Sitting of 24 March 1891

QUESTIONS.

  ARMY OFFICERS.
  SIR H. HAVELOCK-ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the large number of Majors, most of whom hold the post of second in command, who are each month being removed from their regiments owing to the operation of the 48 years age clause, he would be prepared to place in the hands of H.R.H. the Commander-in-Chief discretionary power which would enable him to recommend the retention in their regiments for a short fixed period after this age is reached, of certain officers who, in the opinion of His Royal Highness, possess special fitness for the position of Regimental or Battalion Commandant?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): Yes, Sir; I propose to submit to Her Majesty an alteration in the Warrant which would give a discretionary power of the character described by my hon. and gallant Friend.

  THE SAVINGS BANK
  MR. SEAGER HUNT: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether there was any foundation for the statement that appeared in the Daily News and other papers of the 12th January, to the effect that the 50 superintending officers of the Savings Bank had requested their Controller to represent to him (the Postmaster General) the discontent prevailing through all sections of the Department; whether he had received a Memorial, on the 17th January, from 75 clerks of the old Second Class to the same effect, and another, on the 20th January, from 270 clerks of the Second Division, asking for an inquiry into the state of the Department; and what action he proposes to take thereupon?
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): The facts are as follow:—The Controller of the Savings Bank, in January last, summoned the high officers of his Department and expressed his fear that they had not exercised over their subordinates the influence which it was expected they would have exerted. They replied that they had most emphatically discountenanced the action of the junior officers of the Savings Bank, and assured the Controller of their thorough loyalty to the Department. They took advantage of the opportunity to urge their view that they ought all to have better salaries, and their regret that that view was not shared by the authorities. I have received the Memorials of the 17th and 20th January, referred to, and have answered them. I do not see any necessity for the inquiry asked for; but I hope very soon to be able to adopt measures greatly to reduce the extra duty, which appears to me to constitute a reasonable and legitimate grievance.

  EXPLOSIONS IN IRONWORKS.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for

  1759
  the Home Department whether he has yet come to any decision regarding the institution of a public inquiry into the recent fatal explosions at ironworks in Glasgow and Gartsherrie, concerning which he was questioned last week?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I am informed by the Secretary for Scotland that he is not at present in a position to say whether a public inquiry would be advisable, the matter still being under investigation by the Criminal Authorities in the usual manner.

  CEYLON—HARBOUR ACCOMMODATION.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the tonnage of vessels frequenting the harbour of Colombo, Ceylon, in 1890, exceeded the tonnage of 1889 by 185,000 tons, and the tonnage of 1889 that of "of 1888 by 576,000 tons; also that on more than one occasion lately, all the port accommodation was taken up, and steamers had to anchor outside the harbour from want of room, though they were anxious to obtain the protection and facilities offered by the port; whether, under these circumstances, the Government will consider the question of the construction of the "northern arm" to the harbour, and will promptly consider and give an answer to the Memorial addressed to the Secretary of State by the Chamber of Commerce of Ceylon, on the 21st of November, 1888, on this subject; and if the Secretary of State for the Colonies has already replied on the subject of that Memorial, what was his reply?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): The question of a northern arm to the Colombo harbour has been recently again raised, and the Papers are now under the consideration of the consulting engineers. The Memorial, of the date referred to, related to questions of account, with a view to show that the construction of the existing breakwater had been remunerative, and a reply was
  1760
  sent at the time, expressing the general concurrence of the Secretary of State in the views of the Memorialists.

  INFLAMMABLE LIQUIDS BILL.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the number of Notices of rejection of the Inflammable Liquids Bill on the Order Book, and to the possible effects of further uncertainty in raising the prices of the cheaper qualities of oils, he will withdraw the Bill?
  SIR E. BIRKBECKdesired to ask his right hon. Friend whether he really realised the strong feeling there was with reference to this Bill among the small shopkeepers in the rural districts; and whether he would not withdraw the Bill and refer the whole subject—not the Bill—to a Select Committee?
  MR. MATTHEWS: My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk (Sir E. Birkbeck) will see that I have anticipated his question in the answer I am about to give to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Channing). The Notices of opposition to this Bill are so numerous as to render its chances of passing this year very remote. I propose, therefore, as soon as the Memorandum, which will be issued in a few days, is before the House, to move that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the wholes subject, and to await their Report before asking the House to legislate.

  NEWFOUNDLAND.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can inform the House which of Her Majesty's ships of war are employed off the Canadian coast or the coast of Newfoundland, in keeping the peace between the fishermen of Newfoundland and those of France; what part, if any, of the expense of thus protecting the interests of the fisheries in Newfoundland is borne by the colonists, or whether it is wholly borne by the taxpayers of this country; and whether it is true that the Canadian Authorities have refused to submit the claims of the fishermen to arbitration?
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): Her Majesty's ships Emerald,

  1761
  Pelican, and Forward were employed in 1890 on fishery duty on the coast of Newfoundland, and, as this is part of their ordinary duty, the whole cost is defrayed from Naval Votes. The Canadian Authorities have no control over Newfoundland.

  MRS. MARY CATHCART.
  DR. FITZGERALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with regard to the seizure of Mrs. Mary Cathcart, if he will state the name of the doctor who signed the certificate previous to her seizure under an urgency order; if the doctor examined her by addressing the lady without her consent in one of the Courts in which she was defending an action; if the doctor was employed by the plaintiff in the said action; if the doctor is one of the medical men who afterwards signed a certificate for Mrs. Cathcart's detention in a private lunatic asylum; if the plaintiff in the action referred to is the person who procured the urgency order; and is he aware that Mrs. Cathcart has made several applications to see her friends, and that all access to her has been refused by the Lunacy Commissioners, acting under the authority of the plaintiff in the action which Mrs. Cathcart was engaged in defending at the time of her seizure?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The Commissioners of Lunacy inform me that Dr. Thomas Bond signed the certificate upon which the urgency order was founded; and they believe that he addressed Mrs. Cathcart in one of the Courts, where she was (as they are informed) for the purpose of a Divorce Court motion. The Commissioners have no information as to the third paragraph. The answer to the fourth paragraph is, Yes. The urgency order was signed by Mrs. Cathcart's husband. The Commissioners have refused two applications to see Mrs. Cathcart. They have done so in the interest of the patient, and wholly without reference to any other interest or person. Mrs. Cathcart has had several interviews with a solicitor selected by herself.

  MINING INSPECTORS' REPORTS.
  MR. PICKARD: I beg to ask the Secretary of
  1762
  State for the Home Department whether he is able to state when the Statistical Abstract of Mining Inspectors' Reports for 1890 will be issued to Members?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed that the Statistical Abstract of Mining Inspectors' Reports for 1890 will be ready for issue by Thursday next.

  PRISON WARDERS.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many warders are at present employed in the prisons of England and Wales as Acting Governors and Acting Matrons respectively; and how many temporary warders are employed in those prisons instead of regular warders? I beg also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has considered the Petition of the prison warders, drawing attention to excessive hours of duty, and other grievances; and whether he is prepared to introduce some amelioration of their conditions of service?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Prison Commissioners that there are 12 chief warders in charge of prisons in England and Wales, and 32 female warders who have charge of the female Department in those prisons. The number of temporary warders necessarily varies from day to day according to the requirements of the Service. A Departmental Committee is now sitting for the purpose of investigating fully the grievances of these officers, and I await their Report before coming to any decision.

  SECOND DIVISION CLERKS.
  MR. KELLY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether no promotion of clerks to the higher grade of the Second Division, with the exception of a few already in receipt of £250 per annum, has been made; and whether, seeing that such promotion was provided for by the Order in Council issued some 12 months ago, he can say when the question of such promotion, on which he stated on 17th June, 1890, that material progress had been made, is likely to be finally settled?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): I am desired by my right hon. Friend to say that at

  1763
  the present moment he is unable to answer the question. He has not yet been able to obtain the necessary information.

  THE LABOUR COMMISSION.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is in a position to state to the House the terms of Reference relating to the proposed Royal Commission on Labour; and whether he is in a position to give the names of the proposed Commissioners?
  MR. J. E. ELLIShad a similar Question on the Paper.
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I regret I am not in a position to give the information asked for. It is not, I think, desirable that I should give the terms of Reference without giving at the same time the names of the Commissioners, and this last information is not yet complete owing to the delay which has taken place in answering the invitation of the Government to serve on the Commission. I hope, however, that the Commission will be completed in the course of a day or two.

  INTOXICATING LIQUOR IN MILITARY RECREATION ROOMS.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in November last, orders were issued by the Military Authorities in Cork and Dublin authorising the issue to soldiers of intoxicating liquor in the Coffee and Recreation Rooms; and, if so, whether this is in accordance with the Queen's Regulations (inter alia):—Section xv., 84 (1st October, 1889)—
  "The Coffee Room.… is maintained for the supply of refreshments of the following nature: tea, coffee, cocoa, non-alcoholic drinks, soup, fish, eggs, bacon, cooked and preserved meats, &c."
  Section xv., 104—
  "Smoking may be allowed in the Recreation Room, subject to the approval of Commanding Officers, and arrangements may also be made for the supply of tea, or coffee, or other refreshments at a regulated price; but the introduction of wine, beer, or spirits, under any pretence, is strictly prohibited."
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: I find that an experiment has been made in Ireland by the Local Military Authorities of allowing men to purchase one pint of beer with their supper in the Recreation Room. This has been done as tending, in their opinion, to reduce outside drinking. The matter has not been before brought to my notice, and all I should like to say at present is that I will communicate with the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland on the subject.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES (IRELAND) ACT.
  DR. FITZGERALD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Labourers' Cottages (Ireland) Act expires this Session, and if he intends to move its renewal?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The question whether the Labourers' Cottages (Ireland) Act should be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill of this Session will be duly considered.

  IRISH DISTRESS.
  MR. DALTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the Local Government Board Inspector's Report on the state of Ranafast, and the entire parish of Lower Templecrone; also the Police Reports on the same parish; and whether, as he has already admitted that there is considerable distress in Lower Templecrone, which was causing the Government great anxiety, the Government propose to start immediately some relief works, such as road-making, in the district?
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I also beg to ask the Chief Secretary whether he will state what has been actually done to relieve the distress in Ranafast, Lower Templecrone, County Donegal; and whether he will himself read the Report sent in by the Local Government Board Inspector after a house to house visitation in that district?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Minute inquiries are being made into the matter, but at present no decision has been arrived at.

  THE TOWN POSTMAN AT WATERFORD.
  MR. R. POWER: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if his attention has been called to the case of James Whittaker, town postman at Waterford, dismissed for alleged abusive language to a policeman, which language James Whittaker denies having used, and states that he can bring evidence to that effect; and whether, inasmuch as the case against Whittaker rests on the unsupported word of a policeman, while Whittaker who is an employé of the Post Office of nine years' standing and good character, can produce evidence in his favour, he will cause further inquiry to be made into the case?
  *MR. RAIKES: James Whittaker was dismissed, not for abusive language to the police—which as the hon. Member states, Whittaker denies having employed—but for obstructing the police in the discharge of their duties. Whittaker had been appointed less than three months before the occurrence took place, and was still on probation. I shall be willing, however, if Whittaker expresses his sincere regret for his conduct, to allow him to resume duty, on probation, as an auxiliary postman.

  THE IRISH MAILS.
  CAPTAIN MCALMONT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can now make any statement relative to the proposed mail route to and from the North of Ireland by Larne and Stranraer?
  MR. JACKSON: I am sorry that I am unable to give my hon. Friend the answer he desires, but I have not yet been able to obtain a final decision on the question.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: May I ask what will be the Order of Business on the re-assembling of the House after the Easter holidays?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: The Bills on the Paper for consideration to-day will be proceeded with on Monday after the Recess, and, if not reached on Monday, will be proceeded with on the following day.

  ENDOWED CHARITIES (SUFFOLK).
  Return ordered—
  "Of the Digest of Endowed Charities in the County of Suffolk, the particulars of which are recorded in the Books of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, but are not recorded in the General Digest of Endowed Charities in that county, 1871–4 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No, 243 (2), of Session 1875).—(Mr. James William Lowther.)

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (RULES AS TO PURCHASE).
  Copy ordered "Of Rules of Irish Land Commission relating to Land Purchase." (Mr. John Ellis.)
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  TITHE RENT-CHARGE RECOVERY BILL. (No. 251.)
  Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments, and Lords Amendment in lieu of the Amendment disagreed to by the Commons, considered.
  Lords Amendment, in lieu of the Amendment disagreed to by the Commons, page 2, line 23, after the word "powers," to insert the words—
  "And if there is no sufficient distress the person entitled to the sum ordered to be recovered may proceed to obtain possession of the lands under section eighty-two of 'The Tithe Act, 1836,' "
  the first Amendment, read a second time.
  MR. C. W. GRAY: I propose that the House should not agree with this Amendment, and I will explain briefly the position which I take.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Mid Glamorgan (Mr. S. T. Evans) has an Amendment on the Paper which will come first.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I propose to insert in the Lords Amendment before the word "and," the words "but in any case where such lands have become derelict lands." The object of this Amendment is to limit the operation of the writ of habere facias possessionem to cases where the land is derelict, and to restore the Bill to the position in which it stood before any Amendment was inserted in it. As the clause now stands, it would entail great

  1767
  hardship upon small yeoman farmers who occupy their own land, and my proposal will have the effect of confining this proposal to derelict lands.
  Amendment proposed to the said Amendment, before the first word "and," to insert the words "but in any case where such lands have become derelict lands."—(Mr. S. T. Evans.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I do not think that the House ought to agree to the Amendment. The writ does not now apply to derelict farms only, and there is no reason why it should. I may instance a case which is within my own knowledge. A gentleman had a large house in the country with a park of considerable extent around it. One part of the park, including the building, was in one parish and the rest in another parish, and it would be possible so to arrange as to prevent the tithe owner in the second parish from levying any distres upon the land in that parish. The object of the Lords Amendment is merely to retain in the cases dealt with by the clause, the powers conferred by the existing law.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: The Lords' Amendment as it is now sent down to us differs only from their first Amendment in phraseology, and I object to it as bearing hardly on the yeoman farmer. It provides that if there is no sufficient distress the person entitled to the sum ordered to be recovered may proceed to obtain possession of the lands under Section 82 of the Tithe Act, 1836. That practically amounts to the same thing; the difference being simply between "tweedledum and tweedledee."
  SIR H. DAVEY: As I interpret the Lords' Amendment, it brings into operation the whole machinery of the 82nd section of the Act of 1836. Therefore a person desiring to obtain possession under the 82nd section must adopt the procedure indicated in that section.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): Hear, hear!
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: May I be allowed a word in explanation? The change in phraseology adopted by the Lords makes it clear that the existing law is to be maintained. The Amendment, as sent down by the Lords before, might have been interpreted as making a considerable alteration in the existing law, and it did, in fact, make one alteration—the substitution of a decision of the County Court for the interposition of a jury.
  MR. CHANNING: The right hon. Gentleman says that no alteration is made in the existing law. I am of a different opinion, and I shall support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend in this sense, that there is a valid distinction between derelict farms and holdings upon which there have been reasonable concessions between the landlord and tenant in regard to the value of agricultural produce. If Her Majesty's Government are prepared consistently to follow out the object with which the Bill was introduced last year, they ought to find some way out of the difficulty.
  The House divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 100.—(Div. List, No. 102.)
  MR. S. T. EVANS: My next Amendment is consequent upon the one which has just been rejected, and, therefore, I do not move it.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords Amendment," put, and agreed to.
  The next Amendment was—The Lords agree to the Amendment made by the Commons to the Lords Amendment in page 2, line 28, of the Bill as first printed by the Lords, with the following Amendments:—In the words added by the Commons leave out "officer" and insert "receiver," and leave out "him" and insert "the occupier."
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Gray) has given notice of Amendments to this Amendment, but his object will be gained by simply negativing the proposal formally made by the Government "that the House agree with the Lords Amendment." If the Lords Amendment

  1769
  is rejected the hon. Member can then move an alternative proposition.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I beg to move that the House do agree with the Lords Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir M. Hicks Beach.)
  *MR. C. W. GRAY: I sincerely trust that the House will not agree with these Amendments. In the Bill, when first presented, there was no reference to occupation by the tithe owner.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: My hon. Friend is quite mistaken. The words in the Bill provided that the officer of the Court should have the same right of recovery as now, which included the right of entry. In Committee the word "recovery" was altered to "distraint" at the request of the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt).
  MR. C. W. GRAY: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the explanation. During the passage of the Bill through the House it was considered in the interests of the tithe owner that this particular point required alteration, and there was subsequently a proposal of habere facias possessionem, which proposal, however, did not appear until after the Second Reading of the Bill. We discussed that provision, which empowered the tithe owner to cultivate the land under certain circumstances, and it was pointed out that as so much was done for the tithe owner, there might be some little concession in the interests of the occupier. This question affects only the occupying owner. We are dealing with cases where there is nothing to distrain upon, and I take it that the only cases in which this power of taking possession would be enforced are those in which the yeoman farmer is practically a ruined man, for that would be his position generally speaking before he allowed a tithe owner to come in and mismanage his occupation. Step by step the position of the tithe owner in reference to these cases of taking possession has been strengthened by the action of this and the other House, and it appears to me that there has been a gradual turning of the
  1770
  screw on the yeoman farmer to his disadvantage and the advantage of the tithe owner. The process has, no doubt, been slow and insidious, but the effect may be clearly seen by comparing the present position of the farmer with his position before 1836. The position prior to 1836 was this: the farmer could so farm his land that the tithe owner could not claim one single article produced from it, or one single halfpenny in lieu of tithe. To day, however, the farmer may be made to pay his very last drop of blood. I am not saying this in an offensive way or in a bitter spirit. His last halfpenny can, in fact", be taken from him, and this change has been effected by occasional innocent turns of the screw. I hope the House will not now give this extra turn. May I point out that at one stage of the proceedings the Government did not attach much importance to this point, for though the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has since candidly said he does not feel entirely tied by the words he used on the occasion I am going to refer to, he did, when we were discussing this very principle, declare he had never regarded the right of entry of the tithe owner as a right of serious value or importance; and if it were to be complicated by the question of compensation he did not think any injury would be done to the owner of tithe rent charge by omitting it from the Bill. After having discussed this subject over and over again we had a proposal from the other House and various proposals from the Front Bench in this House, which eventually resulted in the adoption of the habere facias possessionem principle, in accordance with Section 82 of the Tithe Act of 1836, it being further provided that such person obtaining possession should, while in possession, be under an obligation not to permit or commit any waste. Next we had an offer from the Front Bench to insert words securing that the land shall be cultivated in a husband like manner according to the custom of the country, and that the person taking possession if he lets the land should bind his tenant so to cultivate it. But now we are told that these matters must simply be dealt with under the old Commutation Act of 1836. Probably my hon. Friend the

  1771
  Member for Stockport will tell us that, if we so greatly preferred the first offer of the Government to the one now sent down from the House of Lords, we ought to have accepted the former when we had the chance. But when that offer was under discussion, I pointed out that I did not think it sufficiently safeguarded the interests of the yeoman farmer. If we are to be told that because we did not accept that offer we shall have nothing given us now, it is treating us as if we were schoolboys, and as this is a question of great importance to the yeoman farmer it ought not to be approached in that spirit. It is all very well for hon. Members to say this is a Bill for the simple purpose of enforcing the payment of tithe in Wales. The measure affects the whole of England, and especially a class of men who have suffered extremely from the agricultural depression—I mean the yeoman farmers of East Anglia. Surely they deserve some consideration at the hands of the Government. If the first offer of the Government did not go quite far enough that is no reason why something very much worse should be insisted on. Probably I shall be told that the provisions of the Act of 1836, which will be put into operation, will cover most of the points we have raised, especially with regard to the waste of land. But if that be so, why did the Government take the trouble to draft the habere facias possessionem clause at all. I can only say I hope that the House will not accept this Amendment in the form it has come from the Lords. I hope that the Party which has so ably championed the interests of the Church of England will show a little more conciliation than they have yet done—I hope they will see it will be to the interest of their Church not to be too hard-hearted; I do not blame them for trying to get every penny legally due to them, but in dealing with so complicated and intricate a question as this I say it behoves a religious body—be it Church or Dissent—to study the principles of fairness and justice even to the extent of generosity.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I must demur to the interests of the yeoman farmer being put forward invidiously as compared with the interests of other landholders. It is neither right
  1772
  nor reasonable. What is fair to the large landholder must be fair to the small landholder. I deny emphatically that there has been any effort to put the screw on the yeoman farmer.
  *MR. C. W. GRAY: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he will remember that when I referred to the turning of the screw I was comparing the present position of the yeoman farmer with that which he occupied prior to the Act of 1836, and I said the screw had been turned gradually at one period and another.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Very well; I will modify the expression. I say there is no turn of the screw here. The right which the Lords' Amendment gives to the tithe owner he already possesses under the Act of 1836. Again, the words which the Lords have struck out were mere surplusage, because by the law, as it at present stands, the tithe owner upon taking possession will be compelled to cultivate the land in a proper manner, because he is bound not to permit or commit waste. Moreover the provisions of this Bill are not, as the hon. Member seems to think, generally to the disadvantage of the occupying owner, who is now just as liable to be distrained upon, and in the absence of distraint to have his land entered upon, as he will be if the Lords' Amendment becomes law. The only difference is that the distraint will be carried out by the officer of the Court instead of by the tithe owner. And as to the Bill drawing from the yeoman farmer his last drop of blood, it will, on the contrary, give him this great advantage—that whereas he may now be distrained upon for the whole amount of the tithe, whatever the annual value of his land, in future he will only be distrained upon to the amount of two-thirds of the assessment of the land to Schedule B of the Income Tax. The fact is, that the position of the tithe-payer will be considerably improved under the Bill, and I hope the hon. Member will not persist in his opposition. Although the Government at one time were willing to insert words putting an obligation on the tithe owner taking possession not to permit or commit waste, I have since discovered, from the highest authority, that such a proviso was absolutely unnecessary, as the

  1773
  tithe owner is already under a distinct obligation of this nature, and is liable to be mulcted in damages for disregarding it. My hon. Friend must recollect that "waste" is a very wide term; it not only covers the breaking up of grass lands for arable purposes, but also the improper cultivation of arable lands. Therefore, these words were pure surplusage. Although my hon. Friend was willing to accept my offer to insert words compelling the tithe owner to cultivate the lands according to the custom of the country, it did not prevent his opposition to the clause, and I am bound to say that his action on that and on other occasions has not led me to believe that any attempt to propitiate him has resulted in any advantage, so far as the progress of the Bill was concerned. I do not for that reason, however, withdraw my offer; but because, on the merits of the words themselves, I am very glad they were not inserted in the Bill, because the effect might have been to confine the obligations on the tithe owner to properly cultivate arable land, while he would have had a free hand in breaking up pasturage.
  *MR. C. W. GRAY: They were not my words.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I do not charge the hon. Member with the responsibility of the words; I am only pointing out what would have been their effect. I hope the House will be content to accept this Amendment without any lengthened Debate. It does not alter the existing law, nor does it place the tithe owner in any better position than he now occupies.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: We are labouring under considerable disadvantage in having to discuss this without having before us the Amendments made by the Commons in the Lords' Amendments. In the first place, hon. Members do not realise that Sub-section 3 has disappeared altogether. The question is whether, if the Lords Amendment in its new form is accepted, there will be sufficient security for the proper cultivation of the land. I decline to admit that the words which the Lords have struck out are mere surplusage, and I appeal to the Attorney General to say under what provision a tithe owner on taking
  1774
  possession can be prevented from committing or permitting waste. The only provision I am aware of is in Section 83 of the Commutation Act of 1836, and there there is no mention of waste. Unless some provision such as was in the Bill before it went to the Lords is provided, the value of the land may be considerably depreciated, because the tithe owner may not, in some cases, take the trouble, or provide the necessary skill and energy to cultivate the land to the utmost advantage.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: The tithe owner has two remedies against the occupying owner: distraint and taking possession, and he can only use the second in case the first fails. One could almost count on the fingers of one hand the cases in which, during the last five-and-fifty years, the tithe owner has actually put in force the remedy of taking possession. The threat was almost always sufficient. I know a case in which I acted professionally, in which a clergyman recovered his tithe from one of the richest men in the country simply by threatening a writ of possession. But if the power is taken away, the tithe owner in the case of pasture lands may lose his income, and be left without any remedy at all; because the occupier, having driven off his cattle and left nothing to distrain upon, might snap his fingers at the tithe owner. I have a letter here from a country rector in Suffolk, pointing out that in his case £300 of his tithe comes from pasture land, 50 occupying owners paying an average of £6, and if they found he would be left without remedy, if there were nothing on the land to distrain upon, they might take care the cattle were removed. I think the Legislature ought not to deprive the tithe owner of this remedy. Then the hon. Member says there is no provision against waste. But there is no necessity for such a provision. I speak under correction, but I have good authority for saying that there is nobody but an absolute owner in fee simple who is not liable for damage or waste. Everyone who holds land, whether he be mortgagee, trustee, or tenant, unless there is absolute provision for the contrary, is liable for damage or waste, and the tithe owner will be in exactly the same position when

  1775
  he enters on possession. To attempt to take away this remedy for recovery because there is no provision against waste would be foolish, inasmuch as such a provision is in no way necessary.
  MR. CHANNING: The hon. Member seemed to prefer an imputation against hon. Members on this side—and I am not sure whether he included the hon. Member for Maldon also—that we wish to withdraw from the tithe owner altogether the remedy of entering on possession, but no one wishes to make any such suggestion. What we do say, and what we intend to affirm as far as we can, is that this right of taking possession as a means of recovering tithe rent-charge when payment is withheld should be accompanied by equitable conditions. With all respect to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, will he allow me by simple analogy to point out how the argument of the hon. Member who has just spoken in reference to waste falls to the ground? Those who are familiar with proceedings under the Agricultural Holdings Act will know that it is a just illustration. The landlord, where a claim under the Act is not set up, does not in general require payment for waste and dilapidation; but whenever the tenant does set up a claim under the Agricultural Holdings Act, then the landlord sets up his counter claim from the farmer. The practical effect of this is to show that the remedy at Common Law for waste is one which fails to be exercised oven in the hands of the most powerful members of the community, and it is therefore wholly inadequate to hold out this general principle as a remedy to which the poor farmer may appeal. I hold that the words suggested on a previous occasion by the President of the Board of Trade clearly defining the duty of the tithe owner that he shall cultivate according to good husbandry, and in a suitable way according to the custom of the district, and avoid the commission or permission of waste, are words that are required for the protection of the tenant. It should be elearly and definitely laid down in this Act, not left as a remedy in the background that may be appealed to on
  1776
  general principles, and by application to the High Court. Let it be here as a remedy before the farmer, and to which he can refer in his communication with the tithe owner or agent. One other point I would call attention to. It seems to me that this Amendment now sent down from the Lords very much aggravates the incidence of this procedure against the tenant occupier. So far as I can follow the procedure under the 82nd section of the Tithe Act of 1830, it will be much more costly than the procedure provided in the previous Amendment sent down from the Lords, and which this House, at the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, very wisely dissented from. Heavier costs will be inflicted on the yeoman farmer, while, at the same time, the security against injury to his land will be diminished.
  MR. JEFFREYS: Although this same power of entering into possession has existed for the last 55 years, it has been very rarely exercised. My hon. Friend, who has taken much interest in tithe questions, only knows of one instance where the tithe owner availed himself of the power in default of payment of tithe. The fact is, that although it is a power that might be exercised or, as the hon. Member for Stockport says, threatened to be used, it has really been very little used. I venture to suggest to my hon. Friend (Mr. Gray) that he has rather exaggerated the importance of this subject. Let us take the case of a yeoman farmer, say with 100 acres, paying a high tithe of say 5s. an acre, and amounting to the comparatively small sum of £25, which on the ordinary tithe average would be reduced to £20. I think in such a case as that the yeoman farmer would never be likely to incur the penalty of the loss of his land for the sake of such a sum as that. I cannot help thinking that my hon. Friend exaggerates the importance of the subject. The remedy has existed for 55 years as a reserve, which sometimes has been threatened, to secure payment of tithe; and if it remains now, it is not likely to affect landowner or occupier more in the future than in the past, and, for my part, I do not think it is worth fighting about.
  MR. MORTON: I recognise in this Amendment another attempt on the part of the Church Party to get as much as they can out of the owners and occupiers of land. I gather that from the speech of the hon. Member for Maldon, who understands this question thoroughly, and has done his best throughout these discussions on behalf of the occupiers of land. But that the ties of Party discipline are too strong, I am sure there are many hon. Members on the other side who would support him with their votes. The hon. Member has described this Amendment as another turn of the screw, and I have no doubt it is so. It should be observed that in the other House not only is the Church directly interested in this matter, but there is a strong representation of owners of Church livings. I do not know how many Church livings are owned by Members of the House of Lords, but certainly a great many, and hence there there is a strong interest in keeping up Church incomes for the benefit of relatives and friends. I am sorry to see that some Churchmen regard this matter solely from that point of view—I mean the getting as much as possible out of a Church living. They do not care how they get the money or from whom they get it so long as they do get it, and this is an opinion I have formed not only from observation, but from personal experience. Some two or three years ago a clergyman for his own benefit put the law in motion for the redemption of tithe on some property of mine. I did not want the tithe redeemed, but the parson did, and he had his way, and I unwillingly had to pay all the expenses. I found, on calculating the cost, that I had been charged more than I ought to have paid, and that I, the leaseholder, was mulcted for the freeholder's share. So I went to the agent and the Land Commissioners, and they said, "Yes, it is quite correct; you are paying everybody's share. We get it from you because it is easier to do so, and you must get it from the freeholder as best you can." That is an illustration of what the Church has done within my own knowledge, and similar is the effect of this Amendment. But I should like to see the Church turn its attention in other directions than this attempt to get money by turnings of the
  1778
  screw for its wealthier members who leave the actual Church work to others. In my own parish the rector takes all the tithe and leaves more than three-fourths of the work to be done by clergymen who get no share of either tithe or religions of the parish. I regret to see this action of the Church, and we ought to resist this Amendment introduced by the House of Lords in the interest of the Church Party and to the injury of those who till the ground.
  MR. STAVELEY HILL: I simply wish to explain why I shall vote with my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon. It seems to me that if this is a remedy which is to be very seldom applied then it is scarcely worth while retaining it; but if this drastic remedy is to be continued, then, in fairness, let it be alle viated in every possible reasonable way.
  *MR. T. H. BOLTON: I look upon legislation in respect to tithe rent-charge from a national point of view. Over and over again it has been admitted on this side, though just now it seems to be forgotten, that tithe is national property, used at the present time for Church purposes; but by-and-by, as many of us hope, to be devoted to public purposes, after fairly considering the claims of vested interests. Having in mind that this is a vast national fund, it behoves us to preserve it for the benefit of the people. This fund arises from a charge upon the land, and unless you provide full security for its recovery it will disappear, or almost certainly its redemption value—and a Commission is now considering this question of redemption—will be materially reduced. There are only two ways of recovering the tithe—first, by distress; and, secondly, if there is not sufficient distress by taking possession of the land. The public have the greatest interest in preserving this right to possession; it is part of the hold which the public have on the titheable land of the country, and if you abandon that and leave only recovery by distress you reduce the value of this national property. Necessarily you do this if you make recovery more difficult and expensive, not to say, in some cases,

  1779
  making recovery impossible. Therefore, I would suggest to my Radical friends that they should not weaken the public hold upon this property which the right of possession gives. Let this power to take possession remain as a reserve in the background. I am sure it would be a fatal mistake to give it up and rely simply upon the power of distraint. It is very easy indeed for owner and tenant to collude together and shift the stock liable to distraint from one part of the land to another, when a distraint is apprehended, and it will be easier to do that if the owner is in occupation. Therefore, as the only remedy distress is insufficient, and the right of possession is necessary to keep the value of this public property unimpaired. I join in the expression of opinion of the hon. Member for Maldon that the procedure provided by the Tithe Acts is somewhat cumbrous under which three writs from the Superior Court are required—first, a writ of inquiry, then a writ of possession, then a writ of supersedeas. A simpler process is desirable. I would follow on the lines of the transfer of the power of distress to the County Court, and give the County Court Judge jurisdiction to order possession of the land, to superintend possession of the land, and to discharge the tithe receiver from possession when his claim is satisfied. I think it is a great pity that a simpler and less expensive procedure has not been adopted, but I suppose it has been found difficult to shape a fresh clause in the limited time at the disposal of the Government, and it has been thought better to preserve the ultimate remedy exactly as it is. I daresay the right hon. Gentleman will quite sympathise with this opinion, and he will admit that this process for the time is preserved for want of a better. But I have no doubt that at an early period the Act will require to be amended in this respect, and a less expensive process will be substituted. I echo the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman as to the advantages secured by the Bill. Advantages have been secured both by landowner and tithe receiver. In the first place, there is the process of distress conducted by a public officer.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment before the House.
  *MR. T. H. BOLTON: I will not go beyond that. I only wish to urge my hon. Friends on this side of the House to preserve this public property while making reasonable changes connected with it; and not to allow their natural disposition to oppose Government propositions to lead them to sacrifice their principles.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I had not intended to intervene in this particular discussion, but the speech we have just heard calls for a few words of reply. Let me inform the hon. Member for St. Pancras, who has the impression that we may not maintain the principle for which he contends, that that is exactly what we have been doing, but we have not always found the hon. Member in the Lobby with us. A more extraordinary speech in favour of the clause than that just delivered I have never heard. First the hon. Member says he sympathises with the Government in their difficulty in dealing with the matter; then he says the procedure is cumbrous and likely to be attended with a great deal of trouble and expense. He sympathises with the Government in their difficulty, and I am sure the Government sympathise with him in his anxiety to assist the tithe owner to recover the tithe, however inequitably it may press upon the tithepayer. In dealing with this clause and the writ of possession, our anxiety is not to take away any right the tithe owner has at present, but to make it fair and equitable towards the tithepayer also. The hon. Member says the Government have had but a short space of time to deal with the matter, but, supporter of the Government as he is, he is satisfied with the clause, though he admits it is cumbrous and expensive. But what have we to do with that? We have to consider whether the clause is a proper one to pass. The Government have occupied nearly all the time since we met after the Christmas holidays with this Bill; and even with the assistance of the hon. Gentleman and his knowledge of tithe questions, the clause is cumbrous and expensive, and we say unjust to the tithepayer. But the hon.

  1781
  Member gets up and makes a speech in the interest of the tithe owner, taking a large expansive view of this as a national question, which only he has happened to comprehend. I say let the Government and their supporters on this side take more time if they have not had sufficient time to deal with this matter. We are dealing with an Amendment brought in from another place—an Amendment which is, on the face of it, inequitable. You have admitted it is insufficient by hanging to it provisions which are not in the present clause——
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Because they are the law now.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: The Bill does not contain the provisions you thought necessary before. If it is the law now, it was equally the law when the Amendment was proposed. It was not contended when the Bill was going through Committee that waste and improper cultivation were provided for.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: It was distinctly stated by myself that the law provided for it now.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: Then it was a peculiar thing to add words which were meaningless, and which, according to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, would be less efficacious now. The hon. Member for St. Pancras seems to think that the Bill will in a short time require amendment. Is not the present the time to amend it, when we point out that it is unjust, unfair, and unworkable? If more time is required to consider a more reasonable method of procedure, let the Bill stand over until after the Easter Recess, and see if you cannot adopt a more reasonable method of preserving the tithe owners' property without harsh and inequitable treatment of the tithepayer.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: I confess to finding great difficulty in following the legal view in this matter. I believe the clause has three distinct legal processes to be gone through prior to the entering upon possession of the land, and for all these proceedings and applications the expenses are to fall upon the tithepayer. Then these Lords Amendments are rushed upon us before we have really had time to consider their bearing
  1782
  properly. I only received them a few hours ago amid the enormous mass of papers one gets daily, and I have not been able—and I am sure other hon. Members have not been able—to follow the references to lines in the Bill and previous Amendments backwards and forwards. Even those learned in the law on either side have taken different views of the meaning and intention of many of the Amendments. To the astuteness of the Attorney General these things present no difficulty; but I can only envy the possession of powers which are denied to the common mind. I can speak as a tithe owner, and I say I have found it impossible, in the time allowed, to follow the effect of these Amendments, and I think it a very reasonable suggestion that we should make these matters an object of study during the Easter Recess.
  (3.50.) The House divided:—Ayes 125; Noes 52.—(Div. List, No. 103.)
  Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments as far as Clause D, agreed to.
  Lords Amendment to the Commons Amendment to Lords Amendment, Clause D, in the words inserted after "proceedings," leave out nor in any case where no notice of opposition has been given, the next Amendment, read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir M. Hicks Beach.)
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I hope the House will give its most careful attention to this Amendment of the Lords. If it be agreed to, the effect will be that the Government will have broken the pledge they gave and receded from the promises they made both in Committee and on Report. It was agreed by the Government that in undefended cases there should be no solicitor's or witnesses' costs. The first proposal was to insert a Schedule in the Bill, and the Attorney General read out to us the Schedule he suggested. There were various Amendments on the Paper at the time, and we refrained from moving them on an undertaking being expressly given by the Attorney General not only

  1783
  that there should be rules, but that there should be a clause in the Act of Parliament containing the provision to which I refer. The undertaking was to insert a clause in another place. When the Bill got into another place the Prime Minister proposed a clause with which I venture to agree. But afterwards the Standing Committee of the Lords altered the clause, I believe, on the legal authority of the Lord Chancellor. When the Bill came down again to this House the Government, of course, saw that the clause did not carry out their own pledges, and I had the honour of proposing the insertion of the words "nor in any case where no notice of opposition has been given." The Bill was sent again to another place with those words in the clause, and it comes back here with those words eliminated. We are forbidden to discuss the use of the Second Chamber on an Amendment of this kind; but, if this action of the Lords is to be acquiesced in, I presume that one of the uses of the Lords will be to enable the Government to get out of its pledges. I had better perhaps satisfy the House by reading the very words of the Attorney General when dealing with this matter. On the 10th of February in this House the Attorney General said; as reported in Hansard (1890–91, vol. ii, page 367):—
  "There is no doubt as to the way in which costs in undefended cases ought to be dealt with, and the Government will take care that they shall be dealt with by rules of the Rule Committee. Under these rules the costs of employing a solicitor will not be allowed where no notice of defence has been given. If the tithe-payer admits that he owes the money, a rule that no costs shall be allowed beyond the fees will meet the objections that have been made. I say this with the authority of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade."
  Later on in the same speech, the hon. and learned Gentleman said:—
  "I hope that I have satisfied hon. Members that they are under a misapprehension, and that in undefended cases, the costs will be strictly limited by the rules which the Government will have framed."
  Then I put a question to him; I said—
  "It is not contended that in undefended cases,' solicitors' and barristers' costs are not now incurred; but will the hon. and learned Gentleman undertake that in such cases there shall be no legal professional costs under this Act?"
  1784
  The Attorney General replied as follows:—
  "I am perfectly willing to undertake that the rules shall, in cases in which there is an admission of liability, prevent such costs being charged against the tithe payer."
  The same night, or, rather, early the next morning, the Attorney General made a further statement. The Hansard report is starred, and, I presume, is acknowledged as correct by the Attorney General. [Sir R. WEBSTER was understood to dissent.] I always understood that the starring of a name in a report in Hansard meant that the speaker had read through the report and revised it.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: Will the hon. Member pardon me? I have not in the whole of this Session corrected a single thing except a printer's error.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: Then it is well the House should know in the future that the Attorney General is not to be held responsible for the reports of his speeches, although they are starred. At all events, he is reported to have said (Vol. 11., page 391)—
  "The words of the rules which I have read are clear, that the costs of employing a solicitor will not be allowed in any case in which no notice of defence is entered, and in cases in which there is such notice they will only be allowed for work done subsequent to such notice. Again, witnesses' costs will not be allowed in any case where the tithe payer has not given notice of defence."
  Then I said—
  "I shall be glad if the Attorney General will agree to the incorporation of the rules in the Bill."
  Sir M. Hicks Beach, in reply to that, said "It shall be done." My hon. Friend (Mr. Lloyd-George) said—
  "Under these circumstances I do not propose to move the remaining Amendments on the Paper."
  Now, here we have a distinct pledge, given by the Government for a quid pro quo, that in another place they would bring in a clause providing that in undefended cases there should be no costs.
  SIR R. WEBSTERindicated assent.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman say now that there are to be no costs in undefended cases?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: In undefended cases, yes.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: Then may I ask whether if the tithe payer files a notice admitting the claim there will be no costs?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: There will be none in that case. I will explain when my hon. and learned Friend has finished his speech.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I am very sorry to contradict the hon. and learned Attorney General, but I contend that there will be costs in such cases. All the initial costs of an action must be incurred before the notice of action can be filed. I should like to see the Attorney General produce an Amendment carrying out the view that where no notice of opposition is filed there shall be no costs. I want to know what has happened in another place to make the Government depart from the pledge they gave us here, and I want to see inserted in the clause some words providing that where a case is undefended, and the tithepayer is entitled to his order to recover, there shall be no costs either of solicitor or witnesses. I think that unless this is done we shall be justified, even at this period of the Session, in carrying on the fight to the bitter end. The interference of the Lords has been entirely uncalled for, and appears to have been contrary to the wishes of the Government themselves. Are the Government to throw over their pledges in this way, and to tie themselves hand and foot to any ecclesiastical or sacerdotal supporter they may have in the Upper House? It was supposed that there was to be no more contentious business in connection with this matter this Session, and many hon. Members have in consequence gone away to their homes; but I can tell the Government that if they want to facilitate the working of this Act in the Principality, they had better throw over their ecclesiastical supporters and adhere to their pledges. Unless they do so it is clear that they are simply championing the cause of the clerical tithe owner; and, speaking with a full sense of my responsibility as a Member of this House, I say I think we shall be justified in resisting the smooth working of the Act in the Principality.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I do not intend to adopt the tone which my hon. and learned Friend has assumed in the attack he has just made upon the Government. No doubt it is a very convenient thing to be able to launch a Debate of this kind by alleging that there has been a breach of faith or a breach of arrangement. Having regard to what has passed between the Government and those who, in conjunction with my hon. and learned Friend, have been conducting the opposition to this Bill most fairly, I think the allegation my hon. and learned Friend has made was singularly uncalled for. I will leave the House to form their own judgment when they have heard the very brief statement I am going to make. I go back in no shape or form from the substance of what I have said. In undefended cases there will be no costs. The subsequent alterations made by the Lords make it impossible to adhere to the words as they originally stood. As the clause now stands there are three cases in which no costs can be claimed. The House will see how unjust it is to allege a breach of faith. Now the point is whether we have provided there should be no costs in undefended cases. In the first place, no costs, either for solicitor or witness, shall be claimed in any case where the amount claimed is paid without further proceeding. Secondly, no costs will be paid, in any case where notice of intention to apply for time to pay the tithe owner's claim has been given. Thirdly, in any case where notice of opposition has been given within the prescribed time the costs of solicitor will only be allowed for work done subsequent to that notice. I say most distinctly no costs will be allowed in really undefended cases. In addition to the three enactments which were inserted, these are the words that are now insisted on: "Nor in any case where no notice of opposition has been given." I appeal to any Member of this. House to consider this matter fairly and impartially. Take this case: A receiver is appointed; objection is taken to the receiver receiving the rent, and it is necessary in consequence of the obstructive actions of the tithe payer for the tithe owner, through the receiver, to apply to the Court. Costs are thereby

  1787
  incurred. Can it be said that the tithe-payer ought not to pay those costs? If the tithe payer could jump up in the County Court and say, "No notice of opposition has been given and therefore there is no jurisdiction to give costs," he would escape payment of the costs. Any real case of an undefended action is met by the clauses of the Bill. The only case which is not met is a case which ought not to be met. I am perfectly willing to take any amount of blame for not having seen the possible working of these words at the time they were accepted by the Government. It seems to me more frank to admit that I did not perceive the actual working of the clause as worded, than to take up any other line of argument. The omission of these words is in no way insisted on in consequence of any change of front or because of any breach of faith on the part of the Government; but because every single fair case is met by the words which have been expressly put into the Bill for that purpose. When hon. Members opposite come to deal with the question, I would ask them to point to any case in which the tithe owner can get costs when no opposition is made by the tithe-payer. If the tithe payer pays the money, the tithe owner will not be allowed costs. If the tithe payer says, "I owe the money, but want you to let me pay it by instalments," the tithe owner will get no costs. Even in a case in which the tithe payer goes to the Court, and says, "I wish to appear in this matter on the question of amount," the tithe owner will get no costs. Under these circumstances, I appeal to any fair-minded man to say whether there is the slightest foundation for the suggestion that we have not carried out our pledge.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman read the Rules he read on the Report stage?
  SIR. R. WEBSTER: I am very sorry I have not got them here; but, as far as I know, they are in accordance with what I have stated to the House.
  MR. RANDELL: It is difficult to see why the Government agreed to the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend, and now assent to what has been done by the House of Lords. I must say that the fact of the Government assenting to the
  1788
  course followed by the Lords will be received with much disfavour by the constituencies we represent. If any part of the Bill has been contested more strenuously than another, it has been that portion which relates to the question of costs. This House has been most anxious to keep down the costs. I venture to think that in cases in which there is a bonâ fide defence, the costs under this Bill will be much greater than they would be under the present law. The Amendment of my hon. Friend appeared to be so reasonable, the other evening, to the Government themselves that they accepted it, and I see no reason why they should depart from the position they then took up. We Welsh Members have, I think, fought this Bill very fairly and have succeeded in getting various Amendments inserted, but many of those Amendments have been struck out in the House of Lords. I do hope that in this case the Government will stick to their guns, and will refuse to assent to the Lords' Amendment.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: It really is very sad to think that after we have passed a Bill here and sent it to the Lords, and have then considered their Amendments and sent the measure up again with an agreement on both sides of the House in favour of certain alterations, the Lords should step in and strike out those alterations. The Attorney General says he defies any fair person to get up in this House, and say after his speech that the pledge given by the Government has been violated. Well, I am prepared to say that, as far as I understand the matter, after listening to what has fallen from my hon. Friend, and from the Attorney General, the pledge has been absolutely violated. I am strengthened in my belief on this point by the indignation shown by the Attorney General. I have always observed that when a lawyer shows indignation there is something concealed behind it. The omission of these words was moved by Lord Selborne. It appears to me that the Liberal Unionists are as troublesome in the House of Lords as they are in this House. Either these words mean something or they do not. If they mean nothing why do not the Government consent to their re-insertion? The Attorney

  1789
  General explained that they do mean something, and said he had been deceived—poor, innocent man!—by my hon. Friend, but Lord Selborne, being more acute than he, saw the serious harm they would do, and, therefore, they were struck out by the Lords. The fact is, that the Government want to get the Royal Assent to the Bill as soon as possible, and that is why they will not agree to re-insert the words. I ask the noble Lord the Member for Darwen (Viscount Cranborne) to be good enough to give his assent to our proposal, and to absolve the Government from the mandate he has issued that the Bill shall be passed in its entirety before the Easter Recess. We perfectly well know that the noble Lord is our master in this matter, and the master of the Government, and if he does not agree to our suggestion we shall be voted down. We protest against the conduct of the Government. If anything ought to be kept sacred it is a pledge given by the Government to the House, and more especially when for that pledge they have obtained a clear and distinct quid pro quo. The Attorney General went out of his way to praise the fairness of my hon. Friend (Mr. S. T. Evans), and my hon. Friend distinctly says that, as far as he understands it, there was a specific pledge, and that pledge has been violated. I would put it to the Government, therefore, whether, under these circumstances, and in view of the fact that the greater number of the Welsh Members have gone away relying on the pledge, it would not be better to disagree with the Amendment or to defer the Debate until after Easter.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: It strikes me that the issue now before the House raises a very important question as to the value we are to place on the assurances that proceed from the Treasury Bench as to the manner in which business is to be conducted. I listened with very great attention to the speech of the hon. and learned Attorney General and it entirely failed to convince me that the Government have maintained in the House of Lords the attitude we had a right to expect from them in view of the assurances given in this House. This is not the first time this question has arisen during the continuance of the
  1790
  present Parliament. I remember perfectly well that on the Coal Mines Regulation Bill we had Amendments accepted in this House, and struck out in the other House by the Colleagues of those who had accepted them here. I do put it to the President of the Board of Trade (Sir M. Hicks Beach) that the Government should, as a matter of good faith, stand to their guns and agree to the re-insertion of the words they accepted in this House.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The hon. and learned Attorney General, in his very clear and interesting speech, showed that the Government have gone very far to meet the wishes of the Welsh Members, and I think he showed likewise that in his opinion they had gone as far as their pledges led them. I do not wonder, however, that the Welsh Members do not think that everthing promised them in previous Debates has been carried out, and I own I must join in that opinion. It appears to me to be a very small point. The Attorney General is reported to have said, in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Mid Glamorgan (Mr. S. Evans) on the 10th of February (Hansard, 1890–91, vol. II., page 367)—
  "There is no doubt as to the way in which costs in undefended cases ought to be dealt with, and the Government will take care that they shall he dealt with by rules of the Rule Committee. Under these rules the costs of employing a solicitor will not be allowed where no notice of defence has been given. If the tithe payer admits that he owes the money, a rule that no costs shall be allowed beyond the fees will meet the objections that have been made."
  That has been done, undoubtedly. Later on, at page 391,' the Attorney General says—
  "I think my undertaking ought to have been sufficient, for it is a most unusual practice to put, say, half a dozen rules on the face of an Act of Parliament. The words of "the rules which I have read are clear, that the costs of employing a solicitor will not be allowed in any case in which no notice of defence is entered, and in cases in which there is such notice they will only be allowed for work done subsequent to such notice."
  The only other words I will read to the House are the words of the clause moved in the House of Lords, presumably to carry out the intentions of the Government as expressed by the Attorney General—

  1791
  "An application to a County Court for an order under this Act may be made on behalf of the tithe owner by his agent, although not a solicitor, and on such application the costs either of a solicitor or of a witness shall not be allowed in any case where notice of defence has not been given, and when such notice has been given the costs of a solicitor shall only be allowed for work done subsequent to the notice."
  The Government have introduced a clause, and the House of Lords has accepted it, excusing the defendant from costs on two conditions, of which the first is that the costs either of the solicitor or witness shall not be allowed in any case where the amount claimed is paid without further proceedings. I suppose it is contended that that covers the case where no notice of defence is entered, and I can quite understand that the Attorney General considers that an immense concession. It does not cover, says my hon. and learned Friend below the Gangway, the case where the defendant assumes a purely passive attitude. There is a real difference between the Amendment as it comes down from the House of Lords and the Amendment as it left this House. The Attorney General has shown that it may be a very vexatious action on the part of the defendant, but that only bears out more strongly the contention of my hon. and learned Friend that a very definite and strong case is not met by the Amendment as it comes down from the Lords, but was met by the Amendment as it went to the Lords. I do not want to use strong expressions, and to say anything about a breach of faith, but I do say it is a most unfortunate thing that the other House should have thought it necessary to whittle down those concessions which made this Bill, not palatable, but tolerable, to the Welsh Members; and I further say that I do not see any public reason why we should not disagree to this Amendment, the only bad result of which would be that the Royal Assent to the Bill would be put off for a fortnight. I do not, however, think that that would be a very great evil.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: The course the Government have taken on this Bill in accepting Amendments moved in the Lords by persons other than members of the Government is one which may be fraught with serious consequences.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: We had nothing to do with the fact that Lord Selborne moved this particular Amendment.
  *MR. F. S. STEVENSON: That strengthens my argument. By accepting this Amendment the Government made themselves responsible for it; and the question is whether they have shifted in any degree from the position taken up in a previous Debate. It seems to me that the contention of the Attorney General rests on the difference between opposition and notice of opposition. He admits that the acceptance of the Amendment was an afterthought, and that at the time he spoke in the House he did not contemplate the contingency the Amendment is designed to meet. The hon. and learned Gentleman must remember that he gave a pledge to the House and that a pledge depends not so much on the manner in which it is understood by the man who makes it as on the manner in which it is understood by those to whom it is made. The Welsh Members distinctly have a different impression of the pledge from that of the Attorney General. I appeal to the Government to consent to the disagreement on the part of the House to the Amendment.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: The pledge given by the Government was clear. It was that where there was no opposition there should be no costs, and that pledge is amply carried out without these words. Every one who understands the matter will see that without notice of opposition when the receiver is going to take possession, it is possible for the tithe payer to put difficulties in his way. The insertion of these words would enable him to do so without being liable to the costs which his wrongful action had caused.
  DR. CLARK: I do not know if the hon. Gentleman was present when the pledge was given by the Attorney General. The whole thing would be settled if the hon. and learned Gentleman would only bring before the House the Rules he was drafting, and which he asked my hon. Friend to accept instead of this clause in the Bill. I remember the Divisions which took place on the Motions moved with the object of preserving the tithe as national property when it may be used for another purpose.

  1793
  I remember that a Motion was moved at about 1 o'clock in the morning, and I remember that an hon. Friend who moved it proposed that no costs of solicitor or witness should be given where there had been no notice of defence. The Attorney General accepted that and read the proposed Rules, and the Government adopted the words they are now asking us to drop out altogether. Although the Attorney General pledged himself to draw up rules as the hour was nearly 1 o'clock in the morning he did not move them, but said they would be inserted in the Bill "in another place." Since then he has probably discovered that although no notice of opposition on defence may be lodged, yet that by certain processes costs may be incurred. I understand that he now agrees that this should be dropped out of the Bill, though the clause has been twice adopted by the House. This is a very serious question. Several Amendments were dropped by my hon. Friends for Wales, which probably, but for the statement of the Government, would have occupied two or three hours in discussion. But the Attorney General is now going to vote contrary to the understanding at which he arrived with hon. Members on this side of the House. I think the only course he ought to take is to vote with us. Since he drafted these Rules, however, he has, I suppose, discovered that there were things he did not know of at the time. ["He has said so."] I have been here all the time, and I have not heard it. Supposing the Attorney General adopted the understanding with this side of the House under a misconception, then we are in this position, that he came to terms from which he now seeks to withdraw on the ground of misconception. I regret the Attorney General has not got his own Rules here, because they would have settled the question.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: Hon. Members from Wales who are not present could not have anticipated that the Government would take this action. I hold in my hand the Amendment to which the Commons agreed, "Nor in any case where no opposition has been given." The Attorney General now shields himself behind the allegations of innocence in this matter. There was an unmistakable pledge, so
  1794
  far as my memory goes, given by the Attorney General and by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. I am certain that every Representative of the Principality is under that impression. Now, at the very moment we are adjourning for a well-deserved holiday, we have this Bill sent back from the Lords with this slap in the face, as it were, to the House of Commons and to the Government. Having agreed with the House that certain words should be inserted, the Lords say "No, we will not agree to it, and we send it back to you again." This is a very serious matter indeed, and there may be a time come when the Government will have to answer to the constituencies for having broken their distinct and unmistakable pledge, while the Attorney General assumes the mien of the most innocent Member of the most innocent Government that has ever ruled in the country.
  MR. JOICEY: Sir, I was present when this bargain was made between the Attorney General as a Member of Her Majesty's Government and my hon. and learned Friend. I confess my reading of his words is that the Attorney General confesses that my hon. and learned Friend got the better of him. But, Sir, we commercial men have always been of the impression that a bargain is a bargain and ought to be adhered to, and that when one party has got the worst of it he has no right to attempt to upset that bargain. It is perfectly clear that the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend was accepted without any qualification whatever. It went to the House of Lords, and the Prime Minister moved it. Then Lord Selborne moved an Amendment to it, and the Representatives of Her Majesty's Government in the other House accepted it, thus breaking the pledge given by the Government in this House. I think that is most unfair treatment. When the bargain was made every Welsh Member had a full opportunity of discussing it. Now their mouths are practically closed. I repeat that such treatment is unfair, and I shall certainly vote with my hon. and learned Friend.
  MR. DILLWYN: I heard the whole of the Debate

  1795
  on the clause now under discussion. I was rather surprised when my hon. Friend laughed at the remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr, to the effect that he ought to vote for the Amendment. He ought to vote for it. I have no doubt on my mind that the understanding was clear and distinct that costs were not to be incurred in undefended cases, and I take an undefended case to mean where judgment is given without any defence having been offered. I also know that the whole of the Welsh Members believed the matter settled, and I am quite sure that the Attorney General would not wilfully commit any act of bad faith, though I am equally sure that it will be looked upon by Members on this side of the House as an act of bad faith. The Attorney General has altered the wording of our Amendment; but I think, before the point is decided, that we ought to have the Rule which the Attorney General was challenged to produce. I think the question ought not now to be settled, and I move that this Debate be now adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I think we ought to have some reply from the Government before the Debate is adjourned. It seems to be admitted by the Attorney General that a pledge was given. To that the Attorney General assents. All he says is that in his mind there should be some very accurate distinction as to what is a defended and what an undefended case. I would reiterate the case cited by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of a man being passive.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order order! The Question is, the Adjournment of the Debate.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I think we ought to have the adjournment in order to get the Rules from the Attorney General, who has placed his recollection against ours in this matter. Why does he not produce the Rules, which, no doubt, are in some pigeon-hole of some office. Surely the Government ought themselves to assent to the Motion, seeing that the majority of Welsh Members who are interested in the matter have
  1796
  gone back to their constituents. They would never have left had they had the slightest thought that the pledge given was to be violated within 24 hours of its having been given. One hon. Member says he has only had the Amendments of the Lords for an hour or two. We ourselves only received them this morning. The Government ought really to carry out their pledge, and I hope the House will enable them to seize this opportunity now given them to carry it out at the last moment.
  DR. CLARK: I wish to ask some Member of the Government, on the Question of the Adjournment, what they intend to do with respect to Orders on the Paper?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Question is, the Adjournment of the Debate.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: We have had a good deal of hair-splitting on this matter, but really Her Majesty's Government come down here and say, "Here is an Order from the House of Lords." I repudiate that altogether.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  Sir M. HICKS BEACHrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  (5.5.) The House divided:—Ayes-143; Noes 57.—(Div. List, No. 104.)
  Question put accordingly, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  (5.15.) The House divided:—Ayes 58; Noes 146.—(Div. List, No. 105.)
  Sir M. HICKS BEACH claimed, "That the Original Question be now put."
  Original Question put accordingly, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  (5.25.) The House divided:—Ayes 148; Noes 60.—(Div. List, No. 106.)

  ELECTORAL DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL.—(No. 182.)
  Considered in Committee.
  MR. CAUSTON: I beg to move to report Progress. I protest against Progress being made with this Bill at the fag-end of the Sitting in the absence of hon. Members

  1797
  who take an interest in it. We know that the measure is a very incomplete one, and that the electoral disabilities of the ordinary working man are left untouched. It is merely a legislative tinkering with the Registration Laws, and it is proposed in the interests of the Government supporters, who for some reason think that the soldiers, sailors, police, and coachmen, to whom this Bill specially applies, will vote for them. I protest against this measure being taken this afternoon, and I hope the Government will not press it.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Causton.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): The hon. Member appeals to me to support him in an obstructive course.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Order, order!
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I repeat the words, and I refuse to agree to the obstructive Motion of the hon. Member. The hon. Member is aware that there was a Parliamentary understanding last evening that we should get the Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates. That understanding has failed, and under the circumstances I am justified in asking the House to proceed with a Bill against the principle of which there has been no Division. I hope right hon. Gentlemen opposite will assist me in endeavouring to carry forward the business of the House.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I think there has been some little misunderstanding. I was not aware the Government were going to put off Supply. I hope that even now it is not too late to get the Speaker out of the Chair. There was a distinct understanding that the Speaker was to leave the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates before moving the Adjournment. If that had been done I had intended to ask the Government not to proceed with this and the Savings Bank Bill. Let us deal with this question as sensible businesslike men. No one wishes to prolong this Sitting; we all want to get away. The right Gentleman met us in a spirit of the greatest fairness last night
  1798
  in regard to the Scotch Private Bill Committee, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian agreed that facilities should be given for carrying on other business of the Government, but at half-past 11 the House had to deal with a question of great public interest with reference to the management of the Post Office, and no one can say half an hour was too long to devote to that. Still, I believe there was a distinct understanding that to-day no opposition would be raised to the Speaker leaving the Chair. I would render every facility to carry such a Motion upon the understanding that the adjournment of the House was then moved.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am afraid that it is impossible to go back upon the Order of the House postponing Supply until next Monday week. I may say that I received communications which satisfied me that we could not have got the Speaker out of the Chair this evening without the Closure. [Cries of "Oh!"] The House is in the habit of accepting statements which I make. I decline to waste the time between now and 10 minutes to 7, and I have to ask the House to consider what are practically two uncontested Bills.
  SIR G. TREVE LYAN: I do not want to use strong language, but I think it is rather unfortunate that not a single word was said in the course of the last hour or two as to the intentions of the Government, and for this reason, that we on this Bench were prepared, directly the Motion was made that the Speaker should leave the Chair, to have risen and assured the Government that we would do all in our power to allow the Motion to be carried in time for the Motion for the Adjournment to be moved afterwards. I took a good deal of trouble to ascertain who intended to speak on the Motion "That the Speaker do leave the Chair," and I believe I absolutely ascertained that they were willing to enter into that course to the fullest measure. If the Order of the Day for the Speaker leaving the Chair had been disposed of I would have been disposed to ask the Government whether they would consent, under the circumstances, not to proceed with the two Bills next on the Paper, which are Bills upon which there is considerable difference of opinion.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): May I point out that there is only one set of Amendments to this Bill, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Camborne, and that there cannot be any lengthened discussion upon it? The hon. Member himself appealed to the House last night to allow the Bill to be taken after 12 o'clock. It is important that the Bill should be passed at an early period of the Session.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The hon. Member for Caithness had intended to raise an important question on the Motion "That the Speaker do leave the Chair." I represented to him that perhaps it would be desirable if he deferred the matter, as it was to the interest of all Members that they should get away as soon as possible. The hon. Gentleman consented to defer the question. Other hon. Members gave up their right to speak on the Motion, under the impression that there was some sort of understanding that if they did Mr. Speaker would leave the Chair, and the Motion for Adjournment would be moved. As to this Order, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Camborne goes to the root of the Bill, and the hon. Member will not be left to discuss it himself, as there are many Members who share his views. Under these circumstances, I do not think it is probable that the Bill will pass before 10 minutes to 7 o'clock. There is no desire, when the House meets after the Recess, to discuss the Motion "That the Speaker leave the Chair," and I and my hon. Friends will be prepared to consider the Estimates at once on Monday week. I would suggest that, on the understanding that there is no discussion on Monday week on the Motion "That the Speaker leave the Chair," the First Lord of the Treasury should now move the adjournment. I certainly think he would gain by accepting such a proposal.
  MR. CONYBEARE: There is considerable opposition to this Bill on its merits, and although I was personally willing and anxious to take the Bill last night there can be no question of obstruction if discussion is raised. The First Lord of the Treasury has said there are two uncontested Bills. I presume that one to which he refers
  1800
  is the Savings Banks Bill. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is not an uncontested Bill. I have received instructions from my constituents to oppose that measure unless a concession is made on a point which the savings banks consider of vital importance.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: If there is one person to blame for the difficulty in which we are in at the present time it is the First Lord of the Treasury. The difficulty arises through the second Order of the Day being passed over. In giving up their right to speak on that Order hon. Members were not desirous that the Electoral Disabilities Bill and the Savings Banks Bill should be pushed forward this afternoon. The Bill now under consideration is one which none of us like—indeed we regard it as a paltry measure dealing with a great subject. Even if we dispose of it, it will be impossible to get the Savings Banks Bill through this afternoon, as there are several important points which must necessarily be discussed.
  DR. CLARK: If the right hon. Gentleman expects to get through these two Bills this afternoon he is very much mistaken. There will be much discussion upon the proposal to omit an important clause of the Savings Banks Bill.
  *MR. TOMLINSON: I rise to order. Is it in Order for the hon. Gentleman, on a Motion to report Progress on this Bill, to discuss the provisions of the Savings Banks Bill?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is out of order.
  *MR. H. H. FOWLER: It is quite evident we cannot get through the two Bills and dispose of the Motion for Adjournment this afternoon. I would therefore support the suggestion of the hon. Member for Northampton, namely, that we should come to an understanding that the Speaker should leave the Chair without discussion on Monday the 6th of April, and that the Government should now move the adjournment for the holidays.
  DR. CLARK: I might have been willing to allow the Speaker to leave the Chair at an earlier hour, but now I cannot consent to such an understanding, because if the adjournment were moved

  1801
  now, there would be no time to say anything on the Motion.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: If there is a distinct Parliamentary understanding which will be observed by hon. Gentlemen above and below the Gangway opposite, that the Speaker do leave the Chair on the Order being called on Monday week, I will accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman has met us in a fair manner, and I shall consider it my duty to be here first thing on Monday the 6th, and bear testimony, if it is needed, to the understanding.
  DR. CLARK: I do not agree to it.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: Am I to understand there is an hon. Gentleman who dissents from the agreement? If so it is impossible to carry on business.
  DR. CLARK: On the understanding that I may speak on the point I desire to raise when the Adjournment is moved, I agree to the understanding.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday, 6th April.

MOTION.

  ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE (EASTER.)
  (6.0.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House at the conclusion of the morning sitting do adjourn till Thursday at 12 of the clock; that on Thursday the House at its rising do adjourn till Monday, April 6; and that Mr. Speaker, as soon as he has reported the Royal Assent to the Bills agreed on by both Houses, do adjourn the House without question put."—(Mr. W. S. Smith.)
  DR. CLARK: In Committee of Supply for several years I have called attention to the very inadequate grants given to Scotland for various purposes, as compared with those given to England and Ireland. Our position in Scotland is very peculiar. At the present time Scotland, partly owing to the industry of its people, and partly owing to the fact that the people drink a very highly taxed article, is paying about 2s. more per head of the population in taxation than England. We have to congratulate ourselves upon the one cause, but to deplore the other. Scotland has no Government dockyards, although we could build ships about 50 per cent. cheaper
  1802
  than you can build them in your dockyards, and in about half the time. We have no arsenals or military camps. The only respect in which we might be fairly tested would be in the Civil Service Estimates; we might get our fair share of the money voted by Parliament for special purposes, but, as a matter of fact, we do not. You sometimes say that Scotland is a poor country and it is not necessary to pay as high salaries there as are paid in England or Ireland. That is not correct. Scotland is richer than England, because she pays more per head in taxation, and the cost of living in large towns in Scotland is much the same as in England. Certainly it is higher than in Ireland. Let us take, first of all, the salaries paid to the principal Secretaries of State. The Home Secretary is paid £5,000 a year; the Chief Secretary for Ireland £4,425; and the Secretary for Scotland £2,000. The Under Secretaries are paid in the same fashion. In England the Under Secretary gets £2,000, and in Scotland £1,500 a year. The principal clerks in England are paid from £900 to £1,000 a year; in Ireland from £700 to £900; and in Scotland from £300 to £400. The same principle is even carried out in the Scotch Office in London; for, instead of getting £900 or £1,000 a year, which English clerks get, the clerks in the Scotch Office at Whitehall only get from £450 to £600. The English Attorney General is paid £7,000; the Irish Attorney General £5,000; while the Lord Advocate only receives £2,300. The English Solicitor General receives £6,000; the Irish Solicitor General £2,000; and the Scotch Solicitor General only £900. I want to know on what ground this great disparity can be supported. Again, the cost of Local Government in England is £166,000; in Ireland £133,000; and in Scotland only £9,806. Take one Department alone—the Medical Department, by which the Public Health Acts are carried out: the cost in England is £17,416; in Ireland £4,400; and in Scotland £500. The result is, you have not the same attention paid to public health matters as you have in England and in Ireland, and a great deal of preventible disease occurs from the parsimony of this House in reference to everything Scotch. We are badly used in

  1803
  other directions in this matter of salaries; where prison officials in England and in Ireland receive £2,000, in Scotland they are paid only £61,200. The same thing occurs in the Lunacy Commission. Sere Commissioners receive £1,500 a year, in Scotland, where there happen to be two very able men, they are paid £1,000. And so you may carry the comparison down through the grades of assistant officials where you find in England they are paid the salaries which in Scotland are paid to the principal officers. In the case of chaplains to prisons the same thing obtains. Although I am not specially in favour of the endowment of religion by State officials of this kind, I may point out that while you pay these clergymen in England £350 to £450 a year, in Scotland you give them from £200 to £300. Then I have a much more serious grievance to complain of. So far as officials are concerned, there might be uniformity produced by reducing all pay to the Scotch level thus saving a good deal of money, and this is probably what I will attempt to do in Committee of Supply. But in the grants in aid, I am sorry to say Scotland is treated in the same shabby manner. These are the Royal Colleges of Science for the teaching of technology applied to various industries, and you vote sums in aid for England and Ireland. You have a very valuable school in London and every year £16,000 is voted by Parliament for teachers and scholarships, under which young English lads can be educated free by the State and unfairly compete with Scotch lads. We get nothing of the kind. There is a sum in the present year on the Vote of £16,895 for teachers and scholarships in London, and £3,800 additional for museums, making over £620,000 for technical education in London. You have a similar thing in Ireland, £7,000 for technology and scholarship for Irish lads; but you refuse to vote a single penny to Scotland in this direction. The only item upon which Scotland gets a higher vote than England and Ireland is in the competition open to all in the Science and Art Department. There the figures are £16,000 for England, £20,000 for Scotland and £8,000 for Ireland; but this is not direct State aid, it is obtained by the ordinary method. Where assistance is
  1804
  given to Colleges of Science in England, we find that to the Watt College in Edinburgh for Engineers, there is no assistance given, and though in one year there was a grant to a college in Dundee that has now been stopped. One of the conditions of the Union between Scotland and England was that the Scotch Church and Scotch Universities should be maintained by the State. The year before last the Chancellor of the Exchequer pushed a Bill through the House, under which an obligation was undertaken by the Government to the extent of £40,000 for Scotch Universities. We voted against it, and Ave still maintain that under the Articles of Union, Great Britain is liable for the maintenance. Now, what has occurred? The Commission appointed have told you the sum is inadequate, and they cannot perform the duties they were appointed to carry out. The Treasury refuse to do anything, even though bound by the solemn Articles of Union. You refuse to carry out your obligations, and your payments you are compelled to make are at the rate of two centuries ago, when the value of money was wholly different to what it is now. In all these grants Ireland gets all she wants, and much more than she ought to get, while Scotland gets nothing. I may point out that while the Royal Society in London gets £4,000, and the Royal Institute in Ireland £2,000, the Royal Society in Edinburgh gets £300, and that £300 goes back again in the form of rent. In England and Ireland there are grants for the Royal Society, the Royal Geographical Society, the Royal Academy of Music, the Royal College of Music, the Royal Irish Academy, the Hibernian Society, and other institutions. In Scotland there is nothing of the kind. In addition to this, there is the distinction that what is in Scotland paid entirely out of local rates is in England and Ireland paid from the Imperial Exchequer; so that while you compel Scotland to pay for Scotch institutions for local purposes, you also require Scotland to share in the burden of supporting English and Irish institutions. In this same Vote there is the payment for auditors to examine Local Government accounts. That is a loss of £28,000, and a growing loss, because you are going to supply the same thing

  1805
  to County Councils. You have got registrars, but the cost of registration in Scotland is defrayed out of local rates, while in England the cost is partly defrayed by Imperial Grants, to which Scotland pays her share. Look at the grand total of grants in and from Imperial resources—for England about £1,000,000, for Scotland about £230,000, for Ireland over £2,000,000. These are very serious grievances. We are compelled to pay more per head of Imperial taxation in Scotland, while we have to tax ourselves for our Scotch institutions. Grants in aid are freely given in England and Ireland for public health purposes, for education, for art and science, while such grants are refused to Scotland. I frankly admit that Scotch Members are greatly to blame for this. They have always been in favour of economy and retrenchment, and now you have applied economy and retrenchment against Scotland. The Irish Members have always pursued a different policy, and have been equally successful. They have endeavoured to secure every possible benefit to their country from the relationship between the countries. When, as I hope, these relations as regards both Ireland and Scotland are modified, there will, I trust, be a more equal distribution of burdens; but, meanwhile, while Ireland gets all the financial benefit of the Union, and scarcely any of the burden, and while England gets about an equal share of the burden and the benefit, Scotland comes in for more than her share of the burden and none of the benefit. Two years ago a Committee was appointed for the examination of these questions. That Committee sat for a day last Session; and, I suppose, will meet again when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is relieved from the pressure of his Budget arrangements. When that Committee has finished its work, I trust that the result will be something more than the Treasury answer that these things are done under Acts of Parliament; that charges are met in Scotland from local rates, but elsewhere from Imperial resources. Such Acts must be repealed when they press unfairly against one member in the partnership. This is the demand we shall have to make when the Committee presents its Report. A fairly proportioned sum must be handed over to each country for local purposes, and
  1806
  then we shall be able to carry out long desired reforms, and the exploitation of Scotland for the benefit of England will cease. This is a consummation devoutly to be wished, and I hope that a new and fair principle will be applied equally throughout the three countries. I hope the benefits and the burdens will be shared equally by the three parties.
  MR. S. SMITH: I desire to say a word or two in regard to an Indian grievance, and I avail myself of the opportunity at this late hour, because if the matter is delayed until the Easter holidays are over, it will be too late to remedy the evil complained of. The matter was dealt with in a question I put down on the Paper for today, but it was not possible to ask that question. I desire to call the attention of the hon. or right hon. Gentleman opposite who represents the Government of India at this moment, to an Indian grievance. It springs out of what is called the Abkari system. Two years ago we passed a Resolution against that system, and the result of that Resolution was that the Government of India adopted certain improvements in the administration of the law in this regard. The improvements were given effect to in a Minute the Government issued about a year ago, and one of the points in that Minute was this: it was set forth that the sites of the liquor shops should, as far as possible, be at a distance from market places, schools, hospitals, places of worship, factories, and places of public resort. The reason of this decision was that great complaints were made all over India of the Government planting liquor shops close to factories, churches, and schools with the view of inducing people to enter them. Great demoralisation was caused by this practice of placing inducements in the way of people to indulge in liquor. In consequence of the representations made to them, the Government issued the Minute of which I have spoken, requiring the collectors to ascertain the public opinion as much as possible before planting the liquor shops. It required them to exercise a kind of local option in the matter. A great grievance has just been caused in the town of Madura, which is situated a short distance from Madras. Seventeen liquor shops were advertised to be opened in most objectionable

  1807
  localities—close to temples, schools, and so on. They were to be opened in the spring of this year. A Petition was got up, and signed by all the most respectable residents in the locality, with a view to inducing the collector to remove the shops. What do you suppose was the answer given to the Petition? First it was said that it could not be attended to because it was not stamped; and, secondly, because there was not time to refer the matter to the highest authorities before the sale of the liquor shops was completed. And yet two months had to elapse before the liquor shops were sold, and Madura was only a day's post from Madras which centre, as a matter of fact, could have been communicated with by telegraph immediately. This was done, as a matter of fact, to choke off opposition and nullify the effect of the Government Minute. I think this attempt to nullify a decision of the Government is a thing at which the House should express the utmost indignation. A point to which I would call special attention is this: I wish the Government to send out to India an inquiry to ascertain why it was that this Petition was so contemptuously dismissed, and why it is that the wish of the people of the locality has not been given effect to according to provisions in the Minute of the Government of India issued last year. I can supply the Representative of the Government of India with full information on this subject. I do not expect to get a detailed reply, as it is impossible in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Government of India in this House; but I ask that what is considered a great grievance in India shall be promptly stopped. All that is required is that the Madras Government should be communicated with, and that it should be pointed out that due attention should be paid to the wishes of the people, and that liquor shops should not be forced upon them against their wish.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): I am very sorry that through having been detained at the Foreign Office I was not able to be in my place this afternoon to answer the question of the
  1808
  hon. Member on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India. But, as I wrote, the hon. Member the Secretary of State for India has no official knowledge of the circumstances, as to which he wishes for official information. The Secretary of State, however, undertakes to write to Madras as to the nature of the orders given and as to the facts to which the hon. Member alludes. That, I apprehend, is all the hon. Member asks for.
  SIR J. COLOMB: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is any truth in the current report that it is in contemplation to abolish the training squadron, and whether he can give the House an assurance that before any such step is taken the opinion of naval officers on the subject will be ascertained, and due weight will be given to their views?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): It is in contemplation to abolish the training squadron, but the opinion of naval officers on the subject will be taken.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I am sorry I do not at this moment see the Chief Secretary for Ireland in his place, as I am anxious to know what he proposes to do in regard to an urgent matter to which I called his attention by letter yesterday. Perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury will be good enough to call his attention to the matter. I refer to the supply of potato seed to agricultural labourers in certain places in Ireland, and certainly in the Union of Phillipstown, County Mayo. The Guardians there are anxious to supply potato seed to their labourers, but according to the Act it cannot be supplied sooner than the month of May, when it will be too late to be of use. I should like this matter to be brought under the notice of the Chief Secretary so that some means may be adopted for enabling the Guardians to supply seed potatoes to a very deserving class of people. No doubt this necessity is not limited to the Phillipstown Union but extends also to other Unions. The seed time is drawing to an end and the matter is becoming urgent.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): The Committee dealing with the financial relations of the three countries will have before it not only all the questions which the hon. Member for Caithness has mentioned, but many others besides. The hon. Member may rely upon the Representatives of Scotland oh that Committee seeing that full justice is done to Scotland in eliciting all the information necessary and clearing up any doubts. As I have said before, I do not think it is possible to compare like with like, but I have had taken out for me a few figures with a view of testing, at any rate in a general way, the proportions as between Scotland and England, referred to by the hon. Member. Comparing the cost with the population, I find that the population of Scotland is about one-seventh that of England, and that as regards education and the salaries of the administrative staff the ratio of expenditure of Scotland to England is about 1 to 5½. The expenditure connected with inspection work is about 1 to 4——
  DR. CLARK: I frankly admit that so far as education in Scotland is concerned, where she gains—her results being higher—she gets more money. If we get more money in that respect we earn it.
  MR. JACKSON: That is not the point at all. I am dealing with the salaries of the administrative Staff, and I admit the point the hon. Member now makes. The proportion of expense in connection with lunacy boards is as 1 to 3; paupers and Local Government Board, 1 to 9; prisons, 1 to 4; and registration, 1 to 5. Taking the special expenditure in the two countries on the work of registration the figures work out remarkably alike: In England the cost per head of the population is ·3475 of a penny, and in Scotland it is ·3484. The figure is slightly higher in the case of Scotland. As to the other Departments to which I have referred it will be seen that, except as regards paupers and local government on which the expenditure for England is rather higher, relatively, than in Scotland, the expenditure for Scotland is higher than that for England. But I am quite sure the question will be most thoroughly threshed out in the Committee. The figures I have given go to confirm previous Estimates which I
  1810
  have submitted to the House; very important Papers will be submitted to the Committee on its first meeting after the holidays, and I think it will be able to renew its labours with a prospect of doing very good work. As to the seed supply in Ireland, I promise to call the attention of the Chief Secretary to the point which has been raised by the hon. Member for South Mayo.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That this House at the conclusion of the Morning Sitting this day do adjourn till Thursday at Twelve of the clock; that upon Thursday the House at its rising do adjourn till Monday, 6th April, and that Mr. Speaker, as soon as he has reported the Royal Assent to the Bills agreed on by both Houses, do adjourn the House without Question put.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  MAIL SHIPS BILL.—(No. 163.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 4.
  DR. CLARK: I understood that an arrangement had been come to under which no business was to be taken after the Motion for Adjournment. We have already had a discussion on these understandings, and I should like to know whether the Government intend to carry out the understanding they came to with the House on this matter?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FER-GUSSON,): The Bill now before the Committee is, I assure the hon. Gentleman, a matter of urgency, as it is necessary to give effect to the Postal Convention entered into with the French Government. The question is one that has been the subject of careful consideration, and I hope there will be no opposition to the Bill passing through the present stage.
  MR. CALDWELL: I would point out to the hon. Baronet that it was fully understood that no business would be taken after the Motion for Adjournment over the Easter holidays. If the Government had regarded this Bill as important they should have put it in front of that Motion, and I say that the fact of its being placed after the

  1811
  Motion for Adjournment clearly shows that the Government did not think it was of the urgent nature stated by the right hon. Baronet. Personally, I have no objection to the Bill, but there may be a number of hon. Members who would have wished to discuss it had they known it was to come on; and, therefore, I will move that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): It is quite clear that the Government are not justified in pressing the Bill forward if there is any objection to that course. We should not have proceeded with it had we not believed that it was entirely unopposed; but, under the circumstances, we shall consent to Progress being reported.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday, 6th April.

  MERCHANDISE MARKS PROSECUTIONS [COSTS].
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment of the costs of prosecutions undertaken by the Board of Trade, which may be incurred under any Act of the present Session to amend "The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887" (Queen's Recommendation signified), upon Monday, 6th April.

  CUSTOMS (OUT-DOOR DEPARTMENT).
  Copy ordered—
  "Of Treasury Minute dated March, 1891, relative to an Inquiry by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary into the administration of the Out-door Department of the Customs."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Copy presented accordingly ; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 161.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock till Thursday.

REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND.
Lord Teignmouth—Report made from the Lord Chancellor, that the right of Sir Charles John Shore Baron Teignmouth to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read and ordered to lie on the Table.

TITHE RENT-CHARGE RECOVERY BILL.—(No. 78.)
Returned from the Commons with the amendments made by the Lords to the Commons amendments to the Lords amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Six 'o'clock, to Thursday next, Twelve o'clock.