is true; where there is a whip up the labourers may be got together, but as they have not attended those meetings regularly, they do not take much interest in the business, and I think it very desirable that all Vestry meetings should be held at hours at which a labourer can attend them. Again, my bon. Friend wished us to believe that it was a matter of constant occurrence for Vestry meetings to be held in public houses. For my part, I never heard of such a thing in my life, and I do not believe it can have happened in more than half-a-dozen parishes in England. At any rate, such a scandal could not exist if public attention were once called to it. For my part I am anxious to see in certain parishes some sort of practical committee that might be more useful than the existing Vestry. Under the existing Sanitary Acts all the parochial work has to be delegated or ought to be by the Sanitary Authority to local committees. Those parochial committees are sometimes elected partly by the parish and partly by the Guardians, but as the money expended is that of the parish, I should like to see the parish initiate a great deal more than it does. One great difficulty, however, is that the parish has at present no machinery. It has no clerk, and is obliged to employ the clerk to the Guardians for the work it requires in this way, and this, of course, adds to the expense; but in large parishes this difficulty is got over by the appointment of a Standing Committee to look after sanitary matters. Again, the Parish Authority has to carry out the Allotments Act, the expense of which falls on the parish itself. Again, in almost every parish there are certain roads and approaches which might be left to the Parish Authorities. As it is,

        559
        the improvements in the roads are not as numerous as formerly; and it "would probably be an advantage to give the parish control over such matters. Reference has been made to the question of parochial benefactions. I am certainly inclined to think that during the last 50 years the Vestries have been very lax in looking after benefactions, the result being that in some cases they have been entirely lost owing to their being left to one or two persons to look after, and to this duty having been neglected. But when hon. Members say that those benefactions should be handed over entirely to the control of the Parish Committee, the difficulty arises that they have generally been left to the management of trusts, usually the vicar and churchwardens, or one or two of the principal residents in the parish; and it would be a very easy matter to transfer them to trusts other than those appointed by the donor. We have also had reference made to the question of co-operation and the advantage of setting up cooperative societies in the villages. For my part, I should be sorry to see the co-operative stores set up in many of our rural districts, notwithstanding the fact that they might enable the villagers to get their goods a little cheaper. I should regret to see the small village shopkeeper entirely swept away. At present a great number of widows and poor persons obtain their livelihood by keeping small shops, and I should be, very reluctant to see them suppressed by co-operative stores. In conclusion, I hope the hon. Gentleman opposite will give an answer to my question—how does he propose to deal with the grouping of the parishes? I am not averse to voting for a grouping scheme that could be practically carried out, and I can understand that such grouping might be managed in the case of the larger parishes. I think, however, there would be great difficulty in the case of the smaller ones. For my part I am disposed to give more attention than this House has hitherto done to questions affecting the position of those in the rural districts, but I do not think the rural population will be inclined to think so if all we have to give them is the establishment of reformed Vestries. I should very much prefer to see the attention of
        560
        the House directed to something of a more practical character by which the condition of things in the rural districts may be improved.
        SIR E. GREY: I quite sympathise with the hon. Member who has moved the Resolution in his desire for a certain extension of Municipal Government. But I think he would have had more of our sympathy if, in his wish to reform our Vestry system, he had gone further and said he wished them to be put on a more popular basis by the abolition of the plural vote. The hon. Member expressed regret that Vestry meetings are frequently called at an hour when the labourers are unable to attend. One object of the Motion is to make such a scandal as that impossible. The Amendment before the House contemplates the grouping of parishes as a desirable thing; but while the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham contemplates the grouping of parishes as a system that might be resorted to on exceptional cases—why, I ask, has the Mover of the Amendment thought it necessary to bring forward a proposal to displace the Resolution of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham? He has told us that we are putting the cart before the horse; for my part 1 do not see that we are doing anything of the kind. I do not know whether the Mover of the Amendment desires to present us either with the cart or the horse, but at any rate the object of the Resolution is to ensure that we shall not have one without the other. I suppose the Amendment was brought forward from this side of the House in order that a proposal from this side for the establishment of District Councils might be at once answered by the statement that in view of the Bill promised by Her Majesty's Government, the Resolution of my hon. Friend was an intrusion on their domain, and showed a want of faith in them, which they had done nothing to justify. But the fact is that the Resolution does not touch the question of District Councils. It merely refers to the importance of establishing Parochial Councils. The Mover of the Amendment seemed to be afraid that by the establishment of Parochial Councils we should fail in finding the best 12 or 20 men to

        561
        conduct parochial affairs; but the supporters of the Resolution assert that it would be the means of arriving, by natural selection, at those 12 or 20 men who are best capable of conducting parochial affairs. At present we have no means of finding out which are the best men for this work, and at present there is a strong feeling in the country that the more capable men are not contented with country life, and are leaving it for wider and more ample spheres. Although, undoubtedly, country life has considerable advantages, there is no doubt that it lacks variety and scope. There are, however, two things which help to compensate those who reside in the country for the want of that variety which they find in towns. First of all there is the interest and enjoyment a man has in larger and more extended private possessions, and, in the next place, the opportunity afforded him by the performance of those public duties which are always opened to him in the rural districts. Of course, the ordinary inhabitants of the villages have little to boast of in the way of private possessions, but, at any rate, they have more opportunity of participating in the performance of public duties. In proportion as his private possessions are narrow, we ought, I think, to give the villager some chance of feeling that he is a member of a living and growing community. As an instance of the way in which the desire for more scope among villagers arises, I may mention the establishment of reading rooms. Those who take charge of a movement are invariably told- that if they wish to make it a success the first thing is to put it under the control of the people. What does that show? It shows that in every village it is not necessarily because the villagers are not conscious of the advantages of a reading room—not because they do not want it, or because they are not fit for it—that it often fails, but because it is ac-accompanied by that sense of dependence which prevents them getting the full development of it. Take the question of allotments. Apart from the question of rent it seems to me that the success of the allotment system depends on very small things—on the quality of the soil, the size of the allotment, its situation,
        562
        and the family circumstances and habits of the man who holds it. A Parish Council would be the only body with the proper knowledge of these small details, and with the capacity to appreciate them and adjust them in the most suitable manner. A Parish Council would set the allotment system going, and would be encouraged by success or warned by failure long before a larger body like the District Council had got under-weigh at all. It is time to recognise what is the spirit of the age. Parliament has long been employed in extending municipal enterprise and municipal ownership, and a similar system should be extended to the country villages. It is quite foreign to the spirit of the times that large landowners—some times only one or two, or half a dozen in a parish—should continue to exercise as a matter of course a predominant influence over village life. Hon. Members opposite say that landlords and clergymen, the two most influential persons in any village, perform their duties in a thoroughly satisfactory manner, and are the benefactors of their fellow men. On this side of the House there may, perhaps, be some difference of opinion as to the number of their duties, and the degree in which they are performed. Who is to decide that difference of opinion? There is only one possible body to appeal to, namely, the people of the parish. If the influential people in a parish perform their duty in the satisfactory way hon. Members opposite say, they are the guidance of the Parish Council which will fall at once into their hands, and will remain in their hands as long as they prove themselves worthy of retaining it. The result will be that they will have an open recognition of the way in which they perform their duties. If, on the other hand, it is not the case that those duties are universally well performed, it is surely desirable, and the friction would be comparatively small, that we should establish some such body as a Parish Council which may be able to take over the charge of the wage-earning people. There is this further point: There are, no doubt, differences and a certain amount of friction between the various classes in most parishes, and the object of any one who

        563
        wishes to bring about harmony in country life should be to minimise the interests that are opposed and bring out those that are identical. No better method for achieving this object could be instituted than the creation of a Parish Council, in which farmers, labourers, and others could meet together and come to a fair compromise on points in which their interests are opposed, and at the same time recognise points of union. Some persons say that there is no great demand for Parish Councils, although there is some for District Councils. I think that one of the reasons which has operated hitherto has been the lack of opportunity for villagers to understand what use they may make of Councils when they possess them. The abler spirits have left the villages for wider fields elsewhere, and those who stay behind are so used to the groove that it does not occur to them how much they can do for themselves. What was it that made the best landowners suspicious in recognising and accepting the Local Government Bill? Surely it was the consciousness that the sum of the responsibilities which make up the fullness and worth of life, and make a man able to maintain that dignity without which life can hardly be a happy one, were to he diminished. If that be the case why will they not give people in the villages a chance of exercising such responsibilities? When they know how monotonous country life may be without this scope, why not give people the chance of coming forward and bearing their share of the burden and heat of the day? I think we ought to rid ourselves of the confusion introduced by the Amendment. We ought to consider not only how we may provide an opportunity, but how we may provide the best opportunity, for able and earnest men in every parish to take upon themselves a proper share of the responsibility of performing public duties. If something of the kind be not done, it is impossible for strong characters in any village to continue to stay there, or, if they do stay, it will be inevitable that, instead of developing and using their powers for the advantage of themselves and their neighbours, they will degenerate into a mood of irritation and discontent, and prove a source of danger to the community in proportion
        564
        as their natures are vigorous and their intellect is strong.
        MR. AMBROSE: I would point out that no distinction has been made by the Mover of the Resolution between Vestries in London and Vestries in the country. Vestries in London may be almost regarded in the light of County Councils, as they have all the ordinary powers and discharge the ordinary duties of Local Government, but in the country the case is different. A Vestry in the country is a meeting of the inhabitants of the district held ordinarily once a year for the purpose of choosing Churchwardens, Overseers, and Surveyors of Highways. A Vestry in the country, therefore, has very little governing power whatever and there is no basis for Local Government in such a body. To form a body with proper governing power a new constitution would be necessary. How could the affairs of the parish be governed by a body which ordinarily met only once a year? If we are to proceed on the lines of Local Government, we ought not to undo the whole of the work of the last 40 years. In 1848 the incapacity of the Vestry was recognised for all purposes of Local Government, and when the Public Health Act of that year was passed power was given for combining two or more parishes, and so Local Boards were formed for local purposes, such as sewage, lighting, the maintenance of roads, and all the ordinary functions of Local Government. I do not mean to say that Act was perfect by any means. Another Act was passed in 1858 improving upon that Act, and in 1875 a very useful measure was passed for establishing a system of Local Government. Those who study that Act will find that if the powers it confers were put in force we already possess all the advantages that are to be obtained from the system of grouping parishes. An hon. Member has said that what we want is to abolish the parson, the squire, and the Church. I do not recognise any one of these matters as being within the proper province of Local Government, and I am sorry that such a question should have been introduced in a Debate of this kind. It seems to me that we are making a mis-

        565
        take when we seek to improve Local Government by ignoring what has been done during the last 40 years. That may be good or bad, but it seems to me to be out of the question to try to uproot it. For Poor Law purposes the areas of the parishes were too small for effective government. Therefore the areas were enlarged by combining a number of parishes. If that principle is established in District Councils you embody all that is contained in the Resolution. I have no sympathy with the Resolution on the one hand or with the Amendment on the other. It seems to me the best course to pursue would be to leave the matter to be dealt with by the Government in their District Councils Bill so that the defects of the present system and I do not say that there are none—will be done away with. The true plan is to make the best of what has been done and improve upon it—to pass a District Councils Bill on the lines of previous legislation, merely transferring to another body the power at present exercised by Representatives of the rural districts.
        SIR WALTER FOSTER: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down having made a speech against both the Resolution and the Amendment. Both the Resolution and the Amendment agree in one particular, and that is in passing more or less of censure on the Government for not having fulfilled their pledges with reference to the completion of Local Government. Both say that it is necessary that there should be some further extension of Local Government in rural as well as in other districts. I go further and say it is a matter of urgent necessity. I think Her Majesty's Government are open to censure for not having in this, or last Session, taken any steps to fulfil their promise to give Local Government to the smaller units of rural districts. The great importance of this is present to the mind of every one acquainted with the conditions of life among our rural population. It is a matter of urgent importance, as the natural complement to the newly created system of Local Government, which many of us think was begun at the wrong end, and which ought to have
        566
        built up from the unit of the parish. The rural districts are practically deprived of Local Government, because the County Councils which have been created are too far removed from the villages to exercise any influence over village life, and the inhabitants of these villages look forward with anxiety to the time which was foreshadowed, and to the scheme which was indicated, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what I may call his better days, when he spoke strongly, and as I think wisely, on this subject. I may venture to recall his words in 1885, when he said—
        "I hold that the smallest village should know who its chief man was…. I proposed that in every village there should be some responsible head man. I was extremely-anxious that throughout the rural communities. we should be able to develop some civic life. I trust that the Liberal Party will go forward, on those lines."
        Well, the Liberal Party has steadily continued in its desire to go forward on those lines, but I am not so sure that the right hon. Gentleman has been equally constant. Last year, in the Debate on the Address, we had several speeches on this subject, and in that Debate I took part. I quoted from official documents, from the Reports of Medical and Sanitary Inspectors, and showed the deplorable, I may say the revolting, sanitary condition of the life led in some of our rural districts; and the picture I presented made, I think, some impression upon the House at the time. But those conditions still continue. We have done nothing; we can do little or nothing, under the present condition of Local Rural Government, to put the sanitary arrangements in these villages in the state in which they ought to be. The difficulties arise from the fact that the people who feel the pinch of these insanitary conditions, who suffer from the defective system of drainage or bad' water supply, are the people who have little or no voice in connection with the-management of these matters, and until they have that voice in Parish Councils, these things will never be satisfactorily dealt with. The whole system of sanitation in these small rural communities is rotten; for the reason that the sanitary control is placed in the hands of men elected not primarily to carry out functions for the public health of the

        567
        locality, but for the administration of the Poor Law, and, therefore, sanitary administration is a secondary matter with them. As such, these matters are put off to the end of their meetings; little time is left for their discussion, and their functions in reference to public health are discharged in a perfunctory fashion, or not at all. The neglect of sanitary conditions in our rural life is a disgrace to our time. In the interest of health and morality it is high time this state of things was altered, and a system of popular Local Government formulated. This condition of things has grown out of the fact, that the people have been gradually deprived of all power and control in local management. What the hon. Member for Ashburton (Mr. Seale-Hayne) has said is perfectly true. During the last century or more there has been growing up a system of patronage, under which all the local control has passed into the hands of a few superior residents who have discharged all administrative functions, and I am sorry to say have done their work very badly. We want to go back to the old system, when every individual had some interest and influence in the management of local affairs. If every dweller in a country district were given a voice in the management of the village affairs, a new interest would be given to the lives of the inhabitants, many of whom have been qualified by the operation of the Education Act of 1870 to undertake the duties of citizenship. They should be given control over sanitary matters and over local charities. Fewer cases would then occur of the filching of public lands from the community and of maladministration of charities. From 20 Officers of Health residing in different agricultural counties I have received deplorable accounts of the way in which the people are housed. In many of these districts the houses are described as unfit for human habitation. One medical officer said, that the houses he had seen would have been a disgrace to the slums of a large city. Others spoke of houses that in some cases had only one bedroom, in many cases only two, and in very few three. In such a house, a man with a wife and a growing family cannot bring up his children
        568
        under conditions which make decency and morality possible. We want the housing of these poor looked after with greater care and diligence, and if we had Parish Councils that care would be exercised. We believe that in the interests of the morality and well-being of the poor in the country districts one of the best reforms we can make would be the creation of Parochial Councils in which the people would be able to look after their own affairs. Such Councils would do the work more efficiently than is the case at present under the Rural Sanitary Authorities, because they would work under the open and constant criticism of the community; and the result would be to bring about not only a healthier, but a higher condition of life in the rural districts.
        COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: It seems to me that there has been a general consensus of opinion on the part of speakers on both sides of the House as to the desirability of greater development of self-government, and that the main point of difference is as to whether we shall attain this common end better by the creation of District Councils, or whether they should be preceded by Parish Councils. [" No, no ! "] I fully understand that some speakers say this is not the point; but from the speeches that have been made this evening, there can be no doubt that the question is practically this: Shall we be wiser in developing the County Council through District Councils as far as Parochial Councils, or in beginning with the latter and building up from them? In my opinion, we shall be decidedly wiser in going downwards from the County Council to the Parish Council. We have been told not to forget that District Councils are to be the next step in the Local Government programme of Her Majesty's Government; and I have no doubt that the call made on the Government in this respect will receive a response from the Treasury Bench to-night. Personally, I sympathise with much that has fallen from speakers on both sides of the House. The Mover of the Resolution has my sympathy in much that he has

        569
        at heart. He thinks we ought to recognise that our poorer population not only have wants that need satisfying, but have also ambitions and aspirations we ought not to be slow to acknowledge; and in that belief the hon. Member has my complete assent. But I think there has been some disposition on the part of speakers to-night to forget that many of the reforms on which they laid especial stress have had the consistent support of, and in many cases owed their initiation to, that class of landlords of whom they have spoken so cheaply. The Mover of the Resolution and those who supported him would have been wiser and more consistent if they had recognised that the most considerable advantages in the direction in which they desire reform have been the outcome of the sympathy of the landlords with the rural population around them, and that there has been no disposition on the part of the landlords to withhold from the people the advantages of such reforms. The hon. Member who preceded me laid great stress on the question of sanitary dwellings. I am with him in that matter entirely, but I do not think it can be laid to the charge of the modern landlord that he has been slow to recognise the necessity of sanitary dwellings. There is hardly one improvement which is more marked than that which has taken place in the dwellings of rural labourers during the last 10 or 20 years. The improvements that are taking place in that respect might receive some check if there were any premature arrangement made by which such matters might be handed over to Parish Councils as suggested by the Mover of the Resolution. It is said that one of the results of the Resolution, if adopted, Would be that the right men would find themselves in the right place, and that those entitled to the confidence of their neighbours would find themselves in the proper position. That is the principle on which I understand the Government acted in bringing in their Local Government measure, and I am fully under the belief that the development of the principle of working from the County Council downwards would be attended with the same result. I am sorry I cannot speak with the same satisfaction of the speech made by the hon. Gentleman representing
        570
        the Ashburton Division of Devonshire. I certainly had hoped that when we came to discuss this question there would not have been attributed to a class more vitally interested than any other class in the social development of the rural population motives so thoroughly unfair.
        MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I attributed no motives.
        COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: The hon. Gentleman expressed his desire to sweep them away as stumbling blocks to the happiness of the population.
        MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I expressed no such desire.
        COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: If I have misinterpreted the hon. Member, I am willing to apologise, but I think I have expressed the meaning of his words as they reached me across the floor of the House. I would only wish to make this much clearer—that in voting for the Amendment and not for the Resolution I do so because I believe it is more likely to bring about an effectual and useful reform than the Resolution. It is not because I have the slightest desire to stand between the rural population and self - government in parish affairs that I prefer the Amendment to the Resolution, and that I therefore support it.
        MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I hope that the Debate will not close without some expression from the Government Bench of their attitude upon this question, for their supporters appear to be divided in opinion. The hon. Member for the Harrow Division says he is equally opposed to the Resolution and the Amendment, whereas the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down has expressed his intention of voting for the Amendment. The Amendment is really one of a dilatory nature, and apparently based on the notion that the hon. Member for Rotherham was pitting Parish Councils against District Councils. As a matter of fact, neither he nor those who support him are in any way pitting Parish Councils against District Councils.

        571
        What we emphasise is that in the rural districts there should be three distinct stages of Local Government in those matters wherein the people are most interested, and that those in which they are most affected are where they are living in the smallest area. The hon. Member for Somerset has contended that the language of the Resolution does not imply urgency in this matter, but I would remind the House that this question has been declared to be urgent over and over again by the present Parliament. It was so declared by Resolutions more than once brought forward by the hon. Member for Halifax, by an Instruction which I myself moved on the Local Government Bill of 1888, and also by an Amendment moved in 1890, by the hon. Member for the Rugby Division of Warwickshire tending in the same direction, although only referring to the question of allotments. On each of these occasions we emphasised the fact that there was urgent need for a thorough reform [of parochial government. Some points of detail have been raised to-night, and one of them is embodied in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Somerset, who has put to the front the necessity for a readjustment of boundaries. No doubt that is very desirable, but this process is going on under the Divided Parishes Act, and the number of very small parishes is not so large as was sometimes supposed. The number of small parishes is very much less than hon. Members imagine. If the hon. Member confined his attention to parishes of less than 100 inhabitants, he would find that they contain not more than 200,000 inhabitants. That is clear from the Census of 1881. In Prance, with a population of 36,000,000, there are no fewer than 36,000 communes, which have self-government in the fullest sense of the term as far as the machinery of self-government is concerned. In England and Wales, with a population of rather more than 26,000,000, the number of parishes is 15,000, and as we have larger towns compared with France, I think it will be found that there is really not much difference between the parishes of France and the parishes of this country. There are two distinct points raised by the Resolution — one, the reform of the
        572
        Vestries, and the other the establishment of Parochial Councils. Though those are distinct matters, I think they are capable of being treated at one time. I am strongly of opinion myself that there is really no limit of population below which any reform of the Vestry would be an impossibility. The reform of the Vestry system might be effected on the one vote one man principle, and perhaps for convenience and to meet certain prejudices it might be possible to limit the number of the inhabitants of the parishes to perhaps 70 or 75. But as far as Parochial Councils are concerned they stand on a. somewhat different level, and no doubt the population ought to be raised in that case. What the precise limit should be is a matter for subsequent investigation. But that need not be a difficulty in the way of the acceptance of a Motion of this kind. What we desire to emphasise by the Motion is the principle that our parishes ought to have the fullest possible measure of Local Government. We want a reform of the Vestries and the establishment of Parochial Councils elected by the people, to deal with distinctively parochial affairs. In foreign countries, notably in Switzerland, where it has been very much elaborated, there is a distinction made between the larger and smaller parishes, which has been attended with a considerable amount of success. I cannot but think that such a distinction between the parishes in this country would obviate many practical difficulties and facilitate a scheme of Local Government. The question has been raised why this question is being pressed forward at the present time-As far as my own constituents are concerned, and I believe their view is shared by most constituencies throughout the country, they regard Local Government from the point of view of having full, direct, and equal voice in the arrangement of their own affairs. We are asked by the Mover of the Amendment to choose between District and Parochial Councils. But there has been no proposal for District Councils before Parliament since 1888. Are we to assume that any proposal for District Councils will be simply a revival of the Bill of 1888? If so, then the proposal of 1888 conferred powers of no value, and no human

        573
        being would care to sit on the Boards which they created. If you give them powers worth having, if you transfer the administration of the Poor Law from the existing Board of Guardians to a body sitting in the intermediate area, and directly elected by the people, on the principle of one man one vote, if you conferred powers worth exercising, then you would have the best-fitted men eager and anxious to serve. As a matter of fact, the two schemes of reform, District Councils and reform of the Vestries, could be carried out simultaneously, and in this matter we want to carry out that policy of similarity and simultaneity which has been allowed so long to remain in abeyance, which the Government met in 1888 with a direct negative, and which has been so long, though I trust not for ever, postponed.
        THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: I think that it is no matter of regret to any Member of the Government, or to any Member of the House, that those who feel strongly upon this question of parish administration should have placed their views on the subject before the House; and I think that it is evident that there is a strong feeling in all parts of the House of sympathy with the desire expressed from more than one quarter that we should endeavour, so far as we can, to put vigour into the life of our agricultural parishes and villages. We all feel that if we can enlist the co-operation of all classes of the community in the work of Local Government we shall be doing a great public service, and much to make the system more perfect throughout the country. If there is one thing that I regret, it is that the hon. Member who introduced the Motion, and one or two other speakers on that side of the House, treated the matter rather more from a Party point of view—I might say rather more acrimoniously—than I think is at all necessary in a matter of this kind.
        574
        The hon. Member for Rotherham, who usually speaks with a considerable absence of Party spirit, would, I think, have done better to have left out some of the reflections which he made upon the Tory Party in general, and upon the Government in particular, with regard to this question of Local Government. He twitted us with having in three Queen's Speeches promised to deal with the question of District Councils, and with our not having done so. At least he should have remembered that, starting in 1888, when the question first came up, we have had three Sessions, and that a very large portion of two of them have been spent in dealing with Local Government in the counties. We have dealt with England and also with Scotland; and I think that, so far as Local Government reform is concerned, that is not by any means a bad record for the three years. The hon. Gentleman ought also to have remembered that the Party to which he belongs contributed very little indeed to the solution of this great question when in Office; and when he tells us that we made promises in three Queen's Speeches, I must remind him that the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian in 1882–3–4, in the Queen's Speeches of those years, made absolute promises that they would introduce measures dealing with the reform of Local Government, and did not introduce a single measure on the subject at all. I think that so far as our action is concerned, it may well compare with the inaction of the Government of the Party to which the hon. Member belongs, and that he should remember what his Party has failed to do. If the Liberal Government had begun to deal with the question when they promised to do so, we might now have arrived at a time when the whole question would have been settled in a manner satisfactory even to the hon. Gentleman himself. We have dealt with the question of County Government, and we are very clearly of opinion that we began rightly. The ratepayers of

        575
        the counties had really no share in the administration of the rates of the county; but we have organised a system of Local Government which has given to them a share in the administration of county affairs and in the administration and the collection of the local rates, while we have contributed largely to the relief of those rates. When we look at the manner in which the County Councils have been elected, and the manner in which they have done their duty, we see nothing to regret, but, on the contrary, much upon which to congratulate ourselves in having begun by County Councils instead of beginning by Parochial Councils. We believe that the next step in the reform of Local Government is the setting up of District Councils, although we will not deny the importance of many of the points touched upon in this Debate in connection with the administration of the parishes. I am prepared to acknowledge that at present in the rural districts sanitary matters are not dealt with by a body such as ought to control matters of that kind. We attach so much importance to this point that we think a popularly-elected body to deal with sanitary matters and highways ought to be established in the counties as quickly as possible. We believe there is no subject of greater importance to working people than the housing of the working classes. We desire to see that dealt with by a popularly-elected body in the rural districts, and we have given large powers to the County Councils by the Act of last year. We have made it compulsory on the part of the Medical Officer of Health to forward his Report to the County Council. He may make representations upon which the County Council may take action. Therefore, I think the hon. Gentleman will admit we have made a very considerable advance, and we acknowledge that the next step which we ought to take in order to secure the proper administration of the Public Health Law is to set up within the Counties District Councils who would have as their chief duty the administration of that law within the counties. That is why we think the question of District Councils is more urgent than that brought before the House by the hon. Gentle-
        576
        man. We have been twitted with the fact that we have not produced our District Councils Bill, but we have not had sufficient time to deal with such a large question as District Councils. The demands made to-night with regard to the powers to be conferred on the Parish Councils cannot fail to have shewn the extreme importance, difficulty, and complexity of the various powers which different speakers propose should be conferred upon the Parochial Councils. If we had had introduced Bills dealing with District and Parochial Councils, the measures would have been of such importance as to have shut out all other measures of importance during a whole Session. Amongst the various things which the hon. Gentleman thinks should be dealt with by the Parish Councils are Charities, Allotments, Public Libraries, Buildings, Common Lands, certain Sanitary Powers, Fixity of Tenure, and Co-operative Stores, with Trade Unions thrown in, together with the compulsory acquisition of land for small holdings, and the nomination of the clergy and Magistrates for the parish. I think that is a very large budget and a very good order to ask the House of Commons to consider in an offhand way in connection with the other measures which are pressing on its attention. I am sorry the right hon. Member for Newcastle did not speak on seconding the Motion, for I had been looking to him for some interesting suggestions on this question. He made a speech some time ago, 1 think at Newcastle, in which he advocated the transfer of a certain portion of the Poor Law administration to the parishes.
        MR. J. MORLEY: I did not say so.
        MR. RITCHIE: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Parish Councils should have conferred upon them the power of dealing with applications for relief within the parishes.
        MR. J. MORLEY: Not on that occasion.
        MR. RITCHIE: The right hon. Gentleman certainly advocated that the Parish Council should have the power of dealing with certain matters of relief.
        MR. J. MORLEY: No.
        MR. RITCHIE: I will endeavour to find the passage in the right hon. Gentleman's speech to which I refer. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman safeguarded himself with an appeal to the District or County Councils if it was considered that the relief had been given improperly, in which case the County or District Council might surcharge the parish. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has very much studied the effect of various modes of administering the Poor Law in times past-If anyone attempted to make the administration of the Poor Law a parochial administration he would incur a grave responsibility. It would be an entire reversal of the system which has been settled after much consideration by Committees in order to meet many abuses which previously existed in connection with the administration of the Poor Law. When one looks at the enormously beneficial results of the Union administration of the Poor Law, I do not think that anyone would lightly attempt to disturb that system. It may be of interest to the House to know in connection with this matter what difference has arisen in this matter. In 1857 the number of paupers was 921,000, now it has fallen to 690,000; and I hold that a system which has worked such a reform as that ought not to be lightly interfered with. Anything which would take away the administration of the Poor Law from a large area like the Union and bring it so close to the persons who receive relief as would be done in parochial administration would tend to bring back many of the evils from which the Union system has freed us. It is conceded that the rates in the country fall upon the landlord. If there were a Parochial Council elected largely by labourers, the relief would probably be administered by the majority of the Council, composed of labourers; but if the relief had been improperly given the surcharge on the parish would be borne by the landlords, and not by the labourers. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for New-
        578
        castle, in the speech to which I have referred, did not, I find, commit himself to the view that Parish Councils should administer relief, but he said the idea was worth consideration, and gave a quasi-sanction to the disturbance of the present system under which relief is given by the Guardians of Unions. As to the question of sanitation, I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax at least would not support such a retrograde policy as the breaking up of the sanitary areas which he himself created. I can imagine no course which would be more detrimental to the public health. I am not prepared to take up the position of saying that no reform is desirable in our parochial legislation. I have more than once stated that that reform is desirable. I do not think that it is possible to have a County Council elected upon a popular basis, and a District Council elected upon a popular basis, and to have at the same time the parish Vestry remaining as it is. There must necessarily be reform of the Vestry in its mode of election and its mode of procedure; and when I come to deal with the question again I hope that I shall be able to propose to the House of Commons a mode of retaining certain of the powers conferred on the Vestry, while giving to the District Council powers of delegation to the Parish Authorities. I admit that no scheme of Local Government Reform is complete without dealing with the parishes, and I do not understand the hon. Member for East Somerset to differ from that view. But the contention of the hon. Member for East Somerset is that District Councils should be dealt with first, while the Motion of the hon. Member for Rotherham makes no mention of District Councils, As to the area of parishes, there is no doubt that that is a very important difficulty in the way of reform of parochial administration. With regard to the varying size of the parishes, it may be said that the smaller parishes may be grouped. That cannot be done without difficulty, however. There is as much sentiment in a small parish as in a large parish, and there would be as much sentimental objection to grouping the small parishes as to dividing the large ones. I do not say that this is a bar to reform; but it is a difficulty which must

        579
        be taken into consideration. The power of grouping and dividing parishes rests with the County Councils, and not with the Local Government Board. When we gave them that power we hoped that they might move tentatively in the matter, and help us to a solution. I trust that I have made the position of the Government clear. I especially desire to complete the work of self-government which we have begun, and I think that the House and the country will admit that we have at least begun well. We have established County Councils on a broad and liberal basis, and we have prepared them for any further powers which may be conferred upon them. By including District Councils in our Bill, we gave evidence that we feel that we ought to deal with these smaller areas. I have to acknowledge to the House that the scheme of Local Government will not be complete until we have dealt with this matter; and we think that there ought to be a link of communication between the three kinds of Councils—between the County Council and the District Council, and between the District Council and the parish organisation. I hope, therefore, that it will be understood that we support the Amendment for the reason I have given, namely, that the hon. Gentleman who moved it desires District Councils to be dealt with first.
        MR. STANSFELD: Before the right hon. Gentleman spoke I was at a loss to understand how the Government could support the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Somerset; but my difficulty has been increased by the speech to which we have just listened. The Amendment is directed pointedly against the organisation of the parish.
        MR. HOBHOUSE: On the contrary. I said I did not object to the reform of the Vestry, but approved of it. What I did object to was the constitution of the Parish Council as proposed by the hon. Member and his friends.
        MR. STANSFELD: I will leave the hon. Member to deal with his Amendment, which is purely negative, while the Motion is at least a positive Resolu-
        580
        tion. It says that no measure of Local Government will be complete without the introduction of organisation and reform in the parish, and in that sentiment the President of the Local Government Board concurs. That certainly cannot be said to be a negative proposition. The Mover of the Amendment complains that undue prominence is given to the parish in the Motion. That is not so, because the parish has its proper place as the unit of Local Government. The right hon. Gentleman agrees with me that the parish is the smallest possible area. The Amendment practically pits the District Councils against the Parish Councils, and therefore the Mover of the Amendment cannot represent the views of the President of the Local Government Board. The fault I find with the President of the Local Government Board is that the right hon. Gentleman seems to think that the District Councils must come first in a separate measure.
        MR. RITCHIE: No; I did not say that.
        MR. STANSFELD: The right hon. Gentleman then differs in yet another point from the Mover of the Amendment which he proposes to support, for the hon. Member for East Somerset undoubtedly desires to separate the District Councils Bill from the Bill dealing with Parish Councils. The right hon. Gentleman now says he did not mean that. What I say is that the next measure must contain both. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the possibility of multifarious schemes and proposals for new powers to be given to Parochial Councils, which might occasion considerable trouble and occupy considerable time in discussion. But that is not a proper objection for a Minister to make. He constructs a Bill upon his own responsibility, and upon the responsibility of the Government. It would be for him to put the parish into the Bill, and to confer upon the parish only those powers which he thinks right.
        MR. RITCHIE: The right hon. Gentleman rather misunderstands me. I did not mean to imply that we were not fully responsible; but what I said was

        581
        that if there was an attempt to graft on any Bill we might introduce such proposals as those indicated it might take a whole Session to pass the measure.
        MR. STANSFELD: I must remind the right hon. Gentleman how he has been treated by this House. When he introduced the great measure of his, which included District Councils as well as County Councils, he was fairly treated by the Opposition, and he will not deny it. Why should he not expect and look forward to similar treatment again? Why does he now get up and without justification attack my hon. Friend and say he made it a Party question, and twitted the Government with their shortcomings? The right hon. Gentleman himself is the man who has tried to make this a Party question. He has made that mistake before. Let me remind him that during the passing of the Local Government Bill the hon. Member for the Eye Division (Mr. F. Stevenson) proposed an Instruction to the Committee authorising them to introduce clauses to reform the Vestry. I placed on the Paper certain proposals, limited in number and moderate in character, and we assured the right hon. Gentleman that we would be content with the adoption of such proposals. The right hon. Gentleman did not say they were exaggerated or too numerous; he did not commit himself in their favour; but the only ground on which he declined to go into them—and he was followed in that line by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Treasury—was that he had as much on his hands as he could manage in that Session. The First Lord of the Treasury, in winding up the Debate on the 7th of June, said the Government felt they had entered on a task of great magnitude, and did not think time would permit of the consideration of the question. He added—
        "The Government recognised the desirability, even the necessity, of doing much for the improvement of the parish Vestry, and of giving to village life the strength and power which it once possessed; hut they had undertaken as much work as they could carry successfully to an issue, and must ask the House to postpone
        582
        that portion of the Local Government Bill to another Session, when they would be disposed to give it very favourable consideration."
        The Government, if they vote for the Amendment before the House, will not be acting in accordance with the spirit of that declaration. If the Government intend to deal with District Councils only, their promised Bill will not be satisfactory. I shall certainly vote for the Resolution of my hon. Friend.
        (12.36.) The House divided:—Ayes 142; Noes 175.—(Div. List. No. 131.)
        Question proposed, " That those words be there added."
        MR. RITCHIE: I desire to make clear what the views of the Government are on this question, and with that object I wish to amend the Amendment. I have to propose after the words " district councils " to insert the words " the reform of Parochial Government," and to leave out the words " similar bodies" in the same line, and put in " district councils." The Amendment would then read—
        " That, in the opinion of this House, no measure of Local Government for the rural districts of England and Wales will be satisfactory which does not provide for the grouping of rural parishes under popularly-elected district councils, the reform of Parochial Government, and the effective control of local affairs by district councils," and so on.
        Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after the words " district councils," to insert the words " the reform of Parochial Government."—{Mr. Ritchie.")
        Question proposed, " That those words be inserted in the proposed Amendment."
        MR. J. E. ELLIS: I think this is a very extraordinary proceeding. The House has for nearly four hours been discussing a Motion and Amendment which have been on the Paper for some time, and the terms of which are, therefore, familiar to us. It was practically understood that the Government adopted the Amendment, and now the right hon. Gentleman asks the House to adopt words which the House has had no

        583
        opportunity whatever of considering. In the circumstances, I have no option hut to move the Adjournment of the Debate.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. J. E. Ellis.)
        MR. RITCHIE: If the hon. Gentleman persists in his Motion the Government will not oppose him. I desire to say, however, that there is nothing whatever inconsistent with what I said in my speech in the Motion I now make. I only desire to introduce words I think will be acceptable to both sides of the House.
        MR. CONYBEARE: By reading his Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman certainly failed to convey to our minds what the purport of his Amendment is. Under these circumstances, it is rather hard to ask us to accept the Amendment. I hope my hon. Friend will divide the House.
        MR. T. M.HEALY: I think I can make a suggestion which may be generally acceptable: it is that Her Majesty's Government should provide the House with a day for the discussion of their own Motion.
        Question put, and agreed to.
        Debate adjourned.

      ILLITERATE VOTERS.
      MR. WEBSTER, who. had the following Motion on the Paper—
      " That, inasmuch as the provisions of the Ballot Act, 1872, in regard to the votes of illiterate persons, lend themselves to defeat the object of that Act, and owing to the spread of education are now unnecessary, this House is of opinion that the said provisions should be abolished,"
      said: This question appears to me to be—
      MR. CONYBEARE: What is it?
      MR. SPEAKER: Order, order !
      MR. WEBSTER: This question appears to me to be one of such urgent public importance that I ought to raise
      584
      it now, even though I have only five minutes before me.
      MR. CONYBEARE: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. What is the Motion.
      MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! Mr. Webster.
      MR. WEBSTER: I should like the House to consider what was understood to be the object of the Ballot Act when it was passed. The Attorney General of the then Liberal Government said it was to secure electors from landlord coercion on the one hand, and from intimidation on the other. I venture to say there is practised in many parts of the United Kingdom very great intimidation under cover of the illiterate clauses. In the constituency which I have the honour to represent there are between 4,000 and 5,000 electors, and yet at the last election there were only four illiterates. In South Paddington there were at the last election only two illiterates. But there are districts in Ireland—in Donegal, for instance—where illiterates abound in large numbers. At the General Election of 1886, out of 6,304 persons who voted in County Donegal 3,214 declared themselves illiterate. Let us compare the state of things in the United Kingdom and in Ireland. In 1886 there voted in England 2,400,000. Of these, 38,000 were illiterate. In Scotland there voted 358,000, of whom only 4,800 were illiterate. In Ireland 194,000 voted, and there were 36,722 illiterate. One voter only in 64 in England was illiterate; 1 in 74 in Scotland; but 1 in 5 in Ireland. I think something should be done to put a stop to the indecent scenes which took place at the recent elections in Ireland. I know that very soon my remarks will be put a stop to—
      MR. SPEAKER: Order, order !
      It being One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
      House adjourned at One o'clock.

BERKELEY PEERAGE.
Petition of Francis William Fitzhardinge Baron Fitzhardinge, of Berkeley Castle in the County of Gloucester, and of Cranford House, Hounslow, in the County of Middlesex, to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that the titles, dignities, honours, and Peerages of Earl of Berkeley and Viscount of Dursley may be declared and adjudged to belong to the Petitioner, and that the Petitioner may be summoned according to law to this present Parliament in right of the said Peerages; and further, that {if need be) the Petitioner may be graciously permitted by Her Majesty the opportunity of making good to Her Majesty's satisfaction his claim, and that right and justice may be done in the premises and to the Petitioner; 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.
BERKELEY PEERAGE.

  LORD MULGRAVE.
  Petition of Constantine Charles Henry Phipps Baron Mulgrave of New Ross in the County of Wexford in the Peerage of Ireland (Marquess of Normanby in the Peerage of the United Kingdom), claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
  The Lord Carlingford (L. Clermont)— Took the Oath.

  THE LATE EARL GRANVILLE.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK): My Lords, I feel confident that I am not assuming too much in supposing that your Lordships would not be willing to meet on this occasion without referring to the great loss which has fallen upon this House during the Recess. I regret very much, indeed, that my noble Friend
  462
  Lord Salisbury is absent on this occasion, because I am quite sure he would have given a more adequate picture of the character and qualities of the man with whom he was brought so constantly into relation, whether in the management of the business of this House or in the conflicts among the different parties who are contending. Of this, however, I am quite sure, that I do not misrepresent my noble Friend, nor shall I misrepresent my friends who sit behind me, when I say that whatever controversies may have been waged between Lord Salisbury and Lord Granville were marked by cordial relations, and were carried on without anything approaching to a taint of personal rancour or personal animosity. I trust, my Lords, in the conduct of politics in this House it may always be so, and that it may not be assumed that because there is a difference of opinion there is rancour on one part or the other. I trust that those cordial relations which have distinguished the parties in this country who differ on political questions may continue, and show that the heat of political controversies does not burn out personal friendships or generosity, and that men may continue to appreciate one another, believing that high motives are quite compatible with adverse opinions. But, my Lords, I know that you will not imagine, when I speak of Lord Granville as having acted on all occasions with temper, patience, and generosity to his opponents, that I intend to lead you to suppose that he ever in any way sacrificed his convictions for the sake of conciliating anyone, or that he threw over for that object those opinions which I know he held firmly and strongly. In fact, by his own admission, he was a strong politician, a keen Party-man, and it was as such that he conducted the business of this House upon all occasions when it was necessary, and only when it was necessary. He had great adversaries to meet during his long career, and those adversaries he met with a firm and fearless mien; and though he may not perhaps have risen to the heights of oratory that some attained, yet it must, I think, be admitted by all that he met his antagonists in many a stirring debate without flinching from the occasion. My Lords, Lord Granville was one who was skilful in fence; he was a great master of repartee;

  463
  but I think there again we shall all admit that he never used that power to wound or to hurt any one, or with any malicious intention. The weapon which he used was generally so sharp and polished that the wound it made healed almost immediately; what he gave he was ready to endure, and I can say confidently that none of your Lordships have seen Lord Granville in any encounter show signs of temper. My Lords, he was a true friend to the Assembly in which he sat. It is a remarkable thing, I think, that in the many controversies which have arisen with regard to this Assembly, Lord Granville never threw any slur upon its reputation in the House or out of it, and that on all occasions he watched with jealous watchfulness over its interests, its dignity, and its honour. Not by one word or action of his own did he ever throw any stain upon this Assembly. Can it be wondered at, then, my Lords, that this House reciprocated the feelings which Lord Granville always himself entertained? Thus, while he did honour to this Assembly, he was honoured by it universally. It was not one Party more than another in this House that recognised him; he was recognised by all as a fit spokesman and representative of this House. Courteous as he was to his opponents, winning as he was to his friends, it was when no Party feeling intervened, that those who have had the opportunity of watching Lord Granville's career will remember that upon many great occasions how in graceful and appropriate words he expressed the sentiments of this House with a taste, with a tact, and with a judgment which left nothing to be desired; and that upon those occasions the high breeding and the manly simplicity with which he expressed himself found an echo in the hearts of every one of your Lordships. May I be permitted for one moment to say a word personal to myself? I felt a deep regard for Lord Granville, who welcomed me very heartily to this House, and on many occasions since I have sat in it showed a kindness in his intercourse with me, which made me esteem and honour him. I, too, like his many friends, miss the touch of that vanished hand and the sound of that voice which is still. But, my Lords, I am speaking not for myself; I am speaking for your Lordships. I am quite sure that the
  464
  universal regret which you feel ought not to be, and is not, separated from the deep sympathy which you must feel for those who miss that genial presence from private and domestic life. My Lords, his distinguished career is at an end, but it has not come to an end immaturely or without the honour which his country is ready to pay to one who has served it faithfully. Lord Granville for 40 years of public life lived in the sight of a censorious and critical world, with many eyes upon him, at home and abroad; and I only wish that those of us who survive him may, like him, pass from the scene with the consciousness that we have not deserved and have never incurred any personal hostility. My Lords, I leave to those who were associated with him more intimately in politics to speak for him as their political friend. In the absence of my noble Friend, and as the Leader of the House for a temporary purpose, I speak of him with a desire to show, as I feel, that Lord Granville was worthy of the honour and approbation which this House is now showing towards him.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, the noble Viscount has expressed so fully and in such feeling terms what I am sure is the unanimous sense of the House that there is little to add to what he has said; but as one of the oldest Colleagues of Lord Granville, and as having acted for him for some time during his occasional absences from this House, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say a few words. To those who, like my noble Friend Lord Spencer and myself, have long been associated with him in public life, the loss we have sustained by the death of Lord Granville is almost irreparable. Long and sadly shall we miss his wise and sagacious counsel and guidance, the genial friendship which he extended to us at all times, and his constant support in all circumstances. My Lords, as the noble Viscount has said, Lord Granville was not perhaps endowed with the gift of powerful and commanding eloquence, but upon serious occasions the House knows well that his speeches were wanting neither in weight nor in dignity. At the same time, he possessed a singular gift of lightness of touch, of felicity of expression, and happy anecdote, with which he enlivened even the driest

  465
  Debate in this House. Our lamented friend was never deficient, never failing in his popular sympathies, and, as the noble Viscount has truly said, he never shrank from the open expression of his opinions and from their firm and consistent maintenance whether in this House or outside of it; but, as the Leader of this House or as the Leader of the Opposition, he possessed the remarkable gift of expressing his views without compromise, and yet never with any offence to those who were opposed to him. He had many opponents in this House, but even among those opponents he had many friends. Your Lordships all remember how he conducted the business of the House when leader of the Government for many years—with what tact, with what discretion, with what conciliatory temper and patience he conducted the business under circumstances often of very great difficulty in the face of adverse majorities; but that tact and that temper never failed. He had that singular way of tempering his opposition with moderation and that kindly manner which disarmed any feeling of hostility to himself personally. The noble Viscount has most truly said that it was one striking characteristic of him that he always had at heart—the honour and the dignity of this House, and by that he gained its confidence and its esteem. I will say no more, except this: that to his own family and to the many friends who mourn for him, a career so honourable to himself and so useful to his country must yield them some consolation, for they must feel that it has been crowned with what I believe to be the universal regret of all, both in this House and throughout the country.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, after what has been said, and said with so much taste and with such genuine feeling, first by the noble Viscount and next by my noble Friend, whose connection with the distinguished Member of this House whom we have lost has been certainly longer and perhaps closer than mine, I have only a few words to add, and I add them, not because they are needed as a tribute to Lord Granville's memory, but in order that what I know we all feel in common may be expressed alike by every quarter of this House. The loss which the country has sustained by
  466
  the death of Lord Granville is heavy; but the loss which this House has sustained is heavier still, for probably no statesman and no political leader has ever lived who was more closely and entirely identified with the Assembly in which he sat. I agree with what has been said by the noble Viscount and by the noble Lord behind me, that to keep this House efficient, to keep it, as far as possible, in harmony with the other House of Parliament, and to preserve for it the respect and esteem of the public, was an object in which he felt at all times the deepest personal concern. That is a feeling in which your Lordships can all sympathise in whatever quarter of the House you may sit, and even though in particular cases your Lordships might not agree with the methods by which that result was to be attained. My Lords, there were other traits in Lord Granville's public character which it is easier for most men to admire than to imitate. How skilful and dexterous an antagonist he was in Debate, how firmly and effectively he maintained the opinions which he held, whether popular or unpopular, we do not need to be reminded; but I can remember no occasion, and I have heard of none in the many years during which he took part in our Debates, when either Lord Granville himself appeared to be actuated by any personal animosity or bitterness, or when he spoke in such a manner as to excite that feeling in the minds of his opponents. It was also, I think, a part of his nature and of his training, that no one actively engaged in public life ever indulged less or, I should rather say, more entirely abstained from indulging in any exaggerated or sensational language. He held strong and definite opinions; he held them more strongly than many of those outside, who judged only by the invariable gentleness of his language, were apt to suppose, but they were the opinions of a statesman and a man of the world, of one whose immense experience had taught him tolerance, whose thorough knowledge of individual character was combined with a knowledge of the wants and ideas of society as a whole, and who, by his mental constitution, was free alike from optimistic enthusiasm in his earlier career, and later from that which is often the reaction from exaggerated enthu-

  467
  siasm, the pessimism and despondency which are too often the characteristic and the misfortune of old age. I think I should be justified if I said that by his peculiar position representing and inheriting as he did the traditions of an older state of society, yet accepting the ideas of one more modern, he was eminently suited to deal with men and affairs in an age of transition such as that in which we live. When it can be said of an English political leader, that he was always loyal to his supporters, always fair and courteous to his opponents, a faithful Colleague, a laborious public servant, warmly and frankly attached to his Party, but not so as to place its interests before those of his country; when it can be said that for half a century he lived in the public eye without reproach, and that he has gone to his rest amid the regrets of thousands to whom he was personally unknown—when these things can be truly reported of a man there is not much that need or can be added in the way of panegyric, and all these thing's are undoubtedly true of the eminent and remarkable statesman whose loss we now deplore.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, if it were only my own personal feeling which I wished to express I might have difficulty in excusing myself for adding anything to what your Lordships have heard so well said. To repeat it would be idle; to improve upon it would be impossible. But besides my personal feeling, which is the result of an active and constant communication and cooperation in public affairs with Lord Granville for more than 20 years, during the greater part of that time without any difference of opinion, besides my sense of his kindness experienced during all that time, I have on this occasion to attempt to express the feeling of an absent friend, who would, I know, have been here to-day were it not that he is prevented by an illness which makes his presence impossible—I mean the Duke of Argyll. He longer than myself, longer, perhaps, than almost any of your Lordships, had been on terms of intimate personal communication and friendship with Lord Granville, and of official co-operation also with him during many years. He would have been very desirous of expressing his own feelings on this occasion. He is prevented from
  468
  doing so; but I am so far in possession of his mind that I may venture to say to your Lordships that, whilst he would have spoken more fully and more eloquently than I can pretend to do, he would have concurred in the substance of the few words which I think your Lordships will excuse me for adding to what has already been said. I think if there were any cause which might possibly lead any person to estimate at less than their true value the services rendered by Lord Granville to his country, that cause was a quality which in him was most admirable—singular disinterestedness and a singular absence of self-assertion on all occasions. He had many opportunities which he would not take of advancing his own personal reputation, but he always thought of the duty which he had to do, and in my judgment he never thought of himself. There was another quality, which, I think, was unique in him, in which he excelled all the public men of his day, as far as my knowledge and memory go, and I can remember Sir Robert Peel, and had the privilege of personal intercourse on many occasions with Lord Russell and Lord Palmerston—of course, I shall not speak of any who yet remain. He had the quality of mitigating the asperity of Party warfare, a quality admirable and excellent at all times; especially in a man who never shrank, as has been well said, either from expressing his opinions, or from doing so with an effect which every one felt. His power of infusing, not merely the gloss of an acquired courtesy, but the innate courtesy of a most genial and generous nature into all that he said and did was a gift at all times most valuable, and perhaps more wanted at the present time than it ever was before. I cannot express a wish more sincere or more to the purpose, I think, for those who in this House may have to take his place than this—that in that respect, as well as in others, they may be able to follow and to imitate his example. On all occasions when great men are taken away from amongst us it is the practice of your Lordships' House to pay such tribute as you can to their memory, and on all such occasions, I believe, that tribute has been sincerely paid: though there have

  469
  been times when we have availed ourselves of the privilege of looking only to the bright side of the character of those who were taken away and put out of sight, whatever might detract from that brightness. But on this occasion I know of nothing which could dim the brightness, nothing to be suppressed, nothing that could be said in derogation of the praises which have been bestowed on this great man whom we have lost. I believe that there has never been an occasion when the feeling of your Lordships was truer, deeper, or more unanimous.

  NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES BILL.

    QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I wish to ask my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he intends to take the Second Reading of the Newfoundland Bill. "We only received the Bill—at least, I did not receive it until this morning; and I am informed—whether rightly or wrongly my noble Friend will know— that the delegates from Newfoundland are expected to arrive to-morrow. Then, unfortunately, we have not the advantage of the presence of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and it is obvious that this is a question which concerns the Foreign Office quite as much as it concerns the Colonial Office. Beyond this, although I have only glanced at the Bill, and I do not desire to anticipate any discussion upon it, I must say there are some details in it which appear to me require 'very careful examination. It seems to me it would be unwise on the part of this House, and I appeal to my noble Friend opposite whether it would be in the interest of the Government to press forward this measure (of course having due regard to such urgency as it has in itself) in the absence of the delegates from Newfoundland, and before we have had any opportunity of learning their views and what they may have to communicate concerning this very grave subject. I hope the rumour may be true that they are coming here with conciliatory proposals, and if they have anything to say which could be heard before the Bill is discussed, and which might lead to any modification of
    470
    the Bill with a view to remove objections which are felt in the colony, and smooth the way for dealing with this exceedingly thorny subject, I am sure my noble Friend will rejoice as much as I should if that opportunity could be given. For these reasons I sincerely hope that my noble Friend will find it possible to give us ample time for the consideration of this important Bill before the Second Reading, and I beg to ask him when he intends to take the Second Reading.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): My Lords, I have no intention of bringing this Bill on for Second Reading in the absence of my noble Friend the Marquess of Salisbury, because I feel as strongly as the noble Earl that the question is not purely of Colonial interest, but is also one closely connected with the affairs and procedure of the Foreign Office. I purpose, therefore, with the Marquess of Salisbury's concurrence, to take the Second Reading of the Bill on Monday. I hope earnestly that the rumour, which I had not myself heard, but which my noble Friend has referred to, that the delegates have come over with the desire of smoothing away difficulties, and if possible of assisting us in our efforts, may be correct. Certainly it is our hearty desire to co-operate as far as possible with the colony. I have seen, however, a statement in the newspapers that the delegates from Newfoundland or their agents would desire to be heard at the Bar of the House. I do not know at present whether that Report be true or not, and it will be time enough for us to consider whether that desire shall be acceded to or not when a Petition has been presented to Her Majesty's Government praying for that privilege. But I would point out what may not perhaps be understood, that the invariable practice has been, when parties have desired to be heard by Counsel, that the Bill should first be read a second time. That question was discussed in 1838 when a Bill was proposed to suspend the constitution of the Province of Lower Canada, and Mr. Grote then moved that Mr. Roebuck be heard at the Bar of the House of Commons as Counsel for the Province of Lower Canada. After some discussion it was decided that he should be heard after the Second Reading of the Bill;

    471
    Mr. Grote stating that he believed that it was the invariable practice that an agent could only be heard after the Second Reading of the Bill objected to had been agreed to. Again, in 1839, in the Jamaica case, the same course was adopted upon the understanding that Members assenting to the Second Reading of a Bill did not thereby pledge themselves to support it at a later stage. Therefore, by taking the Second Reading on Monday we shall in no way prevent the delegates being heard at the Bar of the House if it is decided that they should be so heard. I have made this explanation lest it might be thought that by the Second Reading being taken next Monday there was any desire to debar the Representatives of Newfoundland by removing the opportunity of their being heard.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I should have been glad if my noble Friend could have made the day later; but if it is undoubtedly understood that we shall not be pledged beyond that, there is probably no objection to its being taken on Monday, and possibly the Marquess of Salisbury will be back by that date. I would also ask my noble Friend another question. On a previous occasion I asked him whether there were any Papers which could be presented to the House on the subject of the communications which passed between the Government of Newfoundland and that of the United States, but which had unfortunately to be broken off. I do not think those Papers have been presented, and it seems to me very desirable that, if possible, we should have the Papers on the subject before the Bill is read a second time, because, unfortunately, considerable irritation has been caused on this subject, upon which that correspondence bears, not directly, but indirectly.
    LORD KNUTSFORD: The Papers have been already laid before the House, and I may add that before Monday I hope also to be able to lay before your Lordships some further Papers regarding the main question affecting Newfoundland.
    THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: May I express a hope that if the delegates from Newfoundland do Petition to be heard at the Bar of the House by Counsel Her Majesty's Government will consider further whether it is desirable in this case to follow the course which I
    472
    think is in accordance with precedent, and take the Second Reading of the Bill before the delegates are heard. Of course, I am not acquainted with the various precedents in which parties have been heard by Counsel at the Bar of the House, but it appears to me that the present case is quite peculiar, because, as far as I understand it, what the delegates from Newfoundland are coming over to urge are objections not so much to details of the Bill, but to the principle of the Bill— in fact, to any legislation on the subject. It occurs to me that if that is so, and the delegates are heard at the Bar of the House, it would be somewhat out of place if the House has already assented to the principle of legislation by reading the Bill a second time; and that it would be more consistent if we first heard what objections they have to urge against the principle of the Bill.
    LORD KNUTSFORD: My Lords, I do not know whether I am in order in answering, but as far as I can judge it would be much better to follow what I have said Mr. Grote spoke of as the invariable precedent, and which was adopted by Sir Robert Peel in 1839, and other eminent persons—Lord Brougham and others in reference to former Bills. That precedent will probably be followed, but with the reservation that no Member is pledged to support the Bill at a future stage, because it has been read a second time, and before Counsel may have been heard at the Bar of the House.

  ARMY SCHOOLS BILL. (No. 83.)
    CHARITIES (RECOVERY) BILL. (No. 84.)
      ELECTORAL DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL(No. 85.)
      Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
      MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.
      Brought from the Commons; read la: to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next. —{The Lord Balfour.) (No. 86.)
      MIDDLESEX REGISTRY BILL.
      Brought from the Commons; Head 1a; to he printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next. —{The Lord Chancellor.) (No. 87.)

      SAVINGS BANKS BILL.
      Brought from the Commons; read 1* to be printed. (No. 88.)
      House adjourned at five minutes past
      Five o'clock, to Thursday next,
      a quarter past Ten o'clock.