Sitting of 24 February 1891

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY FORCE FUND.
Copy ordered—
"Of Treasury Minute, dated February, 1891, on a Deficiency in the Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund."—(Mr.Jackson.)
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 118.]

ARMY (STOPPAGES OF PAY).
Address for—
"Return of the average number, during the year 1890, of Private Soldiers in each of the No. 1 Companies of the Line Battalions now stationed at Aldershot."
"Of the total amount of Stoppages from the pay of the Private Soldiers in each of these Companies, thus classified: Stoppages for tailor's bill or repairs of clothing; for shoemaker's bill; for regimental necessaries; for barrack damages; for deficiencies in old clothing; for washing; for hair cutting; for library; for fines; for repairs of arms and accoutrements; and remaining Stoppages."
"And, of total for each Company, and average per Soldier."—(Colonel Nolan.)

QUESTIONS.

  INDIAN RAILWAY ANNUITIES.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of
  1466
  State for India whether it is intended to renew the system in practice before February, 1885, under which the Government of India converted Railway Annuities into India Three per Cent. Stock, it being at that time temporarily suspended with the understanding that it would be renewed after 1888; and whether the advantages of that operation to the Government of India were considerable?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,: There is no present intention of renewing the offer to holders of Indian Railway Annuities to convert them into India Three per Cent. Stock. When the practice was suspended there was no undertaking that it would be renewed at any particular time, though the Secretary of State in Council may, perhaps, renew it if he should think fit. The direct advantages to the Government from, the operation were considerable. In 1888, however, Parliament authorised the creation of a limited amount of India Stock in connection with the construction of railways by the agency of companies; and under this power a certain amount of Stock has been annually issued on public tender. It is not desirable to be offering Stock to the market in two different ways at the same time.

  CIVIL SERVICE SECOND DIVISION CLERKS.
  MR. TUITE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will take into consideration the grievances of certain clerks in the Inland Revenue who entered the Second Division from the Excise branch, and were next transferred to the Taxes Surveying branch on the faith of an assurance from their Board that they would thereby become eligible upon having completed a service of 10 years, inclusive of their Excise service, to compete for promotion as assistant surveyors; whether the Treasury afterwards repudiated this assurance by stopping the promotion of the first successful competitor, on the technical distinction that his 10 years' service was not wholly in the Second Division; and whether, in consequence of this decision, these clerks have been recalled to the head office and placed at

  1467
  the bottom of the establishment, to the great detriment of their position and prospects; and whether, having regard to the practical equality of the service rendered and the service formally required, and the exceptional rules applying to the Taxes branch, also to the fact that the claims of these officials have the full support of their own Department, he will endeavour to mitigate the hardship of their position by recommending the Treasury to withdraw its objection, and permit their Excise service to rank in the qualifying period as it has since been modified under the Ridley Scheme?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: I am informed that the Board of Inland Revenue were under the impression that in the case of certain clerks in the Inland Revenue who entered the Second Division from the Excise branch, and were transferred to the Tax Surveying branch, service in the Excise branch would count as part of the period of 10 years necessary to qualify them for admission to the Tax Surveying branch, and that competitors were so informed. The certificate of the Civil Service Commissioners was, however, necessary before appointment to the Tax Surveying branch, and those Commissioners pointed out that under the Order in Council it was clear that none but service as Lower Division clerk could count as part of the qualifying period, and they refused to certify. The Civil Service Commissioners are, of course, bound by the Order in Council; the Treasury has no power to override it. I may add that there has been no repudiation by the Treasury of any assurance given by the Inland Revenue Department, and I am informed that only one clerk successfully competed for the position in the Tax Surveying branch.

  BANK NOTE ISSUES.
  MR. ATKINSON: I had intended to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state whether it is his intention to propose any change as to existing issues of bank notes this Session? but I am informed that the right hon. Gentleman is suffering from a severe cold, and is unable to be present. I will, therefore, postpone the question.

  STRENGTH OF THE ARMY, MILITIA, AND VOLUNTEERS.
  LORD HENRY BRUCE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will inform the House what is the number of men under the present reduced standard the Regular Army is still short of; what is the number of men the Militia is still short of, and how many captains of companies in this branch of the Service are deficient; and what is the number of men the Yeomanry is still short of, and how many officers in this branch of the Service are deficient?
  MR. HANBURY: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question may I ask how many men beneath the standard chest measurement, height, and weight were recruited in 1890?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,: The European regiments and corps are short of their establishment by 1,657 men, which is a smaller number than is to be expected at this season, when the drafts for India have recently started. Colonial corps are nominally deficient 2,391 non-commissioned officers and men, but some of the corps have not yet been raised. The deficiency in the Militia amounts to 23,731 non-commissioned officers and men; and there are 102 captains' commissions vacant. The Yeomanry is short by 94 officers and 3,389 non-commissioned officers and men of the full establishment. In reply to the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) I may say that the number of recruits enlisted below the standard in one or other of the above particulars is, exclusive of men enlisted at the headquarters of regiments, 7,975.
  MR. HANBURY: Was the number 6,000 in 1889?
  MR. BRODRICK: I think it was rather less.

  MANICALAND.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, when the news of the invasion of Manicaland by the South African Chartered Company reached Lourenço Marques, the Portuguese Governor of the Province officially complained to the British

  1469
  Consul (or Vice Consul), stating that Mr. Colquhoun was probably not aware of the modus vivendi, and begging the Consul to inform him of it; whether a letter was written by the Consul to this effect, and sent up to Mr. Colquhoun under the care of a Portuguese lieutenant and five Portuguese soldiers; whether, on their arrival at their destination, they were all detained as prisoners; and whether all Papers in respect to this matter will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,: The Governor General of Mozambique made a verbal communication to the Acting Consul at Mozambique, not at Lourenço Marques, respecting events in Manica, and the Consul, not being aware that the agents of the South African Company had received news of the modus vivendi from the Cape, sent through the Governor General a letter to inform them of it. Inquiry has been made as to the reported arrests, and we have received information that there is no truth whatever in the statement, and that the messenger bearing the Consul's letter returned with an acknowledgment of its receipt. The correspondence on the subject will be included in the next set of Papers respecting South African affairs.

  MASHONALAND—LOBENGULA'S CON CESSIONS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies has received a letter from Mr. Arthur Douglass, a Member of the State Legislature, who is now in England, and representing the interests of Mr. Wood and others in regard to a mining concession from Lobengula granted previously to that granted to Mr. Rudd; why no answer has as yet been sent Mr. Arthur Douglass; and whether, in the event of Mr. Arthur Douglass showing that this previous concession was granted, Her Majesty's Government will see that those to whom a Royal Charter was granted, on the assumption that Lobengula could grant a mining concession to them over his entire territory, do not retain any power or any rights over such portions
  1470
  of the territory that are included in the previous concession?
  SIR J. GORST (for Baron H. DE WORMS): The answer to the first paragraph of the question is, Yes; to the second, because his letter was received only so recently as the 19th instant; and to the third, that the matters referred to in this question and in Mr. Douglass's letter require full consideration before Her Majesty's Government expresses an opinion upon them. A reply will be sent to Mr. Douglass as soon as possible.

  INFLAMMABLE LIQUIDS BILL.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will postpone the Second Reading of the Inflammable Liquids Bill for such reasonable period as will enable representatives of the mineral oil trade to consider the details of the measure, and submit to the House of Commons such Amendments as they may deem necessary in its clauses?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: Yes, Sir; I have already stated, in reply to a question in this House, that I will take care that a sufficient interval shall elapse before the Second Reading.

  THE WEST INDIES.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the trade depression in the West Indies, the Government will reconsider their determination not to assist the proposed lines of steamers between those islands and Canada and the United States?
  SIR J. GORST (for Baron H. de WORMS): The Secretary of State has approved of the Government of the Leeward Islands subsidising a line of steamers between those islands and Canada, which is also subsidised by the Dominion Government, and he is prepared to consider any proposals that may be made by any other West Indian Colonial Governments for granting similar subsidies; but if the question refer to a subsidy from Imperial funds,

  1471
  no such proposal has been made, or, if made, could be entertained by Her Majesty's Government.

  ROSSLEA NATIONAL LEAGUE.
  MR. HENRY CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state on what grounds he directed the suppression of the Rosslea branch of the National League; is he aware that the police have been constantly parading the neighbourhood; can he explain why, on 31st January, District Inspector Dagg and four constables kept marching round the Catholic Church during the celebration of mass; if it has been brought to his notice that the police assaulted a Mr. Smith, a miller or Rosslea, and broke the door of the mill off its hinges, in search of a meeting of the branch; and under what authority they took this course?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: The Rosslea branch of the National League was suppressed because it persisted, after being twice warned, in passing and publishing in certain newspapers resolutions inciting to intimidation and boycotting. The police have since patrolled the neighbourhood at such times as they deemed necessary. The Constabulary authorities report that the allegations contained in the third and fourth paragraphs are without foundation.

  THE DUBLIN POST OFFICE
  MR. HENRY CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the seven hours' system has been introduced into the General Post Office, Edinburgh; and, if so, why the same system has not been put in operation in Dublin?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,: The seven hours' system is not yet in force in Edinburgh, but it is hoped that it will be possible to introduce it in the clerical branches both at Dublin and at Edinburgh on Monday, the 2nd of March.

  IRISH DISTRESS.
  MR. COX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution, passed by the Scarriff Board of Guardians, stating that
  1472
  the ratepayers cannot bear the great strain involved by a rate adequate to cope with the exceptional distress which exists in the Union, and suggesting the carrying out of reproductive relief works, such as the Scarriff drainage scheme and the projected railway from Ennis to Scarriff; and what steps he proposes to take upon it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: A resolution passed by the Board of Guardians of the Scarriff Union has been received, and further inquiry will be made.
  MR. SEXTON: In the event of the ratepayers being unable to bear the strain involved by a rate, what steps do the Government propose to take to relieve them?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: At present I am not prepared to say.
  MR. COX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will comply with urgent local demands for the erection of a fishing pier at Farrihy Bay on the West Coast of Clare; and, if so, when the works will be commenced?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is, I believe, no distress in the locality mentioned that cannot be met by the resources of the ordinary Poor Law. I may, at the same time, mention that some employment is afforded in a locality not far distant in connection with the Kilrush and Kilkee Railway.

  MESSRS. DILLON AND O'BRIEN.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the result of his inquiries as to the condition of health of Messrs. John Dillon and William O'Brien; and whether they have both been removed to the infirmary from the ordinary cells of Galway Gaol?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is true that the two gentlemen are now in the infirmary ward of Galway Gaol, but I believe the Report as to their health is satisfactory.
  MR. SEXTON: Has the doctor made any Report as to the probable effect of their imprisonment?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The medical officer made a Report, and I gather that he anticipates no evil effects from their imprisonment.
  MR. SEXTON: Would the right hon. Gentleman have any objection to state the terms of the Report, as the public papers state that their health has broken down?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can re-assure the hon. Gentleman. A very careful Report has been drawn up by the medical officer, from which it appears that the health of the two gentlemen has not broken down.
  MR. SEXTON: What course is it intended to take in regard to the recognisances of Mr. Dillon and Mr. O'Brien?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I suppose the ordinary course of estreating the recognisances.
  MR. SEXTON: Why should the recognisances be estreated now that these gentlemen are undergoing their sentences?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: The application referred to by the hon. Member related to a case stated on the part of the defendants, and was for the purpose of having this case struck out of the list, on the ground that it was not being duly prosecuted by the defendants.
  MR. SEXTON: Do the Government propose to exact the penalty of the recognisances, although the two gentlemen who have been prosecuted are now in gaol?
  MR. MADDEN: That is a different question.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Will not the effect be that these two gentlemen will have suffered six months' imprisonment and have to pay £2,000 as well?
  MR. MADDEN: I merely rose to correct an error into which the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Sexton) had fallen, in regard to the case stated. The right hon. Gentleman now asks for further information of a totally different kind.
  MR. SEXTON: I will put a further question on Thursday.

  THE LABOUR COMMISSION.
  MR. BECKETT: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is true, as announced in the papers this morning, that Her Majesty's Government propose to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the
  1474
  relations between employers and employed; and whether he can state what will be the scope of the Inquiry and the particular questions which will be submitted to the Commission?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: It is true that Her Majesty's Government intend to recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission, with the object generally stated by my hon. Friend. I shall be prepared, in the course of a few days, to state the terms of the Reference to the Royal Commission to the House; but I may say generally that the object we have in view is to institute an independent and careful inquiry into the causes of the differences between employers and employed which have produced such painful results during the past year, and also to inquire whether it is desirable or possible to introduce legislation on the subject.
  MR. HOWELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the names of the Commissioners?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: As the Commission was only decided on last Saturday, it will hardly be expected that Her Majesty's Government has as yet determined on the names of the Commissioners.
  MR. BROADHURST: Is it intended that the Royal Commission should in any way interfere with the Select Committee which it has been resolved shall inquire into the hours of labour of railway servants?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Certainly not.
  MR. BROADHURST: Will Her Majesty's Government consult the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Unions in reference to the terms of the proposed Reference?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Her Majesty's Government will be glad to receive suggestions from any quarter; but the hon. Gentleman will see that if Her Majesty's Government were to undertake to consult any particular body, either on the part of employers or employed, they would be placing themselves in a position of some difficulty. The Government must act on their own responsibility in this matter.
  MR. O. V. MORGAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that one half of the Members of the Royal Commission shall be closely

  1475
  connected with the labour interest of the country; not employers like myself, but men who have lived by the labour of their hands?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: Will questions relating to coal mines come within the scope of the Inquiry?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Will the terms of the Reference to the Royal Commission come before the House, so that they can be amended if necessary?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: This is not usual in the case of Royal Commissions. The terms of the Reference will be placed before the House. That is all that I can undertake.
  MR. CAUSTON: Is it the intention of the Government to limit the time during which the Commission will sit and report?
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: Will the Commission be instructed to inquire into the hours of labour in coal mines underground?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for West Salford, and also in answer to the hon. Member for Lichfield, it certainly is not intended to exclude from the scope of the Commission questions relating to mines. No term will be placed on the sittings of the Commission. It would be improper to fix a limit upon the sittings of the Commission, or to determine what evidence they are to take.

MOTIONS.

  INCOME TAX.
  MR. BARTLEY: I rise for the purpose of moving—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the Income Tax, the mode of its collection, the system of appeal, the payment of poundage for collection, and generally to report on the present working and incidence of the tax as now imposed, and whether some juster system could be adopted, by a different rate being imposed on income derived from realised capital to that derived from industry."
  I very much regret that I have to bring forward this Motion in the absence, from illness, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and under the circumstances I should have postponed it, if I had felt that it was possible to obtain any other opportunity for bringing it before the House. It is a matter which is becom-
  1476
  ing more and more pressing day by day, and I think it is a subject which deserves consideration at the hands of the House, with a view of getting the Income Tax placed upon a more just and equitable footing. The tax was originally imposed at the end of the last century, but it was subsequently taken off, and was not re-imposed until 1842, when Sir Robert Peel introduced it as a temporary tax, which was not intended to be of a permanent character. But from that date the tax has continued and also grown and developed. Chancellors of the Exchequer, one after another, have gradually increased its pressure. As a matter of fact, the tax is so easy to collect and the law-abiding Income Tax-payers of this country are so easily squeezed, that the incidence of the tax has never been regarded except in its financial aspect. The hardship involved in the tax, and the injury it inflicts upon the trade and commerce of the country, has been too much forgotten, although there can be very little doubt as to the unfavourable manner in which it handicaps the small traders. Many persons have a notion that it is a tax which is only paid by the rich. Nothing can be more contrary to the fact. It is true that the rich pay it, but not only is it paid by the rich, but it materially affects the lower and middle class of society. Schedule D. applies to shopkeepers, merchants, professional men, traders, lawyers, doctors, newspaper men, and to that large class of persons who are really the working bees in the industrial hive of this country, excluding perhaps, but not entirely, the working classes. The number of persons who pay the tax under Schedule D. are in round numbers 450,000, and of that number no less than 225,000, or about one half pay it upon incomes of less than £200 a year, 106,000 pay upon £200 and under £300. That fact alone proves conclusively, I think, that a very large number of the payers of the tax are in the very bottom of the middle strata. About 60,000 pay Income Tax on incomes between £300 and £500 a year, and there are altogether 386,000 out of 450,000 who pay it on less than £500 a year. This is an important fact when we consider the growth of the tax. In 1842 the tax per penny in the pound produced £850,000

  1477
  a year; in 1861 it produced £1,250,000; and last year it produced more than £2,000,000 per penny. This rapid growth is due to the larger number of persons who have been brought within the meshes of the tax. From 1846 to 1874, or thereabouts, between 30,000 and 40,000 persons paid Income Tax on sums above £200 and below £300. From 1874 to 1889 the number of persons who paid the tax upon incomes of between £200 and £300 a year rose from 39,000 to 106,000, while those who paid it on incomes from £500 to £1,000 a year remained almost stationary, and those who paid upon incomes of more than £1,000 a year absolutely decreased. These figures show that the cause of the increase in the product of the Income Tax is that a large portion of the community at the bottom of the social scale is being gradually drawn within the operation of Schedule D. I do not express any opinion upon the question whether this is right or wrong, but I do hold that if the tax is affecting more and more persons who fill positions low down in the social scale, it behoves this House to take great care that the incidence of the tax should be equally adjusted and that the law should be administered fairly. It is supposed that the tax is one upon income, but the question arises—What is income? and I am unable to derive any definition of the term from any Act of Parliament. If a man sells goods over the counter he deducts from his income the cost of the materials and the amount of wages he pays. But it seems to me that that is not enough, and that he ought to deduct all the expenses that are absolutely necessary in order to produce the income. Income ought to be the net amount after a fair deduction of all charges which go towards the making up of that income. In tens of thousands of cases at the present moment the tax on income is not a tax on what ought fairly to be called income, but on a fancy sum fixed by officers who are personally interested in making the sum as large as they possibly can. I will give a string of typical cases which bears out this remark. Let me, first of all, take the case of houses. A man owns a house which he lets for £50 a year, and upon that house he is charged Income Tax upon the full sum of £50, notwithstanding
  1478
  that he may have to incur an expenditure of from £5 to £20 for repairs and other causes. The same remark applies to land in occupation and use. Expenses are necessarily involved, but no deduction is allowed, and the Income Tax has to be paid upon the full rateable value. Therefore the action of the Government has the effect of discouraging the possession of houses and land by persons of small means, a result socially to be deplored. Take the case of a man who pays £1,000 for a short lease, and who receives in rent £250 for six or seven years. Throughout the tenure he has to pay to the Chancellor of the Exchequer Income Tax upon the full amount of £250 a year, although a part only is really income and the rest is required to recoup the capital advanced in the original purchase. In such a case I maintain that Income Tax is not paid upon the income but on a fancy sum which is not truly represented as income. Then, take the case of cottage property. We often express a desire to encourage the improvement of cottage property, but it is a well known fact that the sums received from these cottages do not represent the real income. In some cases the outgoings even exceed the amounts received, and in no way does the rent show the actual income. Nevertheless, the Chancellor of the Exchequer demands Income Tax on the gross valuation. This is unfair, and further, out of consideration for the well-being and happiness of the people, is socially a mistake, as it discourages the building of improved cottages. I contend that it is most unfair to tax cottage property in this way. Then, again, there is the case of warehouses and other property which are only partly let. A building partly occupied with one or two rooms let and others unlet is charged Income Tax upon the entire annual value of the building. I have known houses partly let so heavily taxed that they have been emptied rather than pay the outgoings, which were larger than the rents received. There is another very large case of injustice in which property is assessed at a higher rate than the lease justifies. Let me take the case of a house let at £50 a year, the purchaser having paid no premium upon it. In numerous cases he finds himself rated at £60, so

  1479
  that he has to pay Income Tax upon £10 more than he actually gets. Is there any possible way in which that can be regarded as income? I know the case of a property which brings in £90 a year, but which pays Income Tax upon £120, and I believe that that is the case in regard to very many properties in London at this moment. In a case of my own, I was charged Income Tax at the rate of £300 upon property which brought in £250, but upon an appeal the extra charge was deducted. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now secured an ally in the London County Council, who have protested against my being rated at £250, and demand that I shall pay upon £270, although the extra sum can in no possible form be termed income. Then, again, the depreciation of machinery must not be forgotten. In fitting up a workshop a considerable sum is expended in machinery, but in collecting Income Tax nothing is allowed for the depreciation of that machinery. Surely, if I spend £1,000 in machinery which cannot last for more than five or six years, the depreciation ought to be taken into account. In regard to depreciation, there have been very extraordinary decisions. In one case in which I was personally interested—that of a large educational institute—a considerable sum of money was spent in school fittings and in making provision for renewing short leases. When the Income Tax assessment was appealed against an allowance was made for these items, and they were deducted from profits, on the ground that they were a necessary provision to replace the furniture and fittings and to renew the leases; but another Income Tax Commissioner came upon the scene, and refused to make any allowance at all. Another typical case is that of a Company which has been in operation for four years. Four years ago it made a profit of £470; the year after the profit fell to £160; the third year there was an absolute loss of £120; and last year there was a loss of £300. Nevertheless, the Company have been compelled to pay Income Tax upon the profits of each year; so that the shareholders have paid to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Income Tax absolutely more by £60 than their entire profits during the four years. Take,
  1480
  again, the case of patents. A patent can only last for a limited period, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow no sum to be deducted in order to provide for a sinking fund, which would only be equitable, seeing that the patent is not allowed to extend for more than a certain number of years. A medical officer in a Union receives, as a rule, a very small salary, but, as a matter of fact, in assessing Income Tax, he is not allowed to deduct from the salary his expenditure for drugs and other things that are necessary in visiting the poor. Their income is small, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer insists upon levying the tax upon the gross income. Life annuitants form a very large class of persons in this country, but an enormous sum is raised from their incomes every year, and devoted to the decrease of the National Debt. But is it fair that a life annuitant should contribute towards the Income Tax in the same proportion as another person whose capital produces an income in perpetuity? Let me take also the case of life insurance. The Life Insurance Companies invest their money in various ways; but on every penny they invest they have to pay Income Tax. The interest received from life insurance investments amounts to £6,000,000 a year, but the actual profits are very little more than £2,000,000. Therefore, as a matter of fact, the State is taxing life insurance three times more heavily than an ordinary business would be taxed. The same state of circumstances applies to banks. A penny savings' bank with which I am connected pays in Income Tax what would pay a 4 per cent. dividend upon the capital, and, as a matter of fact, for some ten years when no profit at all was made, and during which time it cost its shareholders some £10,000 to carry on, it paid over £2,000 as Income Tax. These are only a few out of a variety of cases which I might select to illustrate the extent to which the hardship bears; but I think I have said enough to prove my case up to the hilt—that the Income Tax, in thousands and ten of thousands of cases, is not a tax upon income at all, but a fancy sum levied at the hard rale of the Income Tax collectors. Now I come to the second point on

  1481
  which I wish to detain the House for a few moments, and that is as to the mode of collecting the tax, about which the greatest possible discontent exists. It is a startling fact that there are societies in existence for the purpose of assisting men to get their Income Tax fairly adjusted. A man pays a certain sum; the society takes steps to get the Income Tax reduced, and takes remuneration according to the amount they get taken off. Surely that indicates something very wrong in the system of collection. There are four officials concerned in the payment of Income Tax. The Surveyor of Taxes is paid by salary, but all the other officers are paid by poundage; and the result is, if even you have a difficulty or complaint, the Inland Revenue turn you over to the local people, and the local people turn you over to the Inland Revenue; and between the one and the other you can rarely get what is a reasonable adjustment. The great charge we have to make against the collection of the tax is that three of the officials—the local assessor, the local collector, and the clerk to the Commissioners—are all paid by poundage; and, therefore, all have an interest in getting assessments raised to the utmost possible amount. We pay the sum of £200,000 a year to the local collectors and assessors as poundage, and the sum of £80,000 to the clerks to the Commissioners. Upon what plan do these people work? A firm or individual sends in a Return, and without giving any reason the local officials perhaps double or treble the amount returned. I have known cases in which men have sent in a Return which has been doubled or trebled by the officials who did not condescend to give a reason for their action. A collector once boasted that a few years during a time of depression he increased the receipts for Income Tax in his district by 33 per cent. It is urged that individuals can easily appeal against the assessment of the collector. There is, as a matter of fact, nothing worse than the system of appeals. The Local Commissioners are often rival tradesmen and merchants of those whose appeals come before them. They have no knowledge of how to conduct such delicate inquiries, and are entirely guided by their clerks or local collectors. The appellant is not
  1482
  allowed to be assisted by a lawyer, and after he has stated his case—probably he is a business man and not accustomed to such proceedings—he is compelled to retire from the Court; but the local officials, who are as personally interested in the result of the inquiry, usually remain and advise the Commissioners, thus reducing the appeal to a perfect farce. The Committee I wish to see appointed ought to inquire into this question of appeal, and suggest some more satisfactory method. In 9 cases out of 10 the Commissioners do exactly what they are told to do by the officials, and against the decision, except upon a matter of law, there is no appeal. The next question is whether the time has not come for some change in the mode of assessing incomes, whether it is only fair and reasonable to draw some distinction between incomes derived from current labour, and incomes derived from the result of past labour, or capital, or wealth. The two classes of income have been described as industrial and spontaneous income—industrial income being income derived from present industry, and spontaneous income being income derived from the result of past industry. This is no new idea. In the year 1842, when Sir Robert Peel re-introduced the Income Tax, Lord Brougham urged that such a distinction should be drawn. It was then thought that the tax was but a temporary expedient, and so this subject was shelved; but as the tax has now remained for 50 years, and is practically a permanent impost, it is time to re-consider the question. If this distinction were drawn, the great bulk of the difficulties in the collection of the tax would disappear. It is comparatively easy to fairly tax spontaneous incomes. It is easy to determine the amount invested, therefore the difficulty would be very much less if the scheme I suggest were adopted. The man who derives his money from wealth is in a totally different position to the man who has to earn his living and get it by present industry. A man who has to get his living by present industry, must provide for the future, must insure his life and do a number of things that the other man need not do. It is clear that the man with a spontaneous income may freely be called upon to pay on a very

  1483
  different scale to the man who has to earn his living. Many of those men who get industrial incomes have to work a good many years before they really obtain the practical result of their work. It often happens that, before a man receives the full results of his industry, he has to endure years of loss; but in the time of his prosperity he is not allowed to make deductions for these inevitable losses. Of course, it spontaneous incomes are taxed on a higher scale, it will be necessary to make special provision with regard to the very small incomes, such as those possessed by widows, orphans, &c., as is now done by the rebatement on the tax of £120 under £400 a year. In a Return presented to Parliament, No. 345 of 1885, there is a statement made as to the difference of amount derived from spontaneous and industrial incomes. It is shown that about three-tenths of the gross receipts from the Income Tax are paid by the industrial incomes, and about seven-tenths by the spontaneous incomes. Supposing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to say that no industrial income should be taxed; three-tenths of the Income Tax would disappear. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would lose about £4,000,000 a year, a sum which 3d. in the £1 on spontaneous income would more than make up the deficiency. I have always held that capital even now is not paying its full share of the burden of taxation. I apprehend, however, that this abolition of Income Tax on all industrial incomes would be an extreme thing to do; but supposing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to say that he would taks off Income Tax from industrial incomes, on all incomes under £500 a year, the practical result would be that the right hon. Gentleman would lose Income Tax on about £40,000,000, or about £1,000,000 a year. Three farthings in the pound on spontaneous incomes would make up the loss, and a penny would leave a margin; but the benefit to the trading community, to the small tradesman, the small professional man, would be immense. The relief would benefit no fewer than 386,000 families connected with the working trade and industry of the country. I think I have shown that the time has come to consider this
  1484
  great question by a Committee of the House. Some persons have advocated a graduated Income Tax. No doubt such a tax has a great fascination for the poorer people of the community, but any one who has considered the subject must be convinced that in this country, at any rate, it would be practically impossible to collect such a tax. It could not be collected at its source, and the amount of evasion which would ensue would be such as to render its collection practically impossible. It is possible, however, although it may be difficult, to separate the industrial from the spontaneous incomes, and by doing so the change will lead to a much fairer arrangement of the tax; and it is also possible to arrange the Income Tax so that it shall be a tax on income and not on a fancy amount. If the Government grant the inquiry I am sure that they will confer a benefit on a class, next to the artisan class the most numerous in the community and a class by whose industry, energy, and enterprise this great Empire and its trade has been largely built up, and without whose contentment and prosperity we can hardly hope and expect that our trade and commerce will extend and continue.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the Income Tax, the mode of its collection, the system of appeal, the payment of poundage for collection, and generally to report on the present working and incidence of the tax as now imposed, and whether some juster system could be adopted, by a different rate being imposed on income derived from realised capital to that derived from industry." —(Mr. Bartley).
  SIR J. COLOMB: After the very exhaustive and clear speech of ray hon. Friend, it is not my intention to trouble the House with many remarks. I regret the absence, through indisposition, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this occasion, because the House is thereby deprived of the benefit of the great knowledge and experience the right hon. Gentleman would otherwise have been able to bring to bear on the question. I am sure the House will feel that my hon. Friend is quite justified in bringing this matter forward, for we all are aware of the friction, annoyance, trouble, and loss which arises from the present

  1485
  system under which the Income Tax is assessed and collected. I particularly want to deal with Schedule D, and to confirm by a few figures what my hon. Friend has said as to that Schedule being an increasing contributory to the Income Tax. I find that while the annual value of property and profits assessed under Schedule A has increased by £50,000,000 in 20 years, Schedule B has only increased by little over £750,000, Schedule C by something under £10,000,000, and Schedule D by over £123,000,000. There is a matter respecting appeal which affects Income Taxpayers under Schedule D much more adversely than it affects the Income Taxpayers under other Schedules. Nowadays time represents money, and the loss of time, annoyance, and worry inflicted on the more ignorant, the less cultivated, and the less knowledgable portion of the community is greatly aggravated by the present system of appeal. I think the real question underlying my hon. Friend's Motion is the definition of the classes who fall under Schedule D. In the part of London with which I am most conversant there are many houses in the middle of a dense population unoccupied for reasons resulting from the system of taxation to which my hon. Friend has referred. That in itself is a matter which deserves serious inquiry. There is one matter connected with the incidence of taxation to which my hon. Friend did not refer, and it is that there is an important class of people who altogether escape from the payment of Income Tax. Large trading firms in this country are required to pay heavy Income Tax and all sorts of Local and Imperial Taxes, but foreign firms doing large business in the home markets, and making large profits in competition with English firms are only required to pay Income Tax upon the salary of their agent in England. I trust the Government will give the Committee my hon. Friend asks on behalf of the small traders and of the lower end of the Income Taxpayers. I maintain the hon. Member has made out a very substantial case, and I heartily second the Motion.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: I think the House is much indebted to my hon. Friend (Mr. Bartley) for having introduced this subject. There is a very strong feeling of
  1486
  dissatisfaction as to the way in which Income Tax is assessed and collected and also as to the mode in which appeals are conducted. Many people are very unfairly assessed, and they have very little opportunity of getting redress; at all events there is so much trouble in getting redress that they very frequently submit to pay a good deal more in the shape of Income Tax than they ought to pay, rather than undergo the inconvenience surrounding an appeal. I can confirm what the hon. Gentleman has said as to the unfairness in the assessment. I know that in the case of cottage property the absence of allowance for repairs inflicts very great hardship upon owners. I am acquainted with a part of the country in which there are many old cottages the repairs of which are so considerable that they very nearly absorb the whole income derived from the property. With some owners it has been a question whether they would not pull the cottages down; but if they did, much suffering would be occasioned to many poor people. If we are to keep the people in the rural districts the question whether some special relief cannot be given in such cases as I have mentioned is deserving of the serious attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Reference has been made to the difference between assessment on the gross rather than upon the net income derived from property. The present system is very unfair. Then there is the question of a fair allowance for property while unlet. It will be said one can get an allowance from the Surveyor of Taxes in respect to empties, but there is the greatest possible difficulty in getting the matter properly adjusted. It would be much better if the parish assessment and the Income Tax assessment were both upon the net, so that there could be an actual assessment on the actual income. I hope the Government will see their way to grant a Committee. I believe a Committee would discuss the matter in a practical way. Although the appointment of the Committee might not lead to very much change in connection with the Income Tax, it would, I am persuaded, lead to a practical redress of several grievances which are of an irritating and objectionable character. I was sorry to hear my hon. Friend make an unfavourable observation with reference to a

  1487
  graduated Income Tax. Many of us believe that a graduated system is not only feasible, bat fair, reasonable, and just.
  MR. BARTLEY: I only said it was not practical.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: We think it is practical. I trust that observation of my hon. Friend will not influence any of my hon. Friends on this side of the House to look with disfavour upon his proposition.
  MR. C. W. GRAY: I am very glad the hon. Member for St. Pancras has said a word as to the Income Tax levied upon cottages in the country. Everyone will acknowledge that it is most important that our agricultural labourers should as far as possible be provided with good cottages; one of the reasons which induce the agricultural labourers to come up to the great centres of industry is that the cottages in some of the rural districts are not as good as we wish them to be. I am sure Radicals, even though they are not very friendly to the farmer or the country landlord, will agree that there ought not to be anything in the way of taxation which prevents a landlord providing decent cottage accommodation for the labouring people in his neighbourhood. But the point to which I particularly wish to draw the attention of the Government is the process of appeal open to farmers who think they have a grievance with reference to Schedule B, or, if they are the owners of the land, to Schedule A. If farmers are dissatisfied in respect of the Income Tax they are called upon to pay, they are informed that they can state their case before the Commissioners on appeal day. It often happens that a man farms land in different parts of the country, and very likely the Income Tax one considers unfair is in reference to a small area of land. To appeal against the tax, the man may possibly have to go many miles, and wait for hours, it may be in the draughty passages of an inn, until his case is called. The sum in dispute may be only £1, and many farmers say, "Rather than lose a day rather than go 20 or 30 miles, and spend hours in a draughty passage, I will pay whatever is required of me." Whether this Committee be granted or not, I implore the Government to consider
  1488
  most seriously whether, as regards the people in rural districts at all events, they may not, in the first instance, be allowed to state their case to the Commissioners in writing. That would be a great boon to a large number of men. If the Government kindly give answer to this question of mine when replying from the Front Bench, I, as a farmer, shall be very much obliged.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I think the House owes a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend for bringing this Motion forward, for whatever view may be taken of the principle of the Income tax, there can be no doubt of its importance, not only to the individual taxpayer concerned, but to the taxpayers at large, because I believe if this tax were placed upon a fair basis we might derive from it a larger proportion of Imperial taxation, and some relief might be given under other items of revenue. I understand that my hon. Friend does not in any way desire to affect the Income Tax itself. In principle it is an admirable tax, easily raised or lowered as necessity may demand; it is invaluable as a tax upon property, and as such ought to find a prominent place in our taxation system. My hon. Friend and those who support him have brought forward this Motion in the belief that the time has arrived when an inquiry should be made into the incidence of and mode of levying the tax. There are two reasons for appointing a Committee, one on the ground of administration, which is largely a departmental matter, and upon which there is much dissatisfaction throughout the country, and upon which the Committee might certainly recommend improvements. But the second is the more important reason, and it has been referred to by my hon. Friend, namely that in the manner in which it is assessed this tax falls with much greater weight upon the precarious than on the permanent income—with more severity upon skill and labour than upon property. The reply which I suppose will be made to this argument will be that no plan has yet been devised by which this difficulty can be overcome, and no scheme has been elaborated by which every individual in a class shall be fairly taxed. Further, it may

  1489
  be said with considerable truth that there are compensating advantages in regard to other branches of taxation, and that property pays a considerable proportion of taxation in addition to what is paid by these precarious incomes in the shape of death duties, from time to time increased, so that the burden on property is proportionally increased. But it is just because no one has yet been able officially to propose a practical scheme where by the levy of the tax can be reformed that we ask for this Committee. For the last 30 years there has been no inquiry into this question, and, as has been pointed out, the two former inquiries, in 1851 and 1861, were really not genuine inquiries to a large extent, not bonâ fide inquiries. That of 1851 was an abortive Committee; that of 1861 was appointed against the wish of the Government of the time, and strongly opposed by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and had not a fair opportunity of inquiring properly into all the great questions affecting the tax. We have had the tax in existence for 50 years, and there has been no inquiry at all on the subject for 30 years. Surely the accumulated experience of 50 years, and the increased intelligence of those who levy the tax, will be able to throw some light on the question of administration, if not on the mode of framing the assessment. But I have another reason for desiring the appointment of the Committee. The Income Tax, this great source of revenue, was imposed specifically and practically as a temporary tax. It was originally imposed by Mr. Pitt as a War Tax, and again re-imposed when war again broke out after the Peace of Amiens, as a temporary tax. It was again re-imposed by Sir Robert Peel, and again as a temporary tax, and so much so that, instead of endeavouring to improve the basis upon which it was assessed and levied, he simply copied, almost word for word, the clauses from the Act of 1815. Again, as marking thus more its temporary character, he gave no reduction or abatement on the lower class of incomes. He did not desire to complicate his temporary tax with these abatements; he simply levied 7d. in the £1 on all incomes over £150. Further, the tax was imposed and re-
  1490
  imposed time after time as a temporary tax, and Government after Government hoped and believed they would be able to get rid of it. So long as it was thought to be a temporary tax there was not the same reason, necessity, or desire for its reform as there is now. But I think that we all feel, even if there had not been the rejection by the country of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian in 1874 to abolish the Income Tax, we all feel that the tax has lost its temporary character, and I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman opposite will not say it is ever likely to disappear as a source of revenue. Therefore we argue hat as the tax was imposed with all its faults in a rough-and-ready way, as a temporary tax, now that it has become a permanent tax it is the duty of the Government and of Parliament to inquire into the whole system of administration, into the incidence and assessment, to see that it is placed upon a fair basis. In one matter I do not agree with my hon. Friend. He desires that the Committee should also look into the question of exemptions, and, as I understand, desires that all individual incomes, or all incomes under £500, should be exempt from the tax. That would relieve a very large number of persons, but would, I think, be a great mistake. I think it was a mistake to raise the limit of exemption to £150, at which it stands now, because I think that so long as it is leviable—of course in the case of weekly wages it is not possible—but so long as it is leviable upon defined profits and salaries the tax ought to extend as low down as possible. Let it be fairly graduated from the bottom by means of abatements, and in the same way, be graduated as high up as it is possible to take these abatements. I should be sorry if the Government accepted a proposal to relieve the lower scale of incomes of the tax. Nor do I altogether agree with my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Bolton.) I would have the tax graduated to a certain point. My hon. Friend seems to think it might be graduated from top to bottom, but this, though I do not say it is impossible, would be inexpedient. At the present moment a large proportion of the tax is practically self-collecting and self-assessing, being raised at the source and compara-

  1491
  tively without friction. While, if you graduate it, every individual must return his individual income, upon which return the Income Tax must be levied. Such a system as that would lead to considerable evasion, and, I think give rise to a great deal of additional irritation and difficulty of collection. I assert, however, that the Government could go a good deal further than they have gone in graduating the tax at the lower end of the scale, and I do not see why we should not have a system of graduation extended up to, say, £1,000. The collection would not be rendered more difficult, for the onus of proof would be on the parsons assessed. I would extend the system of abatements, but not the system of exemptions. I hope the Government will accept the proposal, and that now the tax has assumed a permanent character, it will be carefully and thoroughly examined, and that in the future we shall derive an increase, not a diminished revenue, from this source, for I believe it is in principle a most valuable tax, though I take exception to some of its details.
  MR. ATKINSON: The tax is valuable because it is so easily raised, and hence it is that it has been resorted to as a War Tax, and I think it should be the desire of all friends of peace to get rid of the tax. There is really need of reform in the administration and incidence of the tax. I am old enough to remember that when it was imposed by Sir Robert Peel he gave a direct pledge that it should not be a continuous tax, and certainly, of all taxes that ever have been imposed, this has caused the most irritation and heartburning. I would add my voice to the voices of hon. Members who have spoken in request to the Government that they will consent to the appointment of this Committee, that the subject may be comprehensively examined. When we bring forward instances of hardship under the existing system of levy, we are met with replies from successive Chancellors of the Exchequer that they admit the particular grievance complained of, but that it is only part of a large subject which, if dealt with at all, must be dealt with altogether. Well, here is a favourable opportunity for that; let the Chancellor
  1492
  of the Exchequer avail himself of it and, instead of his lending his large intellect to schemes for harassing the banking interest, I would suggest to the First Lord that he should ask his right hon. Friend to attend to this grievance which has been a grievance to all Chancellors of the Exchequer and everybody else who has paid Income Tax for the last 30 or 40 years. As it is admitted that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has been the greatest success in the office of all those who have filled the post during that period, we may rely upon his being able to do what none of his predecessors have been able to accomplish, and deal with this subject in a manner satisfactory to the vast number of persons concerned. At the same time I beg to offer a suggestion to the Leader of the House—a suggestion that will occur to us all as we look at the empty benches usually occupied by Representatives from Ireland. I take it that means that they do not pay the tax and are not interested. I would suggest that the tax should be levied in Ireland as it is in England. The hon. Member who spoke last said this tax should not be applied to weekly wages. Bat why not? As a ship-owner and ship-builder, I have known cases where rivetters and boiler makers have earned as much as £5 per week. If there comes a time when the question before the country is whether we shall go to war or not, the question is settled by these men who receive weekly wages and I maintain that these are the people who ought to be made to feel what it is to have the screw put upon the Income Tax in order to pay the cost of wars. I say these men have no right to decide these questions at the polls unless they pay their fair proportion of the cost. The Income Tax Commissioners will tell you that they communicate with the employers of clerks, and ask them to furnish a return of all those who are receiving weekly or monthly salaries of such amount that they get in the course of the year sufficient to bring them within the grasp of the Income Tax collector. Why should not these weekly wage earners—who in times of prosperity can afford to drink champagne, and who are much better off than the small tradesmen of the present day—pay their share of the Income Tax?

  1493
  The boilermaker who earns £5 a week, or £260 a year, has not to dress in black cloth, and his children are going to be provided by hon. Gentlemen opposite—if they get the opportunity—with education free. Why is he to be exempted from Income Tax, while the man who earns £150 a year as a tradesman, and makes bad debts, and has to wear black cloth and to send his children to school and pay 2d., or 3d., or 4d. a week for their education, has to pay the tax? It may be said that it is a political necessity, and that neither side dare take the working man by the throat, and force him to bear his fair proportion of taxation, but that for mere Party purposes they are bound to say to him, "You shall not pay Income Tax because we want your vote at the next election." That is an unworthy motive, and I hope that the Government and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby will not admit this principle. I hope they will say, "If there is a Committee we will serve on it and will look into the matter with a view of doing justice, and will propose that all people should be liable to pay Income Tax whether they receive their earnings weekly or not." I think I have made two valuable contributions in the form of suggestions to this Debate, and if the course I recommend is adopted, I feel sure the Income Tax will not be a permanent tax. I feel certain that as soon as Irishmen and working men are made to pay this tax they will "improve" it off the face of the earth as unjust. So long, however, as they are not compelled to pay they will go with a light heart into wars, as they know that we and not they will have to pay the piper. I trust that the Government will give us this Committee, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and wise men on both sides of the House will be able to devise some system of taxation which will be just. The Mover of the Resolution said he did not believe that capital contributed its fair share. No, Sir, it pays more than it ought to do compared with the man whose labour pays nothing. If there is an adjustment, I predict that it will not be against capital, but as against the labour of these men whose votes are so eagerly touted for by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I must say I think the Income Tax a fair one when properly assessed. In collecting the tax from the land the principal collector has an annual salary, but all the sub-collectors are paid by poundage, therefore it is to their interest to raise the amount as much as possible. Generally speaking the Income Tax is assessed on the basis of the Poor Rate, but that rate is collected on the net value instead of the gross, and the difference between the net and the gross in regard to the poor rate varies from 15 to 25 par cent. according to whether it is assessed on land or houses. I should like to know why the Income Tax could not be collected in the same way. In the case of houses and cottages, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, great expanse has to be incurred in order to keep them in repair. All cottages must be kept in repair, but that being so, why should not some allowance be made from the gross assessment of the Income Tax in respect of them? If that were done no one would mind paying the tax. The Income Tax is a tax the people groan at in the country because they have to pay it without receiving that for which it is a consideration, namely, the rents. As to other securities, stocks for instance, the Income Tax is only paid on the net income. In regard to land you pay whether you receive income or whether you do not. Then, as to appeals, though you have to pay the tax in January the appeals do not come on for several months, and it is often months even after a successful appeal before you recover the money. That is a great hardship, especially in the case of farmers who farm their own land and who have to pay the property tax under Schedule A and then pay again under Schedule B for the same property though very often there is very little return from the property. With regard to what has been said as to a graduated scale of Income Tax, that sounds very plausible, and it might be a good thing if it could be carried out; but I do not think it would be practicable, because Englishmen would not stand the interference, and the prying into their incomes that would be necessary in order to carry the system out successfully. No man would like to be asked how

  1495
  much his income was, and the system would be considered too inquisitorial, and would not be popular. I wish strongly to urge on the Government the desirability of accepting the Motion, so that the Income Tax assessment may be made in a more reasonable manner.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: I think the House generally will share the regret expressed in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow at the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the present occasion; and if there is one Member of the House who regrets that more than another it is the unfortunate First Lord of the Treasury, who is bound to fill, however unsatisfactory, the place of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order to answer the speeches made in support of the Motion before the House. I will do the best I can to give expression to what I believe to be the sentiments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the Motion. My hon. Friend has made a most interesting statement, and has exhibited the inequalities which prevail in regard to the Income Tax, and has dwelt upon the dissatisfaction which exists in many quarters as to the incidence and method of its collection. I fully admit the charges he has made, and I admit that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction. I am afraid it is hardly possible or conceivable that we could impose any tax of this character which would not create dissatisfaction, and which would not be disagreeable to the person who has to pay it. The fact of the case, however, is that the Income Tax is now regarded as one on which we must place considerable reliance in the adjustment of the finances of the country. It must be admitted that, under the able guardianship of past Chancellors of the Exchequer, the Income Tax has been a method by which great relief has been afforded to the industries of this country, and great advance has been made in the material prosperity of the country. I do not say that if we could do without it altogether it would not be a still greater advantage; but when we look back on the course of finance during the last 50 years, I think it must be admitted that, with all the inconveniences and all the dissatisfaction and all the inequalities, the Income Tax
  1496
  has, nevertheless, been an instrument by which enormous relief has been afforded to industry, and an enormous amount of pressure upon the general business and trade of the country has been averted. My hon. Friend spoke of the poor taxpayer. I sympathise with him most heartily in the appeal he has made on behalf of the poor taxpayer; but I observed in his speech, and that of the hon. Member for Bow, an absence of any allusion to the relief which the poor taxpayer obtains so far as Income Tax is concerned. The hon. Member for Poplar was the only speaker in the Debate who referred to that relief. As my hon. Friend knows, persons whose income is under £150 are exempt from the tax, and I believe this same class of persons are generally relieved from the House Tax, so that it cannot be said that the House of Commons, or past Chancellors of the Exchequer, have been insensible to the pressure which rests upon the poor taxpayer. But, in addition, up to £400 an allowance of £120 is made, so that a person having an income of £200 only pays on £80; a person having an income of £300 only on £180, and an income of £400 pays only on £280. It is, therefore, inaccurate to say that the circumstances and condition of the poorer middle class have not been considered by past Chancellors of the Exchequer. My hon. Friend referred to numerous Returns that have been made on this subject, and I think that he will not be surprised when I tell him that, not having expected to speak on this subject, I have not been able in the last two hours carefully to examine those Returns. But, no doubt, he is perfectly accurate when he comes to the general conclusion that there has been a decrease of large incomes as shown by the Income Tax Returns, and an increase of small incomes. But, instead of speaking of this as a matter for regret, I think that it will be a matter of satisfaction to the House that the Income Tax Returns disclose the fact that there is a large class which is increasing in wealth and coming within the purview of the Income Tax who, formerly, were not assessed because they did not possess incomes sufficiently large to render them liable to pay. I think, therefore, that my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension; it is not that these people have been dragged into the

  1497
  Income Tax, but that they have risen into the payment of Income Tax, and that they are better able to bear a share of the taxation of the country than they were a few years ago, when they only paid indirect taxation. In fact, it is another evidence of the prosperity of the country in which we ought to rejoice. My hon. Friend spoke of the necessity of deducting all the expenses necessary to produce the income, and he is under the impression that sufficient allowance is not made in this respect in making up accounts to show what the income really is. I am under the impression that a tradesman in making out his income under Schedule D is fully justified in claiming any expenses he incurs in the production of that income, as a set-off against the gross income. It would be absurd that a man should not be entitled to set off as against gross income the wages paid, and the manufacturing costs he has incurred. I notice that in the first part of his Motion, and in his very moderate speech, my hon. Friend referred to the question of houses; that is to say, to realize property; but in his Motion he speaks of a different rate being imposed on income derived from realized capital to that derived from industry. But I would remind him that a house is realized capital. He proposes that there should be a deduction of 10 or 20 per cent. in the case of houses. But this is realized capital, and therefore my hon. Friend desires to make not only a reduction in favour of incomes derived from industry, but also desires to make a reduction on incomes derived from realised capital. I only refer to this to show the extreme difficulty of the subject in which my hon. Friend has embarked. He says that income derived from industry ought not to pay the same rate as income derived from realized capital, and at the same time he says that on incomes derived from realized capital there is to be a reduction. There have been cases of hardship in connection with the question of Income Tax which have been examined by Committees and Chancellors of the Exchequer in times past. I do not say that it is impossible to find remedies for these grievances; I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been examining and considering the question from every point of view.
  1498
  But to say that there are grounds on which, without further examination, a Committee should be appointed to give relief to industrial incomes and to realized capital, I think would not be very wise. My hon. Friend referred to the case of houses which are assessed at an amount in excess of the rates paid. I know that is a considerable grievance—that it is a double grievance. It is more serious so far as the rates are concerned, for the rates may be 4s. or 5s., while the Income Tax is only 6d. in the £1 but that is a matter which can only be dealt with on the question of general valuation, but it shows the necessity of some measure dealing with valuation. My hon. Friend asked that depreciation shall be considered. I trust that at some time the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider these hard cases; but if you go into the question of Income Tax it is not possible to avoid meeting with hard cases; but neither is it possible to deal with the matter from the point of view of hard cases, to remedy which past Chancellors of the Exchequer of great ability and great desire to meet all possible grounds of complaint have found it to be impossible so far as they were concerned. My hon. Friend spoke of the grievance of being assessed by the ordinary Commissioners or by the general Commissioners. If my hon. Friend can bring forward some plan that shall secure the taxpayer being assessed by a perfectly independent tribunal, I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government will be only too glad to accede to his suggestion. Who are the Commissioners to whom there is an appeal? They are gentlemen nominated from the Commission appointed under the Land Act passed at the beginning of every Session. They are practically the nomination of the neighbourhood or district in which the taxpayer resides. I have not heard that there are any complaints against the system under which they are appointed, anomalous though it may be. The Land Act Commissioners appoint from among themselves every year gentlemen who act as Income Tax Commissioners. They receive appeals and attend to them. But I would remind my hon. Friend that the Income Taxpayer has an alternative if he wishes. There is a body of Com-

  1499
  missioners at Somerset House, paid public officers, and if the taxpayer desires to be assessed by them, he is at full liberty to apply to them, and to decline to be assessed by the general Commissioners. He can also, on being assessed by the general Commissioners, appeal to the special Commissioners. I only mention this to show that though there may be trouble and a sense of injustice, such as all men feel who may consider that they are unfairly taxed, there are methods provided under the Income Tax Act by which they can get redress. They can appeal in their own neighbourhood if they choose, or they can appeal to a Government Department. I have gone into this to show what the present system is; I do not say that it is perfect, or incapable of amendment; and if my hon. Friend will only be so good as to suggest a better, we shall be very glad to consider it. My hon. Friend says, "Appoint a Committee." We have had Committees on this subject before, and I venture to submit to the House that a roving Committee to look for methods which are not even suggested by my hon. Friend is not likely to have any very satisfactory result. The suggestions and complaints which have been made have been brought forward on previous occasions, and were examined by strong Committees without any really satisfactory results. Now, Sir, the hon. Gentleman has contended that a distinction ought to be made between income derived from realized capital and income derived from industrial pursuits, but the hon. Gentleman has also indicated that past wealth ought to be relieved of some of the charge it already bears.
  MR. BARTLEY: I in no way intended to imply that. I stated with regard to houses that the net income of a house let at £50 a year is not £50. The expenses connected with it may be £10 or £20, but the income derived from that house would not be £50, but the smaller sum obtained after deducting the expenses.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Exactly so; but I think if you deduct 10 or 15 or 20 per cent. from the amount of past wealth you must find that amount somewhere else; and this means that for the accommodation and for the allowances you
  1500
  may make on industrial income, by some means or other, other people will have to pay an increased tax in the place of those who are relieved. I should like to mention one fact that has only been glanced at by the hon. Gentleman, and that is that the net Income Tax raised under Schedule D, which represents the industrial income of the country, is £5,500,000; but past wealth contributes in the shape of Death Duties and stamps on deeds and bonds no less a sum than £10,300,000 in the course of the year. My hon. Friend will say, "But that is a charge on past wealth." Well, Sir, it is a charge on the acquisition of property; it is a charge paid by realized capital, either in the shape of land or in the shape of movable property, every year; so that the duty on capital on death or transfer equals an additional Income; Tax of 1s. in the £1—that is to say, 1s. in the £1 on the annual income derivable from realised capital. This is a fact which appears to be not very generally known, or if it is generally known it is one which has not been made a matter of observation. But, Sir, an impression obtains that this realized capital is in the possession of the rich people. I am perfectly ready to acknowledge that there are a great many rich people who possess a large amount of realised capital, but in dealing with it you must bear in mind that the enormous majority of owners of realised capital are poor people. If you lay down the principle that you are to tax realized capital at a rate exceeding 1s. in the £1, at which realized capital is now paying, you must consider the case of those who are dependent upon very small incomes derived from realized capital, and I will venture to suggest that there is hardly any class in the community who deserve more consideration and, I may say, commiseration than the class of poor persons with only a small income derived from realized capital. They have to educate children, and have no other means whatever of obtaining a livelihood by industry, owing to the absence of education, or to the fact that they are widows or orphans. We have hardly a conception, I think, of the large amount of capital which is held by poor persons in all the great industrial undertakings in the country. It is customary to speak of the great Railway Companies as the great financial

  1501
  enterprises of this country, but in reality the Railway Companies are trustees for a number of poor people, and, therefore, any legislation which we might contemplate should take into consideration the fact that the enjoyment of the incomes which such persons possess may be very seriously affected by a mistake made in reference to the character of the matter with which we are dealing. I have information from the Bank to the effect that in 1888 63,356 dividends were paid on amounts of Stock of £333 or under, 28,007 dividends on £666 and between that amount and £333, 56,983 dividends on amounts of Stock between £666 and £3,333. Here we have something like 150,000 dividends, each less than £100 per annum. I will only trouble the House with one more set of figures. In the case of depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank for the year ending December 31, 1889, the number of accounts was 46,993, and the amount of Stock held £4,175,634, making the average sum invested £88. I only mention these figures in order to induce the House not to deal rashly with what appears to be enormous realised wealth, for in doing so we should be creating a great hardship for these people. Now, Sir, my hon. Friend has also asked that the mode of collection should be inquired into. He objects, and objects with considerable force, against the principle under which poundage has been paid to clerks and collectors. Well, Sir, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already made a statement with reference to that, and my hon. Friend has referred to it; but an inquiry into the system is no longer necessary, as it is to be abolished. We all agree that it is not a system that can be defended, and that it ought to be abolished. I do not know that I need detain the House any longer. In the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I can only say to my hon. Friend and the House what I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say himself, and that is—that we think that this inquiry at the present moment would not be proper. We do not see that we could place before the Committee any scheme which would direct inquiry into a useful channel. I cannot help referring for a moment to the Report of the Committee which sat in
  1502
  1861. In the Report of that Committee it is stated—
  "The attention of your Committee on the present occasion has been mainly directed to another scheme proposed by their Chairman, and explained by him both in written memoranda and in oral evidence, the principal features of which appear to be as follows:—

  "1. A proposal to make net instead of gross income the basis of assessment to the tax, not ascertaining the net income by an account of actual outgoings, but assuming it by a deduction, founded on an average, from certain classes of gross incomes.

  "2. A proposal to divide all incomes into two classes, of which the one shall comprise incomes called spontaneous, and the other incomes called industrial, and to tax the former upon the full amount of the net income and the latter upon two-thirds of that amount.

  "3. A proposal to distinguish in certain cases between the interest of invested capital and the repayment by instalments of the invested capital itself, and to levy the tax upon the interest only, and not upon the repaid portions of the capital."

  Now, Sir, this Committee, which everyone will admit was a strong Committee, by a majority of 7 to 2, came to this conclusion—
  "Your Committee, however, after full consideration, have arrived at the conclusion that the plan proposed by their Chairman does not afford a basis for a practicable and equitable readjustment of the Income Tax, and they feel so strongly the dangers and ill-consequences to be apprehended from an attempt to unsettle the present basis of the tax, without a clear perception of the mode in which, it is to be reconstructed, that they are not prepared to offer to your honourable House any suggestions for its amendment. This tax having now been made the subject of investigation before two Committees, and no proposal for its amendment having been found satisfactory, your Committee are brought to the conclusion that the objections which are urged against it are objections to its nature and essence rather than to the particular shape which has been given to it."
  The members of that Committee were Mr. Hubbard, the Chancellor of the Exchequer (then Mr. Gladstone, I think), Mr. Cardwell, Mr. Sotheron-Estcourt, Mr. Lowe, Mr. Baxter, Sir Stafford Northcote, Sir William Heathcote, Mr. Pollard-Urquhart, Mr. Cave, Sir F. Heygate, and Mr. Crawford. I think it will be admitted that that was as strong a Committee as could be nominated at the present day, and, for my part, I am inclined to think that that Committee arrived at a just conclusion. I am inclined to think that the hardships of the Income Tax, so far as they exist, can only be dealt with successfully

  1503
  by a Chancellor of the Exchequer with a full sense of his personal responsibility, and with a full desire to remedy any grievance that may be supposed to exist. I am sure the present Chancellor of the Exchequer is fully conscious of that responsibility, and I know that the subject has engaged his attention for a long time past. I know, moreover, that he is not the man to hastily make any recommendation to the House, and I earnestly ask the House not to imperil the basis on which the Income Tax stands, but to leave to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government entire and complete responsibility for the financial arrangements that may be necessary from time to time. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Gray), perhaps I may be allowed to add that if any improvement is shown to be possible with regard to appeals in country districts, it shall certainly be made.
  (6.15.) The House divided:— Ayes 106; Noes 161.—(Div. List, No. 63.)

  CAPITAL AND LABOUR.
  MR. E. W. BECKETT, who had upon the Paper the following Resolution:—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the Board of Trade should appoint a Standing Committee, as far as possible representative of the interests of Capital and Labour, whose duty it shall be to inquire into and report upon all strikes, lock-outs, and disputes of a public character between employers and the employed; that this Committee be authorised to arbitrate between the contending parties if requested by both sides to do so; and that it have power to appoint Sub-Committees to assist it in the performance of its duties,"
  said: Sir, if any justification were needed for my not troubling the House with the Motion that I put upon the Paper four weeks ago, it is to be found in the announcement in the newspapers this morning of the decision of the Government to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the relation between capital and labour. The publication of their decision has, as it were, taken the wind out of my sails, but still the right thing has been done. I am not at all disposed to cavil or to complain because the decision has been announced in a way which discouraged the Debate which I wished to raise. Of course, under the circumstances, I do not feel justified in moving my Resolution but perhaps I may
  1504
  be allowed to console myself with the reflection that my Motion has helped to stimulate the Government to take action on the labour question. In conclusion, I should like to express the hope that the deliberations of the Commission will not be unduly prolonged, because I feel that the matters with which the Commission had to deal are pressing and acute and ought to be remedied without any loss of time.

  RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR).
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Select Committee on Railway Servants (Hours of Labour) do consist of Twenty-four Members."
  DR. CLARK: I hope the Government will not press this Motion to-night, but that hon. Members may have an opportunity of substituting the names of other gentlemen in the place of some of those whom the Government propose to nominate on the Committee. Out of 24 Members whose names appear on the Paper, at least seven are directors of Railway Companies, some of which companies have a most disgraceful record. I should like to strike out the names of both Conservatives and Liberals, and to replace them by the names of gentlemen who are not Directors of Railways. I should especially like to see more Labour Members on the Committee. At present it is proposed to appoint only one Labour Member on the Committee. I shall certainly object to the appointment of Mr. A. Gathorne-Hardy, who sits on the Conservative side, and of Mr. Mac Innes, who sits on our own side of the House, and propose some Labour Member in their stead. I think the Whips have made a very unwise selection. To make men judges of their own cause is quite preposterous. I trust we shall be afforded the opportunity of putting other names on the Paper.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: I hope that the Government will not press for the appointment of the Committee to-day. There is only one Metropolitan Member on the list of the proposed Committee. Having regard to the fact that the Metropolis has five millions of people and the termini of all the great railways, with tens of

  1505
  thousands of resident railway men, the Metropolis will be inadequately represented unless a change is made in the list.
  MR. MORTON: I hope the Motion will be adjourned, in order that an endeavour may be made to secure upon the Committee the presence of more Members representing the workmen.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: This Committee has been selected in the ordinary way by the Whips. I do not understand the objection to the presence of Railway Directors on the Committee. If there are seven Directors on a Committee of 24 Members, that does not appear to me to be an unfair proportion, having regard to the fact that the Committee is to be appointed to consider a matter of special importance to the Railway Companies. The railway servants will be adequately represented by hon. Members who represent places in which railway servants reside, and who have taken up the question from their point of view. I do not agree that the Metropolis should have any special number of representatives on this Committee, for the rest of the country is rather more interested in this question than the Metropolis. It is very desirable that the Committee should begin its labours as soon as possible; and if it is not appointed this evening, it will be impossible to say when another opportunity of appointing it will occur. Therefore, we feel we must proceed with the Motion.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Sir M. Hicks Beach, Mr. Channing, Mr. Radcliffe Cooke, Mr. Crawford, and Baron Henry De Worms nominated Members of the Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Alfred Gathorne-Hardy be one other Member of the Committee."
  DR. CLARK: I beg to move to leave out the name of Mr. A. Gathorne-Hardy. The hon. Member is a Director of a Company that has one of the most disgraceful records in connection with the overwork of servants. I shall at the proper time move that the name of Mr. Baumann be
  1506
  substituted, that hon. Member being, I understand, neither a Railway Director nor a shareholder.
  (6.42.) The House divided: Ayes 174; Noes 69.—(Div. List, No. 64.)
  Mr. Herbert Gladstone, Mr. Heneage, and Mr. Howorth nominated other Members of the Committee.
  MR. MORTON: I should like to know whether it would be in order to ask these Gentlemen if they are Railway Directors or holders of Railway Stock.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman can object to any particular name.
  MR. MORTON: I want to know whether I should be in order in asking such a question from each of them.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. MacInnes be one other Member of the Committee."
  DR. CLARK: This is the first of the Railway Directors who sits on this side of the House. I have already objected to the name of an hon. Gentleman sitting on the opposite side of the House, and in order to show there is no Party feeling in this matter, I shall take a Division on the name of a gentleman belonging to our own Party. From this side of the House there are two Railway Directors and one Labour Member; if there had been two Labour Members and one Railway Director the proportion would have been fairer.
  MR. FENWICK: I think the Government have been very unfortunate in the selection of the Committee. Several Gentlemen whose names appear on the list have either spoken or written against the movement of the railway servants. One of the Gentlemen it is proposed to put on the Committee has written a very strong article, which appeared in the Nineteenth Century, in denunciation of railway servants, and he is also a Railway Director. If the President of the Board of Trade is really anxious that this Committee shall give satisfaction, he will consent to adjourn the appointment of the Committee, so as to give hon. Members an opportunity of arriving at an amicable settlement. I beg to move the adjournment of the Debate.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: I beg to second the Motion of the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Fenwick.)
  (6.55.) The House divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 151.—(Div. List, No. 65.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. HUNTER: I hope the Government will not press the appointment of the Committee to night. It is quite obvious that a mistake has been made, although, I believe quite unintentionally. The idea in composing Committees is to represent the interests of the House proportionately to the Members. According to that standard, as the Railway Directors in the House are as one in 13, it is quite sufficient to have on this Committee two Railway Directors. But we find there are to be eight Railway Directors, which is one in three, as against one in 13. It is easy to understand how this arisen. Railway Directors have operated upon the four different Parties in the House, who are interested in the formation of Committees, each of the Parties has secured its Representatives, and, therefore, Railway Directors have exactly four times too much representation on the Committee. There is only one Representative of Labour out of the 24. It would be much more satisfactory, and would have a better result in the long run if the Government would postpone the further nomination of the Committee in order that there may be a better adjustment of the two classes.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I do not think that what the hon. Member has said is quite fair to those who composed the Committee. He described Railway Directors as a class of Members in this House, and Representatives of Labour as another class, and said there is only one Member representing the latter class on the Committee. There are many members of this Committee who represent labour, if having a great majority of the working class in their constituencies can fairly be called representing labour. No doubt the hon. Member for Aberdeen refers to those Members who, being connected with labour organisations, are called "Labour
  1508
  Representatives." He complains that not more than one of those is appointed on this Committee. That is not the fault of Her Majesty's Government, for it so happens unfortunately that those Gentlemen sit on the other side of the House. So far as the Government are concerned, we are perfectly willing to agree that two more Members shall be appointed on the Committee, and that one of them shall be one of the gentlemen to whom the hon. Member refers. I hope that, for the sake of enabling the Committee to proceed in its work, the Motion for the adjournment of our proceedings will not be pressed.
  SIR E. J. REED: I should like to say that I personally have no desire to sit on the Committee, but having evinced a strong sympathy with the railway servants on a remarkable occasion recently, I felt when asked to serve on the Committee that I could not rightly refuse. But in justice to those who constitute the Committee I am bound to say it is in that sense and for that reason that I am nominated. As to the question of Labour Representatives, there is considerable truth in what has been said by the President of the Board of Trade. It is not fair for the House to assume that there are no Labour Representatives but those connected with the workmen themselves. I have done what few men in the House have done. I have served seven years' apprenticeship to a trade. I have been intimately associated with the labouring classes for that reason, and I claim to be as good, true, and competent a representative of the working classes of this country as any man in this House. It is a little hurtful to one like my self who has been associated all his life with the working classes, and who has evinced sympathy with the men in the recent railway strike, to be told that he is unfit to represent the railway servants.
  MR. CREMER: Those of us who sympathise with the railway servants have a right to complain of the composition of this Committee as arranged by the Whips on both sides of the House, for there are only two out of the 24 Members who are known sympathisers with the railway servants. There are four gentlemen against whom, personally, I have not a word to say, but who made manifest the

  1509
  other day their very strong opposition to the action of railway employés.In the interest of the men, I protest against the constitution of this Committee. The Report of a Committee so constituted is a foregone conclusion against the railway servants.
  MR. ATKINSON: Why should there be known sympathisers with either side on the Committee? The fact is, we here are as much in touch with the working men as those who are supposed to be the special representatives of working men.
  MR. BURT: I entirely agree with the President of the Board of Trade and the hon. Member for Cardiff that the representatives of the working man are not confined to those who are usually called Labour Members. I personally do not object that there is only one so called Labour Member on this Committee, but I think there are far too many Railway Directors on the Committee. I think it is quite evident a mistake has been made in the constitution of the Commitee; but I do not think it would be helpful to us to prolong the controversy on this occasion. I, for my part, am perfectly satisfied with the suggestion made by the President of the Board of Trade to add two Members to the Committee, one of whom shall be a so-called Labour Representative. I think, perhaps, the President of the Board of Trade has suggested a way of meeting the difficulty and preventing our wasting an evening in an unprofitable, acrimonious, and necessarily personal controversy.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Mr. Mac Neill and Mr. M'Laren nominated other Members of the Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Sir Herbert Maxwell be one other Member of the Committee."
  DR. CLARK: I shall not trouble the House any farther, because I think the suggestion of the President of the Board of Trade is a fair one. It might be desirable to change the composition of the Committee by and bye. The hon. Baronet is a Director of a Scottish Railway Company, and he has written strongly in regard to the recent dispute. I think the Com-
  1510
  mittee should not contain a partisan from either side—it should be an unbiassed jury before whom evidence should be freely given. The hon. Baronet has, however, committed himself to a strong opinion, in an article in a review. He is a Director, as 50 per cent. of the Members suggested on the other side are.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Mr. Milvain, Mr. Muntz, Mr. Murdoch, Mr. John O'Connor, Sir Joseph Pease, Sir Edward Reed, Mr. Somervell, Sir George Trevelyan, Sir Henry Tyler, Mr. Vernon, and Mr. John Wilson nominated other Members of the Committee.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That seven be the quorum.
  MR. CHANNING: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he proposes to place the additional names before the House?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: In the course of a day or two.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CHEAP TRAINS (LONDON) BILL. (No. 65.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. THEOBALD: The Bill, the Second Reading of which I have the honour to propose, is a short and simple one, and few words are necessary in explanation. The necessity for workmen's trains has been recognised by the Cheap Trains Act of 1883, which requires Railway Companies to provide proper and sufficient workmen's trains at such fares and at such times after 6 p.m. and before 8 a.m. as may appear to the Board of Trade to be reasonable. There has, however, been some difficulty in ascertaining the reasonableness, there has been an unwillingness to incur the expense, and I am not aware that the Board of Trade has ever been moved in the matter. The object of the Bill is to make it obligatory on the Railway Companies having a terminus in London to run workmen's trains within a radius of 12 miles from the London, ter-

    1511
    minus, arriving at the terminus before 8 o'clock, the tickets being available for the return journey by any train departing from the terminus after 5 p.m. on the day of issue, and after 12 noon on Saturdays, and to fix for the passengers a maximum return fare of one halfpenny per mile of the distance between the station and the terminus. At present the Great Eastern Company runs workmen's trains to and from Liverpool Street and Enfield, a distance of 11 miles, for a return fare of 2d., and the Directors admit that the trains pay when full. The fare to and from Elstree is 6d., a distance of 12 miles; Barking, eight miles, 3d.; and when the Hotel Metro-pole was being built at Brighton, I believe trains were run to and from London for workmen for 8d. per day. It is of great advantage to the working men, as well as to their families, that they should live in the country. If there is anything that tends to show the advantage of this, it is the presence among us of that unwelcome guest—no stranger and whom your authority, Mr. Speaker, cannot cause to withdraw—I mean the fog. It may be said that this same fog might prevent the carriage of the working classes quickly and punctually to their work in the early hours of the morning, but I may mention that a recent telephonic invention will enable two trains rapidly travelling on the same line to maintain a given distance without danger of accident. I do not think I need elaborate the advantages of such a system of cheap trains, the object of the Bill is well understood and I hope the House will give it a Second Reading.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Theobald.)
    MR. MAPLE: The object of the Bill is to make clear what the maximum charge of the Railway Companies for these workmen's trains is. The Act of 1883 provides that within the hours specified trains for workmen shall be run on terms that may appear reasonable to the Board of Trade, and, of course, the Board would not require such trains to run unless there were passengers to carry. But the all-important item in the arrangement is the fare charged, because it is obviously
    1512
    out of the question that an ordinary workman can afford to pay at the rate of 1d. a mile for distances up to 12 miles. Owing to the present system of charges for workmen travelling on the railways, houses for working men are not being built to the extent that they ought to be outside the Metropolis. Many of the Railway Companies have recognised the fact that workmen's trains do pay while running at a lower figure than the statutory 1d. a mile; and something is being done even now to give workmen an opportunity of breathing fresh air and; enjoying the country. But the object of the Bill is to fix a maximum charge, and it is better for Parliament to do this than, the Board of Trade. The Bill would not be required if the Board of Trade would fix a maximum charge on its own account. Wage-earners are bound to regard railway fares as so much added to rent. If the workers in London could be carried a little further a field, as they might easily be in a very short time, they would be enabled to live under much more healthy and pleasant conditions than they do at present. The Bill does not take away from the Board of Trade any of its present powers. From having looked thoroughly into the figures. I am convinced that a return fare of one halfpenny a mile is a remunerative one to the companies. Indeed, this was demonstrated by a speech of the Chairman of the Great Eastern Railway, in which he stated that the 2d. return fares between Enfield and London—10½ miles the single journey—paid the company when the trains were filled. This Bill fixes a maximum which would, allow 5½d. to be charged for such a distance as that which is found to be remunerative at 2d. When one goes over a block of workmen's dwellings and sees the height some poor creatures have to climb in order to reach their rooms, one cannot but wish they were nearer the ground, as they might be in the country with those little gardens which are of such an advantage. But it is only with the cooperation of the Railway Companies they can be carried out of London. No doubt the President of the Board of Trade has at heart the interests of these poor people; but he must also have regard to the interests of the Railway Companies; and, therefore, if the House fixes the maximum fares at certain hours,

    1513
    we may see a greater development of cheap trains, which the working classes are petitioning for in large numbers, one petition presented to-day having 2,000 signatures attached to it. I second the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill.
    SIR J. PEASE: Although I am a Railway Director, I am not a Director of any Metropolitan Railway affected by this Bill. It is a philanthropic Bill on the face of it; but if you examine it you find that it is an example of a nice, easy, and cheap way of doing good, after the manner of A saying that B ought to hand something over to C. Hon. Members think it is a very nice thing to get something out of the Metropolitan Railway Companies for the good of their constituents, but I think the effect of this proposal will be that instead of giving them something, they will take away from them privileges they already have. The Bill as I read it will give the power to take away a privilege that is now possessed, for it will enable the Great Eastern Railway Company to charge 5½d.where they now charge 2d. for carrying class traffic to Enfield. The hon. Member has mentioned these trains by which passengers are carried 21 miles for 2d., but he proposes by this Bill that the companies shall all have power for that distance which is now charged 2d. by the Great Eastern Company to charge 5½d. The Board of Trade has at this moment power to regulate such traffic, and such——
    MR. MAPLE: No, the Great Eastern Company have to run those trains under statutory enactment; they are workmen's trains run under certain conditions imposed when the company obtained their Act for the Liverpool Street station, and they cannot be altered.
    SIR J. PEASE: I am aware of the special provision inserted in that Act. Let me tell the House what is the actual position of these Metropolitan lines. This Bill would lay down a hard and fast line for all Railway Companies as to maximum fares before and after certain hours. Under present arrangements, the remission of passenger duty to the companies depends upon their running workmen's trains after 6 p.m. and before 8 a.m. Now, irrespective of what any of the companies have done or are doing, the evening
    1514
    hour is to be changed to 5 o'clock. If this takes anything from the Railway Companies, the Bill makes no provision for supplying the abstraction out of these fares. But the supporters of the Bill pretend that it will be for the advantage of the companies, but surely the House can leave the Railway Companies to look after themselves? I think I can show that the Railway Companies have been able to do this while they do carry on a cheap and speedy traffic in the interest of the working classes. If any thing is taken from the companies it will simply be off the net earnings of the companies over and above the present working expenses. The existing Act of 1883 has established an arrangement by which when a company goes to the Board of Trade to obtain some remission from the passenger duty the Board of Trade says—"Yes, we are quite ready to take off a portion of the duty, provided you take off something from your fares and facilitate the carriage of the working classes to and from the country." These trains arrive in London before 8 and leave after 6 in the evening. This Bill says the return trains are to be run after 5 p.m.—an hour when very few working men can, under the present hours of employment, reach the stations. That is the very time at which the rolling stock of the companies is taxed to the utmost at present, and it will be impossible for them to find carriages, and opportunity for running additional trains. If cheap trains are run at 5 o'clock it will be impossible for the companies to distinguish between the working classes and other classes, and people who now pay ordinary fares will use the workman's train. There is not so mush objection to the farthing a mile fare as there is to the inconvenience occasioned. Possibly the trains might pay the companies, but everything would be disarranged by the congestion of the traffic, and there would be more blocks than Members know now occur on the Metropolitan lines at that hour. The powers of the Board of Trade are now ample. The Board has the power to take away all remission of duty from a company if the company does not comply with the Board's behest, and run sufficient workmen's trains at such fares and at such times before 8 and after 6 as to the Board of Trade

    1515
    may appear reasonable. The circumstances of each line vary, the geographical conditions vary, gradients differ, and the powers of working traffic are dissimilar. Parliament has, therefore, vested discretion in the Board of Trade. But the Bill proposes to take out of the hands of the Board of Trade this power that has been so carefully and usefully exercised. The hon. Member would deprive the working classes of the means of obtaining that consideration through the Board of Trade which they now possess. The Bill will subject the companies to the greatest inconvenience, not for the sake of bonâ fide working men, but for the sake of the class above them who are able to leave business at 5 o'clock and at 12 o'clock on Saturdays. If the companies do not run the trains that are required, there is at present the power of complaining to the Board of Trade. As far as I can find out, after extensive inquiries, few or no complaints have been made to the Board of Trade, and I therefore regard this proposed legislation as perfectly gratuitous, and unlikely to do any service to the working classes. The number of passengers carried last year in the workmen's trains by the various Metropolitan Companies is as follows:—The East London, 69,000; the Great Eastern, 6,100,000; the Great Northern, 1,400,000; the Great Western, 647,000; the North Western, 114,000; the North London, 470,000; the London, Chatham and Dover, 1,477,000; the Tilbury and Southend, 557,000; the Metropolitan, 1,670,000; the Metropolitan District, 800,000; and the Midland, 500,000. In addition many of these Companies issue cheap weekly return tickets. I think these figures show that the legislation of 1883 has been eminently successful. The Railway Companies have satisfied the legitimate demands of the working classes in the neighbourhood of London, and their only difficulty now is that their stations are too small for the enormously increasing traffic. There has not been, so far as I am aware, a single reference to the Board of Trade or the Railway Commission in respect to the power the Board and the Commissioners have of taking away by certificate remissions of Passenger Duty. There is no difficulty or expense in putting the Board of Trade in motion;
    1516
    it is simply a matter of complaint which is at once investigated at the public expense. The companies have given the travellers before 8 and after 6 cheap fares, and in many thousands of cases these are not the working classes only, but for residents who take advantage of the cheap fares to go to London. I may just observe that the London County Council may, as a representative body, be supposed to know the requirements of those they represent, and they propose that the present time should remain unaltered. I hope the House will refuse a Second Reading to the Bill which will give no advantages to the public beyond those they can now secure, while it will be most unjust to the companies who have done so much, to meet the requirements of the working class traffic in the suburbs of London.
    SIR H. TYLER: It is quite true that, as the hon. Baronet opposite has stated, that the Great Eastern Company carried last year some 6,000,000 of passengers from Enfield and intermediate stations to London and back at the maximum fare of 2d., and I may add that there is no Metropolitan service carried out with more punctuality than this workmen's traffic, which begins at 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning, continues until 8, and returns after 5 in the evening. The Great Eastern Company are now enlarging their Liverpool Street Station, and are spending £1,500,000 on this work and on the approaches from various directions, including the provision of special platforms for this workmen traffic. I think I may fairly claim for the Great Eastern Company that they have done their duty towards, and much to encourage, the working class traffic. The hon. Member who introduced the Bill has, as I understood him, admitted there is no reason for the Bill by admitting that the Railway Companies have done so much to meet the object he desires to secure. That is to a great extent the case. The Act of 1883 was a compromise, there was a great deal of discussion over it, and the result arrived at was a compromise between the demand of those who advocated cheap trains and the views of the Railway Companies. But there appears to be no finality in these matters, The greater the exertions a Railway Company may make in the interests of

    1517
    the public the more is demanded. Already the Great Eastern Railway have done much more than they were compelled to do; and it is discouraging, under these circumstances, to be continually met with fresh legislation. I must say, in regard to what passed earlier in the evening, that there are Railway Directors who act more strongly in the interest of the working classes than the so-called Labour Members. There are Railway Directors who are just as anxious for the welfare of their servants as the Labour Representatives, and who actually do more for their welfare than those who make so much noise about the matter. I do not think that the Bill will benefit the community, as it provides for the companies charging higher fares than they are actually charging now; it is unfair to the companies who have done so much, it discourages further efforts in the same direction, and I hope the House will reject the Motion for Second Reading.
    MR. CREMER: The hon. Member who has just spoken made a very emphatic statement that he, as a Railway Director, in common with many Railway Directors, was very much more sincere in the desire to benefit the travelling public than the so-called Labour Representatives.
    SIR H. TYLER: I did not say more sincere.
    MR. CREMER: Did more for them—that is sufficient for the purpose of my argument. The hon. Gentleman then went on to prove his sincerity by opposing the Bill.
    SIR H. TYLER: I said nothing about sincerity.
    MR. CREMER: I am not putting the word into the mouth of the hon. Member, I simply say that he went on to show his sincerity by opposing the Bill. But, I proceed to say a few words upon the Bill itself. I am not quite sure that the Bill if passed would be of great advantage to the working classes of the Metropolis. It is not at all clear that in some instances it would not lead to an increase of fares on some suburban lines. But the workmen on some lines do travel under considerable difficulty by these cheap trains, and I am inclined to think that the subject is of such importance that it might
    1518
    well be submitted to the investigation of a Select Committee. There is an absolute necessity for some better provision than now exists for the conveyance of working men into and out of London, and this is evident to anybody who knows anything of the requirements of our working class population in London. A very pressing reason is found in the increasing rentals the poor have to pay for miserable house accommodation. Notwithstanding the philanthropic efforts of individuals and public bodies to supply the demands for cheap and healthy dwellings, the rents are advancing year by year, and, of course, to travel out of town means adding the fare to the amount of the rent. A very important consideration is the health of a man's family. I believe it is found to be a fact that when a man leaves the country and settles in London, in two or three generations the children become stunted in size, and their health becomes more feeble. To some extent the demand has been met by some of our Railway Companies, but it has been met in a very grudging spirit. The people who come in by the early trains in the morning are brought in at a cheap rate by Companies who, some of them, fix the hour of departure and arrival in the Metropolis at the most inconvenient periods in the 24 hours. The hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pease) stated that it was not only workmen who travel by the workmen's trains. Well, any hon. Member who chooses to go to a railway terminus in London at, 6 o'clock in the morning can judge for himself whether the workmen's trains are filled with workmen or not. No one, unless he were absolutely compelled, would think of getting up at 5 o'clock in the morning—and it is necessary in order to catch these trains to get up at that hour.
    SIR J. PEASE: I did not say that workmen did not very largely use these trains, but that others besides workmen availed themselves of them, and that a great many ordinary passengers would wait for them in the evening, if the hour was altered to 5 o'clock, and in that way cause a congestion of traffic.
    MR. CREMER: The hon. Baronet said that a percentage of people who travelled by these trains after 5 o'clock in the evening were not workmen at all.

    1519
    No doubt there is such a percentage, but I believe it is an exceedingly small one and not worth bothering about. The people who travel by these trains, as a rule, are packed like herrings in a barrel. The carriages are so full that the unfortunate travellers are nearly suffocated. I have had to travel by these trains myself, and can, therefore, bear testimony to these facts—though I should be sorry to be the means of tempting any Member of this House to get into a compartment containing 12, 14, or even 16 passengers. No person who can afford to pay the ordinary fare would think of travelling by the workmen's trains, because of the way the workmen are treated by the Railway Companies. If we are to tempt the working classes to live out of London under those healthier conditions that we are all so desirous of seeing applied to this class of people, the Railway Companies will have to provide a larger number of trains, and trains running a little later in the morning. That is one of the difficulties that would have to be surmounted, and I think if the Railway Companies were approached in the matter, and there were some uniform rule laid down by some authority, that the companies could be induced to overcome the difficulty, and to meet the working classes in a spirit of equity and fair play. In reply to the argument of the hon. Baronet, it occurs to me that if there is a percentage of travellers by these workmen's trains who are not workmen, that if the companies gave increased facilities to third-class passengers they would cease to travel by these trains. Possibly there is a percentage of travellers by these trains—who do not work with their hands. There are hundreds and thousands of clerks in the Metropolis who receive salaries somewhat above those of the ordinary day labourer and artizan, and whom we should be anxious to assist in the direction the Bill indicates. They are people who cannot afford to take first-class season tickets. They would gladly live out of London in the pure air if facilities were granted them by the Railway Companies. There are a few Railway Companies who grant third-class season tickets, and I think the system is found to be attended with very satisfactory results. If all the Companies would adopt the system,
    1520
    they would find their dividends largely increase, for after all it is the third-class passenger who is the most profitable to the Railway Company. Any one who travels on our great Metropolitan trunk lines must have observed that generally the third-class carriages are packed so that the passengers can hardly breathe, that the second-class carriages have very few in them, and that the first-class carriages are almost empty. Why then should not the companies be compelled to grant third-class return tickets to those who desire to avail themselves of them? Even if they did, it would be found that much more would be paid in proportion by the third-class season ticket holders than by those holding first and second-class season tickets. It has been stated that the first-class season ticket holders, who travel between London and Brighton, do so at the rate of a farthing a mile, whereas the third-class passengers are only permitted to travel at the rate of 1d. per mile. I cannot for the life of me imagine how such a state of things can be allowed to continue by a sensible body of men, even from a pecuniary point of view. If the companies were compelled to grant these third-class season tickets, I think the third-class travellers who cannot be described as workmen, would cease to use the workmen's trains and would gladly avail themselves of the season tickets. This question is so important to hundreds of thousands of people in the Metropolis, and to the shareholders of the Railway Companies, that I think it would be worth while to wait a little. I hope the promoters of the Bill are not too anxious to press their views on the House just now, but will be willing to receive evidence and have it presented to the House, so that later on we may legislate in a much clearer atmosphere than that we are in at present. I, therefore, submit that the best thing we can do is to refer this Bill to a Select Committee in order to see whether some measure can be framed which will be satisfactory at once to the public and to the shareholders. (8.10.)
    MR. BAUMANN: As my name is on the back of this Bill, and as the subject is one in which I feel a good deal of interest, I desire to say a few words in support of

    1521
    the measure. The hon. Baronet who spoke from the opposite Benches, but who has lately left the House, has stated that we Metropolitan Members want to get something out of the Railway Companies for the benefit of our constituents. In one sense that is true. We consider that as the Railway Companies enjoy large privileges they ought in return to pay something in the nature of a toll to the public, and that they ought to be compelled to make certain arrangements for the convenience of the very large number of working men who are at the present moment obliged to live in the outlying parts of the Metropolis. The hon. Baronet spoke of the matter in the true spirit of a Railway Director. He said we want to take the regulation of cheap traffic out of the hands of the Board of Trade. That also is partially, but not wholly, true; because, by the ninth clause of the Bill, we still leave in the hands of the Board of Trade the power to vary or rescind any Order they may see fit to deal with under the Act. I certainly think we ought to take the question of cheap traffic out of the hands of the Board of Trade, and for this reason. The Cheap Trains Act of 1883 has not been altogether a dead letter—I am far from saying that—but, on the other hand, it is quite true that the Board of Trade has not acted so often nor so energetically as it might have done in the direction of compelling the companies to run a sufficient number of workmen's trains in and out of London. A year or two ago I presented a Petition from a large body of my constituents, praying the Board of Trade, under the Act of 1883, to cause an inquiry to be made as to the reason why the London, Chatham, and Dover Rail way Company did not run more work men's trains, and, if possible, to make an order on that company to remedy this Well, Sir, I do not know what the Board of Trade did with that Petition but I know that I have never heard a word about it from that day to this and I am also aware that the number of workmen's trains run by that company is not large enough to satisfy my constituents. I give this as one of the reasons why the matter should be taken out of the hands of the Board of Trade, who are sluggish, and ought to put a little more pressure on the Railway
    1522
    Companies. The question before us is: Are the railway facilities for the convenience of workmen at the present time sufficient, having regard to what the population of London? I maintain that they are not. Doubtless, all the companies who run trains into London were as liberal as the Great Eastern Company we should have no occasion to complain, because that company runs no fewer than 49 workmen's trains in and out of London. But their example is by no means followed by the other companies. For instance, the Great Northern Railway Company run only six, and the Great Western Company none. I am, however, informed by an hon. Friend of mine who is a Director of he Great Western Company that they do run workmen's trains over the metals of the Metropolitan and District Railways, and that these are included in the latter's return; so that it is not, perhaps, fair to say that the Great Western Company run no workmen's trains. Then, I find that the North Western Company run only five workmen's trains, and the Midland Company only one, and that at 5 o'clock in the morning, arriving in London at 5.33. My old friend the South Eastern Railway Company, runs only six trains a day. The London, Tilbury, and Southend, running from Barking to Fenchurch Street and through the districts in which are resident great numbers of the middle and working classes, only run four workmen's trains. I do not think it is unreasonable to say that that is not a sufficient compliance with the Act of 1883. On the one hand the Railway companies have not done their duty, and on the other, the Board of Trade have been deficient in not compelling the companies to do their duty by exercising the power which they possess under the Act of 1883. I heartily support the Bill, and I hope it may be read a second time. The hon. Baronet opposite said there was no great desire or demand for this Bill. Though a Railway Director, the hon. Baronet represents a constituency remote from London, and he will, perhaps, allow that Metropolitan Members are better authorities than himself as to the wishes of Londoners on this subject. I can tell him that the working classes of London and neighbourhood are keenly interested in this Bill,

    1523
    and look forward to its passing with the greatest wishfulness, and with the certain belief that it will confer upon them a great boon. I agree with the hon. Member for Shoreditch that further evidence is required before the Bill becomes law, but the readiest way to obtain that evidence is to read the Bill a second time and refer it to a Select Committee.
    SIR C. RUSSELL: I see that the Bill is endorsed with the names of 10 Members of Parliament, and I certainly expected to find a Bill of more consequence than the present, and one which would actually do something effectual towards remedying the deficiencies which, I cordially agree with hon. Members opposite, really exist. I notice that a very scanty proportion of those hon. Members who endorsed the Bill mark their interest in it by being present to support it. I confess, also, that the speech of my hon. and learned Friend leads me to the conclusion that a great many of the hon. Members whose names are on the back of the Bill have not read it. Why am I afraid that the hon. and learned Member himself has not read it? Knowing his acuteness, I think he would not have made the speech—with which speech I thoroughly agree—had he read the Bill. Does the hon. Member observe that the Bill would not in the least assist him in obtaining redress for the constituency which he represents? There is not a single word in it to increase the number of trains to be forwarded. So far as my hon. and learned Friend has spoken of the insufficiency of the number of trains, and the deficient accommodation, I thoroughly agree with him. I very frequently travel by the North London and the Great Eastern, and I have always observed that the workmen's trains are exceedingly crowded, almost as many standing as have found seats in a compartment. The natural remedy for that is an increase in the number of trains. But this Bill will not move the subject one inch forward; it does not touch the point. I should be very sorry to oppose any effort in the direction of increasing the workmen's train accommodation, but this scheme which is put forward is exceedingly inadequate, and falls far short of the objects the promoters have in view. My hon. and learned
    1524
    Friend said the Board of Trade was lethargic. I would suggest that the proper remedy is to put pressure on the Board of Trade, which means the President of the Board of Trade in this House, or out of it, to give full effect to the power which Parliament has emphatically conferred upon the Department by Sub-section 2, Sec. 3, of the Act of 1883, to see that Railway Companies provide at such fares as the Board of Trade think reasonable sufficient railway accommodation for working men travelling to and from their work, as well as for their other passengers. Even the hon. Member for Dulwich pointed out that in one instance the Bill might have the effect of increasing the fare. While I wish joy to efforts which are effectually aimed at remedying the evils complained of, and while I do not wish to vote against this Bill, I am bound to observe that I think the measure deals with a very small part of the difficulty, and I greatly doubt whether it is worth the labour which has been bestowed upon it by the 10 Members whose names are on the back of the Bill, but who are not present here to support it.
    (8.55.) Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. T. H. BOLTON: While this Bill will not do all that the working classes desire, it will do something in the direction of giving them cheaper trains at more convenient times than at present. Cheap fares would be of enormous advantage to a great number of persons who work in warehouses and factories—clerks and others besides working men—whose incomes are small, and who have to get to their business in the City in the morning, before 8 o'clock many of them, and leave about 5 or 6 o'clock in the evening. I cannot help thinking that the hon. Baronet and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not quite realise the duties of Railway Companies to the public. In consideration of the monopoly they have they are bound to provide for the requirements of the public, and as those requirements increase, the Railway Companies must keep pace with them. It is admitted that under pressure certain companies are doing a good deal to meet the public requirements, and, surely, if

    1525
    further pressure were judiciously applied, other companies might be induced to follow their example. It is because this Bill extends the legislation of 1883 that I shall vote for the Second Reading. If the Board of Trade would vigorously put into force the powers it possesses, or, if necessary, come to the House for increased powers with which to protect the interests of the public, that possibly would be a more desirable way of dealing with this matter. It cannot, however, be hoped that the Board of Trade will take such steps without great pressure being brought to bear, and the best way of exercising such pressure is by the introduction of some such Bill as this. The Bill goes further than merely providing for the running of purely workmen's trains, and I agree it is desirable it should go further. It is of no use our talking of giving the working classes healthier dwellings and make the conditions of life more acceptable to them, unless we provide means whereby they may live outside London and in a purer and healthier atmosphere. That you can only make practical by having cheap trains, and cheap tramcars and other means of communication between the homes of the working classes and their places of employment. A suggestion has been made that the Bill shall go to a Committee, but I cannot help thinking that, as a preliminary to dealing with the question, whether the subject goes to a Committee or not it is desirable that the House should emphasise its opinion on this question by reading the Bill a second time, and thus affirming the principle not only of increasing the number of trains run at reduced fares, but also of providing additional accommodation for clerks and employés in warehouses whose duties make it necessary for them to reach the City at an early hour in the morning. This is a question eminently interesting to London Members, and one having a practical bearing on the condition of the people. It is not unfair to ask the Railway Companies, in consideration of the great privileges they enjoy, to meet the public in this matter. There has been no statement that the cheap trains run by the Great Eastern have not paid, or that they are not adequately patronised by the public, and I am confident that if other companies, under the
    1526
    stimulus of this Bill, try the experiment of running cheap trains they will have no cause to complain of lack of support. It has been suggested that the adoption of this Bill would have the disadvantage of putting up the fares in some cases; but the hon. Baronet who stated that surely has not read the Bill, for it only provides the fares shall not exceed a farthing per mile, whereas the present maximum is 1d.
    SIR J. PEASE: The Bill of 1883 left this question in the hands of the Board of Trade.
    MR. T. H. BOLTON: If I thought the Board of Trade would fix a maximum of less than a farthing a mile I might be disposed to agree with the hon. Baronet, but there is nothing to prevent the Board of Trade fixing the maximum at even a fraction of a farthing. The fact is that this argument of the hon. Baronet is a red herring drawn across the trail by those who are interested in defeating the Bill. These disinterested persons tell us they are doing everything they ought to do in this matter, and that interference would only make things worse, as it would discourage and dishearten them. But they will not thus frighten us. The Railway Companies, from a mistaken policy, are not very fond of these cheap fares. They must get over that sort of feeling; for the public will insist upon having their cheap trains. This Bill can do no harm; by reading it a second time the House will be affirming the principle that an improved service of cheap trains is required in the interests of the working classes and of the public generally, and I therefore hope it will be pressed to a Division.
    MR. LAWSON: No doubt the supply of workmen's trains on lines running into the Metropolis is miserably inadequate, but I am afraid the Bill does little to better that state of things. My hon. Friend trlked about compelling the Railway Companies to run trains at certain, hours—to enable men, for instance, to reach their places of employment by 8 o'clock in the morning, but may I point out that the Bill makes no alteration in the morning limit of time. It seems to me nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the present system of bringing men to London long before their hours of work commence, to leave them hanging

    1527
    about the streets, exposed to a great deal of temptation under conditions which few of us would like to face. I do not know why Railway Directors should oppose this Bill. It is a very small instalment of the obligation which will one day be placed upon them. We have listened with great pleasure to the glowing accounts given by my hon. Friend of the wealth and strength of the great Railway Companies, and he surely cannot after that expect Parliament will not impose somewhat more stringent conditions in the interests of those we look upon as needing legislative help. But I should like to point out that under the Act of 1883 the Board of Trade can do pretty well as it likes in these matters, and it should be left to the Railway Department to insist on the improvements that are so necessary. However, the object of this Bill is a good one, and I shall vote for the measure if it is only for its title. I am afraid that hon. Members will find there is not much else in it. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the congested state of the population in the central districts of London is a growing evil, and it is by the running of cheap trains that an effective remedy may be applied, for the working classes will thereby be enabled to live within reasonable distance of their employment, for reasonableness depends upon communications, in a purer atmosphere and in more comfortable homes.
    MR. SOMERVELL: I feel disposed to vote against the Bill, merely on account of its title. I do not see why London should be dealt with specially in regard to cheap trains, why you should by legislation provide that within a radius of 12 miles around it trains should be run at a certain cheap rate. It may be the largest city in the Kingdom; but the workmen in other large towns are equally entitled with London workmen to cheap trains. The ground for the Bill, according to the memorandum attached to it, is that the Midland Railway run workmen's trains within 24 miles of London at one farthing a mile. That, according to the promoters of the Bill, is the reason why it ought to be provided that the maximum charge should only be a halfpenny a mile. The argument is a reductio ad
    1528
    absurdum. In the Memorandum accompanying this Bill the promoters show, not that there is a grievance to be remedied, but that the companies are at present doing more than the Bill calls upon them to do—I shall oppose such a parochial tinkering measure as this. Any measure dealing with railway fares ought to be a general measure, and rot confined to any particular district. This is an attempt on the part of the Metropolitan Members to secure a little cheap and spurious popularity with their constituents. But they will not show themselves to be the real friends of the working classes if they deal with this matter in a half-hearted way. As it is, you will be making the working men in the country generally pay for the running of cheap trains for the benefit of London workmen—I object to any such preference being given to Londoners. I reserve to myself the right of supporting any general measure in the interest of working men throughout the Kingdom, but I shall certainly vote against this Bill.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: I think the hon. Member's speech shows that he is new to London and to this House. London stands in an altogether exceptional position, and many measures have been passed dealing with it specially, and not affecting in any way the other parts of the Kingdom. Frequently it has willingly been the corpus vile on which experiments have been tried. It is now desired to relieve the congested districts of London, and it is believed that the proposals of this Bill will have that effect, because it will enable the working classes to live out in the country. By fixing a maximum charge it does not prevent the Midland or any other company charging less. I have during the past few days been looking at the returns of railway traffic, and I find it is astonishing to note the increase in the number of third-class passengers. The companies mainly owe their prosperity to that class. It seems to me that the managers of suburban lines are forgetting that. The Brighton Railway, during the course of the year, took thousands of people to Brighton and back for half-a-crown. The fact is that the interests of the public are not opposed to those of the Railway Com-

    1529
    panies. The essence of success is first cheapness and then numbers, and if the companies desire to make this traffic successful let them run more trains at convenient hours. The speech of the hon. Member opposite is a most extraordinary one. He says he will not support the Bill unless its provisions apply to the whole country. Well I, for one, shall be content to do without his support. During the 18 years I have been in the House of Commons I have found that a common excuse for obstruction is the complaint that a Bill does not go far enough. We are, however, willing to accept a small and moderate measure as a step in advance, and therefore I hope the Government will support the Bill.
    MR. LAFONE: My Friend's excuse for opposing the Bill seems to me very much like that of an hon. Member who, when asked to support a Bill extending the electoral franchise to the police, refused because the franchise was not given to women. My hon. Friend declines to support this Bill because it applies only to London and not to the country generally. I would strongly urge the desirability of reading the Bill a second time. What the supporters of the measure want to do is to support the President of the Board of Trade by a decision of the House, so that he may take steps to extend the privileges which the labouring classes already enjoy. We know that among railway magnates a considerable odium attaches to the right hon. Gentleman by reason of his recent action in regard to railway rates. Well, we do not want to increase the difficulties of his position, and we therefore think the House should take upon itself the responsibility for these proposals by reading the Bill a second time. It is an enormous advantage to labouring men to get out of the crowded courts and alleys of the Metropolis. We have it on the evidence of a Director of the Great Eastern Railway Company that the Railway Companies can take the steps the Bill contemplates with profit to themselves, and I therefore hope we shall strengthen the hands of the President of the Board of Trade in, this matter.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I do not know whether I shall express a
    1530
    very unpopular opinion when I say that the tendency of the time to agglomerate people and factories and places of business into the great cities is really a public evil. I should very much prefer to see some of these places of business for workmen whom the Bill proposes to benefit located at some little distance from London, and therefore in purer air. Unfortunately, facts as they exist have to be dealt with, and Parliament endeavoured to deal with this subject in 1883. At that time, after full consideration by a Committee of the House, it was decided that the Railway Companies should be relieved of a considerable portion of the passenger duty which they then paid, and, in return, that they should be compelled to provide, by order of the Board of Trade or of the Railway Commissioners, further facilities for workmen's trains, for the conveyance of soldiers, and for third-class accommodation. That was certainly in the nature of a Parliamentary bargain with the Railway Companies, and it was a bargain of a very sweeping character. Nothing could be larger than the words of Section 3 of the Act of 1883, which declared that if at any time the Board of Trade had reason to believe that upon any railway carrying passengers proper trains were not provided for workmen at reasonable fares and at reasonable hours, then the Board of Trade might order such provision to be made. Nothing could be wider than that power and nothing could better establish the intention of Parliament that this matter should be dealt with in a comprehensive spirit throughout the country. I agree with my hon. Friend behind me that any principle which the House may establish for the Metropolis must also apply to other great centres of industry. The power of the Board of Trade being such as I have described, there is a question whether it has been wisely exercised. The Board has been accused of being lethargic in this matter. In the first place, the section I have referred to expressly indicates to the Board of Trade that they shall not initiate action themselves, but that it shall be suggested to them from outside, and I do not think it can be shown that any demand that has been made upon the Board of Trade by any sufficient authority for putting into

    1531
    force the provisions of the section has been neglected. I can quote instances in which the matter has been dealt with by the Board of Trade in communication with the Railway Companies to the great benefit of the public. In 1888 there was a case which had eventually to be brought before the Railway Commission, in which the Commissioners gave a decision which resulted in the provision of greater accommodation. It cannot, therefore, be fairly urged that the Board of Trade has neglected the duties imposed upon it by the Act. It appears from the report made by Major Marindin that while in 1883 there were 110 workmen's trains on the railways having termini in London, with a mileage of 763 miles, in 1890 the number of trains had increased to more than 700, with a mileage of 1,807 miles. These figures show that there has been a distinct progess since 1883. I do not say that the progress is sufficient, or that it is such as ought to satisfy us, for we have to bear in mind the circumstances of the Metropolis, with its growing area, its increasing rents, without any possibility of workmen obtaining accommodation near the places of their work, and also the atmosphere of the Metropolis, which every year is becoming more intolerable. Having regard to these circumstances, it is essential that not only such progress as I have described shall continue, but that it shall increase at a rapid rate. What the House has to decide is whether this Bill is adapted for this purpose or not. It has been said—and no doubt with truth—that in these times particularly the income of a Railway Company really depends upon the number of its passengers; but that statement has been made as if the number of passengers that can be carried was really illimitable. This is certainly not the fact, especially in the case of the lines which converge within 12 miles of the metropolitan termini. It is not only necessary to have regard to the convenience and safety of the workmen and others who wish to get to and fro within that distance of London; it is also necessary to think of the convenience and safety of that vast number of persons travelling up to London from long distances. It is impossible for the railways to carry with
    1532
    safety more than a certain number of trains during the 24 hours, and if it were attempted to include an excessive portion of those trains within the limits of the hours named in the Bill, the capacity of the lines would be overtaxed. Two years ago Parliament established the system of block-working; and as President of the Board of Trade it is my especial duty to insist on it as essential to safety for the public, and to see that no more trains are put upon the lines than can be safely carried. What will happen? Under the provisions of this Bill these workmen's tickets, instead of being available, as now, only between the hours of 6 o'clock in the evening and 8 o'clock in the morning, are to be available by any train departing from the terminus after 5 o'clock p.m. on ordinary week days, and after 12 o'clock noon on Saturdays. Five o'clock is the hour of all in the 24 on an ordinary day when there is the greatest amount of traffic, and the same may be said of the hours following 12 o'clock on Saturday. The Railway Companies, in order to cope with this increased traffic which the reduction of fares would be likely to produce, would have to increase their lines. Hon. Members may look upon this as a very simple affair, but it is not. It is a difficult and very costly thing for the Railway Companies to obtain the land and accommodation necessary for this purpose, and what the House is asked to do is to impose on the Railway Companies an enormous liability for such an extension of the lines. Although I have been lately described by Sir R. Moon as a confiscator of railway property, I think Railway Companies will have some right to complain if Parliament, while imposing this liability upon them, does not give them larger powers for the acquisition of the property which may be required to carry out that liability. If we once allow Railway Companies to obtain private property below its value we shall open up a much larger question. I hope the House will excuse me for dwelling on these matters. They seem to me, speaking I hope impartially between the Railway Companies and the public, and being anxious to do justice to one and the other, to be grave difficulties. What is the state of the law? As I have shown Parliament has given to

    1533
    the Board of Trade ample powers, which have been exercised by the Board of Trade so far as they have been demanded by the public within the bounds of possibility. It may be said that until recently it has not been the duty of any public body representing the Metropolis to bring its needs in this respect to the notice of the Board of Trade. That is no longer so. The London County Council have been blamed by my hon. Friend and others for not attending to the business which belongs to it. But that cannot be said of them in this case. They have taken this matter up, and it will be my desire and my duty to try and carry out the wishes of the County Council in such a matter. The question is whether the House will or will not be well advised in giving a Second Reading to this Bill. There is, I think, force in the suggestion that the Bill, as far as it goes, proceeds in a wrong direction. You have conferred unlimited powers on a Department of the State, and you can, if you choose, call that Department to account in this House for an inadequate exercise of those powers. You are called upon to limit those powers by fixing the fares to be charged at a certain sum. It may be quite true that the words "not exceeding that sum" are inserted in the Bill, but whatever the figure inserted in the Bill is, I am sure that it will be found in practice that there is a tendency for that figure to become established. I would, therefore, suggest, while admitting that the question is not a very large one so far as this Bill is concerned, it would be better not at present to proceed with the Bill, but to leave the question in the hands of the County Council, and to trust them to press it upon the Board of Trade. I think it will be admitted that I have not neglected these questions, and in dealing with this matter I can have no other desire but to increase the facilities of the working men of the Metropolis in going to or returning from their places of labour.
    SIR E. WATKIN: I appear as the representative of those who first gave to workmen cheap means of communication between their homes and their work. I also represent another institution who first issued third class contract tickets for the benefit of the working people of London. I therefore
    1534
    do not appear before the House with any record against me in this matter. I claim to be the initiator of enterprises of this kind into which those who now come before the House as the friends of the working man have not put one 6d. We are all anxious to facilitate the transmission of labour to the places where it is employed, but I want to know whether this House is to be a regulator of the hours of labour in London. If it attempts any such thing it will be a great mistake, the usual relations of capital and labour will be seriously damaged, and great difficulties will be experienced. The President of the Board of Trade is right in thinking that the question ought to be more carefully considered. I personally have done everything I could to improve the means of communication available to the working classes, and I shall vote against the Bill because it will damage the circulation of labour.
    MR. DIXON - HARTLAND: While I sympathise with the object of the Bill, I cannot see why a 12 miles radius should have been fixed. My constituency is just outside that 12 miles radius, and a very large number of my constituents come into town every day. I cannot understand why a man, living 12½ miles out of London, should not have the advantage of cheap trains while a man living within 12 miles has such an advantage. The result will be that the congestion of London will be increased, because all the workmen will flock to places within the radius, and that will be detrimental to property beyond the radius. I am strongly of opinion that any Bill which creates such a difference ought not to pass, and, therefore, I shall record my vote against this measure.
    (9.57.) The House divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 73.—(Div. List, No. 66.)

  LOCAL BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 151.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. SEXTON: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Down, whose name stands first on the back of this Bill, I have to move the Second Reading. I am glad

    1535
    to say the Bill has support from both sides of the House. It is a very small measure of reform rendered necessary by a defect in the Local Bankruptcy (Ireland) Act of 1888, which, no doubt, was due to inadvertence. In that Act it was provided that local bankruptcy proceedings should be taken at Belfast and Cork. That Act was intended to save time and secure the realisation of estates in the cheapest manner by local administration. But creditors or debtors were given the option of going to the Bankruptcy Court in Dublin, which causes great waste of time and money. Thus in one case in Belfast a debtor made an offer in Belfast of 3s. 4d. in the £1, and this being refused took his application to Dublin, and upon inquiry by the Local Court the creditors were eventually paid 17s. 6d. In another instance a principal creditor, a mortgagee, supported the offer of a debtor of 5s. in the £1, but after inquiry by the Local Court the creditors were paid 20s. in the £1. The principle the Bill lays down is that, unless in exceptional cases, a matter of arrangement or bankruptcy arising in the district of a local Court ought to be initiated in that Court, and adjudicated upon within that Court, unless the Court should see cause to remove the proceedings to Dublin. That, I think, is a reasonable proposition, and sufficiently safeguarded by the discretion of the Judge. The fourth, and fifth are the operative clauses, and provide that on the occasion of a vacancy in the office of a Judge of a local Bankruptcy Court, and at any other time with the consent of the existing Judge there shall be power given to the Lord Lieutenant, by Order in Council, to direct that no bankruptcy proceedings shall be taken as to a person resident or having a place of business within the district of a Local Bankruptcy Court except in that Court, provided that the Judge may, in his discretion, transfer the proceeding to the Court of Bankruptcy in Dublin. This the Judge may do on the application of debtor or creditor, the widest discretion being allowed. Speaking as one of the representatives of Belfast I can express my belief that all mercantile and instructed opinion in Belfast is in favour of the Bill. The Chamber of Commerce has
    1536
    petitioned in its favour. I am glad to observe from the affirming ejaculations of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Johnston) that this is one of the few occasions upon which we agree. I believe opinion in Cork is equally unanimous with that in Belfast in favour of the Bill, and I trust the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    MR. MACARTNEY: In rising to support the Second Reading, I do not think it is necessary to detain the House beyond adding the expression of my opinion that an absolute unanimity exists in Belfast in favour of the Bill, as it does throughout the whole district connected with the commerce centred in that important town. I have hardly anything to add to what has been succinctly stated by the hon. Member for West Belfast. The evils the Bill proposes to remedy have been felt keenly by the commercial community, and I believe the Bill provides a remedy that will in no way inflict any injury upon bankruptcy proceedings. The Judge of the Local Court is a man to be thoroughly trusted, and I have no doubt that he will exercise with discretion the power conferred upon him of sending a case to Dublin.
    MR. DE COBAIN: I can testify to the fact that the opinion in the Belfast Chamber of Commerce and among influential persons in commercial circles is that the Bill will confer great advantages on the trade and industry of Belfast. With such an unanimity of opinion, I hope the Government will not oppose the Bill.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I took some interest in the Bankruptcy Act passed for the United Kingdom, and I am quite satisfied from my own knowledge and from what I have learned of the feelings of Chambers of Commerce that the entire commercial community is in favour of the localisation of law, and I am equally satisfied that that principle ought to be acted upon as far as possible in regard to bankruptcy. Estates often pay little enough, and there is every reason for avoiding all possible

    1537
    expense in their administration; and increased expense there must be if proceedings take place at a distance from the locality in which the suit arises. I am also inclined to support, whenever I find the opportunity, proposals for assimilating the law in England and Ireland, which must lead to a feeling of unity. The provisions now sought to be applied to Ireland exist in this country. These are sufficient reasons why I should support the Second Reading of the Bill.
    MR. JOHNSTON: I also express the hope that the Government will agree to the Second Reading. The opinion of Belfast has, I think, been sufficiently expressed, and I do not think I need say more.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: The Government have already given proof that they realise the importance of providing a suitable system of local administration in bankruptcy affairs by passing the Act of 1888, which the present measure seeks to amend. I cannot altogether accede to the proposition of the hon. Member that there has been an oversight in the preparation of that Act, which the present Bill proposes to remedy. The intention of the framers of that Act was to provide an optional system of local administration for bankruptcy in Belfast and other large towns. It was not intended to provide that all proceedings in bankruptcy should be commenced in the locality where the debtor resides, nor do I think, if this Bill went to that extent, I could on behalf of this Government accept the Bill. Our experience in Ireland of local administration in bankruptcy has been very short. I do not say that it has been unsatisfactory, but I think it will be necessary to consider this subject in connection with the position of the Dublin Court of Bankruptcy in relation to the general judicial system in Ireland. This Bill, however, leaves it in the power of the Lord Lieutenant in Council to do what I believe will be ultimately necessary in Ireland, namely, to localise to a great extent the administration of bankruptcy, and, therefore, as the Bill goes to that extent, and it enables the Executive to safeguard its application,
    1538
    I think that, in those circumstances, I can recommend the House to agree to the Second Reading.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  DURATION OF SPEECHES (PARLIA MENT) BILL.—(No. 143).

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. ATKINSON:I have had a long time to wait to move the Second Reading of this very small Bill, which everyone understands, so I need not occupy much time in speaking about it. It is a small measure, but I believe that every hon. Member and the public generally will gain by its being passed into law. We know that if an hon. Member speaks for two or three hours he does not get reported in the Press, and he does not deserve to be reported. I remember one of my first experiences when I entered the House some six years ago. I asked one of the Whips to make an arrangement by which I should be enabled to leave the House, and go and dine at the Carlton Club. An hon. Member had at that time been speaking for half an hour, and had said nothing; and the Whip said, in reply to my question, that I might go and dine at the Carlton Club because this hon. Member had received orders to address the House for two hours longer. It was added that if I went to the Carlton Club and came back to the House at 10 o'clock I should be in plenty of time. I was a little incredulous as to this, but when I returned from the Carlton Club at 10 o'clock I found the same hon. Member still addressing the House, and saying nothing. I should have liked an absolute quarter of an hour Bill, but I am modest in my proposition, and, as the House will see, it will be possible to extend the time. I have had a large experience in public affairs, and for 30 years I have been a member of a Corporation of one of our large towns; and my contention, founded on that experience, is that unlimited time for speeches tends to the waste of time and the pre

    1539
    vention of useful business being done. If members of the Corporation with, which I am acquainted had made the same use of their time as Members have made of time in this House, I believe that we should have been able to put that matter right in about 15 minutes. I know the argument is that this is a very important place for the discussion of very important subjects, and that if we err at all we should err on the side of leniency in the latitude allowed to a speaker. No one, however, can deny that we have during the last five or six years erred too much on the side of leniency. I have many times seen 12 or 14 hours at a stretch go by with nothing done. I remember one occasion when I waited for my Bills to come on—Bills that have not yet been carried—from 4 o'clock in the afternoon until a quarter to 6 the next morning. On that occasion we had 16 Divisions—I will not say which Party initiated them—but can any man say he has done the State any service by such waste of time? Five hours and twenty minutes did we occupy in the useless occupation of walking through the Lobbies and recording the fact that we had done nothing and that our friends opposite to us did not intend that we should do anything. Well, we have had a slight reform since then. Things are not so bad now, but they might be made a good deal better, and so I submit this Bill to the good judgment of the House. I applied to a gentleman who, in the political world, is well entitled to give an opinion, and asked him did he approve of such a Bill—it was then a 15 minutes' Bill—he replied that he did approve of it, but, said he, let the Privy Councillors have 30 minutes. My remark was that in my exparience some of these gentlemen were the greatest bores in the House, but, said I: "If you say they should be excepted it shall be so." Therefore, I have put down 30 minutes for the Right Honourables. A short time ago I remember there was one precious hour of a Sitting left; Irish business was coming on, and one of these Bight Honourables was called upon to use the hour, but he said he could not say what he had to say in an hour, and so he refused to utilise the time. Now, if I had asked any 12 Members if they wanted to hear that right hon. Gentleman
    1540
    for an hour upon Irish affairs they would have repelled the idea with horror—they would say they would rather not hear him for 15 minutes, because they had already heard everything he had to say inside or outside of the House. Yet this right hon. Gentleman refused to be content with this hour. With this Bill in operation that right hon. Gentleman would make the best use of his 30 minutes, and then if the House desired to hear him longer he would be allowed another 30 minutes. But I think I shall be a very old man if I live to see the House accord another half hour in an instance of that kind. My opinion is that if a man cannot, in ordinary circumstances, say all he has to say on every subject before the House in less than 15 minutes, he ought to be sent to his constituents to be cashiered, and another hon. Member sent back in his place. At the Œcumenical Conference in London delegates came from California and Australia to address their brethren here. Each speaker who had to introduce a Resolution was allowed 10 minutes, five minutes being allowed to the subsequent speakers. It was found that the speakers who had five minutes allotted to them distinguished themselves by rattling out their speech to the time of 230 words a minute. It was very good practice for them; but if they had anything to say worth hearing they took pretty good care to put it in the beginning of their speeches. No matter how eloquent they were—and some of them were very eloquent—the speech was ruthlessly cut short by the ringing of the bell, and the speaker had to resume his speech when the time was up. Now some very cheap wit has been exercised at the introduction into Parliament of such a bell as used at Diocesan Conferences. But the bell is not the essence of the Bill. I do not care whether it is a bellman's bell or a muffin bell, or or any other kind of bell, because I feel sure that the dignity of the House of Commons will provide such a bell as shall be heard, and if the speaker is deaf, there are plenty of hon. Members who will cry "Order, order!" when an hon. Member has gone beyond his allotted time. I do not want to occupy more than five minutes on such an occasion as this, and so I commend the Bill. If

    1541
    there is anything to reply to I will reply, but I do not think that a valid argument can be found against the Bill.
    (10.30.) The House divided:—Ayes 44; Noes 72.—(Div. List, No. 67.)

  MARRIAGES OF NONCONFORMISTS (ATTENDANCE OF REGISTRARS) BILL.—(No. 144.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. ATKINSON: I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. I do so knowing that the principle has been approved again and again, and that hon. Members now present will not allow any longer to exist a religious disability in the case of the members of the Wesleyan Methodist Society. I brought in the Bill once before, and this Government once brought it in, but we were obstructed by those who ought to have helped us to pass it, and the reason they gave was that a Bill of this kind, being in relief of religious disabilities, ought not to come from this side, but from, the other side, of the House. I presume the other side propose to bring in the Bill when they are in power, but, my opinion is, that that time is a very long way off, and that, therefore, they should take the reform when they have the chance, from whichever side it is offered. I am a Wesleyan Methodist and a Conservative—a person called by my brethren on the other side of the House, from political motives, a monstrosity. I do not mention this in any bitterness at all, because I know it is not true, and therefore it recoils on those who say it. When I was canvassing at elections in Cornwall and North Lincolnshire, Liberal Methodists told me they were ashamed of a House of Commons which left on the Statute Book an Act which placed Wesleyans at such a disadvantage as compared with members of the Church of England. I mentioned this matter to my chiefs in Parliament, and they would scarcely believe that such a law existed. But let me tell the House what the disability is which we have to undergo. Members of
    1542
    the Church of England can have a legal marriage performed by their clergyman, but when any Nonconformist goes to have his children married by a man whom they consider quite good enough to light the way to Heaven and to teach them and baptise their children, they are told that in consequence of what Parliament has done, in the dark ages probably, they are not allowed to have any spiritual adviser to marry their children, but that the marriage must be conducted by some lawyer's clerk, who may come in a fit state to marry, or in a state more spirituous than spiritual. I object and protest, and have always objected and protested against such a measure being left on the Statute Book, because my idea of Conservatism always has been that it is safe progress, and I think that it is very safe progress to remove out of the way such a stumbling-block as that. I say that I have as much right to go to my minister to marry my children as any Churchman has to go to his spiritual pastor. The Wesleyan ministers are an educated body, containing men of recognised eminence, such as Dr. Moulton, who was placed on the Revision Committee, and is frequently hand and glove with Bishop Ellicot. Wesleyans naturally object to being told that one of their ministers cannot legally celebrate a marriage without the attendance of a registrar or his representative. Sometimes, under the present law, a marriage has to be delayed three or four hours' waiting for the registrar, owing to that official having failed to keep his appointment. The object of the Bill is to dispense with the attendance of registrars at the marriages of Nonconformists, by providing that before a marriage a form shall be obtained from the registrar, and that the minister who solemnises the marriage shall be made responsible, under a penalty of £2, for the subsequent registration. I appeal to the legal leader on the Front Opposition Bench to support the Bill! [Sir C. RUSSELL: "Hear, hear"] of which I move the Second Reading, claiming the votes of my Friends opposite who, although they think that the Bill should have come from their side, are all of them in favour of religious liberty.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Atkinson.)
    MR. LEES KNOWLES: I wish to support the speech that has been made by my hon. Friend, who says he has moved the Second Reading as a Wesleyan Methodist. I am in favour of the Bill as a Churchman. In my election address of 1885 I stated that I was anxious to support such a measure, and I repeated that statement in my election address of 1886. Since then I have backed such a Bill as this on two occasions. My hon. Friend has made a statement as to the grievance under which Nonconformists labour. It is a grievance which is emphasised, I think, by the fact that at least two among religious bodies, namely, the Jews and the Quakers, do not suffer under it. It seems tome that that is an anomaly, and that if the presence of a Registrar is not necessary at the marriages of Jews and Quakers, there is, under certain conditions, no reason why he should be present at the marriages of Nonconformists. Furthermore, I think it is desirable that the difficulty, if it is a difficulty, in the way of matrimony should be removed. I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General has, on former occasions, introduced a Bill dealing with this subject, and I have every confidence that to-night he will support the measure of my hon. Friend. I did not see the Bill before it was printed, so that I am not answerable for its drafting, although my name is on the back of it. I think that probably in its drafting, and in its provisions, it may need some alteration and amendment, which can be made in Committee. That, however, does not affect the question of the Second Reading, because in voting for the Second Reading we simply vote that we are in favour of the principle of the Bill.
    MR. ILLINGWORTH: The hasty manner in which the Bill has been presented to the House has probably prevented the hon. Member in charge of it from giving a full explanation of its scope. The title does not at all agree with the body of the Bill, but is altogether misleading; and I can
    1544
    only wonder that an hon. Member, who is himself labouring under a religious disability, should forget that other Nonconformists belonging to other denominations are under the same disability.
    MR. ATKINSON: I have offered over and over again to admit all Nonconformists to the Bill who will come into it. I had them in before, but they obstructed me instead of helping me.
    MR. ILLINGWORTH: The hon. Member must excuse my saying that I think his consistency is still at fault, because he knows very well that the substance of the Bill does not agree with its title. This is not a Nonconformist Bill, but a Bill for the relief of a single Nonconformist body—though I admit a very influential and respectable body. I protest against the other Nonconformist bodies being left out in the cold. No one on these Benches would think of applying to the hon. Member opposite the epithet "monstrosity;" but I think if he were described as a "curiosity" he would well deserve the description; particularly because I find that the respectable denomination to which the hon. Member says he belongs has through its Committee of Privileges passed a resolution condemning this measure.
    MR. ATKINSON: I object to the word "says." I do belong to the Wesleyan-Methodist body.
    MR. ILLINGWORTH: I wished to pay a compliment to the hon. Member, because it is not for me to describe the religious opinions of anyone. I took the fact from his own statement; but my point was that this Bill had been condemned by the Committee of Privileges of the Wesleyan body, and that the Committee had expressed an opinion in favour of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for the Louth Division of Lincolnshire.
    MR. ATKINSON: I was present myself at the meeting of the Committee of Privileges, although the partner of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton was not present. At that meeting the Bill was approved. At another meeting, however, when I was not present, but when the political secretary, who is

    1545
    partner of the Member for Wolver-hampton, was present, together with the Rev. Hugh Price Hughes, another resoution was passed.
    MR. ILLINGWORTH: I am afraid the explanation does not mend the case, and the hon. Member must take the second meeting as expressing the revised opinion of the denomination. A few minutes ago the hon. Member was engaged in endeavouring to save the time of the House, but now he seems anxious to fritter it away. ["No, no."] Well then, why should he have included in this Bill only one of the Nonconformist bodies? The provisions of the hon. Member's Bill do not seem to me to be satisfactory in regard to the civil aspect of marriages—although, of course, I admit the desirability of paying due regard to their religious solemnity. This is scarcely the time to make suggestions; but, in the long run, I believe that this country will incline to the course of separating the two parts of the ceremony altogether, and not making one part hang upon the other. I think the civil ceremony should go first. The Registrar should attend at his office, the parties should go before him, and the marriage ceremony should take place, so that, so far as the law was concerned, all the consequences that might follow from the marriage should be secured. It is a mistake to consider that the religious ceremony would be in any way depreciated or deteriorated by the civil marriage. According to the Bill, in the case of non-compliance with the requirements as to registration a fine of 40s. would be imposed, but I do not think that would be sufficiently binding in all cases. Altogether, I think the hon. Member would be well advised if he did not press the Second Reading of his measure to-night. If he would introduce a Bill dealing with all Nonconformist bodies, I should be very happy to accept the proposal as coming from him. What we want is the removal of the disability, and that it should apply to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects. I feel sure the hon. Member will not wish to stand convicted of pushing the claims of the one religious denomination with which he happens to be identified; and as it is manifest that the measure
    1546
    only covers a corner of a wide area, I trust he will not press it to a Division.
    MR. DE LISLE: I ask leave to say a few words in a certain sense as a Nonconformist. From a Catholic point of view the Established Church is a Nonconformist body, but here I am speaking from an English point of view. I object to this Bill absolutely and in toto, and in so doing I am, I believe, expressing the view of the Roman Catholic Bishops of England. I do not oppose it for the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman opposite, namely, because it does not include every Nonconformist body, but I object to any alteration of the law. Nothing is more important, from a social point of view, than to have an unchallengable marriage register about which there can be no doubt. It is quite true that from a Catholic point of view it is felt to be a disability to a certain extent that marriages simply by a priest are not recognised in this country. On the other hand, the Catholics recognise that they are only a small minority; their only wish is to see the law as stable as possible, as they are, generally I believe, quite content with the existing order of things. The religious ceremony has no force in the eyes of the law, but when performed duly in the presence of the Registrar the marriage becomes legal, and is entitled to the same status as a marriage in the Church of England. As I had the happiness to go through the ceremony myself some two years ago I gave particular attention to the law on the subject. A few years ago I do not know whether it was necessary for the Registrar to put the legal questions, but now the whole ceremony can proceed at the altar, and it is not even necessary to go to the vestry in order to sign the register. In my own case the Bishop of Clifton put the legal questions at the altar, and the register was signed at the altar. So far as the Catholics are concerned, it would be impossible to have the civil act before a Magistrate or a Registrar first, and the religious act afterwards. The Council of Trent has not been promulgated in this country, and therefore the ceremony before the parson or the civil official renders the contracting parties man and wife, and to repeat the ceremony religiously would be

    1547
    a sacrilege. I may be pardoned for referring to Roman Catholic theology, but the question is one of great social importance. It would be impossible for me to agree to the Second Reading of this Bill, because it comes into conflict with our views as to what constitutes the essentials of matrimony.
    MR. ILLINGWORTH: I did not say that the civil marriage should precede the religious ceremony. I simply had in my own mind the ultimate consequences.
    MR. DE LISLE: I have no doubt the hon. Member would agree to such Amendments as would satisfy Roman Catholics; but how can you distinguish the 200 sects claiming equality as Nonconformists before the law? In fact, I do not see why the same argument which is applicable to the ministers of one form of religion should not be applicable to another; so that if the principle of this Bill be admitted we might have Atheistic ministers performing the marriage rites, because if you once admit the ministers of one form of religion I do not see where you can possibly draw the line. It is for these reasons, and because of the uncertainty which might arise, that I ask the House to reject this Bill.
    MR. WOODALL: I quite agree with the hon. Member who introduced this Bill in saying that the grievance it proposes to remedy is one that is very extensively and painfully felt throughout the country. No one who has any relations with the Nonconformist body can help sym pathising with the extreme humiliation they must feel in being obliged to secure the presence of the Registrar in order to validate the marriages which take place in Nonconformist places of worship. This must be the more severely felt, because the ministers of the Established Church are able to celebrate marriages without any such condition. But the disability is one which is experienced not only by Wesleyans, but by every other Nonconformist Body. The whole of the Methodists, Primitive Methodists, Baptists, Independents, and every other Nonconformist section are excluded from this Bill. Why is this, when there are bodies whose ministers have a more
    1548
    settled status than even that of the Wesleyan Body, and who might, therefore, be held to be more trustworthy agents of the State, for the puposes of registration? The hon. Member (Mr. Atkinson) has, no doubt, assured us that although the Bill is drawn in the interests of one section of religionists only, he is willing to make it applicable to the other Nonconformist Bodies; but why should not the Roman Catholics be put in the same position as the Nonconformists? Supposing the Bill is amended in the fullest and most literal sense, where will it land us? With regard to our Marriage Laws, it is impossible in any civilised country to find such a condition of things as exists here. In Scotland, Ireland, and England the Statutes are contradictory; almost every denomination has special provision. Why should we allow these denominational and polemical differences of ours to prevent our arriving at a simple solution of this question, with a conscientious regard, as sincere religionists, to the requirements of the Civil Law? Surely we can hardly be ignorant of the fact that under the Code Napoleon, in France and Italy, and, I think, most of the countries of Continental Europe, the one end about which the State troubles itself is that there shall have been a civil marriage contracted before the Mayor or some other civil authority, which shall assure to the parties concerned and to their offspring the fullest protection that the State can afford. I believe I am right in saying that although the law requires the civil contract, yet in France more than 90 per cent. of the marriages before the civil officer are duly completed by the religious ceremony.
    MR. DE LISLE: The religious marriage in Catholic countries always precedes the civil.
    MR. WOODALL: I think I am correct, but the circumstance is new to me. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not think I am questioning his authority on the subject if I say that I think I am still right. One of the most popular writers of France dwelt very picturesquely on the simplicity and bareness of the civil ceremony compared with the ornate and extremely

    1549
    interesting character of the religious ceremony which followed on the next day. At any rate, the point I wish to urge is, that while the State recognises civil marriages, the religious ceremony is regarded as necessary to the completeness of the marriage. I think we may dismiss from our minds the idea that we shall do away with the sanctity of marriage if we increase the facilities for the civil contract. There is, however, one objection to the Bill, which I think the Attorney General will endorse. I refer to the evidence furnished by the Reports of the Registrar General and by the experience of the Attorney General and every lawyer in this House, of the extremely dangerous way in which the Registers have been, and even now are, kept by the clergy of the Established Church. Serious scandals have repeatedly occurred, and grievous wrong has frequently been inflicted, owing to the lax system which has prevailed. Nevertheless, the ministers of the Established Church, whatever their faults or shortcomings, do reside in their parishes; whereas the Wesleyan ministers and those of the Methodist Bodies are usually stationed in one district for a period of three years only—a term which is very rarely exceeded. Doubtless, this itinerant system has largely contributed to the efficiency of these ministers and to the general advantage of the Religious Bodies over which they exercise their ministerial functions. But, on the other hand, it is evident that as regards registration purposes these itinerant ministers must necessarily be less trustworthy than the resident clergy of the Established Church. It is said that the Nonconformist ministers are not to keep the registers, but merely to deliver certificates within a week to the parochial officer. I venture to say that the provisions of this Bill are such as will make it still more necessary than at present to enact additional legislation, because they will more than ever complicate the varied system of our existing Marriage Laws, while failing to effect a perfect solution of the present difficulties. I trust, however, that the effort now made will induce the Government to consider the propriety of endeavouring to frame some statesmanlike measure that may prove an adequate solution of
    1550
    this important question, creating something like a uniform system throughout the country; but if that be impossible, at any rate so amending the existing law as to render it more satisfactory to the general community.
    MR. DE COBAIN: I trust that the measure introduced by my hon. Friend will at least be allowed to pass a Second Reading, so that the principle it embodies—a principle in which the different sections of the great Nonconformist Body are in cordial agreement—may be affirmed by this House, leaving the defects which have already been pointed out, and which undoubtedly exist in the drafting of some of its clauses, to be dealt with in Committee.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) has advised the hon. Member opposite to withdraw his Bill on the ground that the Member for the Brigg Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Waddy) is about to introduce a Bill that will cover the ground more completely. I hope my hon. Friend will not listen to that advice. I say so for this reason: first of all, the hon. Member for the Brigg Division is not here; and, in the second place, we do not know when he may have an opportunity of bringing in the measure he desires to see carried. The fact that the present Bill only covers one section of Nonconformists and does not cover the rest is no reason why the House of Commons should refuse to assent to the principle of the measure, when the House knows that if the Bill goes into Committee all the other sections may be added. I confess that I do not like the opposition offered to the Bill by some hon. Members on this side of the House. It proposes to remedy a long-standing grievance in the Nonconformist community, and it certainly is an awkward fact that the main opposition to it should come not from Members on the other side of the House, but from those who sit on these Benches—men who admit the grievance which they profess to be anxious to remedy, but who are mainly anxious to show that Codlin is the friend and not Short.
    MR. ILLINGWORTH: The measure to which I referred was in the House

    1551
    last Session and, I believe, the Session before.
    MR. ATKINSON: It was not in the House last Session.
    MR. ILLINGWORTH: Perhaps I may be allowed to explain——
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I hope I did not convey that impression. I have received many communications from the Wesleyan Methodists of Ireland about this Bill, and I hope the House will waive all these minor considerations in favour of a Bill which, if it does not go far enough in favour of the principle they desire to see adopted, can at all events be amended and extended in Committee.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,: Sir, perhaps the House will allow me a few minutes to speak on a subject to which I have personally given a good deal of attention. I am bound to say that, if the hon. Member for Bradford did not take objection to the previous Bill on this side, those closely connected with him opposed it most strongly. It dealt not only with the Wesleyan, but with other Nonconformist Bodies, and yet Members sitting opposite declared that they would never allow the Conservatives to deal with this question.
    MR. ILLINGWORTH: I did not make any such declaration, though I do not pretend I was in favour of the Bill, which had one fatal defect—that it did not deal with Wesleyan ministers.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I had not in mind the hon. Member for Bradford, but those who are closely associated with him, and whose names I should mention were they present. The hon. Member's memory is defective, for both the Bills previous to this dealt with Wesleyan Methodist ministers. In 1886 I introduced a Bill when I was sitting on the other side of the House. It received very considerable support from the Government of the day, but that Government did not allow it to proceed. In 1887 I brought in a Bill as Attorney General; and that Bill, which can be seen in the Library, as well as the first, contained safeguards against all those matters referred to by hon. Members opposite—with regard to registration, to notice, to fees,
    1552
    and other matters. But that Bill was persistently opposed by hon. Members on the other side. Why I support this Bill to-night is, not that I think it contains sufficient safeguards, but that it recognises the fact that there is a grievance to be remedied, and, though it deals only with the Wesleyan Methodists, the House, in assenting to the Second Reading, will express its willingness to deal with that grievance and remove it. The hon. Member for Bradford objects that the Bill includes the Wesleyans alone. Why is that? It stands in this way: One of the difficulties besetting the question is that various bodies of Nonconformists admit to their pulpits various persons of great ability who have not the status of ministers, and some of whom, as the hon. Member for Stoke happily described it, are itinerant ministers. In the Wesleyan Body, however, the Conference have full power over the appointment of the Wesleyan ministers, and can dismiss them in case of misconduct. The ministers of the Wesleyan Methodists, therefore, have an official and recognised status which enables us to deal with them in a Bill like this, and to allow them to replace the registrar—a course which it would be difficult to follow in the case of ministers of Nonconformist Bodies who have not that recognised status. That is the difficulty we have to encounter in dealing with the matter. I have not the slightest objection to extend the application of this principle; only I observe that some Members who professed their anxiety on a former occasion to remedy this grievance are now conspicuous by their absence. We are told to wait for the Bill of the hon. Member for the Brigg Division. I do not think that Bill has either been printed or read a first time. But there is one remarkable circumstance connected with the Bill of the hon. Member for Brigg and the factious opposition to the hon. Member for Boston. It is that one of the candidates for a neighbouring division, Mr. Perks, is closely connected with that section of the Wesleyan Committee of Privileges, who have opposed the hon. Member for Boston, and Mr. Perks is extremely anxious to claim the credit of having been the first to remedy this grievance. In common justice arid fairness to those

    1553
    who have worked at this question for years, and in fairness to the hon. Member for Boston, I think I have shown reasons which should be sufficient to disarm the opposition to this Bill. I hope the House will recognise the principle of the Bill by reading it a second time, and with regard to the omissions, reasonable provisions may, I think, be inserted in Committee dealing with due registration and proper public notice in regard to marriages and other matters. That, I take it, would induce the hon. Member for Brigg, when he comes down to the House ready to oppose the Bill, to bow to its decision. I repeat I hope the House will read the Bill a second time, and that such clauses will be inserted in Committee as will make the Bill a working measure.
    SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: I should not have intervened in this Debate but for the appeal to me by the Mover of the Bill, and I say at once that I speak for myself only, and not in any representative capacity. I will not pursue the theme suggested by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General as to the differences existing between members of the Wesleyan Methodist Body. I shall support the Second Reading of the Bill for the reason that it aims at removing an existing disability, and I hope it will emerge from the Committee in so different a condition that its author will hardly be able to recognise it. I would suggest to the Attorney General that the title of the Bill is wide enough to cover all cases likely to come within its provisions, such, for instance, as the case of Jewish marriage.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: The Registrar does not have to be present at a Jewish marriage.
    SIR C. RUSSELL: I was not aware of that. My hon. Friend the Member for the Loughborough Division of Leicestershire, who speaks with authority on these matters from the Catholic point of view, said one or two things with which I cannot agree. I fully agree with him that Catholics regard the religious service as a most important matter. They look on marriage as a sacrament, and not as a civil contract; but they also recognise that it is for their interest, as for that
    1554
    of other members of the community, to have preserved complete and satisfactory evidence of the marriage under conditions which the Civil Law will recognise. Therefore, I cannot entertain the difficulty which seems to occur to the hon. Member for the Loughborough Division. Provided always that the religious service is in no way affected, and also that adequate provision is made for giving notice to the Registrar, both before and after the ceremony, no objection to this Bill will be entertained. It is to the interest of Catholics as well as of members of any other Religious Body that marriages should be performed and registered as the law directs. My hon. Friend near me, who made a very excellent speech, seems to be under the impression that the religious ceremony in Catholic countries is necessarily preceded by a civil marriage. He will forgive me, perhaps, if I say he is mistaken, and that he has been misled by his reading of French romances. When once a civil marriage has taken place (except where the Catholic Church has declined to recognise such) no other ceremony is necessary, although, of course, the parties may choose to have a religious recognition of the marriage. But that religious service is not a fresh marriage; there can only be one marriage. Although the Bill as it stands seems to me to be incomplete I shall vote in favour of the Second Reading, as all the omissions may be supplied in Committee.
    MR. BRUNNER: When the hon. Member for the Loughborough Division was speaking I feared from the cry of "Order!" which was raised, when I called "No, no," that I had offended some susceptibilities by suggesting, as I certainly intended to do by the interjection, my doubts whether a recent happy event had made him a special authority on this subject. But when I recollect my own case, I must confess that I subsequently knew very little about the ceremony. The hon. Member told the House that if this right to perform the marriage ceremony, without the presence of the registrar were granted to Wesleyan Methodists other sects would claim a similar recognition by this House, and that thereupon

    1555
    the right would have to be granted to Religious Bodies which have no settled organisation and no recognised ministers. But I have no fears upon that score. I am satisfied that the kindly feeling among Nonconformist Bodies will make those bodies which are not large enough to be included in the privileges of the Bill perfectly ready to perform their marriage services in the places of worship of the larger Nonconformist Bodies. At present great pain is often given to Nonconformists by the insistence on the presence of the registrar at their marriages, and I congratulate myself on having been here to-night to hear from all sides of the House a condemnation of the system.
    MR. HALLEY STEWART: I wish to make but a small contribution to the Debate. I must say I think the difficulty raised by the Attorney General with regard to the free and elastic system which obtains among such denominations as the Baptists and Congregationalists will be found to be a really vital one. Speaking for ministers of those denominations I can say that their main objection to the provisions of the Bill is that they do not wish to be constituted State servants, amenable to the State as registrars, and punishable by the State if they neglect their duty. I hope the Bill will be so enlarged as to provide for all the differences as to the recognition of the functions of these ministers.
    MR. FURNESSAs a Methodist, I am pleased to witness the willingness shown on both sides of the House to do a simple act of justice to those who have suffered so much in the past. Although the Bill in its first clause refers to only one particular body, I am willing to support it on the assurance of the hon. Member for Boston and of the learned Attorney General that its defects will be supplied in Committee.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE,: I, too, hope that, in Committee, the provisions of the Bill will be considerably enlarged. No doubt, in England, the Wesleyan Methodists constitute one of the most powerful among the Nonconformist Bodies; but in Wales
    1556
    they only rank third or fourth, and, unless the Bill is made applicable to other bodies, very few of the Welsh people will benefit by its enactment. I repeat I shall support the Second Reading in the hope that the scope of the Bill will be enlarged.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  QUALIFICATION OF VOTERS (GUAR DIANS) BILL.—(No. 217.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. MORTON: I desire to move the Second Reading of this Bill. No doubt Members of the House are generally acquainted with its provisions, and I trust they will agree to this Motion. Boards of Guardians now constitute the only authority left on an electoral footing entirely by itself. I propose that in future the Guardians shall be elected by exactly the same constituencies as elect Corporations and County Councils. At present no one has a vote at a Guardians' election but a person who directly pays rates, and in the City of London alone there are thousands of occupiers who are deprived of the privilege of voting simply because the landlord pays the rates in bulk. I myself am so deprived, and have been for 20 years. We pay high rents and equally high rates, yet we have no voice in the election of Guardians. Again, this provision cuts out the class of working men voters for the same reason. These men are allowed to vote for Councillors or for Vestrymen, but they may not vote for a Poor Law Guardian. Again, under the present system owners get an accumulation of votes. Why should this provision exist? It is all in favour of the rich and against the poor. Altogether the present system is most unsatisfactory. Voting papers which are left at the houses are often not collected, and often are not filled in because people know nothing about them. As we have the ballot for all other elections, why should we not have it for elections of Guardians? I need not at this late hour take up further the time

    1557
    of the House. For the reason that it will still further reduce the number of lists of voters, and for the other reasons I have stated, I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Morton.)
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr LONG,: The hon. Member appears to have taken his cue from a Bill proposed earlier in the evening, and to have limited the duration of his speech, which, however, does not appear to me to have been at all commensurate with the importance of the subject with which he was dealing. This Bill proposes to abolish the present qualification of voters for the election of Guardians, and to substitute in the boroughs the burgess roll and in counties the county register of voters. I think the House will agree with me that the position of Boards of Guardians is widely different from that of any other Local Authority, and the constitution is one which the House ought not to alter without grave consideration. Possibly some reform is needed; but the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to ask the House to abolish the present system—to abolish the right of owners to vote as owners, or to substitute the burgess roll or the county electors roll for the one in existence unless he can prove he has a better sy,stem to take its place. This is a very important matter, and the Bill does not provide any adequate machinery for carrying out the change that is proposed. One result would be that Boards of Guardians would be elected on a register eight or nine months old. Another defect is that the Bill contains no provision for placing the burgess or county electors roll at the disposal of clerks to Boards of Guardians. It may be said that if the principle of the Bill is adopted, the details for working out that principle can be arranged in Committee. But that is not a fair way of dealing with the House. Those who propose to abolish the present system ought to be prepared with a plan for substituting what is to replace it. I hope that the hon.
    1558
    Member will be satisfied with having raised this discussion, and will withdraw the Bill, though no doubt the present system of voting by voting-papers is eminently unsatisfactory, and requires to be dealt with. But the hon. Member had better wait until the matter is brought forward in a more practical form. The Government cannot assent to the Second Reading of the Bill.
    MR. J. R. KELLY: I intend to oppose the Bill. I am not surprised that the Government will have nothing to do with it. I doubt very much whether we should get a better set of men as Guardians than we have now under any such system as the Bill proposes. The hon. Member wishes to get the service franchise, the lodger franchise, and other franchises available for the elections.
    MR. MORTON: I do not propose the service franchise, or the lodger franchise.
    MR. J. R. KELLY: Well, the hon. Member proposes the lodger franchise, and I should like to know whether a lodger has the same interest in the expenditure of the rates as an owner or occupier?
    It being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed upon Friday.

    SUPPLY—REPORT.
    Resolution [23rd February] reported.

    ARMY ESTIMATES.
    "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 153,696, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding Her Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1892."
    Resolution agreed to.

  REGISTRATION OF ELECTORS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 17.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 2.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 24, to leave out from the word "Where,'

    1559
    to the word "borough," in line 25, inclusive, and insert the words—
    "Section 4 of 'The County Electors Act, 1888' shall be deemed to have applied Section 30 of 'The Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878,' to a parish situate in a Parliamentary but not in a municipal borough, and to have provided that."—(Mr. Knowles.)
    Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Craig.)
    Objection being taken to Further Proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair, to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

    SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
    Sir JOHN MOWBRAYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on the Standing Committee for the consideration of all Bills relating to Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure which may, by Order of the House, be committed to such Standing Committee:—Mr. Tyssen Amherst, Mr. Atherley-Jones, Mr. J. B. Balfour, Mr. Bartley, Mr. Beach, Mr. George Cavendish Bentinck, Mr. Jacob Bright, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Caldwell, Sir George Campbell, Sir Edward Clarke, Dr. Commins, Mr. Radcliffe Cooke, Mr. Donald Crawford, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Darling, Sir John Dorington, Mr. Dugdale, Mr. Arthur Elliot, Mr. John E. Ellis, Sir Thomas Esmonde, Mr. S. T. Evans, Mr. Forrest Fulton, Mr. Herbert Gardner, Mr. Herbert Gladstone, Mr. Haldane, Mr. Hall, Sir W. Vernon Harcourt, Sir Edward Harland, Mr. T. M. Healy, Sir John Pope Hennessy, Mr. Staveley Hill, Mr. Hinckes, Mr. Samuel Hoare, Mr. Hobhouse, Mr. Isaacs, Sir Ughtred Kay Shuttleworth, Mr. Kenyon, Mr. W. F. Lawrence, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Mr. Llewellyn, Mr. Lockwood, Viscount Lymington, Mr. Francis Maclean, Mr. Swift Mac Neill, Mr. Madden, Mr. Mahony, Mr. Story - Maskelyne, Mr.
    1560
    Matthews, Mr. Milvain, Mr. John Morley, Mr. Mulholland, Mr. Muntz, Mr. William O'Brien, Mr. Pickard, Mr. Picton, Mr. John E. Redmond, Mr. John Bryn Roberts, Mr. Bannerman Robertson, Sir Albert Rollit, Sir Charles Russell, Sir George Russell, Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. Ernest Spencer, Sir Richard Temple, Mr. Whitmore, Mr. Wodehouse, and Mr. Stuart-Wortley.
    Sir JOHN MOWBRAYfurther reported from the said Committee; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on the Standing Committee for the consideration of all Bills relating the Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufacture which may, by Order of the House, be committed to such Standing Committee:—Mr. Addison, Mr. Asher, Mr. Baring, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Barran, Sir Michael Hicks Beach, Sir Edward Birkbeck, Mr. Bolitho, Mr. Bonsor, Mr. Boord, Mr. A. H. Brown, Mr. Brunner, Mr. Burt, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, Mr. Childers, Mr. Jesse Collings, Mr. Colman, Sir James Corry, Mr. Craig, Sir Charles Dalrymple, Baron Henry De Worms, Mr. Dixon-Hartland, Sir George Elliot, Mr. T. E. Ellis, Colonel Eyre, Mr. Hayes Fisher, Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald, Mr. Gilliat, Sir Julian Goldsmid, Mr. Grotrian, Mr. Heath, Sir William Houldsworth, Mr. Howell, Mr. Hoyle, Mr. Jackson, Mr. William Lowther, Sir John Lubbock, Mr. J. M. Maclean, Mr. Peter M'Donald, Mr. M'Lagan, Mr. Morrogh, Mr. Mowbray, Mr. Mundella, Mr. Murphy, Sir Stafford Northcote, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Sir Richard Paget, Mr. Parnell, Sir Joseph Pease, Mr. Richard Power, Mr. Rathbone, Mr. Edmund Robertson, Mr. Round, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Sheil, Mr. William P. Sinclair, Mr. Samuel Smith, Mr. Mark Stewart, Mr. T. D. Sullivan, Mr. Tomlinson, Sir George Trevelyan, Sir Richard Webster, Mr. Whitley, Mr. Stephen Williamson, Mr. C. H. Wilson, Mr. Winterbotham, and Mr. Wood.
    Ordered, That the Report do lie upon the Table.
    House adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.

STANDING COMMITTEE.
Report from the Committee of Chairmen of Standing Committees, That they have (in pursuance of Standing Order No. L.) appointed the Lord Herschell Chairman of the Standing Committee; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at half past Four o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.